Statements by non-parties

As some of the involved parties are outgoing arbitrators (e.g. FT2) and incoming arbitrators (Vass, Coren, Jay, and Rlevse), I reqeust that opening doesn't take place until the New Year; we are unlikely to settle an arbitration case in nine days. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, can't read (and was mistaken about FT2, but the peasants are revolting...). Ho hum. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[In response to Sceptre:]

Two points:

1. FT2 is not an outgoing Arbitrator, insofar as I'm aware.
2. No cases will be opened until 1 January 2009, per my notice at the top of the page and my announcement at
   Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Moratorium on Request acceptance
   —even in the event the required majority of net support votes is reached.

]

Now moot per Sceptre's response above.

AGK 20:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I am unsure that this is a helpful way to resolve the ongoing dispute between SA and other users. SA has had numerous conflicts that follow some set patterns. The trouble begins when SA loses patience and becomes rude, and then editwars. There are several types of users that SA conflicts with 1) editors who are POV-pushing-fringe-science-nutters, 2) admins/editors who abhoor editwarring in all its forms, 3) admins/editors who like editors who are POV-pushing-fringe-science-nutters. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:32, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thought....I hope that this doesn't end up with a Giano solution, as that has worked not at all. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to JzG's comments - I don't participate in fringe articles as I find dealing with SA's rudeness and editwarring disruptive to my aggreement and participation with him on POV and sourcing issues. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to John Nevard's comments - SA has driven me away from articles he's invoved in for the most part. and I typically agree with his POV. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S: I believe that at this point, the community's patience has been exhausted of ScienceApologist: clearly no: the only reason this has come here is because the community ban proposal failed. The comparison to GbD is unhelpful.

J: However, their [SA's] behavior drives away productive contributors. Disturbing if true. Who has been so driven? cataclysimic disruption - no; not even close; hyperbole won't help here.

However, SA's conduct is far from perfect. But one example: the "revenge" ban request on Seicer was wrong, and SA should realise this.

SA does valuable work holding back the tide of psuedoscience drivel that constantly assaults wiki, and deserves recognition for this, but desperately needs to learn to be civil.

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there are some problems to be addressed, but a hyperbole-laden RFAR is not helpful. Along with WMC's calling out of "cataclysmic disruption" note the accusation In the past, SA has lobbed death threats, which are explicitly forbidden under policy. If you really think "I'll put fluoride in ImperfectlyInformed and MaxPont's water to poison them" is a serious threat, please watch

]

I'm a bit concerned by this request for a number of reasons. First, it consists mostly of material already reviewed by the Committee with a bit of hyperbole for flavoring. Second, since the proposed ban failed on ANI, it seems a bit like forum shopping to request the same here. And finally, using ScienceApologist's tongue in cheek (albeit pointy) counter community ban proposal as evidence is putting far more weight on the incident than deserves. I've advocated a bit more sense and civility from ScienceApologist for quite some time, but absent clear evidence that already existing sanctions aren't working, there's little the Committee can do here. However, if the idea is to look at the area as a whole and explore ways to remedy the limited avenues for dealing with persistent yet civil POV pushers, please, I beg you, have at it ;) Shell ^babelfish 22:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we cut out the drama already, instead of magnifying it? ScienceApologist is to be commended for his continuing defence of the encyclopedic character of articles involving fringe science or pseudoscience, battling tenacious POV pushers, who may try to fight back by resorting to "process" if they can't get their way on content.  --Lambiam 22:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep - here we go again. You would think that certain admins would have better things to do with their time (hint: go edit an article). But here we are - again... Shot info (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Round and Round until some folks get their way. This happens over and over, and the same result comes from the community. SA is brusque and coarse at times, but factually, he is, in an extraordinarily high percentage approaching, but not at, 100%, right about the facts in various articles. It's hard to write about the good he does without lionizing him, and seeming to ignore or trivialize his faults. However, he is quite often the bulwark against the raging stupidity that many fans of a pseudo-science try to add to articles. I'm not talking about people who want to add the history of an idea, or the faulty science behind such concepts, but the 'it really works and you're supressing it because you're the men in black/the man/the PTB/ blah blah blah' types. And to be clear, not all of that type wear tin-foil hats. Some write well, present their arguments with deceptive reasonableness and good salesmanship, heck, some are even professors and published authors. He fights all that down, and then we're surprised when he lashes out sometimes when he feels he's being unduly criticized or attacked on all sides. It's not hard to run a game on here against one or two editors, if you can communicate off-wiki; we've seen that before. The ArbCom should turn this down, stop wasting their time on this, and let the guy do what's needed here, which is prevent WP from becoming a bigger joke than it already is. ThuranX (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman's evidence is slender (what is the relevance of the Dunin biography?). It seems to be a reiteration of his presentation in the cold fusion case. SA is often, without provocation, extremely uncivil; however he seems to have his heart in the right place and is a valuable asset to WP. Mathsci (talk) 22:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "Giano solution" would also probably be a recipe for disaster if used here. Equally this kind of confrontational method [1] has gone well past its sell-by date. Mathsci (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The community is indeed deeply divided here, and hence this is an appropriate situation for arbitration. I urge the committee to take the case.

Past arbitration gave SA a one year civility parole (since expired) that failed to achieve the desired result of SA becoming an editor who remains civil.

Discretionary sanctions exist in the topic area he is interested in editing, but the small set of admins regularly active at

is frankly out of ideas that they believe would be useful short of topic bans. SA has also developed a recurring pattern of retaliating against and/or attacking admins that have sanctioned him. And most or all of the WP:AE regulars have sanctioned SA previously, thus the community would have a major drama flare were any of them to actually do something significant. That is the reason why multiple incoming Arbs should probably recuse - because of their prior arbitration enforcement. Mentoring has been tried repeatedly - Jehochman was one of the mentors and now believes that SA should be banned.

The only discretionary sanction I would give a chance of working short of a broad topic banning would be prohibiting SA from interacting with users to whom he is regularly uncivil. The MartinPhi-SA community separation appears to be working, and the ArbComm has used similar sanctions recently (Abtract-Alistair Haines and others). But if this is done on a routine basis it will become a topic ban for SA. I urge the community to think creatively about ways to reform SA's unfortunate editing habits without a total ban.

]

Honestly, I know nothing about the situation here. All I have to say is that proposing the community banning of an administrator is a bad idea, out of process (you should come to ArbCom first to request desysop), and disrupts Wikipedia. In addition this was after the administrator had requested a community ban on SA. This community ban request seemed to me to be disruptive. This is my reasoning behind my speedy closure of the community ban discussion on Seicer. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have much experience with the articles SA is normally active on, but I can say with some experience that the administrators most often after SA's head have, from my experience with them, been admins of the "let's crack some heads and get things done" type, which causes more problems in the long run than it solves. As SA points out, it appears to just be some admins who didn't like that they didn't get their way the last time they complained and are complaining again without much having changed in the meantime. What I'd like to see is some genuine good faith efforts to solve the problems instead of just swinging the bat to try to get their own way. I've looked through the recent (i.e. new since the last time SA was brought here) threads linked to above, and while SA has been at times less than civil in speaking to others, the complainants in question have been less than civil in actions to him (assuming he's using sockpuppets despite lacking any proof of such, assuming bad faith, constantly bringing up old conflicts as reasons to threaten him/ignore what he has to say). Uncivil actions are worse than uncivil comments, but enforcement here seems to be just the opposite. And certainly people who are ostensibly here to help solve problems should be taking steps to do just that instead of escalating them all the time.

The thread where SA reported someone to AN (or ANI) was exactly what an editor should do, and he was right in that editor was abusing Wikipedia. Strangely things quickly devolved into calling SA into question instead of addressing the problem. SA's efforts to get the pseudoscience articles more in line with Wikipedia goals are exactly on track, and such effort tends to bring conflict with editors with a long history of POV-pushing and attempts to game the system. The mediator at

of an article and start making unilateral decisions, or they shouldn't be anyway. Every time I've seen someone try that here the results have been predictably disastrous.

Some people voting below have said they want to look at this to see how to deal with pseudoscience articles, as the way we've done it for years hs obviously failed. Someone else commented on whether we should look at if civility rules here do what they were intended to do or cause more problems as people try to game them (my apologies if I read too much into that statement), which I definitely agree with. I would suggest, however, that if arbitrators want to look at those issues they recommend opening up a new case specifically about those issues instead of voting to look at SA specifically, as the people who routinely practice bad faith here instead of good faith use the existence of ArbCom even looking into something (or sometimes the fact that anyone ever asked them to even if it was declined) as evidence that the editor is irredeemably bad and should be banned/ignored. In fact, it appears that that's already been going on in this case. DreamGuy (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen the name "ScienceApologist" frequently pop up at AN/I, today was (as far as I recall) the first time I have commented on any of it. Having browsed through the history provided, I voiced the opinion that a community ban was appropriate, and was of course (as is his right to defend himself, not contesting his right to respond) questioned by SA on this. The gist of his defense truly does boil down to, quote, "Jerks who do good work should be welcomed and channeled appropriately.", which then flowed into a bit of a soapbox on why I am "a very problematic Wikipedia user" for placing more of a value on civility than editorial experience. I have to ask, is there some reason why we cannot expect a user to possess both civility and expertise? Why must it be an either/or game?
What this appears to have come down to is that ScienceApologist expects to receive a wrist-slap ever time he acts uncivil, because that is all that has ever been done. His knowledge and perceived value to the Wikipedia as en editor has become a hardened, encrusted shield. This is a horrid precedent to set for others.

I can't see as a new case is needed, since uninvolved admins are already authorized to block, ban, or otherwise restrict ScienceApologist (or any other editors disrupting the topic area), per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. Implementing sanctions in the topic area does take a bit of backbone and fortitude, but that goes with the territory in ArbCom enforcement areas -- if the disputes there were easy to solve, they probably wouldn't have risen to the level of ArbCom cases to begin with. It should also be noted that administrators do have a bit more clout in dealing with ArbCom enforcement issues now, since the ArbCom recently passed a motion which prevents the overturning of enforcement actions: "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so." With this new motion, I am optimistic that it will be much more straightforward to implement discretionary sanctions in the future, and make them stick. --Elonka 03:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note (and nothing more, difficulty in an area is not a reason to shy away, but it is a reason to be aware there is difficulty in an area) there have been a fair number of CU cases already. They tend to be fairly dramatic in their own right, and the outcomes sometimes are inconclusive. An outright ban may be problematic without some very creative enforcement strategies, or fairly high levels of collateral damage. So.... all that said, I sure wish there was a way to resolve this without needing a ban. ++Lar: t/c 05:00, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS... what Cla68 said! I always recommend meatball:VestedContributor as good reading. Go reread your answer to my question about Vested Contributors if you need to. If this case is accepted it's as good a place as any to wrestle with this continuing problem (and better than some, it's not a Giano case, so that's something anyway.)... ++Lar: t/c 06:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the concerns that at least several of you new arbcom members are aware of and have discussed is what to do about "established" editors who build a lot of good content but at the same time and consistently break a lot of the rules/policies. This case fits that scenario. Please take the next week to consider how you're going to handle this in a way that is effective, benefits the project foremost, and sets a precedent for how these types of cases should be handled in the future. Cla68 (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitors should note that SA attempted multiple times to archive his ill thought-out attempt to ban Seicer here with an archiving template, again here via archiving template.

This was undone by Jehochman here - without any note made to SA that he had undone the archiving/collpasing, and without any notation made on the page that SA had, at any point, done the archiving/collpasing (only a small comment that Jehochman had undone the collpasing - without comment on the archiving), and without the insertion of any archival templates that would have redone the archiving but removed the collapse. Post the archiving/collpasing and removal of same, Smashville asked SA to archive the section. Jehochman responded, saying ""No, no. Don't delete anything. Leave it here for everyone to see. If SA wants to refactor their own comments, that is their choice, but they may not delete anybody else's remarks.". Jehochman was the one who, prior to his comment, removed SA's archiving/collpasing (not deletion). Jehochman did not comment on the page that he removed the archiving, merely the collapsing. Jehochman, in response to someone who requested deletion, neglected to state that SA had previously inserted hat/hab, the farthest it is appropriate to go on a notice board page towards content deletion, and that Jehochman was soley responsible for the removal of the hat/hab. This lack of transparency throws Jehochman into disrepute, and leads me to question if he is reliable enough to delete revisions or view deleted content.

I note that the distinction between archiving and collapsing may be confusing to some. I consider the addition of hat/hab to be both hiding from view and archiving. Removing hat/hab without the insertion of polltop/pollbottom or similar is the removal of both the archive and the collapse. Removing hat/hab and adding polltop/bollbottom is merely the removal of a collapse.

As I have said before, the problem here is that SA is single-handedly defending a large number of articles against long-term determined civil POV-pushing. We lack a good method for controlling long-term civil POV-pushing, as evidence the length of time it took to get Pcarbonn restricted. SA is, as a result, suffering burnout. The correct way to manage burnout is a Wikibreak, which appears to be what he's doing. Do we need to hang him out to dry in the mean time, or can we wait and see if a break helps? For the rest of it, what Cla68 said. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst, to an extent, this evidence has been presented and brought to the committee's attention before this date, I would think a proper exploration of actions involved would do no harm. Endorse Cla68's comments. Caulde 23:42, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse statement by ThuranX above. SA strikes me as a passionate, articulate, and highly intelligent editor who, despite his interesting temperament, is a clear net positive to the project. I fear that further, laboured discussion of his activities would have the primary effect of distracting all parties from the goal of encyclopedia-building, and I think that the quality of SA's work with respect to that goal should have earned him the community's patience, however begrudgingly it may have to be given.

There are several problems with the way ScienceApologist approaches Wikipedia. First, he assumes bad faith of everyone who disagrees with him. If you're not with him, you're a crazy fringe lunatic true believer pseudoscientific crank, and he's not afraid to say it. Since this is often not true and inflammatory in any case, it's a problem. His tendency to characterize those who disagree with him as 'anti-science', while those who are not are 'pro-science', helps to divide Wikipedia into a dramatic battleground. In reality, most long-term contributors here are not 'anti-science'. Since on average people most people on Wikipedia are reasonable, the correct decisions are not terribly complex, and most of these questions can be yes/no, Condorcet's jury theorem generally applies. Anti-science is a vicious word that gets thrown around far too often, and it is certainly insulting. There are people who have different interpretations of neutrality than ScienceApologist. In some cases his scientific views may not be reflected in reliable sources, or contrary to them. Other people simply like to see Wikipedia reflect a diverse amount of topics.

includes, as an example, that the Port Chicago disaster could mention a notable conspiracy theory even though it hasn't received mainstream coverage. I agree. This is something that I would be very surprised to see ScienceApologist support, yet it remains as a testament to the fact that Wikipedia covers a lot of information.

ScienceApologist's methods are often crude. In my experience, he rarely uses noticeboards (at a recent NOR/N, all 3 uninvolved editors, and 2 involved,

over the use of "two-thirds" vrs majority. Most experienced editors would try to get support.

Although ScienceApologist could be a good contributor, and probably was in the past when he worked on mainstream articles, he's devolved into making scenes, which make him the center of attention in things like this. Most people learn. For whatever reason, SA doesn't. It's as if he's escalating the situation so that at some point he can be banned and then make a huge fuss about how Wikipedia is "anti-science". He should at least be banned from Rational Skepticism articles, since he doesn't seem to have the demeanor for it. II | (t - c) 05:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had limited interaction with ScienceApologist and in my experience his methods of interacting vary from trenchant-but-civil to outright tendentious, edit-warring,

, etc. I'll add diffs and evidence and so on soon on the appropriate pages. But I have mixed feelings about this whole thing.

