Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 24

This is an archive of past Clarification and Amendment requests. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to file a new clarification or amendment request, you should follow the instructions at the top of this page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

→

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130

Request to amend prior case: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal (January 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion 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.

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs)
Fyslee (talk · contribs) [1]

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal#Use_of_unreliable_sources_by_Fyslee names Quackwatch as an unreliable source. Quackwatch has been recommended by major medical organisations (AMA, American Cancer Society) as well as numerous universities, newspapers, and journals (See article), and, furthermore, is used as a source in articles on the American Cancer Society website.[2] This finding should be simply thrown out. Although electronically published, it has reviewers, selectivity, and an advisory board. It is not merely a self-published source, it is a highly respected organisation, and thus a very, very useful source on some of the obscure fringe views it covers, but which other reliable sources are rare for. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

In response to Geoff: Can you point out the section on the evidence page where evidence was provided that it was not a reliable source? I see some people saying they dislike its point of view, or claiming that it is biased against alternative medicine and fringe topics, but no actual evidence. If such exist, please link. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to Geoff:

If evidence was not presented during the case to support the finding, then your proposal, "Evidence has been presented that Quackwatch may be inadmissible as a source under policy", would, barring a very strong case for it being an unreliable source (which has not, nor really should be presented here [it should be presented to the community after this is dealt with]), make the Arbcom look bad, as it'd effectively be saying that a finding for which both sides agree no evidence was presented to justify was nonetheless right - despite such evidence still not having been presented. Better to remand it to the community, and the cases for and against can be presented at the appropriate venue: WP:RSN. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to Coren:

The finding is entitled "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee". If the committee did not intend to name Quackwatch as an unreliable source, then they did an appallingly bad job at getting their meaning across. As well,the committee has repeatedly found, in numerous cases, that encyclopaedias present science in line with mainstream thought. It's hard to see how this fits in with calling a widely-respected mainstream medical source "partisian" because it advocates for the mainstream scientific thought that the encyclopaedia should be using. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 09:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to Fred Bauer

An Arbcom decision is not a place to advocate your point of view, particularly in the absence of strong, reliable sources that back it. There is no strong evidence for acupuncture: most studies with a positive result lack blinding, placebo, or large sample sizes, and large-scale studies tend to show random effects: a recent one, for instance, found sham acupuncture was better than real acupuncture - typical of statistical noise. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to Carcharoth

I really don't think that "partisian" is appropriate either. It's a highly loaded term, and the change proposed does nothing to get at the heart of the problem: It would still be a decision that the mainstream medical view of Alternative medicine is "partisian". If the committee wants to focus on Fyslee's behaviour, it would have been possible to demonstrate a lack of NPOV in their edits at the time, at this late date, however, there doesn't seem much point to trying to reanalyse the situation and make a valid FoF; may as well just keep the caution to Fyslee to edit from NPOV in the remedies and consider that sufficient. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Second response to Carcharoth

Be that as it may, I don't think that Arbcom should be ruling on it: The reliable sources noticeboard is perfectly capable of handling problems with specific Quackwatch articles or uses on a case-by-case basis. This is true for all sites, and there should be no need for the Arbcom to use loaded language to discuss one in particular. The simplest remedy, withdrawing the finding, does not mean that policies related to reliable sources are withdrawn; it's simply an acknowledgement that the Arbcom does not determine content, and that well-established community procedures could handle it instead. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:01, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposals

The finding "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" is withdrawn, and no longer forms part of the findings of Barrett v. Rosenthal. This does not affect any other findings, nor does it affect the caution to Fyslee to edit according to NPOV, as all editors are expected to.

There doesn't appear to be very good evidence of Fyslee having problematic edits - notably, the evidence section of the case has one section pointing out that most additions of Quackwatch by Fyslee were, in fact, reversions of removal of content when seen in context. I don't think this is a particularly crucial finding, nor are any of the remedies explicitly based on it, so I think it could be excised without problem, and this would also expunge a content decision. The best way to note its being withdrawn is probably to simply put the finding in ~~strikeout tags~~ and add a note saying "Withdrawn by the Arbitration committee on [Date]", with a link to the section of the talk page where this RfCl is moved.

I don't see merit in revisiting the case long enough to revise the finding, if the Arbcom wishes to, I am certain you can come up with something. I simply ask that you make sure it is justified by the case's evidence. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

On the current proposals:

1 is appalling. The community is perfectly capable of handling Quackwatch on a case by case basis, but with a lengthy attack on it like that from the Arbcom, it may as well be banned. In the articles where Quackwatch tends to be used, the articles are describing the worst of alternative medicine: Scams and quackery, of only slight notability, but which have just enough notability that their supporters can keep them on Wikipedia, despite having few or no non-promotional sources discussing them. Quackwatch is almost necessary in these cases.

Should we really put at equal weight strong scientific evidence that a medical intervention not only doesn't work, but couldn't work, with... How about this? This is an extreme fringe journal's report on a rather poorly-done experiment that is claimed to prove pyramid power. Shall we say that this means that any website that's critical of pyramid power should be considered a questionable, biased source? Shall we give equal validity to the the view that the moon is made of green cheese, and thus point out NASA is a "partisian" source that should have equal validity?

1.1 is at least a step in the right direction, but does not go at all far enough. Arbcom, I beg you, get out of content decisions. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Further comment

Furthermore, Proposal 1 misrepresents policy. The actual statement in WP:NPOV begins with the crucial qualifier "Neutrality weights viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence..."

We are discussing fringe medical theories. WP:UNDUE applies here, rather strongly. Leaving out the crucial qualifier misrepresents policy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

To Flonight

I don't really understand why it's necessary to make a ruling on Fyslee's use of the source. It doesn't seem particularly relevant to the rest of the case, and the COI aspect, e.g. that Fyslee wrote for the site (insofar as it's accurate) seems quite sufficient to justify the remedies. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Fyslee

archived bad start.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I just wish that some ArbCom members would review that particular "finding" and expunge it from public view. Even though it is blanked, the history is there. They should go to that "finding", write comments admitting it was baseless, and then blank it again. It was one of many disgraceful things that happened under that ArbCom, most performed by my now-banned opponent, her dishonorable mentor, and her major defender. Unfortunately this particular blunder was made by the ArbCom itself. "Findings" should be written based upon actual findings, proven facts, and evidence, not upon false charges brought by my cowardly attacker (other username), who has been silent since that time. He wrote the agenda for the ArbCom case and some ArbCom member just copied it and followed it without checking to see if the charges were true. You can't write a "finding" before something is actually proven to have been "found"! Upon examination, that charge, among several others, was never proven to be true at all, both as regards any misuse of Quackwatch, or of Quackwatch being unreliable. Wrong on both counts, and yet it still stands there and gets trotted out by fringe POV pushers regularly.

~~That finding was just plain wrong on both counts:~~

I did not use or abuse unreliable sources;

Quackwatch is not considered an unreliable source by the mainstream scientific and medical world, only by pushers of fringe POV, quacks, and known (and often convicted) healthfrauds.

~~-- Fyslee (talk) 15:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)~~

Revised/calmer version

I wish that some ArbCom members would review that particular "finding" and expunge it from public view. Even though it is blanked, the history is there. They should go to that "finding", write comments admitting it was baseless, and then blank it again. It was one of many disgraceful things that happened under that ArbCom.

"Findings" should be written based upon actual findings, proven facts, and evidence, that have been presented, not written before presentation of evidence. Nor should they be based upon false charges (they were shown to be false) brought by my attacker (other username), who has been silent since that time. He wrote the agenda for the ArbCom case and some ArbCom member just copied it and followed it without checking to see if the charges were true. One shouldn't write a "finding" before something is actually proven to have been "found"! Upon examination, that charge, among several others, was never proven to be true at all, both as regards any misuse of Quackwatch, or of Quackwatch being unreliable. Wrong on both counts, and yet it still stands there and gets trotted out by fringe POV pushers regularly.

That finding was just plain wrong on both counts:

I did not use or abuse unreliable sources;
Quackwatch is not considered an unreliable source by the mainstream scientific and medical world, only by pushers of fringe POV, quacks, and known (and often convicted) healthfrauds. A simple study of the many authoritative sources that recommend Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett (we only use a few in their articles) will give an idea of what mainstream science, medicine, universities, professors, librarians, consumer organizations, and governmental bodies, think of them, and it's very positive. They are considered authoritative and can be used as good opinions. Yes, attribution is a good idea, but don't give the impression that they shouldn't be used. For more comments on Quackwatch, I suggest reading the discussion at the other RfArb Workshop page.

-- Fyslee (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to DreamGuy: Thanks for pointing out my irritated tone. I basically copied it from another place and have now revised it to be more appropriate for this use. Thanks again. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to User:Backin72's many points

Of course there is "evidence that Barrett is biased against alternative medicine." He shares this bias with countless scientists and mainstream personages, many of them quite notable. Such a bias and vast experience as the world's foremost authority on quackery and healthfraud make him even more qualified to sift the chaff from the wheat when dealing with healthfraud and questionable claims. His bias and stance on evidence is the same (read here) as that held by many others, including Marcia Angell, former editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM):

"It is time for the scientific community to stop giving alternative medicine a free ride. There cannot be two kinds of medicine -- conventional and alternative. There is only medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that has not, medicine that works and medicine that may or may not work. Once a treatment has been tested rigorously, it no longer matters whether it was considered alternative at the outset. If it is found to be reasonably safe and effective, it will be accepted. But assertions, speculation, and testimonials do not substitute for evidence. Alternative treatments should be subjected to scientific testing no less rigorous than that required for conventional treatments."^[1]

He is a scientific skeptic, which means he holds extraordinary and fringe claims to a higher standard of evidence: "In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded." We follow the same verifiability principle here at Wikipedia. That is a legitimate and necessary form of "double standard", and it's one that is standard practice among scientists who possess critical thinking skills. You will always find Barrett in good company, along with other scientific skeptics, Nobel prize laureates, and notable authors. He was named as one of the top 20 scientific skeptics of the 20th century.^[2]^[3] He thinks like other skeptics.

The wording of the Village Voice article should not be taken in isolation from Barrett's actual practice. He recommends and supports chiropractic for the things it is proven to be good for, but still opposes the widespread quackery, scams, and pseudoscientific claims that still plague the profession, and especially the pseudoscientific and metaphysical basis for the whole profession (vertebral subluxations, Innate Intelligence, misuse of spinal manipulation, etc.). Likewise for acupuncture, where the claims are required to be backed up by good research. (There is plenty of disagreement about the quality of such research, and Barrett is far from alone in that matter.) We (and you especially) know that acupuncture is associated with many claims that are nonsense or not backed up by research. Barrett's actual practice is not as extreme as indicated by that old article. It is quite normal in medical and skeptical circles. He's just one of the most notable skeptics in that area.

Lest Barrett become a straw man diversion here, let's remember the subject is Quackwatch, not Barrett. He is the prime mover behind the website, but a whole host of others help in the endeavor. Most of the front page articles are written by him, with fact checking and research conducted by helpers, but even more material on the site is from other authors. The website is the largest database on such subjects on the internet, with a vast collection of articles, news reports, scientific research, government documents, and historical records, and as such it is often the only source for those references. When we reference Quackwatch for those types of sources, for example a Congressional report on quackery, the reference carries the same degree of reliability we would accord the Congressional record.

Of course Quackwatch should be used with discretion, and that's what we should do with all sources. That is a given with all our sources. No new rule or application of existing policies is required for a special case here. It is already covered by our V & RS policies. We should prefer better sources when available, and use attribution when necessary, but QW is often the only or best source available for many fringe subjects. It is often a notable, significant, controversial (among quacks), and highly respected opinion source, and should be used as such. We constantly use sources of far less quality without blinking, or with them being subjected to uninformed and deprecatory remarks in an ArbCom. Why? Because quacks' incomes aren't being threatened, and scammers aren't being named with backing from the FDA and FTC. Unlike many opinion articles we reference all the time, it provides its sources, and we can sometimes use them instead of, or in addition to, QW itself. When it is used as a source for a scientific article unavailable elsewhere, it is just as reliable as any scientific article, and for that type of use MEDRS would apply. Just use common sense in a case by case manner. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to John Vandenberg: I fully agree with you. The implication of the "finding" is that Quackwatch is always an inappropriate source, and that's very, very wrong. It can be used on a case by case basis, just like other sources. It is not a peer-reviewed scientific journal (websites are not "peer-reviewed"!), and thus scientific research would rate higher as a source, per MEDRS, for nitty gritty details of scientific matters, but can be used like any other source for matters of opinion related to those subjects. Like most of our other sources, it is a perfectly good source for certain purposes. In fact it is often a better source for articles related to fringe subjects, which alternative medicine subjects are by definition, where there is a dearth of scientific expression on the subject. Since scientific research isn't for opinions, you won't find scientific research that states a matter is nonsensical or quackery, because research doesn't deal with such matters. The same scientists will write such opinions, but they do it in other venues, such as articles and websites. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to other critics here

While I'm not surprised that believers in fringe POV would appear here with their attempts to smear Barrett and Quackwatch, please get your facts straight before making statements. I do appreciate that Geoff Plourde did recognize (in his "reponses") that his initial statement was way off base on a couple points. In fact most of his statement is quite inaccurate.

