Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed decision

message: Reposted from the Workshop:
This is simply untrue. They are not accorded any special role by policy. Wikipedia, however, is more than its policy, and in practice there is a tendency and tradition of deference to experts, or at the very least serious and careful consideration of what they are saying, often not in proportion to what a "normal" Wikipedian says. I (and I suspect many other Wikipedians would agree) would not want to phrase this as policy - it would be instruction creep at best, and a nightmare at worst. But the fact that it is not suitable for policy neither means it doesn't exist nor that it should be ignored.
Furthermore, the arbcom has in the past considered a user's expertise to be worthy of a finding: [29]. The appearance of the decision is that the comparative leniency toward Connolley compared to the other edit warriors in that case was based on deference to his expert status and sympathy for his position. Phil Sandifer 15:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Experts principle

message: I find the current proposed rewrite of policy troubling coming from the arbcom, as it clearly lacks community support. Yes, experts have an obvious role, and deference should be granted to them. But this deference is, to my mind, equivalent to the deference we give respected Wikipedians, or Wikipedians who do a lot of thankless tasks, or, frankly, nice people who greeted us on Wikipedia. It is not something that ought exist on the level of policy - it's a social trend within Wikipedia. We ought not declare that expertise counts for nothing, but we also ought not formalize it.
On the other hand, cluelessness may well be worth observing the effects of. Instead of "only experts should edit X," perhaps a principle to the effect of "Problems often arise when well-meaning editors make substantial changes to articles on topics they do not adequately understand." Since this is true, and affects not only theoretical physics, but smaller topics. Lord knows I've screwed up an article or two on simple topics I didn't know enough about in my time. Phil Sandifer 05:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Does this deference imply that official mediators would have to defer to experts? Would this deference apply to uninvolved admins even if the expert was clearly attempting to push references to his/her own work into articles? I would suggest a full policy document is required to define more precisely how this would function in practice. Addhoc 22:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewriting policy

message: With regard to the subsection "Disputes over expertise", one key is to insist on sources for controversial claims. The article in question in that subsection (Aneutronic_fusion)is about something that does not exist. It is fictional in a sense. It is also a proposal that a plasma expert might be called upon to provide paid expertise as a consultant and thus there is a conflict of interest isssue. Adequately identifying a source of rosy predictions as someone with a conflict of interest and clearly identifying hand waving projections from reports describing something that exists would go a long way in NPOVing the article. WAS 4.250 05:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputes over expertise

message: This is the single worst piece of enforcement I have ever seen proposed on Wikipedia. It is possibly a good proposal in the abstract, but to limit it to science articles is COMPLETELY inappropriate and erroneous. Phil Sandifer 14:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An example - articles such as Jacques Derrida, Jacques Lacan, and similar humanities articles on 20th century philosophers are routinely edited very badly by people with no knowledge of the subject beyond what they read in popular sources with minimal understanding of the subject themselves. To declare that these subjects do not need expert approval while others do is simply wrong, and wrong in one of the most perniciously destructive ways I have ever seen seriously entertained by this committee. Phil Sandifer 17:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, so, all French to me. Fred Bauder 21:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then perhaps a ruling that depends on an understanding of the role of expertise in every aspect of the encyclopedia is inappropriate? Phil Sandifer 22:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps we ought to leave it up to those who feel themselves expert, or at least have pieces of paper to prove it. Fred Bauder 22:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Phil to some measure here.  At the least, the decision should make clear that it applies to science articles because that is what was in dispute here, not because the same principles wouldn't apply elsewhere.  Mangojuicetalk 13:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Limitation to science articles

message: To Dmcdevit: is Eric Lerner also banned from talk pages (he should be allowed to edit the talk page of the article about himself at least, don't you think)?  Also, why is Lerner banned for a year from edits relating to his work but Ian Tresman is banned indefinitely from science/pseudoscience articles? Finally, given the edit warring by several parties over the article Eric Lerner, do you believe Science Apologist's probation and JBKramer's admission of fault are sufficient to keep the article from becoming a battleground again? Thatcher131 00:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Talk pages are not intended to apply; duly ammended. The omission of an expiration for Ian was just a mistake on my part; changed to one year. Frankly, 'm not sure if this case will solve all the problems, but it's a positive step in cooling the tensions. There are many parties not included here by me, e.g. KrishnaVindaloo, Rednblu, and Art Carlson, because there is simply too much. I'm going to recommend that separate cases be brought against any remaining parties who weren't really the focus of the case. Dmcdevit·t 01:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification requested 

message: * I note that I've been proposed for a one year ban, and ScienceApologist for 6 months probation. Is the level of severity related to just "Findings of fact", or to the results in /Workshop, and elsewhere, as well?
*Or are reasons given for the severity of the remedies? --Iantresman 02:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remedies

message: *Are any of these open to questions the parties concerned? --Iantresman 02:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed findings of fact

message: I just noticed that SA has deleted one of my comments from this page. I have re-instated it. I wonder if this is considred allowable behavior, arbitrators? I also wonder how much else of this discussion has been deleted by SA.Elerner 03:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hypothesize that this was a system glitch.  --Rednblu 05:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ScienceApologist is deleting discussion from this page