• On the one hand, I applaud the effort, by anyone, to keep bullshit (whether fringe or
  highly notable
  pseudoscience) out of Wikipedia. I have no personal animus toward SA and I'm not out to "get" him and push through a ban.
• On the other, I've noticed that SA's mission, more and more, seems to have become something of a righteous jihad. (Just read his user page as of today.) With an "ends justify the means" mentality, he's been crossing all kinds of Wikiquette lines for a long time... see block log. We have a lot of scientist-editors who don't get all dramatic like that. I summarily reject the notion that because SA is on some special mission, it's OK for him to play bad cop. What if everyone acted that way? The collaborative glue holding WP together would fall apart.
• Finally, to invoke
  WP:SPADE, he's simply not as smart (relative to his peers here) as he seems to believe he is; he tends to spout Science 101 type bromides in discussion. But the truth is, fer cryin' out loud, that lots of us have advanced degrees and are advocating a little more nuance, a little more attention to the demarcation problem
  , than SA generally thinks is necessary.

Not sure what to do: perhaps he could use some protracted disengagement... go for a nice long walk on the beach, play with a puppy, get some therapeutic touch done, relax with an orgone generator (kidding).

This I do know: When one editor feels that he's fighting a lone fight on WP, something is wrong either with that editor, or WP, or both. Maybe he could hook up with some relevant Wikiproject and accept some degree of mentoring and gently-enforced toning down of edits. If his content edits really are good, and he's receptive, then that ought to work. OTOH, if his edits lack support from other scientist-editors, then he is a one-man

]

Deep thought

I don't see why we can't make WP safe for science AND stop ScienceApologist's bad conduct (and the double standard that goes with it). Framing it as either/or is misguided.

Let's create or revamp some sort of scientific oversight board, perhaps a special subsection of adequately credentialed editors (whether they're admins or not; create a new class of editor). Let's have scientifically literate editors, starting now, volunteer to help SA in articles where he feels like he's the sole defender of mainstream/NPOV. For SA's part right now, disengage, disengage, disengage. --Jim Butler (t) 06:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we not remember what it was like being 8 years old? Are we all only children? Have none of us memories of taunting our sibling into losing his or her cool in front of our

to "win" an argument?

Being an encyclopedia, and not

of certain fringe-area contributors outweighs the project's need for academic reliability and credibility.

ScienceApologist - like many of us - is human, and to treat him like a first grader for expressing perfectly natural frustration in response to the never-ending, repetitive setlist of

to continue to regard Wikipedia as the "middle school newspaper" of encyclopedias.

Are his methods as polished as other men of science around these parts? Perhaps not. Perhaps, as Mr. Butler above says, ScienceApologist's average level of discourse is closer to Science101 than not. But I am not altogether convinced that Science201 and above connects with the fringe-pushers and other assorted miscellany. To frame it in another light: collegiate English allows us a much broader range of emphasis and precision, but when dealing with a non-native speaker, it's best to Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Similarly, while civility is something we all feel most comfortable with, I believe there comes a point where excessive civility gives the false impression that these beliefs are valid, or that they are gaining validity. It is important to keep in mind that most fringe-pushers do not have the frame of historical-academic reference that the "pro-science" (as ridiculous a phrase as "pro-breathing", perhaps, but the most simple delineating term I can manage) crowd has. To the fringe-pushers, these theories of controlled demolition, intelligent creation, and

, if you will). For the sake of the children getting tinctures instead of vaccinations, if nothing else.

I urge ArbCom to send a clear message to all fringe-advocates and Fringence Nightingales alike that a) some contributors are more equal than others, and b) gaming the system through the typical loop of the Civil POV-pusher is flat-out not to be tolerated - that is to say, even humored - any longer. Whether ArbCom feels that would be best displayed by declining this case outright, or accepting it to consider the actions of all involved parties, is a decision best left up to the committee itself. Badger Drink (talk) 09:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the various statements here and also the comments within the recent and past AN/I cases against SA is rather troubling. First, I've noticed all sorts of people saying that he is the only one battling the fringe and that if he is banned the fringe will take over. The problem with that statement is that there are all sorts of people out there battling the fringe who do it with way more civility then SA. The only reason why we never hear of them is because they handle it way better then SA does. Second, another troubling aspect I find with this whole affair is how the community looks the other way when it comes to SA's attitude, actions, and incivility, because of the thought that he is the only one taking it to the fringe. (For examples, just take a look at the past AN/I case and some of the comments above.) The result of this is instead of helping to council him to act better and more civil, he is emboldened to act ruder and more aggressive because he knows that nothing will be done to him. In past arbcom cases, mediation cases, and other dispute resolutions, he has said that he does not think to well of those [7]dispute resolutions and will most likely ignore them when he can get away with it. Third, if any other editors or fringe POV pusher had acted the way he does, then they would have been blocked or even indef blocked a long time ago. Yet, we never see that with SA? It seems that the community has turned a blind eye towards SA, his actions, and his incivilities. That, to me, seems the most troubling of all. It is one thing to discount accusations from fringe POV's on AN/I against those who are keeping them in check, but it is another thing to be continually shown evidence of actual misconduct and then ignoring it. It smacks of a double standard being applied to this editor. I would think that if we do not tolerate incivility from fringe POV pushers, then we should tolerate it even less and expect far better civility from those who are working against the fringe. Brothejr (talk) 12:36, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writing to inform the Committee and the community that ScienceApologist has entered voluntary mentorship with me. Although the timing is oddly coincidental, the current RFAR actually had little to do with it. No opinion on whether arbitration should open; this just appears to be a good place to let people know. Best wishes to all, Durova^Charge! 20:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if my support will help: I hope it will. I have a high regard for the writing of this editor, and for the logical approach he takes to the problem of pseudoscientific promotion on Wikipedia. Having experience battling this myself (mostly in the area of 'pseudophilosophy' - philosophy is as 'hard' and logical a subject as physics or mathematics) I sympathise with his position. It is a

]

Statement by John Nevard

I'm disappointed in not seeing some more substantive evidence regarding productive users SA has driven off Wikipedia - the only editor I could think of who could even approach the description was Martinphi, who is still slightly active. If ScienceApologist gets more attention than other editors who work to stop fringe theories being promoted as science, it is because of differences in how he operates.

He works on a wide range of pages with few allies to aid him in opposing those who push a more fringe POV. He focuses less on creationism and politicized science, mainstream topics that many understand, and more on the fringe views held by the credulous, whether spiritualists or perpetual-motion believers. And because these opponents of Wikipedia's purpose are less well equipt to argue in an intelligent forum, instead of fighting POV-pushing editors to a stalemate, he wins. Naturally that can't go down well with fringe believers or those who believe in a faux-even handedism. Nevard (talk) 01:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the focus of this arbitration case should be ScienceApologist's recent interactions with other editors, set against the background of his past behaviour and his history of contributions to Wikipedia. Any discussion of wider issues and general principles quickly becomes academic and theoretical unless it is informed by specific instances. And the case at issue here is ScienceApologist.

That SA is frequently rude and uncivil does not seem to be in dispute. So that leaves two questions on the table:

• Are there any valid mitigating arguments to excuse or even justify his behaviour ?
• If not, what actions, if any, should the community take ?

Some say that SA is single-handedly protecting Wikipedia from being overrun by a wave of fringe theories and pseudoscience. If this were true then during SA's recent break from editing (Dec 3 to Dec 19),

would have been awash with a backlog of reports and requests for assistance. I count 11 reports to FTN during this period - less than one per day. The image of SA as a lone, brave hero holding back the forces of chaos does not stand up to close scrutiny.

Some say that SA only directs his aggression towards "fringe advocates" and "POV-pushers", so these are the only editors who take issue with his behaviour. I think my own experience with SA shows that this is not true. When SA was repeatedly uncivil to me at Wikipedia talk:Scientific standards, and finally called for me to be admonished for "obsessive disruption" and implied that I am a "wikistalker" and a "content-hater"[8] he was not combating pseudoscience or defending Wikipedia. He was lashing out at an experienced and reasonable editor who just happened to have politely disagreed with him.

Some may say that belligerent editors like SA are needed to defend the values of Wikipedia which the more peace-loving editors such as myself enjoy, and we should not expect such editors to always conform to policies such

, any more than we expect guard dogs to behave like the sheep that they protect. The question of whether Wikipedia really needs such guard dogs is a philosophical debate which could run and run - but it is irrelevant to this case. The simple fact is that this guard dog is out of control. He has started attacking the sheep, and this needs to be dealt with.

Given all this, some still say that SA's positive contributions to the project outweigh his rudeness. Speaking from my own experience, SA has gone a long way beyond the point at which this "on balance" argument can hold water. His rudeness is not an occasional lapse - it is deliberate, calculated, repeated and unrepented. Unlike almost all other experienced editors, SA seems to be unable or unwilling to control himself and to conform to the accepted standards of Wikipedia behaviour.

Everything else I wanted to say has already been covered by ImperfectlyInformed in his statement above, which I completely endorse.

I believe an appropriate community action would be to find some way to enforce a cooling off period on SA whenever he starts to be aggressive. For example, once he has been uncivil on a page, in article talk space or elsewhere, then he could be prohibited from editing that page again for a period of one month. At best that would encourage him to interact politely with other editors; at worst it would at least act as a brake on the extent of his rudeness.Gandalf61 (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For uninvolved editors and admins I would like to point out that it is proven far beyond any reasonable doubt that ScienceApologist is a highly disruptive editor who blatantly disrespects the community rules. Just look at this compilation of evidence from the recent Arbcom (the fourth where ScienceApologist was a named party. MaxPont (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am conflicted. On the one hand, we need every single editor we can get who will write and maintain articles from a scientific point of view (which is the only neutral point of view in articles on pseudoscientific subjects). Pseudoscientific bullshit creep is a big problem, and there are far more pushers than defenders. On the other hand, we also do not need editors who create more drama than is necessary, and it appears, according to many other users who agree with ScienceApologist on the issues, that ScienceApologist is one such individual. It may be enlightening to draw a comparison with Giano here. He's a good article writer, but it doesn't justify his continuing incivility and disruption (I believe Giano owes us 20 more featured articles to break even at this point). The same may well be true of ScienceApologist. I'm conflicted. And I cannot fathom why ScienceApologist is still having these same old issues, just like with Giano. --Cyde Weys 19:40, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely uninvolved here, but I ask that the Committee expand this to look at ALL the people involved; suggestions to limit this to "recent" and "interactions" with SA is like saying the people that beat NPOV with a stick and also beat SA with a stick should get a free pass. Nonsense, and this would be a grand chance for the new AC to do something right, right off the get-go, against the leaking sewer drain that is the pseudoscience stuff. Focusing just on SA would be a mistake. He's often the lone voice of NPOV reason, so half the cranks out there have targeted him. Who wouldn't and with justification at some point lash out? Civility doesn't exist in a vacuum; it doesn't for SA, or for Giano, who other people have invoked above. It would be preposterous and wrong to consider it in such a vacuum for any established user.

Discussion

I have filed a

]

Instructions

The instruction clearly indicate that "Minimum information includes... what was done and the basis for doing it". It's troubling that the Admins involved have chosen not to note that SA was blocked for three spelling corrections and a link fix. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a continuation of

differences

were posted that included more than three spelling corrections and one link repair.

When ArbCom makes a ruling, and then clarifies that gaming the system and circumventing and then flaunting the topic ban would lead to sanctions, it is best to abide by the ruling. seicer | talk | contribs 02:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're happy that your nemesis, someone who has opposed your protection of quackery and fringe topics and their editors, has now been blocked for improving the encyclopedia by making technical, not content edits.

There was nothing in those edits that violated the spirit of the topic ban, IOW, the "topic" wasn't touched at all.

We need a clarification on this matter, so here are some questions:

1. Should topic banned editors (who are not indef banned) be allowed to make technical edits (spelling, wikilinks, ref fixes, etc.) that actually improve the encyclopedia without touching or affecting content and POV matters?

2. Hasn't it always been our intention to get them to divert their energies into more constructive venues than editwarring?

3. Is this ArbCom capable of making a decision that is nuanced for adult admins, rather than a black/white unnuanced decision that any ignorant child can enforce?

4. Is there a place for common sense here?

Right now it looks like totally neutral improvements were punished because of who did it. Have we really come to that? I suggest that the ArbCom allow such edits, but with the stipulation that if any edit creates any type of change that is seen as vandalism or tweaking of content, the topic ban be restarted AND extended to a longer length than the original topic ban. It could also be replaced with an indef ban for a similar time period, IOW not editing of Wikipedia at all.

Just to make it clear, I have never defended SA's methodology. I think it stinks, but it is unfortunate that he has had so little support from the ArbCom and policies in his defence of Wikipedia's integrity. We can't make this a respectable encyclopedia when civil POV pushers of fringe and quackery POV are allowed to push SA's buttons and bait him so much, and HE ends up getting punished for (unfortunately, but understandably) blowing his stack. The history of his presence here has taught us what this manner of dealing with these matters has led to -- he has lost respect for ArbCom, and many sympathize with him.

The ArbCom needs to step up to the plate and take a proactive position against the misuse of Wikipedia for promotion of fringe, pseudoscience, and quackery POV. Defending scientifically documented reality is not advocacy, whereas defending and pushing fringe POV is advocacy of real-world OR, and it needs to stop. If such POV pushers want their POV treated with more respect here, let them publish it in the peer reviewed literature. THEN they will have RS to use, and they would be defending documented reality, not undocumented OR published in the (un)real world of altie, fringe, and conspiracy theory publications. --

talk) 04:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Just to make it clear, I have never defended SA's methodology. I take it, you mean other than this post? Dlabtot (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. Be specific and give me a chance to explain or refactor if I have been unclear, which is entirely possible. --

talk) 04:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, in a post where you go at great lengths to defend SA's methods, you simultaneously say that you've never done so. I find it confusing. Dlabtot (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating yourself (baiting?) isn't being "specific". Where have I defended his methods? I just stated I have never done so, and that I think they stink. What part of that don't you understand? You should just AGF and take me at my word. Please provide a quote from above where I defend his methodology. I do defend his POV, unlike yourself (an infamous pusher of pseudoscience POV here), but I don't like his confrontational and abrasive style. I have never defended that at all. Are you confusing "methodology" for "POV"? --

talk) 05:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

There is no point to the criticism of your comment Fyslee. Apparently there are editors here who can't differentiate between content disputes and spelling corrections. If they think they are the same thing, what can be done? Your post made perfect sense, it's the responses and absurd actions of the administrators involved that defies understanding. Seicer is a perfect example, he went on a tirade of personal attacks and inappropriate comments yesterday, but considers himself well suited to opine on the necessity of preventing SA from making spelling fixes. Welcome to the theater of the absurd. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications

Motions

Passed motions are recorded on the main case page at first clarification. diff -

]

Request to amend prior case: Fringe science

Permanent link Initiated by GregJackP Boomer! at 13:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Case affected

Fringe science arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t

)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Principle 1: Relevant comparisions
2. Principle 2: Citations
3. Finding 1: ScienceApologist
4. Remedy 1: ScienceApologist topic banned

List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

• GregJackP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

• [32] (diff of notification of this thread on ScienceApologist's talk page)

Amendment 1

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Relevant comparisons
• Clarification that a significant minority view (see
  WP:FRINGE. The statement in a previous ArbCom case that ScienceApologist was involved in, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Alternative theoretical formulations
  , may be appropriate with little to no modification.

Statement by GregJackP

ScienceApologist views all dissent from the consensus scientific view as

,

Comment by MastCell

Greg's definition of "fringe" doesn't seem right.

]

Statement by ScienceApologist (1)

Content ruling, beyond arbcom remit.

]

Amendment 2

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Citations
• Clarification that citations need to actually state what they are purported to represent and say.

Statement by GregJackP (2)

ScienceApologist has misrepresented what references actually state, and has misrepresented that the articles referenced are peer-reviewed when they are not. See below, Statement by GregJackP (3) for diffs and details.

Statement by ScienceApologist (2)

Statement by GregJackP that I "misrepresented what references actually state" and "misrepresented that the articles referenced are peer-reviewed when they are not" are both disputed by myself. No amendment of this sort is necessary.

Amendment 3

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#ScienceApologist
• ScienceApologist has misapplied
  WP:POV
  position, in spite of earlier sanctions and despite having been cautioned to: "to respect all policies and guidelines," he has attempted to insert negative information into a BLP.

Statement by GregJackP (3)

ScienceApologist inserted negative BLP information [37], [38] stating that 3 references were peer-reviewed and that they stated that

).

Part mentioning me struck. I was only seeking clarification on the issue; I didn't get a chance to look into the issue fully. NW (Talk) 22:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on my post re NW: the diff was to illustrate that you read the 3rd ref, did not see any evidence of Watts being labeled a "denialist" and asked ScienceApologist to clarify where it came from. It was not meant to indicate that you warned him nor that you took any administrative actions against him. GregJackP Boomer! 23:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScienceApologist (3)

1. Claims of a
   BLP-violation
   seem specious since there is currently acknowledgment on the talkpage that a line identifying Anthony Watts as a denialist/skeptic/anti-environmentalist should exhist in the lead, perhaps with different wording than what I suggested. Whether inserting information that a living person is a "skeptic" or a "denialist" when sources are provided to that effect is a content dispute: beyond arbcom remit.
2. Determining whether "skeptic" and "denialist" are synonyms or not is a content dispute beyond arbcom remit.
3. Claims that the references are not peer-reviewed are subject to debate as to the strict or loose definitions of
   point
   .
4. All areas of dispute resolution have not been exhausted before bringing this here, and there is no indication that arbcom should get involved at this time.

]

Amendment 4

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#ScienceApologist topic banned
• ScienceApologist should be topic banned from all articles dealing with
  WP:FRINGE
  , pseudoscience, climate change, or other areas involving minority scientific views, including related BLPs, interpreted broadly.

Statement by GregJackP (4)

It is clear based on ScienceApologist's edit history and block/sanction history that there is a problem in his view of

that has resulted in a number of disruptive or BLP issues. Previous attempts to address this problem area have not been successful, as noted above. A topic ban as outlined, which can be reviewed at some point in the future, may give him time to reflect and/or seek a mentor that perhaps can help him understand these issues. Until that occurs, it is best for Wikipedia that he not edit in these areas.

Statement by ScienceApologist (4)

The topic ban in question expired on December 12, 2009.

Since then, I have been subject to zero blocks.

No arbitration enforcement whatsoever has been requested or applied to my account since then until this malformed request.

Recommend dismissal on the basis of a bad faith filing and a sanctioning of the editor who brought this malformed request for amendment to this page since Wikipedia is not a

.

A brief history of this conflict

Until eight days ago, I have no recollection of ever encountering GregJackP.

. He then went on to poison the well on the original article.

I normally take such attacks, which are common in the areas to which I contribute, in stride. The ideological

mentality of certain actors in fringe science areas is inescapable, in spite of some distasteful tactics, contributions from a wide range of people can be valuable to Wikipedia. I recommend that this malformed enforcement request be summarily dismissed with a caution to GregJackP about filing frivolous enforcement requests in the future. Allowing this kind of activity will encourage a situation similar to that which existed on this page two years ago when dozens of frivolous and ultimately dismissed enforcement requests were filed against me over the period of a year.

]

Further discussion

@Krill. I agree, and I have notified him of this request, but I don't know how to get him to reply here. I would note that he has made comments on Polargeo's talk page showing that he is aware of this request. GregJackP Boomer! 01:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve Smith. How can I clarify these issues? I do not intend Amendment 1 to be in regards to content at all, nor to fix exact boundaries. I believe that ScienceApologist views anything that is not the consensus view as

]

Statement by Cardamon

As ScienceApologist is a main participant in this, Rlevse should recuse. [58] Cardamon (talk) 09:02, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Wordsmith

I would suggest that parties not bother ArbCom with this and instead head to the

]

Reply by ScienceApologist

When I first saw this enforcement action being developed, that's where I thought we were headed. I'm surprised it ended up here. I was going to not comment at all, but the arbitrators actually asked for a statement from me. I obliged them.

]

Statement by MastCell

Given ScienceApologist's lengthy history in front of the Committee, I've actually been struck by the change in his approach (for the better) in his editing over the past few months. I don't really see the grounds for imposing an editing restriction at present, particularly not the extremely broad restriction proposed by Greg. It seems to me that 90% of Greg's complaint is based on simple disagreement with SA, and the remaining 10% consists of gray areas that seem to have been resolved in any case. MastCell ^Talk 22:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

• It doesn't look like any action will be taken at this time (at least not here; there is a parallel request open at
  WP:GS/CC/RE). Can this be archived? NW (Talk) 23:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I'd like to see a response from ScienceApologist before we consider this further. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 00:49, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to GregJackP, we'll give him a few days to make statements here. Ultimately, though, if he doesn't want to participate, we're just going to start without him, which is unlikely to be in his best interests. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 01:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Recuse. Risker (talk) 01:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Amendment 1, as proposed, is a complete non-starter in my books: first, it drags ArbCom far too deep into evaluating an individual content dispute, one which we're entirely unqualified to resolve. The case already makes clear that there is a category between fringe science and majority scientific view, and an attempt to fix exactly where those boundaries are, especially with respect to a specific area of science, is beyond both our mandate and our competence. Amendment 2 is nonsense; if a hypothetical editor is currently not adhering to that rule, which is plainly stated in policy, what reason is there to believe that that editor would suddenly start adhering to it once it was plainly re-stated by ArbCom? I do not understand what action Amendment 3 is proposing, unless it is merely a justification for Amendment 4. I will have to investigate Amendment 4 further before commenting, with that investigation ideally to include reading a statement from ScienceApologist on the matter. Steve Smith (talk) 03:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Waiting for response from ScienceApologist. Carcharoth (talk) 07:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm inclined to agree with MastCell (and take no action), but would add that ScienceApologist needs more than anything else to rein in any aggressive aspects to his postings. If he finds himself being annoyed by what others are saying, find ways to take a break or rephrase replies. It is a fine line between strong arguments for what you are saying, and being dismissive of what others are saying. I think both ScienceApologist and GregJackP are capable of sorting things out here if they make the effort, and possibly with help from others if they continue to end up in disputes. Carcharoth (talk) 04:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Remain recused. Cool Hand Luke 14:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Recuse. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see anything here that requires ArbCom intervention. Issues over content should first go through lower levels of dispute resolution (and aren't likely to gain tranction at ArbCom ever); other issues seem to be requests for enforcement rather than something that would require amending a case. Shell ^babelfish 20:06, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I am going to decline these amendments, that no action needs to be taken at this time, and agree with Carcharoth about the suggestion on how this should go. SirFozzie (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with my colleagues that intervention by the committee at this time would not be useful. — Coren ^(talk) 00:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original discussion

]

Statement by jps

Oooh! I'm a party to the original case! Do I get extra points for that? Anyhoo... I think it best to let sleeping dogs lie. In this case, I have not seen much in the way of misuse of these particular rulings. I am actually much more concerned with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Questionable_science which has been used to tie the hands of editors over at psychoanalysis, but last I brought that up, the committee demurred for much the same rationale as they seem currently wont to offer. Fair enough. Let's preserve the history and move on. jps (talk) 22:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say that the context that has now been provided for this request makes me feel a bit like this is a

our good faith has been taken advantage of. jps (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Statement by Generalrelative

Anyone who is perplexed by DGG's request may want to take a look at this discussion on a user talk page for background. I’ll ping Stonkaments as a courtesy since it’s their page. Generalrelative (talk) 00:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At this point the only thing in Ferahgo's statement I think I need to respond to is the pronoun she uses to refer to me. They/them for me please. Happy to discuss the proper interpretation of Hunt if called upon to do so. Generalrelative (talk) 15:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Ferahgo has now edited her statement, changing my pronoun to "they". I appreciate it, though in the future please remember to make it visible when you alter a comment that has been responded to, e.g. by striking deleted words. Generalrelative (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since a couple of uninvolved parties here appear to give some credence to Ferahgo's accusation of misrepresentation of sources, I suppose it's time for me to state my side of things. The distinction between primary and secondary material within a single source which SMcCandlish brings up gets to the heart of the issue surrounding how to use and interpret Hunt –– which is, in turn, key to unraveling Ferahgo’s accusation. Indeed, I made a similar point on the R&I talk page almost a year ago,[87] though any observer of this case could be forgiven for not having read through the extensive archived discussions there. The bit that Ferahgo describes as Hunt’s actual position is clearly a statement of opinion, and not even an expert opinion at that since it is a psychologist opining about what is likely to be the case in the field of genetics. As was argued on the talk page (apparently persuasively to the majority of page watchers) this makes it UNDUE for inclusion, especially if it represents a FRINGE position. On the other hand, where Hunt acts as a secondary source –– and I credit him for making the distinction relatively clear –– he indicates that no evidence has ever emerged to support the speculations of racial hereditarians. The full quote, which appears in the Hunt citation I added to a number of articles, is: It is worth remembering that no genes related to difference in cognitive skills across the various racial and ethnic groups have ever been discovered. The argument for genetic differences has been carried forward largely by circumstantial evidence. Of course, tomorrow afternoon genetic mechanisms producing racial and ethnic differences in intelligence might be discovered, but there have been a lot of investigations, and tomorrow has not come for quite some time now. The question of how to interpret this statement was thoroughly discussed by

MrOllie, NightHeron, an IP, a sock of MIkemikev, Stonkaments, Gardenofaleph, Aquillion and myself, with MrOllie remarking (again, apparently persuasively to the majority) that This is scientist for 'no evidence' the same way that 'works as well as placebo' is medical researcher for 'it doesn't do anything'.[88] After this I considered the matter essentially settled, since no new objections were ever raised, as far as I could tell –– only old ones repeated. Generalrelative (talk) 16:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@DGG: if you truly believe that the rejection of a genetic link between race and intelligence reflects what used to be academic view in the past rather than the current consensus among genetics professionals, I can see how you might believe that the snow close of the May 2021 R&I RfC must be the result of an effort to manipulate the rules on reliable sources. However nothing could be further from the case. This ought to be clear to anyone who takes the time to read through the sources that are cited in that RfC, along with the accompanying discussion.

@CaptainEek and Barkeep49: I won't comment on whether another ARCA specifically on R&I would be helpful since I'm unfamiliar with the dynamics here, but I will be happy to provide a bit more of a reality check re. Ferahgo's narrative if that is deemed helpful. Addressing each of her accusations would take some time, so I'll try to pace myself as I gauge whether there is interest. For now I'll start by pointing out how demonstrably false the final allegation against NightHeron is (i.e. NightHeron was successful in the strategy he described in the two comments linked above: that he could prevent the community from discussing his misrepresentation of sources by opening an RFC which avoided this question. First of all: these comments describe nothing of the kind: [89] [90]. They are about preempting mischief and another complicated, tendentiously worded RfC such as Ferahgo had just been admonished for launching at RSN. The idea that these diffs present evidence for wrongdoing is preposterous. Second, Ferahgo leaves out that AndewNguyen raised the specific point she insists was never addressed –– that is, RfCs in the R&I topic area not addressing of the sourcing issue –– with Mackensen, the uninvolved admin who shut down Andew's attempt at yet another RfC at NPOVN: User_talk:Mackensen#Please_reconsider. Mackensen’s response was definitive: after Andew cited a comment from JBL saying If there really is a fundamental issue not addressed by this RfC, then this RfC does not prevent someone from opening a proper RfC to address it, [91] Mackensen responded It's the clear consensus of the community that there is not such a fundamental issue, and you need to respect that. [92] Generalrelative (talk) 06:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: As I suspected, the issue here is a simple misunderstanding on your part. As stated in the R&I FAQ, the heritability of differences between individuals and families within a given population group tells us nothing about the heritability of differences between population groups. You may find that counterintuitive, even hard to believe, and yet it is population genetics 101. See the sources cited there if you don't believe me: [93], [94]. Of course this is not the place for an ongoing debate over the science, so I'd be happy to continue the discussion on my talk page if necessary. Generalrelative (talk) 14:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RandomCanadian

From a quick read, this looks like "overriding established policy [including NPOV] via ArbCom". Not only is this usually something entirely out of the scope of ArbCom (whether via an amendment request or otherwise), but this hasn't even been attempted through the regular channels. Bradv's summary seems correct, and "we are being asked to reduce Wikipedia's dependence on academic peer-reviewed sources in fringe scientific topics by denying them priority over other sources" smells like an absolutely horrible idea (we really want to give equal weight to recognised experts and to Johnny Idiot writing in conspiracy theorist sham journal?) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by XOR'easter

Regarding the proposed addition Fringe political, social, and religious views are not part of science: this is a highly touchy point, and a matter where lines of demarcation are difficult to draw. People advocate fringe science for political, social, and/or religious reasons; sometimes, a view could reasonably be called all of those things. I think it's a bad idea to try separating them with the force of wiki-law, as it were. Doing so would deprive editors of the freedom to address thorny questions and gray areas on a case-by-case basis as necessary.

The second bullet point proposes a modification in order to match the guideline at

doesn't say material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas; it says they may be the best available option outside of these areas.

The third bullet point suggests adding the instruction Discussions of the quality of sources must not take account of what viewpoint they represent. This seems an unwarranted restriction that would, on the face of it, make many discussions at RSN invalid. Perhaps it is not always a good argument, but it is not a genre of argument that should be forbidden by wiki-law. Again, we should not deprive editors of the ability to discuss their way through gray areas on a case-by-case basis.

]

Statement by Szmenderowiecki

I will analyse the statements one-by-one, in some cases from a potential Wikilawyering standpoint.

• Amendment 1. Fringe science is what I believe to be a rather obvious term that does not need additional explanation. Linking it to
  WP:DUE
  than simply BS science, which is how the term "fringe science" is commonly understood.
• Amendment 2. While the additional clause makes the judgment more in line with
  too much SCOTUS, too little Wikipedia
  ; secondly, non-academic sources are a whole tier below academic ones, so we shouldn't encourage parity between the two.
• Amendment 3. I see problems with sentence two of the addition. In some areas, it is often thanks to the viewpoint that we know that the article is of low quality (as anti-vaxxer "studies" almost always are, or, as from my edit history, studies purporting to say that the Warsaw concentration camp had a giant gas chamber that killed 200K Poles), so it might provoke an argument by which a person who might want to promote fringe views refers to the amendment and says "but hey, you only said that this paper is anti-vax but we are expressly discouraged to judge the paper only by the viewpoint of the author", which would lead to some tedious discussions about why most, or all, anti-vax papers are not acceptable. Also, from the last sentence it would appear that so long as the material is supported by sources, one can introduce whatever material communicating The Truth® (that "if" condition is problematic); but what is needed here is simply a stern warning against POV-pushing + a separate warning to correctly interpret each source at hand.
• Amendment 4. If you remove "The above definitions do not apply" sentence, which might encourage people to promote fringe views that the filer proposes to exempt from the ruling, take into account the Amendment 3 remarks and the XOR'easter's remarks, para 1 and 3 (see section above), that might be fine, but then I'd like to see the modified proposal.

While the intent of the author is well-understood ("don't dismiss science you don't like if it is prevalent enough"), the wording weakens the sourcing requirements too much, makes the ruling incompatible with the more recent resolutions and might encourage tedious Wikilawyering disputes where there are more than enough disputes to begin with in the topic area. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NightHeron

Ferahgo has now made a series of false or misleading accusations against me and other editors (without notifying me, by the way). A year-and-a-half ago I was the OP of an RfC on Race and Intelligence at

that was closed with a determination that racial hereditarianism (the view that certain races are genetically endowed with less intelligence than others) is a fringe view. Ferahgo is one of a small number of editors who have refused to accept that consensus and since that time have been forum-shopping in an attempt to reverse or circumvent it. After the RfC closure was upheld on appeal at AN, AndewNguyen appealed to ArbCom, making misconduct accusations against editors who'd participated in the RfC. An IP who had participated extensively in the RfC advanced an absurd conspiracy theory, accusing me of being a false-flag right-winger disguised as a left-winger in order to embarrass Wikipedia. A similar conspiracy theory is again advanced by an IP (perhaps the same one) in the user-page discussion that is linked to in Generalrelative's comment here.

This is not the place to refute all of Ferahgo's allegations claiming misuse or misrepresentation of sources. These matters have already been discussed at talk-pages, RSN, and elsewhere, and the consensus of editors has not supported those allegations (which is what Ferahgo seems to mean by saying that the community has been unable to resolve the content and sourcing issues). I'd like to just respond to Ferahgo's claim that I acted improperly in starting an RfC at the R&I talk-page in response to the claim by these editors that the outcome of the earlier RfC on R&I had been implemented wrongly, and that, if the community had only known about the nefarious way that I and others would edit the R&I page, they never would have voted the way they did. Ferahgo neglects to mention that the reason for the speedy closure of Ferahgo's RfC by an admin was that Ferahgo's RfC statement was lengthy, complicated, and tendentiously worded in an obvious attempt to skew the outcome -- in blatant violation of policy, which says that an RfC statement should be neutrally worded, short and simple. The short and neutrally worded RfC that I started at the R&I talk-page ([95]) ended in a snow-close reaffirming the consensus that racial hereditarianism is a fringe POV. Both RfCs on race and intelligence had extensive participation by many editors -- over 50 in 2020 and about 35 in 2021. About 90% of the participating editors in the second RfC did not buy the claims of the disgruntled editors.

There has been no failure of policy or failure of the community that needs to be addressed by ArbCom. NightHeron (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gardenofaleph's comment below misstates the issue. The journal Intelligence was not rejected as a source when we edited

WP:FRINGE. It's in fact cited 6 times in the R&I article. However, Intelligence is the official journal of the International Society of Intelligence Research, which is probably the most active organization promoting racial hereditarianism. The articles in that journal are not RS for the purpose of determining scientific consensus on race and intelligence or for refuting the conclusions of the 2020 and 2021 RfCs that the theory of genetic inferiority of certain races in intelligence is a fringe POV. NightHeron (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@Barkeep49: Could you clear up my confusion about what's going on here with private email? My impression from passing remarks about it is that Ferahgo has been making a series of detailed claims about conduct by me and other editors in the form of private email to which we do not have access, and that these private emails have convinced you that ArbCom should open an investigation of the editing of R&I. Is this correct? If so, how does that square with Wikipedia policy? Having been on Wikipedia only 3 1/2 years, I'm still unfamiliar with some of the nuances of how WP (and especially ArbCom) operates. I thought that editors are supposed to be notified when accusations against them are being discussed with ArbCom so that they can defend themselves, and for the same reason those accusations are supposed to be discussed on-Wiki and not behind the backs of the accused editors. Was there a reason why the accusations had to be discussed in private? Clearly from Ferahgo's perspective there was, since her claims sound much more convincing if no one's around to refute her falsehoods and misrepresentations. But from your perspective, why did you think it appropriate to consider her claims in private without hearing the other side? Thank you. NightHeron (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

]

In response to Stonkaments' comment concerning the FAQ on the R&I talk-page, even a cursory glance will show that Stonkaments misrepresents the "political correctness" question, which in full asks: Isn't this just political correctness? The answer given is that rejection of the belief that certain races are genetically endowed with less intelligence than others is based on science, not "just" political correctness. The well-sourced FAQ was discussed at great length on the talk-page, and was extensively edited as the discussion progressed. NightHeron (talk) 01:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Stonkaments' latest statement directed to me, the FAQ does acknowledge that non-scientific as well as scientific considerations are involved in geneticists not devoting resources to investigating claims of racial differences in intelligence: "[while] moral concerns may play an important role in these decisions, an equally fundamental reason why researchers do not engage with the thesis is that empirical evidence shows that the whole idea itself is unintelligible and wrong-headed" (quoted from a source in the answer to the "political correctness" question). But I don't think this is the place to rehash the debates that occurred on the R&I talk-page. NightHeron (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Gardenofaleph

I recommend that ArbCom read the discussion here for additional background. High-quality sources that have been declared non-RS on the basis of the viewpoints they present have included several books from Cambridge University Press; Papers published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, Human Nature, and the Journal of Biosocial Science, and one entire academic journal (Intelligence). Some of the time, the decisions to reject these sources have been based on sources of lower quality as defined as

, such as articles published in The Guardian and New Statesman, while in other cases Wikipedia editors have come up with their own justifications for rejecting these books and papers, in the absence of any reliably published criticism.

The conclusion that these sources are unreliable has not been supported by any decision at the RS noticeboard. Every attempt to discuss the issue there has either been shut down as in this case, or ended without concluding anything as in the more recent case. So the rejection of these sources does not appear to be supported by the broader community or by RS policy, but several editors have acted as though it's required by policy.

DGG's proposed amendment would possibly solve this issue, by defining a set of principles about the circumstances where it's acceptable to reject a source for this type of reason. Opening a new case could address it, too. But there is next to no chance the community could resolve this without some intervention by ArbCom. Every recent attempt to discuss the issue at the RS noticeboard has failed to reach any conclusion, and that will likely continue to be the case going forward. Gardenofaleph (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JayBeeEll

Quoting Worm That Turned below: I'm concerned that what is being asked for is the committee to make "a statement" about the Fringe topic area which would then influence future content decisions. Yes, this is exactly what is being requested, and per David Gerard and jps this request should be dismissed with prejudice. --JBL (talk) 21:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Stonkaments

On multiple contentious topics,

]

Even a cursory review of the FAQ at

WP:V on this topic. The FAQ claims that considerations of "political correctness" haven't played any role this debate, but this is contradicted by numerous reliable sources[96][97][98]. Likewise, the claim that there is "no evidence at all" for a genetic link between race and intelligence is contradicted by numerous sources (detailed in previous discussions[99]) that discuss circumstantial evidence that indicates a potential genetic link. Stonkaments (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

@NightHeron: Re-read the discussion at Talk:Race_and_intelligence#FYI_FAQ—there was a clear and determined effort to deny recognition of the fact that abundant sources acknowledge the role that political correctness has played in this field. The FAQ claim that "researchers who choose to pursue this line of inquiry have in no way been hindered from doing so" is patently false. Stonkaments (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

I generally agree with this request, except all this clarification that an RS cannot be excluded because of its viewpoint badly needs a reminder codicil that opinion/op-ed material in a generally reliable source is still a primary source not secondary even if most of what it publishes is secondary. There is a lot of confusion about this, all the time. E.g. a journal or newspaper that usually has literature reviews or proper news, respectively, gets cited for an editorial stance it has taken and then is claimed to be a reliable source for the truth of that stance. It is not. It is just a

]

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

Principles and FoFs from old cases probably shouldn't be changed. IME ArbCom only interacts with DS at a high level, setting out the procedures and then largely letting admins manage it's running in practice. Perhaps there would be scope for ArbCom to set high-level subject-specific guidance. For example, in APL there is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations which is guidance at a high level. Similarly, there could be scope to add a remedy to the referenced case (titled "Interpretation" or some such) with high level guidance, assuming the substance of this request would improve enforcement in the manner DGG describes. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

The very first sentence of this request is "The reason for this request is the arguments on sources that keep occurring on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, WP:RSN, when dealing with minority views, where the arbcom rulings have been used to prevent the inclusion of reasonably reputable sources.". Yet apart from one tangentally related issue that has been raised in the conversation above, I don't see any evidence of these occurrences of the arbcom ruling being used at RSN, let alone "keep occurring". I would be interested to see some. Also, we should absolutely not be considering any modification which would cause

]

Statement by Aquillion

I agree with Alexbrn; the first two requested amendments are puzzling, but the second two are ghastly. The summary of them directly misrepresents both the relevant policies and the impact they would have.

]

Statement by PaleoNeonate

"in particular, WP:NPOV requires that sources should not be excluded from articles on the basis of the viewpoint they represent." I don't think this would be acceptable without also mentions of

]

Quoting David Gerard: "if this is prone to be seized upon in an attempt to relitigate the race and intelligence RFC yet again, that's an excellent worked example of why not to change anything", or COVID-19 misinformation, 9/11 conspiracy theories, or questionable medicinal treatments. WP has been reported by some sources as exemplary in its treatment of such topics, despite the repeated attempts to push such misinformation. Accusations that WP's reputation is instead tarnished for not catering to those are nonsense: I'd personally long have left WP for more reality-based projects if it generally fell into clickbait scandal, pr-ad traps, journalistic false-balance, political disinformation and science-denial by design. Fortunately there are policies against it, like

]

CutePeach: The ds/alert tag was explained here and a response to interest apparently expressed here. When a topic ban was applied, it was also under COVID sanctions (for persistent promotion), not ARBPS. Adding: it's not WP that needs "fixing" so that it ends up promoting political disinformation, conspiracy theories, racialism, pseudoscience, uneffective medical treatments or unlikely scenarios as plausible. It is important for topics to be described as what they are and to be careful about source selection. The proposed "fix" would corrupt the encyclopedia. If enough evidence and related material existed for an article about an actual lab leak event, for instance, we would expect a "<year> <lab> incident" type article that would also describe how it was mitigated and how it affected procedures, not one about (now popular enough for an article to exist) speculation and its promoters... —PaleoNeonate – 08:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CutePeach

I know very little about the R&I and even less about the debates here on Wikipedia, but from Ferahgo's account and Generalrelative’s response, I can see there is a problem. According to our article on

]

• @
  WP:FIXIT. CutePeach (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Fringe science: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Fringe science: Arbitrator views and discussion

• If I understand this request correctly, we are being asked to reduce Wikipedia's dependence on academic peer-reviewed sources in fringe scientific topics by denying them priority over other sources. I welcome statements from the community on whether these changes are desirable, what impacts they would have, and whether they would be consistent with the principles and findings of the
  Fringe science case in question. – bradv^🍁 17:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  On second look, this is even more confusing. The items we're being requested to adjust here are not remedies, but principles and findings of fact which informed the outcome of the case. These principles make reference to and contain quotations from the

  FRINGE guideline, which presumably existed in a different form 12 years ago when this case was written. Furthermore, there are several comments here about how these intersecting policies and guidelines have been misused in various fora, which in my opinion is a reason to investigate those instances and patterns rather than reform the underlying principles without analysis or investigation. In other words, if revising this case is going to affect the intersection of fringe science with any of the topics listed in this filing, we should examine those topics one at a time, either in the form of an ARCA or a case request, rather than trying to argue the general without knowing the specifics. – bradv^🍁 19:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• I'm a bit confused tbh. Requests for amendments are usually for the addition, change or removal of sanctions (as the red box on top says). This request seems to ask for the change of principles and FoF from the old case. But they just reflect the principles that existed at the time of the decision and the facts that the decision was based on. Principles are based on policies and guidelines and those
  WP:FRINGE was not referenced explicitly despite already existing as a guideline? That said, correct me if I'm wrong but the decision contains to authorization for DS or similar, so shouldn't it be sufficient to declare that ArbCom does not rule on content and the FoF and principles from the old case thus cannot override a guideline on the topic that has community approval? Regards SoWhy 18:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I'm not opposed to examining how
  WP:FRINGE, a content guideline, interacts with Discretionary Sanctions around a particular case at AE or better yet a pattern of cases/sanctions. As has been mentioned there has been communication with the committee and with me specifically about this and so that is what I had been expecting to see. However, as SoWhy points out the FoF that were found at that time is what was found at that time. Changing anything but a remedy 12 years later strikes me as something that would be reserved for extraordinary circumstances, while this (how to handle FRINGE/minitory views in contentious areas) seems like a regular ordinary difficult content problem. The sense I get is that I'm being asked to amend a case because some people are quoting from it at RSN and that doesn't seem like the right basis for an amendment request. People can quote what they want and anything that is not a policy or guideline (that is something with predetermined community consensus) only matters as much as others in the conversation agree that it does, that is it gainsconsensuss of the participating editors. Essays get quoted approvingly all the time and form the basis of consensus for instance. To the extent that this understanding of the request is wrong, please correct me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Except @DGG that's not quite true either. We have Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles for a reason. I know drafters, including me with IRANPOL, make an effort to reuse those. Of course sometimes the principles are slightly different which is why you see a million variations on that page. But ultimately I go back to what I said before: people are welcome to quote whatever they want. It only has weight if other people agree it does - either by making it into a policy/guideline or by agreeing it matters in the context of a discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ferahgo: I don't want to divulge what all you sent in email to me and to the committee but in re-reading that I'm not seeing anything here that contradicts that. Specific evidence of something in our remit (i.e. not just a content dispute) is generally needed. That is what I'm looking for here regardless of the scope of what we're talking about. Obviously amending a case is in our remit but besides thinking it's a bad idea in general, I'm also not seeing evidence as to why it's needed now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks to @CaptainEek for those comments. I agree with them and desire to really think through what @Ferahgo the Assassin has provided though I am currently having to prioritize some other wikiwork. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @NightHeron: I was sent an email asking me to reconsider a sanction and some broader concerns to which I said the full committee would need to be involved. Then the committee was sent emails to which the response was "we can't really help you, please go onwiki" and here we are onwiki. At the moment I am unaware of specific editors being considered for sanctions but if that happens people do need to be notified. This appeal started asking us to amend an old case. There was no desire among arbs to consider that. Beyond that Eek has suggested a couple things to think about before we close the appeal which I agree are worth thinking about but I don't have the time to give them the attention they would need to be adequately examined at the moment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm with bradv on this one - if a case is being improperly referenced or referred to, that is an issue with the editor(s) providing that link. As stated both here and in recent ARCAs, we should not be changing anything other than Remedies from past cases; the FoF and Principles reflect Wikipedia at the time and we should not be changing them just to keep them current. Primefac (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm struggling with the idea of altering findings or principles of a 12 year old case. I'm quite happy to "clarify" to anyone that Principles and Findings reflect the state of the encyclopedia at the time, and since
  the encyclopedia has continued to develop, it may not reflect the current state of the encyclopedia - but I'm not happy to amend old cases in that way. If it's causing widespread problems, then the best solution would be a fresh arbitration request, for up to date findings and principles - but I'm not seeing that there are sufficient problems in the area that we need such a case.
  Does anyone have examples where the principles have been specifically called out in recent discussions? I'm concerned that what is being asked for is the committee to make "a statement" about the Fringe topic area which would then influence future content decisions, and while that might happen to an extent in a case - we should do what we can to minimise it, and should not be doing it here. Worm^TT(talk) 11:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @DGG: - my point with respect to "may not reflect the current state of the encyclopedia" was that old principles and findings should not be used to argue present decisions, as consensus can change. However, since I'm seeing no evidence that present discussions are being directly influenced by the old case, the point is moot. At any rate, I'm at the point of decline with respect to the request. Worm^TT(talk) 09:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• While the use of sources in the topic area is concerning, the link between the problems and the case seem tenuous at best. I will not support changing the principles or FoF of any case, absent some obvious mistake on our part. Seeing as these have stood for over a decade, it appears they were correct and factual. If folks think we need to approach the issue again, then perhaps a case request is in order. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @DGG@Ferahgo the Assassin Well, it looks like the proposed amendments won't pass, seeing as we won't amend past principles. But it appears there remains an underlying issue. I can't help but wonder: is the right case to focus on Race and Intelligence, not Fringe Science? We seem poised to close this ARCA, but I don't want this issue to go and simmer more. Could y'all (and others) comment on the value of an ARCA focused on R&I, a new case request, or perhaps some kind of brainstorming session leading up to an ARCA? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Editing guidelines cover the areas - no need for arbcom involvement or amendment, particularly as the case has not been invoked in a discussion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with my colleagues that there is no need to amend old principles and findings of fact to reflect changes in policy or practice; if we did that, we'd be amending old cases every time any policy changed. This Committee is not in the business of maintaining an accurate current compendium of community norms and consensus on every principle previously stated in an arbitration case, or in "ratifying" shifts in community sentiments by amending those old principles. (I can imagine two exceptions: (1) where a finding of fact directly affects a remedy, e.g., if a finding of fact defines a term used in a remedy; or (2) in extreme circumstances, if a prior decision was so contradictory to the principles of the encyclopedia that to keep it would be undignified. These should be rare and neither apply here.) I would therefore decline the request. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll also echo others here, that this is not one of the very rare cases where amending old principles or findings is worthwhile, and that the reliability and weighting of sources is generally not something ArbCom should be deciding. --BDD (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• A little late here, but I would also be very reluctant to start altering old FoFs or principles unless there is some reason to believe they were entirely in error at the time they were passed.
  talk) 20:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.