As I wrote elsewhere, I will even go so far as to point out a cardinal red flag of a fringe POV pusher - they attack Barrett and Quackwatch. Anyone who does that needs to be placed under observation, and a clue stick labelled "ban" held over them, ready for instant use if necessary. Attacking such reliable sources is a pretty obvious symptom that one's POV and ideologies are screwed up. Find anyone who is doing it, and you'll find such an editor....or someone who just doesn't have a clue, possibly because of ignorance of the issues regarding healthfraud, consumer fraud, and quackery. Please take this opportunity to understand the issues (by using Quackwatch) and become informed. That can only be done by studying both sides of an issue. Ignorance is no longer an excuse. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:25, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to Backin72's response to John Nevard

Maybe you didn't read my comment above, but to trust a newspaper columnnist's editorializing based on one statement taken in isolation, without also looking at Barrett's actual practice is naive. Since his actual practice often deviates significantly from that one statement, it is obviously being misapplied and applied to broadly. The guy obviously has much more nuanced views than that! He obviously does follow along with the scientific evidence and when the evidence is strong enough, he has been known to change his position, which is the logical and proper thing to do. To top it off, his articles are reviewed by many experts in the field and thus go through a form of informal review process. He seeks advice and gets help when preparing articles, and if you find something outright inaccurate (not just a difference of opinion), then by all means email him and get it fixed.

The evidence for many of acupuncture's claims is far from a settled matter in the scientific community, and Barrett is one of many who are unconvinced by most of the studies - which happen to be of poor quality. There is no scientific consensus about acupuncture, so this is just a difference of opinion which exists in the scientific community. This is an ongoing process. As such it's also a content decision and the editors of the acupuncture articles are perfectly able to deal with it. The "double-standard" is the standard applied to all extraordinary claims. Unusual claims are subject to this standard rule: "the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded." Nothing new in that. If someone told you that one of the Moons of Pluto was made of cheese, you would likely adopt the same position as Barrett or any other person who possesses even a smidgin of critical thinking - you would consider it unworthy of investigation and would hold such claims to a much higher standard of evidence than other claims. There are many claims in alternative madicine, including some of them in acupuncture and chiropractic, that are unworthy of exploration by scientists. Let the ones making the claims provide their evidence. If they do so, it will be looked at, and if found worthy of consideration, THEN Barrett and others will certainly encourage investigation. It only makes common sense to say what Barrett said. His statement shouldn't be stretched too far, which is what you seem to be doing. That's certainly what Donna Ladd did in her article.

All this discussion about acupuncture would be fine for the acupuncture article's talk page, but it's not appropriate as the subject of an ArbCom or ArbCom decision. That is indeed a content matter. No one here has a right to deem Quackwatch or Barrett unfit as a RS because they share a common disagreement that exists in the scientific community. The next thing we'll be banning any source that has a POV at all. If Quackwatch stood on the opposite side of a fully uniform, existing scientific consensus, it would be another matter, but that is far from the case. All I'm hearing is the disgruntled complaints of believers in acupuncture, who are far from unbiased in this matter. You have a financial COI related to acupuncture, and Fred should have recused himself based on his preexisting bias against Barrett and for alternative medicine. I was tempted to point it out during the ArbCom, but was fearful of doing so. I had alread been the victim of my evidence being deleted and disallowed in the events leading up to the ArbCom, and was pretty much paralyzed and unable to effectively defend myself against the libels I encountered all the way through what often felt like a kangaroo court. For some reason, all our rules against personal attacks, BLP, etc. did not apply at that time. There was no due process, and no one jumped in and got critics to stick to the point. It was a free for all, with some of the worst perpetrators still editing here. Their lies were found to be just that, but nothing happened to them. The finding of fact had already been written before any evidence had been presented, and when the so-called evidence was shown to be without foundation, was it revised??? No, not at all. Instead ONE pitiful diff (the Clayton diff mentioned by Fred) that showed I had RESTORED (not ADDED, as claimed) an existing link (IOW a consensus of editors had found it worthy of existing) was used as evidence of my foul behavior. There was no finding of fact. It wasn't true, so I was judged using faulty evidence of something that isn't a crime at all. -- Fyslee (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to Fred Bauder

Your statements aren't clear, since you have shown no wrongdoing, only that you don't like what you found. Are you claiming that Barrett is incorrect in his criticisms of the Clayton mail order diploma mill, one of several which the founder has established? Regarding your statement that you are more anti- than pro- alt med, your actions have spoken louder than your words. Even at the beginning of the ArbCom, I was aware of your biases. Whatever the case may be, you don't like Barrett or the POV at Quackwatch. Whatever. That's your right. Those who are anti-anti-quackery, are by definition for quackery, so please be more careful with your statements. Maybe that's not the case, but it could seem so. You really should have recused yourself, and now, with these comments of yours, ~~you should do it now.~~ You are a former lawyer and know that a judge with your POV would be disqualified in such a case. Claiming that this isn't a court of law (a claim I've heard before) doesn't free you from the obligation to provide a just forum for deciding cases here. Injustice mustn't be allowed. Recusing yourself isn't a dishonorable thing to do. In fact, not to do so would be dishonorable.

Regarding your citation from Quackwatch about "there is no alternative medicine." That is not Barrett, but George D. Lundberg, a physician, board-certified pathologist, and, since February 1999, editor of Medscape. For 17 years prior to joining Medscape Dr. Lundberg served as editor of the JAMA:

"There is no alternative medicine. There is only scientifically proven, evidence-based medicine supported by solid data or unproven medicine, for which scientific evidence is lacking. Whether a therapeutic practice is "Eastern" or "Western," is unconventional or mainstream, or involves mind-body techniques or molecular genetics is largely irrelevant except for historical purposes and cultural interest. We recognize that there are vastly different types of practitioners and proponents of the various forms of alternative medicine and conventional medicine, and that there are vast differences in the skills, capabilities, and beliefs of individuals within them and the nature of their actual practices. Moreover, the economic and political forces in these fields are large and increasingly complex and have the capability for being highly contentious. Nonetheless, as believers in science and evidence, we must focus on fundamental issues -- namely, the patient, the target disease or condition, the proposed or practiced treatment, and the need for convincing data on safety and therapeutic efficacy."^[4]

His idea is echoed by Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist and author known for promoting the gene-centric view (in his book The Selfish Gene), coining of the term meme, and atheist activism:^[2]^[3]

"There is no alternative medicine. There is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn't work."^[5]

"Either it is true that a medicine works or it isn't. It cannot be false in the ordinary sense but true in some 'alternative' sense."^[5]

You are welcome to disagree with all of them, but don't imply that Barrett is someone with an oddball belief. He is in very notable company.

As to your claim about him "blurring of the distinction between outright quackery and alternative procedures", he is very clear about the distinction. In fact the very citation you use makes it clear, almost as if you are quoting him! ("blurring distinctions"):

"To avoid confusion, "alternative" methods should be classified as genuine, experimental, or questionable. Genuine alternatives are comparable methods that have met science-based criteria for safety and effectiveness. Experimental alternatives are unproven but have a plausible rationale and are undergoing responsible investigation. The most noteworthy is use of a 10%-fat diet for treating coronary heart disease. Questionable alternatives are groundless and lack a scientifically plausible rationale. The archetype is homeopathy, which claims that "remedies" so dilute that they contain no active ingredient can exert powerful therapeutic effects. Some methods fit into more than one category, depending on the claims made for them. Blurring these distinctions enables promoters of quackery to argue that because some practices labeled "alternative" have merit, the rest deserve equal consideration and respect. Enough is known, however, to conclude that most questionable "alternatives" are worthless.^[6]

"Unproven methods are not necessarily quackery. Those consistent with established scientific concepts may be considered experimental. Legitimate researchers and practitioners do not promote unproven procedures in the marketplace but engage in responsible, properly-designed studies. Methods not compatible with established scientific concepts should be classified as nonsensical or disproven rather than experimental. Methods that sound scientific but are nonsensical can also be classified as pseudoscientific."^[7]

"Do you believe there are any valid "alternative" treatments?
This question is unanswerable because it contains an invalid assumption. "Alternative" is a slogan often used for promotional purposes, not a definable set of methods. Methods should be classified into three groups: (1) those that work, (2) those that don't work, and (3) those we are not sure about. Most described as "alternative" fall into the second group. But the only meaningful way to evaluate methods is to examine them individually, which we do. We discuss this subject fully in our article "Be Wary of "Alternative" Health Methods."[3]

Statement by DreamGuy (talk)

I would hope that ArbCom would look past the (understandably, I suppose, considering, but not very helpful) angry tone of the above and take steps to fix the very real problem. We've been discussing QuackWatch on the Workshop page of the Fringe Science workshop page, and we've pretty well established that it's nothing like an unreliable source. ArbCom typically doesn't rule out sources as unreliable just in general, but it's especially odd they'd do so on one that fits WP:RS so strongly, and it's mentioning as such is being used by civil POV-pushers to try to remove a well known, extremely well-regarded and important source critical of their beliefs in fringe topics. DreamGuy (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to User:Geoff Plourde's comment that "Medical school curriculum does not cover the core concepts of chiropractic, acupuncture, or other CAM techniques." -- of course it doesn't, because they are not considered real medicine by any accepted medical expert or authority. That's like trying to argue that no biologist can weigh in on how absurd the notion of Nessie or Bigfoot existing in the real world because university biology courses and DNA studies do not include dissection practice on cryptids. Medical studies have examined chiropractic, acupuncture and other techniques. The individual behind QuackWatch is aware of these studies. That's why he says what he says, not because he is ignorant and incapable of saying anything educated on the topic, but precisely because he is well versed on the fields from a medical and scientific viewpoint. It's absurd to try to use your own personal opinion to rule anyone who disagrees with you as a bad source and expect Wikipedia to just follow whatever you say. DreamGuy (talk) 17:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

This finding attempted to rule upon a content issue outside the Committee's remit. Although a necessary part of arbitration does relate to obvious calls such as the unreliability of citations to non-notable blogs, this was not that type of obvious call. The evidence upon which the Committee passed this finding was more emotional than factual (one party had been in a protracted lawsuit with the owner of the Quackwatch site) and regardless of what POV is at stake that is not a good basis for arbitration findings. I have no opinion about the suitability or unsuitability of Quackwatch for encyclopedic citations. This is a matter for the community to determine. Durova^Charge! 19:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Geoff Plourde

While I have a COI in this area, I believe that the finding regarding Quackwatch was accurate, but nonetheless procedurally wrong. Quackwatch is as heavily biased as any other blog site. The articles are written by an ex psychiatrist with absolutely no training in the areas he professes to be an expert in. Medical school curriculum does not cover the core concepts of chiropractic, acupuncture, or other CAM techniques. This website has no peer review system and considers all topics as pseudoscience. It is clearly the work of someone with a vendetta against anything that is not mainstream medicine. Unfortunately, I must agree with my worthy colleagues that the scope of this body does not include content, and therefore content rulings are moot. However I advise amending the finding to a suggestive finding stating that "Evidence has been presented that Quackwatch may be inadmissible as a source under policy." This is simply a statement of fact and not a content ruling, satisfying both the need to note the error of Quackwatch and remove the content intrusion. Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to Shoemaker's Holiday: Review of the case page did not turn up evidence to support my position. However I believe the finding about Quackwatch was based on behavior and not content. In no way does the Committee rule that Quackwatch is bad, simply that Fyslee has used it as a partisan source. this is supported by cursory review of Quackwatch and its purpose. Geoff Plourde (talk) 20:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Response to Fyslee: I must respectfully disagree with as regards the accuracy of Quackwatch. I present a statement by Ray Sahelian, MD [5] Dr. Sahelian is a currently practicing board certified family practitioner who in this statement points out the errors of Quackwatch.

Second Response to Fyslee: I am highly disturbed by your divisive statement, "As I wrote elsewhere, I will even go so far as to point out a cardinal red flag of a fringe POV pusher - they attack Barrett and Quackwatch. Anyone who does that needs to be placed under observation, and a clue stick labelled "ban" held over them, ready for instant use if necessary. Attacking such reliable sources is a pretty obvious symptom that one's POV and ideologies are screwed up." This stone age method of thinking is harmful to Wikipedia as it actively prevents dissent, and would grant de facto ownership of all alternative medicine articles to pro Barrett editors, which would be a serious violation of OWN. Fyslee, I honestly believe that Quackwatch is a crock of shit written by a retired shrink with an box of axes to grind. His blog site is worthless for all intents and purposes and poses a clear and present danger to advancement in medicine. Regardless, I agree that the purpose of this Committee is not to make content judgements which should be addressed in other fora, hopefully without your attitude as a rule.

However, in this case, I believe that the original decision was correct in light of the circumstances. The finding was about the usage of partisan sites by Fyslee, which is a policy matter. Quackwatch was cited as an example in support, an application of policy. Is Quackwatch partisan? Yes and this is clearly established by cursory review of Quackwatch itself. Did Fyslee try to use Quackwatch? This case and relevant logs would appear to say yes also. The finding is a logical result of this reasoning.

Regardless of the reasoning, there is a more significant test of whether this was a content ruling. Does the finding prohibit the usage of Quackwatch? Nowhere in this finding am I able to find any provision that specifically says that Quackwatch is unusable. Without such a provision, Quackwatch is still utilizable. While I may be speculating, this appears to be more about one user's discomfort at having his hand smacked for his conduct. I would therefore reject this motion, as the evidence clearly shows that this is not a content ruling. Geoff Plourde (talk) 09:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to Dreamguy: I don't think your example was particularly accurate in this context. A researcher who does not understand what he is researching cannot accurately research the subject. Judging from the articles written by Dr. Barrett, he has absolutely no idea what he is studying and is proceeding from a biased point of view. As to the statement that no authority recognizes chiropractic, that is patently false in the context of the USA. The Medicare program will pay for acute treatment of vertebral subluxations by chiropractors. If chiropractic was quackery, why would they pay for it? Geoff Plourde (talk) 21:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval

ArbCom made a ruling on content, and a bad one at that. It's being discussed on the fringe science case [[6]]. My 2 cents:

Barret is a knowledgeable/notable source on health and nutrition issues, and in quackery. From his own bio:

a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, a CSICOP's Fellow, FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery in 1984. Honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association in 1986. Two years teaching health education at The Pennsylvania State University. 2001 Distinguished Service to Health Education Award from the American Association for Health Education. [7](not a literal quote)

but we can't use him as source because "he's engaged in advocacy"? No. (not to mention that there are not defined criteria to determine advocacy, so all sources showing a fringe belief in a negative light will inevitabily be accused of advocacy)

This finding is being used as a sledgehammer to kill references to a source that, as Shoemaker points out, is recommended by reliable sources on the relevant fields.

Statement by User:Martinphi

"As a result, the ACSH has been accused of being more of a public relations firm, and less of a neutral council on Science. " [8]

Well, maybe the site is reliable and maybe not. Looks like it might have some wise council sometimes. But that does not mean we should not prefer better sources when available, nor does it mean we do not attribute statements. If it weren't purportedly defending the mainstream, it would be considered a very unreliable source. Its "reliability" comes totally from its POV, since few here would for example think that the Parapsychological Association is an RS, although it is far more RS per policy. As it is, Quackwatch and similar sources should never be used unattributed, and I'm guessing that is the major point of contention in articles, as it has been in the past. I mean, read WP:RS. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 08:17, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Backin72

There is some evidence that Barrett is biased against alternative medicine. Please note that this is not just another way of saying "he has a pro-science bias (chuckle, well, shouldn't we all)". I mean that he holds alt-med, which like conventional med ought to rise or fall based on evidence, to an overt double standard.

"I won't even look through that telescope"

For example, from a Village Voice article: "Barrett believes most alternative therapies simply should be disregarded without further research. "A lot of things don't need to be tested [because] they simply don't make any sense," he says, pointing specifically to homeopathy, chiropractic, and acupuncture.

Homeopathy, I can understand; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and the evidence to date is far from extraordinary. But chiropractic and acupuncture? Whether or not vertebral subluxation theory or qi and meridians strike you as bullshit, the practices of spinal manipulation and acupuncture (inserting needles at particular sites) are the subject of mainstream research, and show some promise in the treatment of pain (and nausea, in the case of acupuncture), according to the Cochrane Collaboration, a resource for evidence-based medicine. Cochrane, unlike Quackwatch, meets WP:MEDRS and takes the stance that more research is appropriate and necessary in these fields.

When Barrett refuses even to acknowledge that things like chiro or acu, which are physical procedures with plausible mechanisms, should even be studied before being dismissed, he's out on a bit of a limb. Dare I say, he's something of an extremist.

Quackwatch is "occasionally informative"

From the same Village Voice article, regarding Barrett's anti-evidence-gathering stance:

"He seems to be putting down trying to be objective," says Peter Barry Chowka, a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine. "Quackwatch.com is consistently provocative and entertaining and occasionally informative," Chowka added. "But I personally think he's running against the tide of history. But that's his problem, not ours."

Exactly. Barrett not only lacks objectivity, he derides it.

Ultra-mainstream IOM held to double-standard by... not-too-mainstream Dr. Barrett

The Institute of Medicine, one of the American Academies of Science and certainly one of the most prestigious and reliable English-language sources on medicine, conducted a study on alternative medicine ca. 2003-2005. Barrett criticized the panel for doing what any other panel on any other subject convened by the IOM would do: including members who had professional affiliations, sometimes including grant money, related to the study's subject area (here, alt-med). This is disingenuous and a flagrant double standard, since a panel on radiology would obviously include some radiologists (some of whom were academics and therefor getting grant money), and so forth.

Such a double standard is plainly indicative of bias.

Conclusion

This doesn't mean that Barrett a/o Quackwatch can't be used as sources at all, but we should be mindful of their biases. Quackwatch does not even come close to meeting WP:RS, particularly WP:MEDRS. In my view, it should be used in situations where WP:PARITY applies, i.e. as a counter to fringe, vanity-type claims. When it comes to more mainstream alt-meds, like chiro and acu, we have far better sources meeting WP:MEDRS; there, Barrett has amply demonstrated his bias and should never be considered a reliable source. --Backin72 (n.b.) 08:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to John Nevard: Do you think Barrett is a reliable source on his own views?

I'm not too worried about whether the journalist quoted in the Village Voice is much of an RS, because he's just giving voice to a conclusion that follows from Barrett's own words. When Barrett denies the need even to gather evidence, or uses flagrant double standards, he's providing all the evidence of his own bias that any fair-minded person needs. --Backin72 (n.b.) 11:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:John Nevard

It reflects very well on the quality of Quackwatch that the best critical quote Backin72 could come up with was from a Mr. Peter Barry Chowka in that well-known bastion of evidence-based medicine the Village Voice, and it reflects very poorly on the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine that he helped squander their tax dollars.

One simply has to examine his website.[9] The latest article is on "An International Story That Helped to Define 2008"- the terrible defeat of Thabo Mbeki, AIDS hero, and his anti-HIV treatment policies, which biased pro-science Western science found to have killed at least 330,000.[10] It namedrops fellow AIDS hero David Rasnick. And it shows up the mainstream scientific establishment, represented by Oprah Winfrey.

So there you are. If you accept the judgement of important public figuress like Chowka, Quackwatch is simply an entertainment site. Nevard (talk) 02:10, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Fred Bauder

The evidence for the unreliability of Quackwatch is its outright rejection of all forms of alternative medicine, "There is no alternative medicine". This results in a blurring of the distinction between outright quackery and alternative procedures such as acupuncture with have some support, see 'Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine"' by Stephen Barrett, M.D. This article, 'Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine"' is a good example of how self-published material by Stephen Barrett, M.D. is featured on the site. Fred Talk 13:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The fundamental principle which is being enforced by deprecating a blatantly partisan source such as Quackwatch is Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There is no reason to characterize such enforcement as a content decision, as, if verifiable, the information excluded from Quackwatch can be found in a reliable source. Take a look at 'Be Wary of Acupuncture, Qigong, and "Chinese Medicine"' by Stephen Barrett, M.D. One of his points of argument is "Falun gong, which China banned several years ago, is a Qigong varient claimed to be "a powerful mechanism for healing, stress relief and health improvements." That brings up the argument that aspects of alternative medicine, particularly acupuncture, have cultish aspects, but does not do so in a scientific way, but as guilt by association. The quote, "which China banned several years ago" is a good example of the type of irrational argument one encounters on the site; China banned Wikipedia. Fred Talk 13:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The material from Quackwatch cited in the founding of fact in dispute, "Clayton College of Natural Health: Be Wary of the School and Its Graduates" by Stephen Barrett, M.D. is a good example of the sort of self-published material to be found on the site. Fred Talk 13:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

My personal point of view is more anti than pro alternative medicine, but I have no strong feelings which would have required recusal. Fred Talk 02:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Crohnie

When this finding was made and the arbitration was closed, editors used this finding to go to many articles to remove all mentions of QuackWatch from articles. They actually diffed to this finding saying that the arbs stated the QW was an unreliable source. Now this brings the questions, if the arbitrators didn't want to make a decision on content, then why did they? I have also seen attacks to Fyslee with this motion attached to prove that what he added was against the policies made by that decision. I believe that this does need to be rewritten so that it says that arbs do not make content decisions. Editors that go and remove all references to QW where it is being used appropriately should be warned if a new decision is written that this site is WP:Reliable source which from my readings here and at another arb case is being stated. I also agree that if another ref is available that should be used but it doesn't mean that QW has to be erased at the same time. This motion, in a nutshell, is used as battering ram to remove this source in WP:Fringe articles all to often. It is also used to debunk any editor who has placed the dif into an article. So in closing, I hope the arbitrators will either rewrite the section for clarity or do a new case to clarify this situation. Just a side note about this, Fyslee esp. has had to defend himself on many ocassions do to an editor warning him about using partisan sites against arbs ruling, this I also find to be a big problem for this editor to edit articles without the tensions that this motion has caused. Thank you for listening. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment & Question: If Fred Bauder wrote the motions why did he not recuse when he obviously has a very strong POV about all of this? This affects not only the use of the source but it affects the editor to whom he voted against. I am sorry but I think this is wrong. Just my opinion but I feel this is too personal for this arb to be making motions like this. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion, Since Fred Bauder admits he wrote the finding and also admits he has a strong POV personally about it I suggest the whole thing should be erased. Since he is no longer an arbitrator and didn't recuse at the time, then the section he wrote should be cancelled by the arbitrators now sitting. I understand that he doesn't think he should have recused himself but it obvious from comments being made that he should have at the time. This can be fixed by removing the sections written by him that had no evidence to prove it. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say that I agree with what Tony Sidaway points are below. Clarification would be appreciated, thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:DGG

Everyone interested in this subject area has biases. Those of Quackwatch are declared, and the general view of the scientific and medical world is that overall they are sound, and based on evidence. To the extent the finding was written by Bauder, it represents his personal viewpoint, which is not sound in the view of most of those in the general subject field (or at least such is my own bias); he is entitled to it, and articles should take appropriate account of such fringe viewpoints, but it illustrates unmistakably why arb com should not be making such pronouncements. The decision that resulted from his view is harmful to the basic principle of NPOV and objectivity. No source can be used uncritically; the tradition Wikipedia dichotomy between reliable|unreliable is too crude to be helpful in many situations. The finding was both beyond he remit of arbcom, then and now, and in any case simply wrong. Not that arbcom should declare Qw legitimate. Its legitimacy is no concern of the committee. Its use in articles is to be determined,as with all sources, on a case-by-case basis. I suppose it would be correct & within its remit for arb com to confirm, as a general principle of editing behavior, that people should regard sources in a careful manner. DGG (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Tony Sidaway

Some of the wording of the first motion looks a little odd.

The problems with some of the Quackwatch content are well known and I've no intention of defending that site. However the reasoning given in the proposed new wording seems to send a couple of confusing messages that could end up being badly misinterpreted. From experience of previous misunderstandings, I think it's reasonable to expect that any infelicitous or insufficiently clear wording could come back to cause problems in future, so it's worth striving to get this right.

The proposed new wording is:

The use of Quackwatch as a source is not banned; however, all editors are reminded of the instruction in the policy page on Neutral point of view that they should "give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner", that Quackwatch is a site "whose purpose is to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct", and is therefore explicitly not giving a balanced presentation. (emphasis mine).

The wording as it stands seems to imply two things:

that it is impossible to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies and misconduct by giving a balanced presentation.
that giving a balanced presentation of the field of frauds, myths, etc implies refraining from criticising such practises.

The problems with these interpretations are as follows.

Nothing in a balanced presentation can say anything about fraud except that it is wrong. A presentation that purports to defend the right to defraud, even if "balanced" by the victim's point of view, would be a sham. "These fellows harm their customers by their actions, and they do not care about it. On the other hand they make a lot of money which they may spend on philanthropic works." Obviously that's a mockery of balance.

A balanced presentation of any field, moreover, would necessarily cover it reasonably comprehensively. If there are active fraudsters at work, a balanced presentation will say so in sufficient detail to enable the reader to recognise the kind of problems at work and how to avoid them.

If the proposed wording were interpreted in this way, it would tend to cause problems where any website explicitly states "we're here to provide you with the information you need to avoid the health frauds." I'm sure this applies to several very reputable and well balanced organisations in my own country, including statutory trading standards bodies. The wording could be read to imply that such bodies are intrinsically biased, which (except for being against fraud and other crimes) they are not.

Please consider taking the time to clarify what you mean. The meaning is not clear to me. --TS 05:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Mihai cartoaje

Casliber should recuse because of his conflict of interest: Quackwatch has an attack page on Peter Breggin.

Clerk notes

Clerk note: 2 things: 1. Fred Bauder was the original author of this finding, and 2. there were multiple sections that had the same content in the original proposed decision page, see this and its subsections. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 13:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Side (i.e. non-clerk view): I think Fred meant this: Stephen Barrett's argument that China banned Falun Gong is irrational argument, as China also banned Wikipedia. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 14:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Motion 1.1 Is passing, due to be enacted in barring 4 arbiters changing their votes, will be enacted when motion 1's fate is determined. Motion 1 is currently not passing, and is due to be archived in 24 hours unless there are signs of more voting.--Tznkai (talk) 05:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

I did not agree with several aspects of the ruling at the time. The type of content that Quackwatch has gives it a slant and makes lean toward being a partisan source more than other medical resources, but is not an unreliable source and to characterize it as such is wrong. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The title and text of the finding could have been better phrased and better explained, because Quackwatch can in some circumstances be used as a source. As I understand this request for clarification, it is largely asking for a ban on Quackwatch to be lifted. That is not possible because there was no such ban: It is not the job of this committee to determine whether sources are reliable. The substance of the finding stands in relation to the original case: Quackwatch, as a campaigning site, should be deprecated in favour of sites which do not have a particular agenda to promote. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree in part with Sam above; I think more has been read into that ruling than was warranted. There is an observation that Quackwatch tends to be partisan, and should not be a preferred or exclusive source, but not that it is not a reliable source as is generally understood. — Coren ^(talk) 17:38, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
We can and should revise the wording of this FoF. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Suggest that we should revise the wording through issuing a clarification or correction, rather than changing the finding itself (which might have the effect of attempting to rewrite history). Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  - Agree with Sam. We should not be changing past rulings themselves. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  - Aye, that is what I meant. I would not be surprised if there is an appropriate FoF buried in the current wording, as there would be times when QuackWatch is an inappropriate source, however the current ruling implies that it is always an inappropriate source, which is wrong and needs to be corrected. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Fred, China also banned Falun gong; could you clarify your point please? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Deeming a source to be reliable or unreliable is almost always going to be a content decision and as such beyond our remit. However, as Sam says, the substance of the finding (that partisan sources should not be misused) stands; cf. this principle, for example. --bainer (talk) 02:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I tentatively agree with several of the comments above, but could a clerk please advise the arbitrator who wrote the original decision of this thread, as I would like to get his input, if any. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:33, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I contacted Fred, who drafted that decision. Ex-clerk, — Rlevse • Talk • 00:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see, the main contention comes from the wording of the header in the finding of fact: "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee". Suggest that the simplest change (if a new finding of fact is needed) is to drop the word "unreliable" to leave: "Use of sources by Fyslee". That takes the focus away from the reliability of the source, and focuses on the behaviour of Fyslee. The actual wording of the finding of fact still uses the word "partisan", which I think is reasonable, and the associated remedy (which passed 7-0) should still be fit for purpose: "Fyslee is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a NPOV. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits." That all seems fine, so I think that all that needs doing here is some way of noting that the header of the original finding of fact should either have "unreliable" removed, or that this word be replaced with "partisan". Carcharoth (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Fyslee has called for Fred Bauder to recuse himself "now". This misses the points that Fred Bauder is no longer an arbitrator and hasn't been since December 2007. The issue of recusal at the time is long gone and the focus here should be on what to do now, not what could or should have happened. Carcharoth (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
- Responding to Shoemaker's Holiday's comment on the word "partisan", several other arbitrators have used this term. FloNight said "...gives it a slant and makes [it] lean toward being a partisan source more than other medical resources..."; Sam said "Quackwatch, as a campaigning site, should be deprecated in favour of sites which do not have a particular agenda to promote."; Coren has said "There is an observation that Quackwatch tends to be partisan..."; Jayvdb has said "there would be times when QuackWatch is an inappropriate source"; bainer says "the substance of the finding (that partisan sources should not be misused) stands". Nearly every arbitrator so far has commented on the need to take care with the use of material on Quackwatch because of the nature of the site. Such sites can change over time, but the basic nature of the site, its raison d'etre, doesn't seem to be disputed. Carcharoth (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment. I think people are missing the forest for the trees here. I am convinced the Quackwatch issue is a thin cover in many, but not all, cases for nettlesome conflict, winning battles, and slamming points. There is some good faith disagreement, but largely it's just a stone for people to grind the same old axes in the general subject area. Quackwatch is obviously a biased source. It is just as obviously as reliable source. It clearly evinces a strong point of view, which is in essence the sort of strong skepticism usually seen among secular humanists. It is also clearly regarded as a reliable source by reputable bodies and figures within the relevant field (medicine). We use such sources all the time without such great controversy and conflict following standard conventions (such as WP:UNDUE). Vassyana (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Motion

There are 17 active arbitrators, so 9 votes are a majority. 14:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

1) In the finding "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" (3.2) in the Barrett v. Rosenthal case, the following additional finding is added:

The use of Quackwatch as a source is not banned; however, all editors are reminded of the instruction in the policy page on Neutral point of view that they should "give precedence to those sources that have been the most successful in presenting facts in an equally balanced manner", that Quackwatch is a site "whose purpose is to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct", and is therefore explicitly not giving a balanced presentation.

Support:

Proposed. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that this is helpful statement as an companion to the the proposal that I added about Fyslee. I see no way around the Committee making some type of a determination about the nature of this source if we are going to make a remedy about his use of the source. But I still think that labeling it an unreliable source is wrong and we need to backtrack on this aspect of the case ruling. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
~~Support.~~ --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

~~— Coren ^(talk) 18:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)~~
in the interests of expediency, though I agree with Vassyana that focus should be on conduct of editors nt use of sources, but if this is needed to clarify things and push forward, so be it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 17:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

~~Second choice, prefer 1.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)~~ I misread 1 and 1.1 as alternatives; I think 1.1 suffices for now, and we can revisit sourcing issues if needed in the current Fringe science case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose:

Worded in such a way as to create the impression the source should not be used. See my general comments. Vassyana (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Still not comfortable with the direction of this finding of fact. Too much focus on judging the source, which can change over time and should be left to the editing community to judge. The original finding of fact was sufficient, and the header change below is all that is needed, in my opinion. As below, would prefer that the wording focus on the behaviour of editors, not judgment of content and sources. For example, the other side of the coin also needs to be addressed here, namely the behaviour of editors who used the previous finding of fact to target those using Quackwatch as a source. The degree and appropriateness of that sort of behaviour also need to come under scrutiny, I feel. Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
In retrospect, I agree that the motion below is sufficient to address this finding being misused, and that the formulation here might cause further misinterpretation. — Coren ^(talk) 03:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Abstain:

Not sure about this. Would prefer that the wording focus on the behaviour of editors, not judgment of content and sources. For example, the other side of the coin also needs to be addressed here, namely the behaviour of editors who used the previous finding of fact to target those using Quackwatch as a source. The degree and appropriateness of that sort of behaviour also need to come under scrutiny, I feel. Carcharoth (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Switched to oppose. Carcharoth (talk) 03:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In retrospect, although Quackwatch is unashamedly partisan, that's not automatically a bad thing and I don't think it's necessary to focus this much on it. I can think of many instances in other areas were sources strongly advocate a position without distorting or cherry-picking information to advance it. Facts often speak for themselves. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 06:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Per my comment above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Recuse. Cool Hand Luke 22:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator Discussion of motion:

For me, a large part of the problem with the original Fof was the use of the term "unreliable source". FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

1.1) That the header of the finding "Use of unreliable sources by Fyslee" (3.2) in the Barrett v. Rosenthal case be changed to "Sources used by Fyslee".

Support

Proposed. To supplement motion (1) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Perfect. I was getting ready to add this exact wording. :-) FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. I actually feel the is the more important of the two— NPOV handles normally in this case, but the association of "unreliable" with "Quackwatch" because caused undue interpretation. — Coren ^(talk) 18:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Support, as this was a suggestion I made. I think this alone may be enough, but see comments above. Carcharoth (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Obvious correction. Vassyana (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Per previous. We need neutral headings. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Wizardman 17:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Support. This should be sufficient. Risker (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

Abstain

Recuse. Cool Hand Luke 22:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator discussion of motion:

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.

Request to amend prior case: Special enforcement on BLP (January 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion 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.

Statement by Barberio

Original request text and responses.

I ask for review of this case, in particular the Special enforcement on biographies of living persons remedy on the following grounds,

The process created by this has,
- Generally been neglected in use by the majority of administrators, and has only seen formal use twice. [11] One logged incident could have been enacted under existing speedy deletion rules, and the other case resulted in escalation to Arbitration to be resolved.
- Appears to have been used by a minority as grounds to threaten use of the process in warnings that were not logged on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Special_enforcement_log [12]
- Uses the term "Any and all means", which may be read to mean they may ignore all other standards, policy and expectations of administrator behaviour.
- Despite several concerns being raised about the wording of the process/policy, change of it was directly barred on the grounds that it would require appeal to the arbitration committee as they held full ownership over it as a remedy.
The Arbitration Policy at the time of the case did not allow for such process/policy creating remedies. And the Arbitration Committee made no attempt to alter the policy to grant these extended powers.
An RFC on Arbitration Conduct had overwhelming opposition to allowing such process/policy creating remedies. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee

I would like an answer to the following questions,

In light of the lack of correct use of the process, and it's apparent misuse in incorrect threatening warnings, should this process/policy be marked as "historical" or "failed policy" or allowed to continue?
What was the intent of the phrase "any and all means" used, and on reflection was this wording appropriate?
Did the Arbitration Policy allow for such process/policy creating remedies?
Should the Arbitration Policy allow for such process/policy creating remedies?
Can such processes/policy if created be fully owned by the Arbitration Committee with no ability for community review as with other processes/policy?
What lessons if any should be taken in future arbitration committee conduct from this?

Note: I would appreciate independent answers from all active members of the committee, considering the importance of this issue. --Barberio (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I do not think it would be appropriate to allow the process/policy to stand if the issue has been 'punted' into the distance and review postponed until some unknown later date. If you can, please provide a specifict date that this 'review' will be conducted.

Otherwise, consider this an request to conduct this review immediately, or I will open an RfC on the topic and the community may conduct one. --Barberio (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

A response to Statement by Daniel.

The results of the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee called for some pretty clear changes to the Arbitration Policy. I proposed that we put some of them to ratification at the arbitration vote.

However, I was promised that this was not needed because the committee had taken the call for change on advisement, and Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating would be enacted. So I withdrew on the understanding that the Arbitration policy would eventually be changed.

No movement had been made on that since October.

Yes, I am feeling rather "ticked off" at the Arbitration Committee for failing to follow through on promises of reform. And I am reluctant to accept promise now that they will look into it later.

I am prepared to state this... If this review does not happen in a timely manner then the issue should rightfully be removed from their hands. --Barberio (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

ps. I admire the irony of being told off for demanding immediate action, as well as being told of for trying to get problems with Arbitration addressed for A YEAR. --Barberio (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to Kirill. Yes, I am calling for amendment of the remedy. The questions asked are directed at identifying issues with the remedy and it's results, and how that would effect any amendment of that remedy. While the question of if the remedy as written was acceptable under the arbitration policy at the time is 'constitutional', I do feel it is an issue which needs to be addressed when amending it.

However, I am willing to drop issues of 'constitutional' scope, if I can have a binding promise of a date at which the ArbCom are willing to report to the community on reform. Unfortunately, the committee has a poor past record of responding timely to issues, and I can not help but feel that enough time was already given to respond during and after the RfC. So a deadline by which the committee will provide a report on how it will reform would be a great help to prevent distrust that the process will not occur at all --Barberio (talk) 23:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Judging from the votes, the Arbitration Committee is reluctant to give any indication that while they accept they should review this, they will not do so now, nor will they give any specified time at which they will do so, nor any fixed deadline by which they will provide a report. And it's odd that 'the new membership has only just arrive' is used as an excuse considering promises by candidates 'to hit the ground running', and that candidates could not be ignorant of these issues considering the public RfC.

So here's a direction...

Provide a report by April 3rd 2009 on the review of the issues involved. If I don't get anything back by then, I will restart the process to change the arbitration policy by notifying the foundation that we'll be having a ratification vote on the changes to the arbitration policy that were recommended during the RfC.

Yes. This is an ultimatum. I don't mean to prod you with sticks, this isn't a crusade, but it is direction that you can't keep saying you will 'investigate reform' without providing any. If you really can't provide some kind of report on reform in three months, then this issue is probably going to have to bypass you. --Barberio (talk) 04:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Jayvdb. The 'overwhelming opposition to creation of new policy/process' came from Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee#No_New_Policy. So there already was traction on overruling the arbcom's decision to create new policy/process.

However, administrators who support the use of the new policy/process have reverted any attempt to deprecate the policy, on the grounds that it is owned by the Arbitration Committee and can not be changed by the community.

Can I take this group shrugging of shoulders as sign that you don't own it, and the community can do what it wants with the page, or is Arbitration Committee ownership still claimed? --Barberio (talk) 12:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to stress again one of the reasons that this needs urgent review.

The new policy/process appears to have been used by a minority as grounds to threaten use of the process in warnings that were not logged on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Special_enforcement_log [13]. This appears to be being taken under the "Any and all means" clause, but without being logged there is not ability to ensure that it is being used appropriately, and not simply as a means to stifle otherwise appropriate discussion or content.

Since the Arbitration Committee have claimed full ownership of this process/policy, enough administrators are willing to block any community effort to alter the process/policy. This means that the community can not alter the process/policy, and it seems that the only changes that will be accepted are ones directly from the Arbitration Committee.

You broke it. So either you fix it, or allow the community to fix it. --Barberio (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yet another reply on this...

The community can not alter the policies involved, because Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/BLP_Special_Enforcement has turned it into an "Arbitration owned" policy.

Even if the community could, what policy would be acceptable by the arbitration committee? How do we know what the requirements are going to be for you to decide to lift Special Enforcement? Can we then go back and change the BLP policy later, or is it going to be carved in stone again?

Frankly, and to risk being incivil, you guys haven't thought any of this through have you? You've not sat down and worked out the implications of this mess. You're now refusing to do so, or at least refusing to say when you will do so, despite it being a major issue, and one that decided a lot of people's votes in the election. And you're refusing to allow the community to fix it, by still claiming ownership of the process/policy.

Why are you acting in a way that damages this wiki?--Barberio (talk) 13:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

In light of the reluctance of the arbitration committee to set out any timeline or agenda on addressing the issues raised, I withdraw my request.

Instead, this is a notification, that I would expect the arbitration committee to investigate this issue by April 2nd 2009, and be able to report back to the community their findings and intents on reform.

Concurrently the process to create a new Arbitration Policy, based on discussions from Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee, and Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating will be restarted, and will proceed with the expectations of a ratification vote some time before Q3 of 2009, regardless of if the Arbitration Committee reports back on reform or not. Arbitration Committee members are invited to take part in this process with the same respect as any other editor. --Barberio (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain why expecting ArbCom to do something timely about a mess they caused, and reminding them that they operate at the consent of the community, is 'threatening them'? --Barberio (talk) 14:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

To clarify this a little...

Committee, it may have escaped your notice, but you are now in positions of authority in an organisation that has a turn over of over 6 million dollars, is an important reference tool used by tens of millions, and is almost a household name.

If you feel threatened by public calls to work to formal agendas, set out time tables, and approach the job with professionalism and readiness from day one, then you may not understand the positions you volunteered to. --Barberio (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Daniel

I don't think threatening the Committee with an RfC if they don't do exactly what you want, right now, is either appropriate or an intelligent move. The community cannot overrule this motion, except by overruling each individual application of it, so a community RfC is pointless unless, of course, you simply intend to continue your crusade against the Committee which I have observed over the last year. Daniel (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Tony Sidaway

From the beginning, there has been an air of Chicken Little about some of the responses to the special enforcement provisions. As it happens, the remedy doesn't seem to have been adopted by the administrators, so the rational thing for the arbitration committee to do would be to continue to quietly ignore it as many enabling remedies are ignored if they are not needed or turn out to be unsuitable. No review action is necessary because the dire doom-saying turns out to have been wrong. It is not part of the Committee's business to investigate imaginary or hypothetical grievances. The sky did not fall.

The Committee retains the authority to settle disputes and, by tradition, may delegate that authority through enabling remedies that describe how administrators may enforce the policies which we have created through discussion and consensus. No proposal to limit that right of delegation has gained consensus, to my knowledge. --TS 15:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

BarBerio, you know that threatening ArbCom at this juncture does not do anything, right? - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 16:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

Request noted. I think an open review is needed here, though my views are that this is all to do with WP:ADMIN and arbitration and administrative enforcement, and not really to do with the BLP policy. So from my point of view, the question is whether to review this 'special enforcement' by itself, or together with reviews of other enforcement areas (such as arbitration enforcement). I also note Barberio's six questions, but am deferring specific answers until an actual review process takes place. Carcharoth (talk) 19:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline Will be included as part of Arbitration Enforcement review remedy, so I see no need for a special review of this particular enforcement remedy now. FloNight ♥♥♥ 19:28, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
What exactly is being asked here? The title is "Request to amend" (emphasis mine), the first sentence asks for review, and the rest is a series of questions; Barberio, are you requesting a change to the ruling (and, if so, what is that change) or a general discussion about the constitutional role of the Committee? The former may be a matter of some urgency (although, if the ruling isn't even being used, I'm not sure why that would be); the latter is not, and a request for clarification is not a good venue for it in any case. If you're just looking for reform, we're working on it; poking us with pointy sticks, while no doubt entertaining, will unfortunately not make it move along any faster. ;-) Kirill 23:24, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline per FloNight. I will point out that over half of the current committee has taken office just over 24 hours ago. While this is definitely something that will be addressed, we have not had sufficient time (or attendance) to establish an agenda and timeline, and both must be somewhat fluid to allow for activity on this page. Risker (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline but with careful reasons:
1. I was the single strongest opposer to the BLPSE decision, Barerio. I described it as a extremely worrying misjudgement since in my view it would not resolve the problem but escalate it. Even so, for me, it is within the remit of the committee:
  WMF and the community have both agreed BLP is crucially important and has very high standing as policy; both agree admins enforce policy. In a more and more pressing and difficult situation, Wikipedia Arbitration may lean towards the draconian to solve a communal problem. The concern was about resolving the perennial disputes over BLP enforcement, and the undermining of BLP. The decision was admins should apply the tools they have very hard indeed if needed to procure BLP compliance. Giving this a name ("special enforcement") does not change that this was an extreme version of ArbCom's usual role:- ie, that given a conflict, Arbcom's role is deciding the best way existing consensus-accepted policies apply and are interpreted in the situation, to good effect and for best benefit of the project. Admins have a wide scope of tool usage discretion within communal norms. Tool usage can range from "very gentle" to "very firm". In this case the answer was "Policy and norms are served best by using admin access very firmly indeed in the case of BLP disruption, and by setting enforcement measures to ensure they are able to use their tools to enforce policy fully". This was clearly felt by the Arbitrators to be situated well within existing policies (although clearly a draconian use for an exceptional problem), and I agree on that point, regardless of whether I personally do or don't support the actual decision.
2. It is normal when saying something may be done a given way, or enforced (eg any sanction) for Arbcom to also spell out exactly how that should work - who may act, what guidance they have on acting, how enforcement should work, and so on. This formed the bulk of that ruling. Apart from the draconian nature of the matter being enforced, it's quite a usual type of content for a decision.
3. Arbitration looks forward. It's clear there may be merit in revisiting this, but to pull the current view to pieces is not going to happen here. It's something one might do in reviewing the entire area of enforcement, which is a more rounded issue, and is likely to be looked at anyway, as FloNight and Kirill said.
FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline This is already high on the agenda for review in due course. The current arbitrators are reform-minded but most of us have only been in the job twenty-four hours and Rome, as they say, wasn't built in a day. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline. I personally think BLPSE was overreaching, endorse it being deprecated, but the committee has got buckley's chance of devising an improvement to this complex problem as a quick motion. Also, I dont see an overwhelming community consensus at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee#WP:BLPSE, so if you want traction on this ... please do initiate Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BLPSE. --John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
No New Policy (which I strongly agree with) was not a community endorsed view that the committee should overturn all previous remedies that were overreaching. I just told you how the community can fix it: the community needs to develop a NGBLPSE so that the committee remedy can be deprecated. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Placeholder, to state that I will post my thoughts on this tonight or tomorrow (I'm in transit with limited access at the moment). Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment. I agree with Roger. The majority of the Committee is new. We're still all getting up to speed on an inordinately large number of issues, cases and previous discussions. I know the majority of my wiki time has been spent reading previous discussions and cases, while still keeping up on the current emails, requests and cases. We are reviewing the RfC results and some previous cases, but please give us a bit of time to get settled in. Vassyana (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline for now, per Vass and others above. I know I don't have time yet for this. Wizardman 20:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline per John Vandenberg's rationale. I also agree with Tony Sidaway—seldom-used policies are not problematic. It might be that BLPSE no longer has any teeth (if it ever did). It might be that invoking BLPSE should be safe, legal, and rare (not unlike another of our policies). It might be necessary to have an actual controversy to determine whether the remedy is working. In any case, it would be best to resolve this later. Cool Hand Luke 22:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

Request for declaration: WP:BLPSE (January 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion 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.

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

I think that all that is really needed to solve this issue is a declaration by the committee that WP:BLPSE may be modified, rejected, rewritten, or otherwise dealt with by the community. Given that, I have no doubt that this would rapidly become a non-issue. May I suggest the committee throw it to a community revision process for a month or two, and review it after that time? (Feel free to rapidly close this, if the decline of the last request was intended to put off all discussion of this case) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

To Tony: Agreed, but I don't think that any substantive change is going to happen without Arbcom's official encouragement that the community review it and attempt to work it into a policy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Tony Sidaway

WP:BLPSE has no connection with arbcom except that it contains text from a decision (which is recorded elsewhere and may only be changed by motion from arbcom). It has a hatnote describing it, correctly, as "[documenting] an Arbitration Committee decision on administrative enforcement of policies related to biographical articles on the English Wikipedia." It was not created by arbcom or by anyone connected to arbcom or anyone acting as an agent of arbcom. It's just a page created by a Wikipedia user. --TS 06:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

All BLPSE says is that admins are authorized to use their tools to enforce the BLP. They are already authorized to use their tools to enforce all Wikipedia policies, but this just sets up a formal mechanism. No policy change is required. This just says that admins are allowed to do their job and specifies how the arbitration committee expects them to do it. --TS 08:27, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

The last request Shoemaker's Holiday is referring to above was recently declined here. This request appears to be somewhat separate standalone request. Tiptoety ^talk 00:28, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

Decline, just as we declined a similar proposal a few days ago. The committee will be reviewing past decisions, including this one, in the future. In the interim, while it may not be being used, it is also not causing any harm in its current format. Risker (talk) 14:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline; the fact that this policy clearly intended to be used as a last resort is, indeed, only used rarely means that there is no harm in letting it stay until the committee has had the opportunity to examine the wider context in detail. — Coren ^(talk) 16:35, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline per Risker and Coren. Wizardman 17:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it's clear that the community retains prime policy-writing authority. Requiring editors to ask ArbCom "mother may I?" seems like a bad precedent, so I reject the overture. Therefore decline. You remain free, as you always have, to seek community consensus. Cool Hand Luke 19:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline, per recent declined motion and Cool Hand Luke. Vassyana (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

Request for amendment: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal (January 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion 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.

Notifications

Talk:Paranormal#arbcom_redux

Talk:Parapsychology#arbcom_redux

Fringe science Arbcom

It is presumed that interested parties will see at least one of these, others may be notified as appropriate.

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk)

If the arbcom will indulge one more request: Several findings in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal are being claimed to be binding content decisions, notably in the current Fringe science arbcom case.

I think that it would be better if the following were retracted or tweaked, as they represent content decisions:

“

5) "Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist.

”

Request: clarification: While this is probably good enough for normal articles, one does feel that in the articles Psychic, Clairvoyant, and the like that this shouldn't apply. Example (from Psychic): "The word psychic ... refers to a proposed ability to perceive things hidden from the normal senses through what is described as extra-sensory perception, or to those people said to have such abilities." - I think that both clarifications are necessary in a lead sentence.

“

6) Wikipedia covers many notable subjects which may not have a referent in the real world. A discussion of the epistemological status of such subjects is often included in articles regarding such subjects such as "mythical creature" or "a hypothetical conflict", but not every referral to mythical beasts or projected future events need be accompanied by a qualifier.

”

Request: clarification: Pretty much per above.

“

9) Articles exist which contain flat assertions of fact regarding fantastic formulations, for example Astral projection starts off "Astral projection (or astral travel) is an out-of-body experience achieved either awake or via lucid dreaming or deep meditation." and contains nowhere in the article the viewpoint that there is no such thing. Others such as Astral plane contain attribution, "The astral plane, also called the astral world or desire world, is a plane of existence according to esoteric philosophies, some religious teachings and New Age thought."

”

Request: withdraw: Violates Wikipedia:FRINGE#Reporting_on_the_levels_of_acceptance, WP:UNDUE (Last revision before a recent attempt to clarify an issue that I am involved with), and WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience ("Pseudoscience is a social phenomenon and therefore may be significant, but it should not obfuscate the description of the main views, and any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, should explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.")

“

10.1) According to the Parapsychological Association, parapsychology should not be confused with sensational, unscientific beliefs and stories about "the paranormal". This has occurred in some instances; for example Ectoplasm (parapsychology).

”

Request: Withdraw as inaccurate: The Parapsychological Association itself thinks that Ectoplasm is part of Parapsychology: [14]

“

11) In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking.

”

Request: Withdraw. Explicit content decision, or very easily read as such.

I think that a good part of this case was a mistake: most of the decision relates to content without even discussing the editors in question. It's hard to justify why "Three layer cake with frosting" (11), or the simply inaccurate "Conflation of parapsychology with unscientific concepts" (10.1) passed in the first place. Three layer cake, in particular, has been endlessly abused to beat up people with the mainstream POV. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 08:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to arbitrators

The main problem is that, while decisions aren't binding on the Arbcom, they're usually treated as binding on the community. Old content decisions in this case have the potential to make editing in those fields awkward for years to come. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Martinphi

We went through this, it was clarified. It isn't about specific intellectual content, but helps to show when an editor is POV pushing. I'll have more later, perhaps, but parapsychology studies paranormal claims usually without confirming them, and often debunking them. That's what it is, so of course ectoplasm is part of parapsychology. Also: no, it hasn't been used against people with a mainstream POV, but only with a POV which wishes to do the same kind of defamatory stuff the ArbCom was responding to at the time. If debunking is mainstream, it's also not NPOV. ——Martin^phi Ψ~Φ—— 20:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Decline, as much of this issue is under review in a current matter. Please also see Wikipedia:Arbitration policy, wherein the rules include the following statement: "Former decisions will not be binding on the Committee - rather, they intend to learn from experience." It is appropriate to discuss your concerns in the fringe science case directly. Risker (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline. Much of this will be addressed by Fringe Science, however. — Coren ^(talk) 16:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline per Risker and Coren. We need to be forward looking. Our new case work can handle this issue. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:49, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline, fringe science is thataway. Wizardman 17:34, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment. This does seem best handled in the currently open case addressing such issues. Is there any compelling reason to address the matter separately? Vassyana (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline. WP:MULTI. Cool Hand Luke 19:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline, this is redundant — Rlevse • Talk • 23:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline without prejudice to considering these issues as appropriate in a pending or future case. I will add that I remember reading the Paranormal decision when it was being voted on (I was the Clerk on that case) and thinking that some of the findings were a little more content-based than is usual. (I also remember being surprised at the inclusion of an official ArbCom finding of fact captioned ""Three layer cake with frosting", but that is a matter of style.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline per others. Would expect these concerns to be addressed at the Fringe science case. Unlike the previous request, this one is too complicated to deal with here. Also, per my previous comment, if evidence of allegedly 'inappropriate use of past ArbCom decisions during subsequent editing' hasn't been submitted to the Fringe science case, please feel free to do so. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline without prejudice to considering similar concerns during the Fringe Science case. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 13:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline as will be covered by Fringe Science case, so please take part over there. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

Request for clarification: BLPSE (January 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion 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.

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

SirFozzie (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
MacGyverMagic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by SirFozzie

This is in regards to the redirect Didiot, which is a redirect to Laura Didio. This redirect has been through two deletion discussions at RfD, where it was decided to be kept twice. However, the redirect is a BLP Violation (it's basically calling a living person an idiot), and thus, by its very nature, there can be no "neutral" form to revert to. Thus, it is an Attack Page, and should be deleted speedily by reason of Speedy Deletion under the G10. Krimpet (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) deleted the article on the 8th, per BLP. However, MacGyverMagic (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has undone the deletion. Rather then create havoc by enforcing this via WP:BLPSE, which is currently in a limbo area, I thought it would be best to get an ArbCom clarification on this. Does a redirect that refer to a living person in a derogatory, vulgar fashion, such as this, qualify under WP:BLP as an attack page, and should it speedily be deleted. (Please note, I am not asking for sanctions against MGM, just clarification if this should be deleted under WP:BLP/BLPSE. Thank you)

If you search for "didiot", only one of the first three pages in Google's search refers to Laura Didio, so we can't even claim that she's more recognizable under this vulgar nickname rather then her real name.

SirFozzie (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's the current DRV for Krimpet's deletion (that's turned into a DRV for MacGyverMagic's unilateral undeletion): Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_January_9#Didiot

First RfD Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_16#Didiot_.E2.86.92_Laura_DiDio

2nd RfD Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_26#Didiot_.E2.86.92_Laura_Didio

Please note the low participation in both RfD discussions. SirFozzie (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(The reason I brought this is that an admin had already promised to use BLPSE to delete the redirect should the DRV decide to keep the redirect in question, and a couple people strongly objected. Rather thn see it happened, I figured it would be best to get clarification on the base issue, whether a redirect could violate BLP. I'm getting the opinion that it can here, so that's something useful. SirFozzie (talk) 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC))

Statement by John254

The redirect violated the biographies of living persons policy, was correctly deleted by Krimpet, and was inappropriately and unilaterally restored by MacGyverMagic without comment [15]. This conclusion should be confined to the specific facts presented here, namely, that there was extremely little interest in the preceding RFD discussions. It would be grossly inappropriate to extend the same procedure of unilateral deletion to other post XFD discussion contexts: e.g., summarily deleting an article citing the biographies of living persons policy soon after another administrator had closed a controversial AFD discussion concerning it as "keep" or "no consensus". In most situations, the general principle articulated in the criteria for speedy deletion applies: "If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements." However, irrespective of whether any speedy deletion is actually correct, unilateral reversal of a good-faith deletion (or any other good-faith administrative action) without a log summary is considered to be wheel-warring in its most objectionable form. MacGyverMagic should have waited for the closure of the deletion review concerning the redirect. John254 01:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Avruch

This seems to be premature. I see no reason why this can't be dealt with by the community without the involvement of the arbitration committee. Avruch^T 01:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

RE to NYB. I'm not sure I see how the current redirect to Idiot is worse than the previous one. It still implies something, but less obviously I think... And as you've probably seen, I've argued that it should be deleted both on the DRV and the new RfD. The redirect doesn't belong, but its current iteration still seems an improvement. Avruch^T 18:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval

Use multi-word terms with quotes, when there are several separate terms use the plus sign to force that a certain term always appears on the results:

"laura nickname" gives only 40 non-repeated results
"laura didio" nickname gives only 90

Also, arbcom should double clarify that WP:BLP enforcement extends to all pages, including redirects, templates, whatever. Make a motion to a add a little note to Wikipedia:BLPBAN

P.D.: I re-nominated since it points to a different article, nom is somewhat related to this case: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_10

Statement by JzG

A redirect from a derogatory nickname to a biography of a living individual is something that should only be considered when the term is extremely widely used in a large number of reputable sources, and thus a likely search term. This particular nickname has no such obvious wide currency. In fact, it appears very much as if the intention is to use Wikipedia precisely in order to create such currency. No "special measures" are needed to nuke crap like this, it can just be nuked under WP:CSD#G10 and citing WP:BLP. I sincerely hope this always was the case, and that we don't now have to jump through additional hoops in order to get rid of such foolishness. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MacGyverMagic

Based on the Google link provided by FT2 in his comment below, I've come to the conclusion this particular misspelling is not common enough for a redirect, so I will redelete it. Still, I'd like arbcom to clarify what should happen in cases were a potential misspelling IS common and can be seen as disparaging by some. (I still believe my assessment of the prononciation holds) - Mgm|^(talk) 12:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

Without commenting on the general applicability of BLPSE, the deletion of the redirect was within admin discretion in this case and it should not have been reverted without wider discussion (DRV would have been a reasonable venue). — Coren ^(talk) 01:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Per Coren above; contested deletions are discussed at DRV, not undeleted. As well, without commenting on the general applicability of BLP, perhaps someone might want to actually do a google search on "DiDio" "Didiot", and reconsider the redirect based on those findings. Risker (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Decline. Incidentally, I note that the redirect has been redeleted. Risker (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The nickname redirect is an interesting conundrum. It is also clearly a content issue and a question for the editorial community (is it a redirect the community wants to create or delete). The nickname has some amount of usage (Laura Nickname Laura Nickname Didio). The dispute issue is balancing the priorities of BLP vs. Notability, but this has not visibly caused "divisiveness" that the community cannot resolve, but rather, it has led to concerns by some users about the "rightness" of the decision. Although BLP is important, this request is not suited for arbitration, and RFAR is not an appeal from DRV. As such, I do not feel it appropriate to comment as an arbitrator on this specific content issue.
Overall, decline as both a case and a clarification - the problem is a classic content issue, and no strong evidence of "too divisive for the community". Arbitration help might be needed if there was a "too divisive" dispute or much poor conduct over the deletion, recreation, or close, or if attempts to resolve the disputed reversal had been made but failed, but that hasn't visibly been the issue. A "clarification" would involve reviewing the appropriate handling of the dispute or the admin action, but neither of those is yet at a "last resort" stage; there are many routine communal ways available for a good resolution to be reached. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

On a side, the article Laura Didio (separate from the redirect) contained a short paragraph on this topic material that I did have concerns about. As an editor and not an arbitrator I have edited this section to leave the less contentious encyclopedic material. Any editor may override this within the bounds of normal content policy (BLP, NPOV, NOT, RS, etc); it is not an "arbitration or admin action". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Decline. I think the community can and will resolve this matter, but that is not to say there is nothing of concern here. Vassyana (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Further comment. I was very politely asked to clarify the concerns implied by my declining statement. A brief overview of the situation from my perspective should suffice. An RfD had two brief comments stating it was a vicious insult. A third comment !voted keep while noting the term is used as an "attack nickname in various forums by some advocates of open source software". The discussion was closed as "Keep". Another RfD immediately followed that was closed because the previous request was just closed. An administrator deleted the redirect as a BLP violation. The editor that indicated keep on the first RfD filed a DRV. Less than four hours later another administrator undeleted the redirect, posting an "Overturn" comment in the DRV that stated (in small part) "I think it should be restored and I have done so". The redirect had it's target changed from the BLP article to idiot. Discussion is ongoing (and so far leaning overwhelmingly towards one direction). Vassyana (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline. The best outcome is for the community to sort this out without our assistance, and expanding the scope of BLPSE is definitely not going to help. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline. A community issue, suggest DRV. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
The current redirect of "Didiot" to "idiot," while seemingly well-intentioned as a way to take search-engine traffic away from the original version, is even less acceptable than the prior version, and I'm tempted to summarily delete it myself. This whole situation is the sort of thing that leads to justifable criticism of the site. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline Wizardman 17:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline as premature. As long as admins and the Community are using the proper venues to reach consensus then no Committee action is needed. If admins start to voice their opinions by using their tools that is wheelwaring and a case will be needed. FloNight ♥♥♥ 22:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline as premature. This should be a straightforward fix with some more eyes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience (January 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion 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.

Note: the specific article involved is List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

Backin72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

(Note: since this case involves an article and not any specific editor(s), neither I nor the parties below are directly affected. However, I've notified all active editors as a courtesy, and have left a note on the article's talk page.)

ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Dematt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Fyslee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hgilbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Levine2112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Verbal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Eldereft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Enric Naval (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hans Adler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Headbomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Elonka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Statement by Backin72

We are at an impasse regarding use of the "pseudoscience" label at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. Certain of the findings of principle in the Pseudoscience Arb case were incorporated into NPOV (see: WP:PSCI), and are now being disregarded. Basically, some editors want to characterize as pseudoscience any topic that has received criticism as such, even from self-published sources like Quackwatch and CSICOP. We've had a bunch of RfC's (I stopped counting before 2008: 19 Jan. 2008, 15 Aug. 2008, 18 Nov. 2008, 28 Dec. 2008), all of which have failed to generate consensus, and lately a lot of edit-warring (see edit history). We're deadlocked, other attempts at WP:DR have not worked, and each side is convinced they are right, so I believe the time is ripe for ArbCom to clarify.

It wasn't supposed to be this way. WP:PSCI is quite clear on what to explictly characterize (or label, or categorize) as pseudoscience, and what not to. For convenience (at the expense of the 500-word limit; sorry), here is a cut-and-paste of WP:PSCI:

In an Arbitration Committee case, which can be read in full here, the committee created distinctions among the following:
Obvious pseudoscience: "Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more [justification]."

Generally considered pseudoscience: "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."

The ArbCom ruled that the following should generally not be characterized as pseudoscience:

Questionable science: "Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized."

Alternative theoretical formulations: "Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process."

It's pretty clear what NPOV is telling us: don't categorize or otherwise characterize a topic as pseudoscience unless it's trivially "obvious pseudoscience" (and requires no reference), or it's "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". Classifying a topic as the latter obviously requires a suitable source, cf. WP:RS#Consensus, and also WP:MEDRS. Such sources usually are scientific academies or other mainstream, official groups (e.g., many of the sources listed in List of scientific societies rejecting intelligent design). Skeptical advocacy organizations like Quackwatch and CSICOP, while notable (and perhaps suitable for establishing that a topic is what we call "questionable science"), cannot be taken as representing general agreement in the scientific community. Such sources suffer from self-selection bias, and don't even meet WP:MEDRS at all.

However, some editors don't believe that inclusion of "questionable sciences" on the list violates WP:PSCI.[16] One editor says "a list is not a category", irrespective of the list's title.[17] Some want to populate the list as robustly as possible, and have tended to brush off the objection that we must find the proper sources, i.e., those indicative of what the scientific community generally holds. This is especially problematic given that the list's title is unambiguous: "List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts" leaves no wiggle room, any more than category:pseudoscience does. When we put a topic on that list, we are saying that the topic is pseudoscience, no ifs, ands or buts.

My view is that if we keep the list's present title, we should strip out all topics that are not verifiably "generally considered pseudoscience" or "obvious pseudoscience". If we changed the list's title to something like "List of topics referred to as pseudoscience", then I think it would be OK to include "questionable sciences". However, I'm still concerned that we'd have to clearly demarcate the clear-cut pseudosciences from the "questionable" ones. Otherwise, it's like having an alphabetical "List of burglars, and people who might have been burglars according to speculation". It's a violation of WP:WEIGHT to have clear-cut pseudosciences alongside grey-area topics.

So, I request that ArbCom clarify that findings 15-18 in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience accordingly:

Proper sources are required to show that a topic is "generally considered pseudoscience". (I believe it would also be appropriate to clarify that statements from individual scientists or skeptical bodies do not suffice as sources here.)

These findings apply not only to "category:pseudoscience", but also to lists with unambiguous titles such as List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, as well as to navigational templates, and any unqualified assertion such as "X topic is pseudoscience". "Questionable sciences" and "alternative theoretical formulations" should not be depicted as pseudoscience, e.g. via inclusion on the list in question, as titled.

Don't hide distinctions in the fine print. Obvious or generally-considered pseudosciences should not be conflated with questionable sciences by listing them alongside each other without explanation. WP:WEIGHT and other principles require that questionable sciences be clearly demarcated from the former two, either by having their own list, or otherwise by annotation or segregation into a separate section of a broader list (e.g., a "List of topics referred to as pseudosciences").

Thank you for taking the time to consider this matter. --Backin72 (n.b.) 13:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment for Coren and others: Yes, this is a content problem; so were aspects of the original ruling and finding (see WP:PSCI). In practice, ArbCom does comment on content from time to time, and WP is better for it. Please have a look at those RfC's I linked to before blowing this off to "community resolution". Said community is deadlocked, with some believing that everything on the list, grey-areas included, are obviously pseudoscience. But the sourcing situation is a little bit different than Eldereft's humorous renaming example below. There are pseudosciences according to the scientific community, and "pseudosciences" according to lesser sources like advocacy groups or individual critics. There are editors who, like skeptical groups, want to apply this label to as many things as possible, in an WP:IAR spirit, because they believe they're right. Others believe WP:PSCI was correct and should be followed strictly. This has created the present impasse. If the community never resolves it, and there are real NPOV problems, shouldn't ArbCom intervene? --Backin72 (n.b.) 21:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment for Rlevse and Vassyana: I don't think the Fringe Science case will help much; nothing in the proposed principles addresses WP:PSCI (probably because it's not all that germaine). Please don't be too hasty in blowing this off. If the community could fix it, it would have done so in the past couple years. We have an impasse between editors who take WP:PSCI seriously and editors who want to IAR because they feel the pseudoscience label is best used liberally. We've tried virtually every part of WP:DR, which is why we're at the end of it .... here. So, have another look? Pretty please? It's a fairly narrow issue. --Backin72 (n.b.) 08:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval

Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts is currenty a crapola because of so much arguing over that WP:PSCI ruling, but the modifications proposed by Backin would just make it worse. It just deepens the "content ruling" problem by a) expanding its scope and b) enforcing stricter limitations on content.

While that ruling needs modification, this doesn't look the correct way to go.

Statement by Elonka

This is really more of a content dispute than anything that ArbCom needs to deal with. As background, I have been acting as an administrator for the last few days at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, trying to help stabilize the article via the discretionary sanctions authorized from the Pseudoscience case. There currently appear to be three main points of dispute, though all three appear (to me) to be the topics of constructive discussion on the talkpage. The main three issues are: (1) What should the page be titled; (2) Should Chiropractic be included on the list; and (3) Should Traditional Chinese medicine (such as acupuncture) be included on the list. Up until about a week ago, there were pretty systematic back and forth revert wars going on, but since there has been more administrator attention on the article, the revert wars have stopped, and the discussion environment seems to be improving on the talkpage. No direct sanctions have been implemented (at least by me), though I did post a few nudges to the talkpages of a few users: QuackGuru, Dematt, Backin72,[18] Levine2112, along with some off-wiki communication with ScienceApologist (talk · contribs). All editors have been cooperative and have voluntarily complied with the requests, which is appreciated, and the article appears much more stable as a result, though of course vigorous discussion is continuing on the talkpage. As far as ArbCom is concerned, the existing ArbCom motions and discretionary sanctions seem sufficient for the current situation, so it would probably be best to allow the discussions at Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts to continue, with administrators continuing to monitor the page. --El on ka 18:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Eldereft

Possibly influenced by the daunting volume of often polite discussion and rapid watchlist-destroying reverts, all listed editors are long-term good faith contributors. There is general consensus that unquestionable science should be excluded from the list - anti-vaccination advocacy groups and others clearly outside the scientific conversation are not sufficient sources.

I prefer to view this as a genuine dispute concerning where the bar of WEIGHT falls - if a practice, for instance homeopathy, is published in peer-reviewed journals or practiced in some hospitals, can reliably-sourced analysis support an entry in this list? This often boils down to the issue of efficacy vs. rationale - many papers studying the efficacy of chiropractic are published in quality sources, but the original and a continuing rationale asserts the existence and healing powers of a putative energy. MEDRS applies only to the efficacy side of this question, though assertions made in the absence of evidence may come into play. To further complicate matters, there are three answers to this question: write an entry mentioning nuances and caveats; write an entry discussing solely the pseudoscientific aspects; or write no entry. I favor the first position (adequately sourced) - state that hypnosis exists but Mesmerism and past-life regression are pseudoscience. This issue is treated in the inclusion criteria described in the introduction to the list.

This brings us to the question of sourcing - a few pseudoscientific practices are widespread enough to have attracted the notice of organizations and departments who ordinarily devote themselves to science. Everyone has heard about the 'power lines cause cancer' scare, and the American Physical Society felt it worth their time to state that "[n]o plausible biophysical mechanisms for the systematic initiation or promotion of cancer by these power line fields have been identified." They have issued no corresponding statement on the misapplication of quantum mechanics in service of mysticism. The test of whether such a body has issued a statement is a much better indicator of how widespread a practice is or how much it impinges on their mission than it is an indicator of "how pseudoscientific" it is. Skeptical bodies are interested in pseudoscience, and may make reliable statements regarding it.

There is also a perennial proposal to rename the list to include alleged, purported, or some similar qualifier in the title. Fyslee gives what I see as the best-articulated formulation of this position here. My own position is that we should rely on in-line attribution and nuanced explanations to show rather than tell. A ridiculous analogy would be a proposed rename to Hertzsprung–Russell diagram according to mainstream astrophysicists.

Requested clarifications

How do we treat topics some of whose aspects are reliably described as pseudoscientific?
How does ASF bear on source segregation, attribution, and pseudoscience?

Requested non-clarifications

Sufficiency of sourcing is a content matter.
How do we deal with advocacy, both in editors and in sources?
A saintly uninvolved administrator may wish to consider Discretionary sanctions.

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

This is a content dispute, and I see no evidence that this could not be solved within the community. — Coren ^(talk) 15:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Content dispute, plus this could be affected by the current RFAR case on Fringe sciences, which is in voting phase. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline. Normal content disagreement, not requiring the intervention of ArbCom. If discussion isn't getting anywhere, there's plenty of options. If something truly is an endemic problem regarding "psuedoscience", and classification as such, there's an ongoing case about the fringe science topic area. Vassyana (talk) 21:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- Further comment. The page has the eyes of one or more experienced editors that seem willing to assist with helping to settle the dispute and resolve the behavioral issues. I would recommend trying to work with them to resolve the situation. If that option fails, there are still other options to explore. Informal and formal mediation are options I would recommend exploring. The incidents, edit warring, and wikiquette noticeboards can be used as needed to request administrator assistance with behavioral issues. Regarding references towards the fringe science case, if this situation is relevant, please add evidence to the case. If WP:PSCI is an important and relevant principle, please add appropriate workshop proposals to the case. Vassyana (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline Wizardman 02:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline Risker (talk) 04:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline Rlevse sums it up well. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I am leaning towards declining also as this is a content issue and the proposed decisions of the current fringe science case does have elements that will help. Also, there is still plenty of time to workshop if more are needed. In regards to the requested changes to the pseudoscience case, the principles already indicate to what extent they apply to content as well as "category:pseudoscience", using the terms labeled and categorized. It appears as if the ambiguity is in the word "categorized", which may refer to the MediaWiki functionality described in the guideline Wikipedia:Categorization, or it may refer to the characterisation of a topic within content of articles. If it is the latter, "labeled" is a term of strong and unambiguous characterisation, while "categorized" is a term of loose characterisation. My reading of principle 15 is that only obviously bogus science can be "labeled" as such in the content of an article without good sources to support that label. With that in mind, principle 16 indicates that "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" would need still need proper sources. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline per Vassyana's comment. -FloNight ♥♥♥ 10:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Decline - content dispute. My advice, if it will help, would be for those expending time and effort on the very difficult task of finding a stable version of such a list, to work instead on improving Pseudoscience (and related articles) and all the articles of the potential candidates for this list. Once that is done, then it may be more obvious whether the list in question is possible or even needed. To clarify further, good articles are generally more helpful and informative than controversial lists, and those lists are best done after the groundwork has been done at the articles. Carcharoth (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

EK3 clarification (January 2009)

Original discussion

The following discussion 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.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 3

Statement by Everyking

Earlier this month, the ArbCom voted to uphold the sanctions applied to me under the terms of the EK3 case. I am very uncertain about how the "restraining order" regarding Phil Sandifer is meant to be applied in various situations, however, and if this restriction is going to be in place indefinitely, a clear understanding of its nature is necessary for me to continue participating in the project comfortably.

The ArbCom apparently imposed and upholds this restriction based on the belief that I am a lunatic who is eager for the opportunity to contact Phil Sandifer and annoy him to the best of my ability. As I have repeatedly explained, this is sheer fantasy, and my only concern has been to see the ArbCom pass a mutual restriction that would equally apply to Phil Sandifer, thereby mitigating or neutralizing the severely negative effect this "restraining order" has on my reputation and community standing. If the ArbCom is just trying to keep me from contacting Phil Sandifer, the restriction serves no purpose, as I have no desire to contact him. There are, however, a variety of real, plausible circumstances under which I might cross paths with Phil, and it is completely unclear how I am supposed to behave in those circumstances.

One example that I have presented in the past is that of AfD: if Phil nominates an article for deletion, am I still allowed to register my opinion on the article as part of the discussion? I have been seeking an answer to that question for years. Furthermore, what if he merely comments—before me—on someone else's AfD nomination; am I allowed to make my own comment in that situation?

How should the "restraining order" be applied to articles? Am I allowed to edit articles that have been previously edited by Phil Sandifer? Am I allowed to edit in subject areas where Phil Sandifer has taken an interest (for example, webcomics)? What about discussions on the AN pages and the like: can I comment on an issue there if Phil has already commented (I have done this before and nothing happened, but I was very nervous about possible consequences)? Can I comment on an issue if he raises the issue himself (for example, by starting the thread)? Perhaps the best way to articulate the problem is to ask: am I prohibited from mere proximity to Phil Sandifer, or am I prohibited from actual interaction with him/commentary about him? In the past, restrictions have always been interpreted to my disadvantage, meaning that I must assume the former and avoid situations involving any degree of proximity. This could lead to an absurd situation in which I create an article, Phil fixes a typo on it, and I am thus prohibited from continuing with my planned work to expand the article further. Naturally this problem makes my participation on the project uncomfortable, and I call on the ArbCom to at least interpret the ruling in some reasonable fashion that gives me more freedom to participate fully in the project. Everyking (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Jayvdb, I am hoping that the ArbCom will state that I am allowed to participate in AfDs started by Phil Sandifer; contrary to what you say, this does in fact need clarification, as it seems to be understood at present that I am not allowed to do that. In November 2008, FloNight told me to not comment on AfDs started by Phil, although I do not know whether the other arbitrators agreed with her about that. Regarding the matter of "editing interaction", that is exactly the kind of thing I need clarified. If Phil has "recently edited" an article and I have not, does that I mean I am banned from contributing to that article?

While it is true that I was not blocked during 2008, this is because I was extremely careful about avoiding any kind of editorial proximity to Phil Sandifer, and on a few occasions when I did edit a page after he did, such as on ANI, I was quite nervous about possible consequences (possibly I escaped being blocked only because no one noticed). I feel that I should not have to deal with that kind of thing. Everyking (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to Phil, these are not just hypothetical situations. In April 2008 there was a case where Phil nominated a slew of articles for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 United States presidential election_controversy and irregularities) and I was unable to vote. I contacted the ArbCom privately seeking permission to vote, but my request was ignored. Furthermore, this is a constant issue on a variety of pages such as ANI, where I am simply not sure what is allowed and feel that simply registering my opinion about a matter on which Phil has already commented is a dangerous gamble. Everyking (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to Coren, I have pointed to a specific instance immediately above. It is deeply unfair to keep me under this scarlet letter restriction indefinitely and then punish me further by effectively upholding the most extreme interpretation of the ruling. To date I have respected the ruling very carefully, even when that means excluding myself from participation in various matters that interest me, and I would expect the ArbCom to acknowledge that by clarifying the situation in favor of a less severe interpretation. Everyking (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

As a test case, I have now made this edit to an AfD in which Phil has already commented. I ask the ArbCom to clarify whether or not that is an acceptable edit. Everyking (talk) 05:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Responding to Vassyana, yes, I am aware of that and do not consider it an appropriate method under ordinary circumstances. However, I have been trying to get the ArbCom to address this problem for years, and now some of you are telling me that, because I refrained assiduously from editing the same pages as Phil, there are no specific incidents to consider and therefore nothing can be done. In other words, I stand to be punished for following the restriction so strictly; it's like keeping someone under house arrest and then, when they ask to be released from house arrest, telling them that there is no need for that, because they haven't been leaving the house anyway. That's ridiculous, and I'm not willing to stand around and suffer for my own caution, so I figured under the circumstances that it would be best to give the ArbCom a specific incident to consider.

I think the "bright line", if we're going to have one, should be direct interaction or commentary. In other words, I think the ArbCom should allow me to comment on the same page as Phil, provided I don't comment in response to Phil or make reference to him, and also to edit the same articles as Phil, provided that the edits are uncontroversial article improvements. Everyking (talk) 15:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Certainly it is entirely reasonable to expect that I should not deliberately follow Phil around, persistently editing things that he has edited, just as it is reasonable to expect him to refrain from doing that to me. However, it is unreasonable to expect me to refrain from registering my opinion in an AfD started by Phil; I have been broadly participating in the AfD (or VfD) process throughout my five years on the project, and there is no basis for believing that my participation in AfDs started by Phil would be intended to harass him. Indeed, in the test case I linked above, Phil and I voted the same way—I am interested in all AfDs as content issues only and I think Phil's involvement ought to be considered irrelevant. It is also unreasonable to expect me to completely avoid editing articles created by Phil, although it would be perfectly reasonable to expect me to avoid making edits of marginal value to a wide variety of articles created by him (that would be reasonable in any case where users had a history of antagonism). Perhaps in these matters we could say that the best approach is caution, rather than prohibition. I am totally willing to be cautious, and I don't expect that very many cases of overlapping editing would arise, but I want to be free to participate when I am solely concerned with the content and Phil's involvement is merely coincidental. Everyking (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, if the ArbCom does not clarify the situation adequately, I will have to post a request for clarification each time I wish to edit a page that Phil Sandifer has edited, just to obtain permission in that specific instance. I think that imposes an excessive burden on both myself and the ArbCom. If the ArbCom wants me to stay away from articles Phil Sandifer has edited, I will respect that (he seldom edits articles anyway, to be frank), provided it only applies to recent edits and doesn't cover articles Phil edited months or years ago (certain cases could still arise where I might have to seek ArbCom permission, though, for example on a high-traffic article that is the subject of some immediate wiki-controversy). However, AfDs, administrative discussions, and policy discussions are a different matter, and I feel as a member of the community I should be permitted to express my opinion whenever I see fit, as long as I do not engage with Phil Sandifer in the process of doing so. Everyking (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I have also registered my opinion at the Giano II RfC, which was started by Phil. As I have long held a strong and vocal opinion about Giano issues, I think it would be appalling if the ArbCom were to rule that I could not endorse a viewpoint in this instance, simply because Phil has involved himself. Everyking (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I urge Tznkai not to close this right now. I want to take this opportunity to ask the ArbCom to clarify my status as a Wikipedia editor further. Will it consider voting on a motion that would formally designate me as a user in good standing or express in some sense the idea that the remaining restriction should not be perceived in such a way as to lessen my community standing? I would also like for the ArbCom to consider a motion that would observe that there is no basis for the allegations made against me in recent weeks—in connection with my appeal—regarding off-wiki actions. This is particularly important because, by retaining the restriction, it could easily appear that the ArbCom has endorsed those allegations; furthermore, the ArbCom should not allow its pages to become a venue for baseless smears. Everyking (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Phil Sandifer

If there are specific areas where Everyking feels unduly burdened by the restriction, let him bring them up. But I would rather not turn the restriction into something that becomes about rules lawyering, or that requires my constant negotiation and defending of. I've already had to deal with requests to lift this restriction three times in the last few months, which are three times more than I want to be dealing with Everyking. If there's a specific issue underlying this, fine - last time he brought it up I was perfectly willing to allow him to ask questions on my arbcom bid, in the interests of fairness. But I would rather not be in this position of having to constantly negotiate the parole in the general case, or in an attempt to engage in an extended modification of it that can go through a thousand absurd hypotheticals. But come on. What if I made a minor edit to an article Everyking had created? Really? What if I start an AfD? I do less than one of those a month. If there's an actual issue here, let's hear it. These are ridiculous hypotheticals.

Can the arbcom please rule that there will be no further general case motions about this parole for some nice, long amount of time? This constant having to come back to RFAr to de facto negotiate with Everyking rather defeats the purpose. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Rootology

Contrary to Phil's statements, as Everyking is not the only person on Wikipedia under a similar restriction, and if memory serves there are still more, it does need clarification. Phil is not a special case or a particularly special user (none of us are). If UserA is restricted this way from UserB, what happens if UserA has edited a given article, and then UserB comes along? Is UserA then barred from going there? Barred for some time? What if one or the other starts an AFD? What if they both comment on some rambling ANI discussion? Are these restrictions meant to be (as I've interpreted them) from commenting on each other, or some inappropriate placebo for the UserB's of the scenario to not "see" the other party? The "blocks" if mutual in scope are a great idea to basically let useful users stick around while neutering drama. If the restrictions are not mutual, as detailed here, then the scope does need to be defined so that the UserA of the scenario doesn't have to worry about having a pointless and inappropriate cloud over their head from what amounts to an ultra laser specific restriction while improving Wikipedia. If the question of scope comes up, it's a good idea to clarify it, because it seems to be a good solution growing in popularity. rootology (C)(T) 04:38, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to clarify that this is NOT sour grapes in any way, shape, or form with my own situation, it's just a genuine curiosity for clarification about these cases in general. Specific to my own situation, as I'd said time and time in public and in private to people, I'm absolutely, totally, utterly, and completely fine with it all. The odds of he and I interacting at this point are functionally null. The closest we're likely to ever come to each other is both commenting on different subpages of WP:FAC for our own nominations for Featured status or random FARs. Our interests in content are simply light years apart. However, I do call shotgun on anything related to either Mount Rainier or Mount Saint Helens exploding, but he can have the mountains themselves as they're one of his specialities, unless if the theoretical eruptions kill me, in which case he can have it all. :) rootology (C)(T) 05:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Phil Sandifer notified. Daniel (talk) 20:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- This request being closed within the next 12 hours.--Tznkai (talk) 13:00, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

The outstanding remedy prevents "commenting .. about", or "interacting with" Phil Sandifer. If you both find yourself at the same xfD, both parties are expected to only comment on the article or page itself rather than the editor, so no clarification is needed there. If you regularly appear at communal discussions where Phil has commented already, or on topics that you know he has keen interest in, eyebrows would be raised.Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alastair Haines#Motion re Abtract added a bit of clarity to what would be viewed as editing interaction: editing (including but not limited to reverting on) pages that [party 1] has recently edited but [party 2] has not previously edited. Everyking, you mentioned that you have needed to err on the side of caution because "In the past, restrictions have always been interpreted to [your] disadvantage". You havent been blocked often, so I am wondering when has this been interpreted to your disadvantage? Was it misinterpreted at all during 2008? i.e. did you have any close calls with someone threatening to block? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Unless there are specific incidents where implementation of this restriction has caused problems because of vagarities or ambiguities, I see no clarification to be made. — Coren ^(talk) 03:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
Your suggestion that I think the "bright line", if we're going to have one, should be direct interaction or commentary. In other words, I think the ArbCom should allow me to comment on the same page as Phil, provided I don't comment in response to Phil or make reference to him, and also to edit the same articles as Phil, provided that the edits are uncontroversial article improvements seems eminently reasonable, and I would have expect the current restriction to be interpreted exactly that way. In fact, I see no reason to believe it ever was interpreted differently. — Coren ^(talk) 20:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Everyking, you've been around quite long enough to know that performing edits just to make a point or test the boundaries of restrictions is frowned upon by our community norms. It certainly isn't the way to get a favorable response. That said, has the restriction been unduly burdensome to you? How, specifically? (Being very honest, the AfD examples don't convince me. Phil nominates relatively very few articles for deletion and it's not like there's any shortage of AfDs to comment upon.) Can you give examples of how the restriction has been used against you as you assert? Presuming the restriction stays in place as is, since the purportedly vague nature of the restriction is a main part of your point, what bright line boundaries would you suggest? I should state openly that I'm skeptical as a general rule when it comes to claims of difficulty/unfairness in disentangling. Wikipedia is a huge and sprawling place with a ridiculous number of activities and topics to participate in. It should not be a herculean burden to disengage from and avoid another editor. Vassyana (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- Everyking, thank you for the response. I understand your point and the accompanying frustration, but the unaswered questions are quite answerable. You're asserting (if I'm mistaken, please correct me) that the restriction has been both unduly burdensome and used against you unfairly. All that I'm asking is that you substantiate the assertions. This doesn't require a test case. (To draw on your example, someone under house arrest doesn't need skip custody to go to the grocer in order to assert a reasonable need to visit the grocer.) Vassyana (talk) 01:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, I agree with the statements of Carcharoth and Newyorkbrad. Otherwise, consider my comments above as restated. Vassyana (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
In my view, Everyking should be free to comment on matters (including AfDs) even if Phil is on the same page, but should still avoid interacting with or commenting on Phil. There are also some standard situations that Everyking should usually avoid: articles created by Phil, AfDs started by Phil, discussions started by Phil, and so on (this is not intended to be, nor can it be, a comprehensive list). Common sense says that Phil should do the same to avoid interaction with Everyking. If either Everyking or Phil need clarification on specific points, they should feel free to e-mail the arbitration committee, while noting that such potential encounters should not suddenly become more common than they have been in the past. Please don't engage in deliberate testing of the boundaries of this restriction, but do make a note of situations that come up during your normal editing habits. Carcharoth (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
As per Carcharoth, posting on high traffic communal pages should not be a problem if there is no direct interaction noted or implied. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
"Comment on content, not on the contributor." Both Everyking and Phil Sandifer know that. I don't believe someone would be able to define or present a detailed and comprehensive list of all possible scenarios where the boundaries get crossed or where restrictions get violated (i.e. commenting on the editor or bringing back history and old disputes). However, many would be able to judge and confirm whether boundaries get unjustly crossed when they really get crossed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
I think this request for clarification begins with a misapprehension. To my knowledge, no arbitrator believes nor has anyone else suggested that Everyking is "a lunatic who is eager for the opportunity to contact Phil Sandifer and annoy him to the best of [his] ability" (as stated above), or "a fifth-class editor, somewhere below anon IPs and above banned trolls and vandals" (as suggested on another website). It bears emphasis that each and every one of the ArbCom restrictions on Everyking has been lifted (or will technically be lifted as of next month) by unanimous vote of the committee, with the sole exception of this one which the committee chose to leave in place at present. Nor is there merit to any suggestion that the restriction has been left in place simply because Everyking previously criticized actions of other administrators, and particularly not because of criticisms that were levied in 2005 (before many of the arbitrators, including myself, had even started editing Wikipedia), nor merely because Everyking has participated on an external site often critical of Wikipedia (as have I). Beyond that, I am disinclined to review on-wiki here the events of three years ago, some of which I was not aware of until this most recent clarification request, as I do not believe that either Everyking or anyone else or the process would benefit from my doing so. With respect to the specific request for clarification, the limited remaining restriction on Everyking should be interpreted in a reasonable, and reasonably narrow, fashion. A test I think often makes sense in "User A is to avoid User B" situations is whether a questioned edit to a page that User B has edited would have been made anyway even if User B had not edited the page. For example, if Everyking looks over a dozen AfDs on a given date and !votes on all of them, although one of them happens to have been started by Phil Sandifer (and Everyking doesn't refer to that fact), fine; if Everyking !votes on an AfD on an article he's edited heavily that Phil Sandifer happened to put on AfD, fine; if Everyking never edits AfD for a month and then suddenly shows up on the only AfD created by Phil that month, not quite as fine. Hopefully few if any close calls will arise and the issue will remain largely moot, as I gather it has been for awhile except in these modification/clarification threads themselves. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

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.

[Angell-1] Angell M, Kassirer JP (1998). "Alternative medicine--the risks of untested and unregulated remedies" (PDF). N. Engl. J. Med. 339 (12): 839–41. doi:10.1056/NEJM199809173391210. PMID 9738094. Retrieved 2007-12-28.

[csicop_outstanding_skeptics-2] Skeptical Inquirer Magazine Names the Ten Outstanding Skeptics of the Century.

[signers_SRAM-3] Signers of the statement "In Defence of Scientific Medicine" Signers of the statement "In Defence of Scientific Medicine", welcoming the founding of the Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine. It is a long list of notable individuals, including five Nobel laureates, all of whom are thus signalling their critical attitudes towards alternative medicine.

[Fontanarosa-4] Fontanarosa P.B., and Lundberg G.D. Alternative medicine meets science. JAMA. 1998; 280: 1618-1619.

[Dawkins-5] Richard Dawkins Dawkins, Richard (2003). A Devil's Chaplain. Weidenfeld & Nicolson. {{cite book}}: More than one of |author= and |last= specified (help)

[wary-6] Stephen Barrett. Be Wary of "Alternative" Health Methods

[quackery_defined-7] Stephen Barrett Quackery: How Should It Be Defined?

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]