message: In the capacity of advocate for Tommysun, I have been requested to provide a statement in his defence. This isn't very straightforward however, because the 'evidence' presented against him is unsubstantial.
To quote...
:: shows a pattern of aggressive biased editing combined with eccentric interpretation with respect to information concerning theoretical astrophysics, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Evidence_of_misrepresentation_by_ScienceApologist, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Evidence_that_there_is_no_big_bang_theory, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Tommy_Mandel_has_pushed_his_POV_on_Big_Bang_and_Plasma_cosmology, and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Big_Bang_is_the_real_pseudoscience.
From the recently given definition of "aggressive biased editing", I would expect to find evidence of this behaviour in the following links. 
However...
*Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Evidence_of_misrepresentation_by_ScienceApologist - no evidence of this behaviour.
*Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Evidence_that_there_is_no_big_bang_theory - again no evidence.
*Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Big_Bang_is_the_real_pseudoscience - also no evidence.
*Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Tommy_Mandel_has_pushed_his_POV_on_Big_Bang_and_Plasma_cosmology - The following links are provided...
** - quotes Alan Sandage, seems ok.
** - material based on Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, again seems ok.
** - 1st revert, still ok.
** - different article, again based on Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, again seems ok.
**  - another different article, again based on Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, still not very unreasonable.
** - modified version based on 1937 Rhodes Lectures published as The Observational Approach to Cosmology, again seems okish, if a little too long.
** - another version, possibly too short.
To suggest these 7 links are sufficient to ban somebody would appear slightly excessive, in this context I would suggest at the very most they would be sufficient to justify proposing he is placed on probation for a fixed period. Addhoc 15:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence against Tommysun 

message: *ScienceApologist, this is a joke right? If you can't tag an article as "Pseudoscience",, you'll tag it with that well-known category, "Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation" 
*Despite the term "fringe science" having pejorative connotations, how can you ever demonstrate that a subject is absolutely without critical scientific evaluation?
*At best, the categorization does not sound too scientific --Iantresman 19:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't this be at Category talk:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation? --ScienceApologist 19:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pseudoscience vs "Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation"

message: *Raul654, you wrote: "I do not believe Ian Tresman's deserve good faith. This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary."
*The policy also mentions "Actions inconsistent with good faith include vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying."
*At the very least, I think your should provide diffs supporting your "evidence to the contrary". --Iantresman 11:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Raul654: Evidence supporting comments 

message: Arbitrators, the Motion to close shows that I am due for a one year ban from editing science and pseudoscience articles. I note:
ArbCom finding against iantresmanArbCom findings against ScienceApologist
*Contravened WP:CIVIL.
* Contravened WP:CIVIL , 
* Deprecating (contravening WP:LIVING ?) 
* Edit warred, 
* Failed to extend good faith,
Banned for one yearPartly supported by Raul654
*Ironically, I was found to be uncivil for specifically questioning ScienceApologist's good faith, and which ArbCom has decided is accurate.
*While there was no consensus on my editing style (and no article edit diffs supporting it), my "orientation" was noted, but there is no indication whether this is a criticism, I can find nothing in Wiki policy which makes this an issue, and not one article edit diff was provided to show that I have edited an article inappropriately.
*I also note that ScienceApologist provide not one article edit diff supporting his evidence against me (also noted here).
This does seem quite harsh and iniquitous, especially when I have written a number of science articles that have stood the test of time, eg. 
*Birkeland current
*Critical ionization velocity
*Double layer (not Maths section)
*Dusty plasma
*Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience
*Hans Schindler Bellamy
*Heliospheric current sheet
*IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society
*Intrinsic_redshift (original version)
*Per Carlqvist
*Pinch (plasma physics)
*Plasma scaling
*Plasmoid
*Ralph Juergens
*Redshift quantization
--Iantresman 23:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the explanation, though if enough votes are cast, and the motions pass, my comments will still stand. --Iantresman 01:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Motion to close

message: (Note: This is a copy of a post which was "lost" during the Major Systemwide Glitch)
I note from the Arbitration policy page, in the section Final decision, it is noted that:
:Findings of fact will be of a form similar to:
::* XXX has/has not engaged in YYY behavior [in violation of ZZZ rule]. (diff of Incident 1) (diff of Incident 2) (further diffs)
Will the Arbitrators now add which "violation of ZZZ rule", and gives examples of edit diffs, to those findings which resulting in the remedies proposed? For example.
*7) Elerner is Eric Lerner, an advocate of the plasma cosmology theory...
*8) (Self promotion by Elerner) Aneutronic fusion, which Elerner has edited extensively is, in part, an treatment of the "plasma focus device" which he is engaged in supporting and raising money for [6] as the director [7] of the Focus Fusion Society
Clearly (7) is not in violation of any rule, so no remedy is required, whereas (8) Is presumable in violation of "Conflict of interest: self promotion", and in which case examples of diffs will now be provided, if not by arbitrators, then on request by those presenting evidence in the case? --Iantresman 12:44, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Final decision clarification

message: Under sources to be used it only mentions reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals for scientific articles.  It leaves out governmental organizations such as the FDA, which by the way has lot of great material, the NHS NICE guidelines, the WHO,  as well as other less well know governmental organizations.--Doc James (talk) 16:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources