Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

message: Dieting has been shown to have little long-term benefits, and certain popular diets in particular (Dukan, Paeliolithic) are particularly poor. Could they be classified as pseudo-science, including the page on Dieting giving a positive description of detox dieting? 203.129.51.51 (talk) 06:36, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You might be more successful raising this at WP:FTN. Guettarda (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extending the qualifications of pseudo-science 

message: Over 5 years ago, I was topic banned under Discretionary Sanctions for discussing a source. I wish to have this decision reversed.
#In 2006, I last edited and contributed to the article Dusty Plasma (history) Six years later in Nov 2012, I revisited the article, as I noticed that a reference I had used had been removed, on the grounds that was "unreliable", although material added to the article, based on the reference, was left in place, unquestioned. I chose not to revert the reference, but follow standard editing procedures, and discuss the source first (see "Reference restoration" in talk), as all the sources/facts I had, contradicted this view.
#I feel that my discussion shows that I attempted to "Deal with facts" per WP:TALK#FACTS, eg. (a) noting the source was from an academic publisher (b) providing numerous references to reviews, (c) at least one quote from the book (d) author credentials (e) Citations to the source.
#Other editors seemed to base their views on (a) the title of the book, (b) the fact (undisputed) that the editor has unconventional views on cosmology that are not included in the book (a simple quote from the book would counter this view). After I had been topic banned, other editors had the luxury of being able to continue the discussion concerning the reliability of the removed source ("Book 'Physics of the Plasma Universe"') in a style reminiscent of WP:FORUM.
#Although I was banned under Discretionary Sanctions / Pseudoscience, I feel that the use of "Broadly construed" then and now, was outside of the permitted scope, and no editor could have known that the article was covered by it:
::*The article Dusty Plasma has no connection to pseudoscience, and neither did  any of the content I added (it was never questioned, and there is still material based on the source in the article to this day)
::*"Broadly construed" in my case, seems to be quite contrived, and not too dissimilar from "Six degrees of separation":
::*a. My source was edited by Anthony Peratt (who has impeccable credentials)
::*b. Peratt has written unconventional articles on what is known as the Plasma Universe (scientific and peer reviewed)
::*c. The "Plasma Universe" is also applied to, and is sometimes used synonymously with the subject "Plasma Cosmology" (also peer reviewed)
::*d. The article "Plasma Cosmology" was incorrectly tagged with "Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation" before being removed.
::*e. "Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation" was a sub-category of "Category:Pseudoscience"
The fact is, that I never edited the article against consensus. I don't believe that Wikipedia ever set out to ban editors who discuss sources in good faith, and didn't intend Discretionary Sanctions to be over-extended in this way.   --Iantresman (talk) 01:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: So technically I've been out of trouble for only nine months, though my paricipation was I believe respectful and constructive. --Iantresman (talk) 11:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

text: I would also like to point out that just because I am interested in certain topics, does not mean that I have a belief that those topics are correct (science and Wikipedia does not accept beliefs as evidence). And my interests were certainly not a problem when I earned my university certificates in astronomy, cosmology and radio astronomy from the University of Central Lancashire and Jodrell Bank in 2010 (certificates available to cynics on request). --Iantresman (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Iantresman 

message: This appears to be an attempt to relitigate the merits of a 5-year-old AE action instead of anything resembling a request to lift the sanction as no longer necessary. As I do not believe the committee should be entertaining requests of the former category five years after the fact, I do not intend to respond substantively unless requested by the committee. T. Canens (talk) 02:15, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Timotheus Canens 

message: Is there a time limit for asking that a sanction be reversed? Most often I've seen requests refused because enough time had not passed. This is confusing for editors. I agree with Darkfrog and Mpants. This is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation. What is there in this editor's history that says he is not worthy of a  revisit to his sanction? Above all what is missing in most AEs is that admins and arbs do not ask questions of the editor applying. If you don't understand, ask him, communicate with him; don't assume you understand. The concern here is that an editor has no recourse. We should be trying to hold on to editors, helping them edit, to be productive.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by olive

message: The root cause of (almost) every sanction is that one or more editors are unable to work constructively with the community or a subset of it (which can be as small as one other editor), either generally or in relation to a specific topic area. Sanctions should be, and mostly are, preventative not punitive - that is intended to allow editors to be productive and constructive in ways/areas where they can be while protecting the project by preventing them disrupting other areas. People can change, people can mature and (relevant in some cases) real-world situations can change so that the restrictions are no needed. Indeed in an ideal world every sanction would at some point no longer be necessary. For this reason appeals should always be focused on explaining/demonstrating why sanctions are no longer needed now. Whether they were needed at some point in the past has increasingly little relevance the longer ago that point was. I also strongly agree with BU Rob13 when they say "Choosing not to appeal on the merits of the original sanction for such a prolonged period of time is acceptance of the merits". 
As for the specific sanctions here, I think that in December 2017 is completely irrelevant at this point whether they were required when imposed in November 2012, but that if they weren't required then they should have been appealed when they were still relevant. It's probably also worth noting that real world events seem to have changed, in that in 2012 Plasma cosmology was described as a fringe theory that had not been critically evaluated (or at least had not had a significant amount of critical evaluation). In the intervening five years though it seems that it has been evaluated and rejected - which could have a significant impact on how the need for sanctions would be evaluated.  Thryduulf (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: When someone appeals using the wrong sort of appeal the responses will indicate this - a very good example is the arbitrator's comments below. They don't have to know in advance, they just need to read the responses they get. We also have Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks and we should have a similar one for appealing other sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The editor has a choice of whether to listen to the advice they are given or not. If they choose not to listen then yes the appeal is lost. If they do listen then there are three ways it can go - (1) the appeal can be rejected, almost certainly without prejudice to a new appeal based on what the admins say they are looking for (although this will only work once or twice per editor per period of time); (2) the appeal can be withdrawn and new appeal made based on what the admins say they are looking for; (3) the appeal can be modified to include the information the admins say they are looking for. Thryduulf (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

text: re old bans, this is not a simple yes/no question. It is and will remain factual that you were topic banned and that you chose not to appeal it at the time (regardless of why), any sanctions you received for breaching it (I haven't looked to see if there are any) will also remain in your history. However, it should only be brought up where relevant and it will be ignored if it is brought up where it is not relevant (and bringing it up where it is clearly not relevant may reflect badly on the person bringing it up). Equally it will only impact anything in future to the degree that it is relevant to the particular situation at hand, and the longer ago the ban and, especially the longer ago any sanctions for breaching it, the less likely it is to be relevant and (generally speaking) the less significant any relevance will be. If you are (accused of being) disruptive in the future regarding Plasma cosmology or something closely related then your previous topic ban will likely be relevant, if you do/are accused of doing something completely different (say, introducing copyvios into Cephalotes eduarduli (example article selected by special:random) then it is going to be pretty much irrelevant. If you aren't disruptive at all going forwards then almost nobody is going to care about the five year old disruption and it wont trouble you at all. It is not possible to speak in absolutes though as Wikipedia is not a court and there are no firm rules. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Thryduulf (re Pseudoscience) 

message: Holy exploding wikilawyering, Batman! Per MPants and Euryalus - just lift the sanction and move on...  -- Begoon 12:25, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Begoon 

message: Too many ifs and buts. Lift the ban already. Bishonen | talk 16:39, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Bishonen

message: * I am familiar with the precursors necessitating this request. I'd like, therefor, to squash the misnomers that Iantresman exercised a level of diligence less than what ought reasonably be due when he put this request forward, that he misspoke his request therein, or that he missed some threshold for timeliness that does not seem to exist. 
: Iantresman is not one to initiate discussion without giving consideration to all relevant matters before, including, in this case, the guide to appealing blocks and other such guides. He is meticulous and compulsively thorough, never slothful or indiscriminate. As such, when he opened this discussion seeking an amendment of discretionary sanctions, saying: "I wish to have this decision reversed.", he could not have been more clear or concise, nor, IMHO, more apt or astute. 
: I disagree with its having been re-framed as a request to modify the pseudoscience case by simply vacating the sanctions placed against Iantresman, therein. 
: I specifically contend the following points:    
:* It is no small distinction that Iantresman is not sanctioned for failing to adhere the restrictions imposed by the pseudoscience remedy bearing his name but instead by acts sacrosanct when accorded with WP:AC/DS; this should not have been marginalized by bureaucratic muddling.
:* If ever there could be a sanction worthy of being , a fair mind would be well taxed in trying to find one more worthy than what this placement seems to merit.
:* That one could rightly assume Iantresman had accepted and agreed with his sanction is inarguable if his subsequent action, after abiding the sanction, had been to request its removal, as no longer needed (as members have advised).
:* Iantresman should not, instead, be held to timeliness criteria that did not exist when his request was published (seeing the precedent for such mindset born in this discussion).
: Thank you.--John Cline (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by John Cline 

message: I think the appellant's request for the topic ban to be lifted should be granted, since it's unlikely this serves any preventative purpose at all .  It's also fairly unlikely it ever did, though that may not be relevant to the decision.
I think what's happening here is some parties are bureaucratically treating this like a courtroom, and wikilawyering ("ha ha, he said 'have this decision reversed', and I can willfully choose to interpret that as 'have the record expunged' instead of 'have the effect of the decision terminated', and hot damn I'm clever'). It's patently obvious what the intent of the request is.  Whether someone agrees with how the person feels about the nature and rationale of the original sanction when it was issued, and wants to litigate about whether someone should be able to appeal a sanction after  amount of time, it doesn't change the obvious underlying nature of the request.
That said, I would like to address the wonkish procedural stuff:
# I have to agree entirely with  on almost every point.
# My one quibble is with Thryduulf's and originally 's idea that failure to appeal a sanction in a timely manner equals concession that it was valid. That's just plain counterfactual, and we all know it, even if as a practical matter we might have to treat it  that's the case, to stop people re-litigating stuff from 2004 when everyone who might contradict them is long gone.  In reality though, any of these and more might result in a year+ delay:
#* Many editors simply become dispirited, even despondent, and leave for a while when faced with this sort of thing. No one likes feeling rejected by their intentional community, and some take it harder than others.
#* Others don't know the appeal process and find the prospect daunting and frustrating.
#** As I've learned from experience, it can be very inconsistently applied: I was directed and redirected in a farcical AN/ARCA/AE/ARCA×2 run-around and actually did not get the issue resolved until a neutral third party filed a second ARCA on behalf of me and the other affected parties, which met with further wikilawyering about whether such an ARCA was permissible.  That kind of b.s. should never, ever happen again.
#* Others are simply temperamentally unsuited to deal with such a thing until after a considerable amount of time has passed. They vary:
#** They may be insecure and severely averse to conflict if it might affect them personally.
#** They may be prone to outage, and too apoplectic to really put together a coherent appeal for a long time. (And probably others between these extremes).
#*Some have high blood pressure, ulcers, viral conditions, or other problems that make them choose to avoid stress and conflict because of their physiological effects, until they no longer feel a strong reaction to the issue.
#*Plenty are just terrified of admins and ArbCom, and don't lose that fear until after a lot of observation about how an appeal can succeed.
#*Some also just have lives. They may have demanding careers, kids to raise, and so on. If a pleasurable hobby starts to feel like a crappy job with crappy co-workers, their interest in dealing with said crap is apt to be very low. It may take them a long time to remember that they actually enjoyed part of their time here, and to miss it, and to decide to make room for it again in their lives.
#*A few are kids. A whole lot of maturing and understanding can happen in a short time when you're smart and entering your teen years. This may include figuring out how to use a "political" process instead of posting a  rant.
#Thus, any kind of hard deadline for appeals of the actual validity of sanctions should be around the 18 month mark, if not longer (yes this means most non-indef sanctions would be appealable not just amendable for their entire duration).  I took an almost-total wikibreak for a year myself, and it easily could have been longer.  Furthermore, ArbCom and AE and ANI have no trouble at all dredging up stuff way older than that when they want to bring the banhammer down on someone.</p>So, No double-standards, please.  Especially since it's actually a triple standard: If you're not one of the AE in-crowd and attempt to use evidence more than about a year old, you may find yourself boomeranged for it, as I did, while those doing the boomeranging will themselves use even older evidence against you.  If that sounds too hypocritical to be real, I assure you it is not.  I've also seen an Arb, who was supposed to be , turn prosecutor and go digging up extraneous dirt almost a year old looking for reasons to oppose an appeal, rather than weighing the evidence presented.  Was several years ago, but it happened and nothing was done about it, so it could happen again.  Give appellants a  of procedural slack.  We want to retain editors and get them editing as broadly as they're competent to contribute. ArbCom's goal is not to WP:WIN at being a prosecution simulator.
# As for someone else's "If it is valid to say that a sanction is no longer necessary then it is also valid to say that it was never necessary" – A) Interpreted with the more obvious meaning, sure.  People shouldn't be castigated for  it – for objecting to the original sanction as (in their view) bogus – as long as they eventually get around to why the sanction's not needed now. (They should be aware that doing so may be detrimental to their amendment request, though, which is something some appellants don't absorb.)  B) Interpreted the other way, i.e. that a sanction not necessary now was never necessary, categorically speaking ... it just couldn't possibly be true.  It would presuppose that people do not learn and grow, that sanctions cannot have a preventative and instructive effect.  In the majority of successful requests to end or reduce/narrow sanctions, the sanctions were clearly needed when issued – or at least among the solutions available and reasonable, when some solution from among them was needed – and later became not-needed-any-longer.Normally I would automatically assume the first of these two meanings. But said commenter's "topic bans ... [are] like a brand that says 'filth.' There should be some avenue toward having it removed. Surely no one here thinks that ... sanctioned editors have to apologize for actions that they did not perform" leans toward the second.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  14:24, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I see lots in this that speaks to the now and why the T-ban should be lifted and that this is the desire; it's just not the bulk of the material. Examples: "it was suggested that it could be a 'test case' for me. I took part, being the only person to provide references."; "I took part in another [grey-area] AfD a few weeks later, again being the only person to provide references."; "I would obviously like to edit articles in these subject areas. I don't believe I will have any issue in following Wikipedia policies"; and "just because I am interested in certain topics, does not mean that I have a belief that those topics are correct", and so on.  We need to be mindful that it can be difficult for us mere hominids to entirely let go of a feeling of being wronged while trying to get out from under the cloud of it (and judging from Iantresman's later posts, this doesn't look like an editor incapable of separating these things, nor one who is just "biding" and trying to snow us before returning to singleminded disruptive WP:TRUTH activity). Only a few months ago there was another ARCA here in which it was questioned whether the sanction had ever really been needed, and there was way less resistance to just lifting it.I think this has turned semi-sour only because of the imprecise "have this decision reversed" opening wording, later restated more clearly as "would ... like to edit articles in these subject areas". ArbCom doesn't have its hands tied, and does not have to respond to this request by literally vacating the original sanction; it can simply lift it as not likely to be preventative of actual disruption. For those who love to play moot court, it's a normal legal process to parole people from prison, without getting into whether the original prosecution was valid (absent a showing of prosecutorial misconduct or the like). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  00:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by (uninvolved) SMcCandlish 

message: Ian Tresman was an original named party of the 2006 case, WP:ARBPS. He is a supporter of plasma universe ideas, generally considered on WP to be pseudoscience. (Arbcom, in its 2006 WP:ARBPS decision, made a finding of fact which linked to Ian Tresman's personal website). In a 15 July 2007 posting at WP:COIN, Ian stated "I have not used a pseudonym. My interests are readily found..."). Ian is not here arguing that his topic ban from plasma physics is no longer necessary, he is arguing that an AE decision about him from 2012 was wrongly decided. Those diffs are all available for review, so nothing prevents Arbcom from looking into this if they want to. The only problem is that some memories may have faded, but there should still be enough to go on. (The AE complaint was about inappropriate insistence on Ian's part about including a book, claimed to be tainted by fringe thinking, into the reference list of our article on Dusty plasma, which is a mainstream non-fringe topic in astronomy). 
When Arbcom reviews AE decisions they often use the standard of 'within discretion', and from the limited data presented in this appeal, nothing jumps out to me as *not* within discretion. (Of course, I might say that because I did participate in the 2012 AE decision, though only to say that the user was adequately warned about discretionary sanctions). The question of whether Ian's topic ban is still necessary is a different question for which different data might need to be looked at, none of which is presented here. When admins are reviewing topic bans it is a common to say that 'indef topic bans can't be waited out'. In other words, there needs to be a record of positive editing (or an indication of a change of heart) to show that the previous problems won't recur. None of that data is included here, and I'd recommend that Arbcom decline this appeal. User:Callanecc has made other proposals below (Jan. 2) for what Ian might do next, including asking for AE review. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced part of my above statement that might have implied that Ian Tresman's views are already known on the internet. based on a criticism by User:Iantresman. I found that Arbcom had already linked to Ian's personal website in a 2006 finding of fact. Though I don't link to it here, I quote Arbcom's mention of it above. EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by EdJohnston (re Pseudoscience) 

message: :This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
*Changed name of case to Pseudoscience because that is the case under which discretionary sanctions were imposed. For the Committee, Kevin (aka L235 ·  t ·  c) 01:13, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience: Clerk notes 

message: *I'm also not that interested in reviewing the merits of a 5-year old discretionary sanction, the time for that was more than 4 years ago. Very briefly though, Tim's justification that the article was within the area authorised for discretionary sanctions was reasonable at the time. The fact that it isn't (or likely wouldn't) be considered a fringe theory now is irrelevant to whether the sanction was (and hence is) valid. As this appeal does not request that the sanction be removed for any other reason, and that this appeal is about re-litigating the 5-year old decision, I am declining the appeal at this time without prejudice an appeal being filed at AE (or here) arguing that the sanction is no longer needed (not on its original merits since the committee will already have opined on that). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:59, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Edited, I meant what OR said after "except". Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:26, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

text: *Just wanted to reinforce/clarify that I'm not declining your appeal completely. What I'm saying is that, given it's been 5 years since the sanction was originally imposed, it's too late to claim that that the sanction either wasn't originally permissible (given the topic) or warranted (due to your editing) at this point in time. As Thryduulf points out, what you should do instead, , is appeal on the premise that the sanction is no longer needed and that, in 2017/2018 it is no longer necessary to prevent disruption. You can make that appeal directly to Timotheus Canens or to AN or AE, or even back to ARCA if you wish (though I'd suggest AN or AE first, before coming back here). An appeal that the sanction is no longer necessary should use examples from your more recent editing (6-12 months) to show that you are not being disruptive and that you are acting inside community expectations. The evidence (from the last 3-12 months) you include could be, for example, that you haven't been recently blocked or given a different sanction (warning or ban) but instead that you have engaged in calm discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:37, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

text: *If we were to hear Iantresman's appeal on the assumption that they meant that the topic ban isn't needed now then there a couple concerns I still have.The first is that my general approach to AE appeals at ARCA is that I tend to consider whether the sanction was a reasonable exercise of admin discretion rather than whether the sanction is needed except where there extenuating circumstances. Given previous points made that it was 5 years ago, the answer to that question is yes, therefore I'd decline the appeal.However, even if, given the age of the sanction, I were to disregard that and consider removing it (that is, consider age as an extenuating circumstance), the appeal from Iantresman does not address whether or not the sanction is needed now but rather only addresses the original merits of the sanction so I'd decline it for that reason.My advice to  would be the same as above, it would benefit you to, instead of continuing this appeal and adding new stuff to it which will become convoluted, file a new appeal which addresses whether the sanction is needed now. I'd suggest that an appeal addressing whether the sanction is needed now would be best at AN or AE (or even to T. Canens on his talk page) rather than jumping to the highest level of appeal (that is, here) as a first step. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

text: *Putting the above a bit more bluntly: support lifting the sanction, essentially per : whatever the original merits, let's not make Iantresman jump through more hoops. Instead, let's just lift it and move along. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience: Arbitrator views and discussion 

message: If the arbitrators feel that explicitly declaring this (or any) topic as pseudoscience would be a content decision, an alternative option would be to allow the discretionary sanctions to be applied to topics that are described as pseudoscience in independent reliable sources even if that status is disputed. In other words saying that the DS applies to subject areas that are or are called pseudoscience so that the application of DS itself does not require a determination of whether it is or is not pseudoscience and the application of DS does not mean that Wikipedia is necessarily calling something pseudoscience. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Re Shashank5988 I'd forgotten about that case, but discretionary sanctions are indeed authorised for "Complimentary and alternative medicine" and would seem to be a good fit. The Ayurveda article describes it as "an alternative medicine system" and a look at the current talk page suggests that this characterisation is not disputed. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

text: If there is or was a community consensus that the topic is pseudoscience then the pseudoscience DS applies. If there is active debate about whether the topic is pseudoscience then the pseudoscience DS applies. The alternative medicine DS also applies. If the DS isn't working then I don't understand what arbcom saying that the pseudoscience DS applies will change? In terms of content the most the committee could say is that there is a community consensus that the topic is pseudoscience (anything else would be a pronouncement on content that is outside their remit) - what would such a statement change?  Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Thryduulf (re Pseudoscience) 

message: Arbcom created Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture for subjects like this, to avoid the conflict between "pseudoscience" and "alternative medicines". Shashank5988 (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Shashank5988 

message: Subjects like Ayurveda are clearly covered by the decision on Complementary and Alternative Medicine . As about pseudoscience, it was another decision , with good wording: "Theories which have a following, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". 
In my view, no action is required here because the specific area of Complementary and Alternative Medicine is already covered by your decision. However, what qualify as pseudoscience in general is a good question. I think it is not enough just to say "if there is any plausible dispute over whether DS applies in a specific case". One must have at least one solid RS saying that subject X belongs to pseudoscience. Yes, there are such sources in the case of Ayurveda, although the consensus of RS seems to be this is just a traditional medicine. Should we label all projects in the field of traditional medicine funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (a part of National Institutes of Health) as pseudoscience? I doubt. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @Newyorkbrad. OK. So, if an admin thinks that certain edits (for example, about a book) might belong to pseudoscience, than it is covered by pseudoscience DS, even if there are zero sources claiming the subject belongs to pseudoscience (and in fact it may belong to mainstream science)? That seems too much, given that admins may not be experts in the corresponding area of science. My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @Newyorkbrad. Thank you! Understood and agree. My very best wishes (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by My very best wishes 

message: As far as I'm aware, the answer is that the pseudoscience DS apply regardless, but the scope of DS cannot itself affect how the topic is described in an article. This is because the scope follows the concept of broadly construed - the DS will apply because the question "does this qualify as X?" is itself an X-related topic (otherwise topic-banned editors could wikilawyer endlessly around the edges of their sanction). However, for the same reason, simply being within the scope of X-related DS doesn't actually tell us whether or not the topic is or is not an X. Quoting from WP:BROADLY (I'm the original author of this text, but it's never been challenged in the more than two years since it was written):  For this particular case, while the article does indeed state that Ayurveda or parts thereof are pseudoscience as a matter of fact (and has done so for a long time), that is because of the strength of the sourcing as determined by previous consensus, rather than being directly determined by ArbCom. The specific statement at WP:ARBPS#Generally considered pseudoscience does apply, but I think of it as mostly being a confirmation that using the term "pseudoscience" is in fact permissible under these circumstances. Sunrise (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @MVBW: Traditional medicine and similar practices become pseudoscience when their effectiveness is disproven and they continue to be promoted regardless. Except in the most restrictive definitions, promotion with a disregard for evidence or on the basis of an unscientific belief system will also constitute pseudoscience (non-scientific reasoning is being presented as supporting a scientific claim). With regards to the allopathic medicine article, the template itself may or may not be warranted, but the relationship comes from the origins of the term as a derogatory label used by homeopaths. Sunrise (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Sunrise 

message: I I think the only answer is that all discussions of whether a topic is pseudoscience fall under the pseudoscience DS (that is the entire point of the restrictions, since that is the whole debate that requires DS in that topic area), and that, once the issue has been raised, the entire topic falls under the pseudoscience DS restrictions until there is an affirmative consensus that it is not pseudoscience.  As long as there is reasonable doubt that it might be pseudoscience, basically, there is going to be debate of the sort that the DS were specifically created to govern. Obviously the applicability of the DS restrictions in that situation should not itself be taken as an absolute statement that the topic is pseudoscience, merely that it is at least under dispute. --Aquillion (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Aquillion 

message: The determination of whether or not something is pseudoscience is a content decision that needs to be made by the community, but the determination of whether or not something falls under the scope of an AC/DS is very much a decision that is ultimately ARBCOM's responsibility. Making that decision does not require a ruling on content as such; it just requires ARBCOM to determine whether the problematic behavior that led to the authorization of DS is present in the topic under consideration. As such, this is a decision ARBCOM needs to be willing to make, regardless of whether another DS regime applies. By refusing to decide whether the pseudoscience DS regime covers Ayurveda, ARBCOM creates the possibility of endless wikilawyering with respect to the scope of such regimes, specifically, the argument that because there is not consensus among reliable sources that a topic is related to the name of a DS regime, that the relevant sanctions do not apply. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll leave it to RexxS to articulate what he wants from this request; but my statement was more in response to the many people arguing here that this would constitute an expansion of the DS regime, or that ARBCOM needn't bother answering whether Ayurveda is within scope here because Ayurveda is covered by the alternative medicine DS regime. I think both of those are dangerous lines of argument for the reasons I've given above. I think you (ARBCOM) need to make explicit that Ayurveda is within the scope of these sanctions, and moreover, clarify why you've made that determination. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

text: To be clear, are you arguing that pseudoscience DS do not apply to Ayurveda, contrary to what  and others have said? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  With respect, that's not the question I asked. I'm asking whether Ayurveda falls within the scope of an ARBCOM authorized discretionary sanctions regime, namely, the pseudoscience DS. The scope of those sanctions is within your purview and no-one else's; refusing to take a position on that is a cop-out. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Vanamonde93 (Pseudoscience) 

message: I am not sure that this is a problem that Arbcom should try to fix, but I am sure that we have a problem, most of which is the direct result of OpIndia declaring war on Wikipedia and sending an army of twitter followers to the  page.  
An incomplete history of Wikipedia's previous attempts to solve this problem:
* Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:Ayurveda
* Talk:Ayurveda#RFC: pseudoscience in the opening sentence
* Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive310#Ayurveda
* Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive272#RFC Review at Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 9
* Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive266#Ayurveda
* Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 69#Quacks who poison patients with mercury compounds and the Wikipedia editors who think this is OK
* Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 44#Ayurveda
* Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 43#Ayurveda and modern medical terminology
* Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 28#Ayurveda#Safety
* Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 28#Ayurveda and Talk:Ayurveda again
* Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard/Archive 27#Ophthalmology in Ayurveda
* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 301#Journal of Natural Science Biology and Medicine
* Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 244#Ayurveda
* Re: "It already has Extended confirmed protection, and why is that not enough?" We are still seeing a large amount of disruption. The protection stopped the flood of new accounts posting the same thing over and over, but OpIndia's twitter feed continues to attack Wikipedia and is encouraging posts to the Ayurveda talk page by twitter followers who have existing Wikipedia accounts and are already extended confirmed. 
* I am going to expand on what I wrote above ("I am not sure that this is a problem that Arbcom should try to fix"): I have yet to see a good argument showing that this is a problem that Arbcom should try to fix. We need multiple administrators watching over not just Ayurveda but whatever page OpInda attacks next (there is a list at User:PaleoNeonate/Watchlist Ayurveda). We need them to aggressively pageblock editors who were obviously sent by OpInda. I fail to see how any of this needs Arbcom intervention. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Guy Macon 

message: If the community has determined that Ayurveda is pseudoscience, then ArbCom - which does not make content determinations -- must treat it as pseudoscience and enforce against it any sanctions which are routinely used against pseudoscience.  ArbCom has absolutely no remit to overturn a community determination about content.  ArbCom's personal or collective opinions on the matter are completely irrelevant, since its hands are tied by the community decision.  
That being said, ArbCom could exclude Ayurveda from any specific DS simply by changing the wording of the text and excluding Ayurveda from the definition of "pseudoscience" for the purposes of that sanction.
Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Beyond My Ken 

message: This strikes me as a tempest in a teapot. I am certain that Pseudoscience DS apply. I also think that that job of arbcom is not to adjudicate content. I asked you all some years ago to vacate the nonsense demarcation that a now-disgraced arbitrator penned oh-these-many years ago. The time is now to vacate that. An arbitration decision that says what is or is not pseudoscience is just not a good idea.
If there is a reasonable conflict/discussion about whether arguments about pseudoscience is relevant to a page, the pseudoscience DS are relevant. Obviously, it is relevant to ayurveda. That is as far as arbcom should be moving. I recommend vacating all the attempted demarcation and letting the community get back to business. Yes, that means that DS could be applied to pages relating to psychoanalysis (this is eminently reasonable). After all, WP:FRINGE works pretty well now in comparison to when this case (to which I was a party) was decided.
Love, etc.
jps (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: To clarify, it may be that there are enough interested parties to warrant a full case for arbitration. I am not yet convinced of that, but in principle if we get a lot of BJP activists coming in and arguing for more kid-gloved treatment of ayurveda or vedic astrology or hindu creationism, well maybe a case. But right now I think we have things under control as long as y'all are willing to say that Psuedoscience DS apply where the people here are claiming they apply. jps (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

text: Oh, and in case you need a clearer exhortation, it's this: REMOVE SPECIFIC MENTION OF BOTH ASTROLOGY AND PSYCHOANALYSIS FROM THIS ARBCOM CASE'S RULINGS. This isn't because I disagree with those rulings (though, in the case of psychoanalysis, it is something with which I disagree), it is simply because arbcom doesn't make these kinds of determinations any more. jps (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by jps 

message: It is troubling that discretionary sanctions are still in force for a case that is 14 years old.  Shouldn't these sanctions have an automatic sunset?  The point of sanctions is to solve a problem.  Once the problem is solved we should default to our usual rules, which should be sufficient.  If a set of sanctions is in force for (to pick an arbitrary term) three years, and the problem still isn't solved, then it's probably time to have a another case to figure out why the problem hasn't been solved, and maybe change the sanctions to something stronger.  If an area like American politics is a source of perpetual problems, then we should write that into our community rules and make whatever measures are needed permanent. Jehochman Talk 10:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Jehochman 

message: My views align closer to  relative to not knowing what vitamins I should take, if any. As for the content and conduct issues, there appears to be some agreement that ArbCom does not exist to adjudicate article content; count me as a +1. On the other hand, my perspective about DS is that, in practice for the most part, they are neither resolutions nor binding solutions to resolve conduct issues because you cannot bind what is malleable or what was left unresolved. Isn't that why we're here now? DS obliquely, if not directly in some instances, regulate content because they create unintentional hurdles in an environment that is ripe for WP:POV creep, perceived or otherwise. AE grants admins super-authority by allowing them to impose irreversible sanctions against editors in a unilateral action at their sole discretion. In essence, ArbCom is throwing the ball back into the court of irreconcilable differences allowing a single admin to grab the ball and run to the goalpost of their choice (which creates an in the eyes of the beholder decision-making process) and they can do so with no concern of an interception or penalty flag. Most of us try to AGF but as a realist, I'm not quite convinced that decisions based on sole discretion are completely void of prejudice or bias - especially when it involves issues that already failed other DR processes. Give me a choice between sole discretion vs a panel of independent thinkers, and I'll choose the latter. Bottomline, my perception of ArbCom's responsibility is . Editors who are elected to serve on ArbCom possess certain qualities that have garnered the community's trust, in part because they have demonstrated sound judgment, fairness and neutrality. There is also the thought that several heads are better than one because it adds an element of diversity. Some of the issues that are perceived to be disruption in highly controversial topic areas are "ended" (not always resolved) by a single admin making a judgment call, and in those cases, the potential for such decisions to be unknowingly influenced by POV or prejudice against an editor is highly plausible. The latter is why the community elected a panel - ArbCom - to handle the difficult cases. Somewhere beyond that is the reason we have so many essays. Atsme Talk 📧 22:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by Atsme

message: * The community can't really decide if a topic fits under a DS. They can make content decisions, but not this determination. That's made by uninvolved admins by an authority that descends from ArbCom.
* If an abuse of admin discretion was suggested at ARCA, some criteria to determine whether the article was in scope would probably apply (even if only implicit; obviously it would be inappropriate to apply PSDS to Banana). That would be as much of a content decision as deciding whether Ayurveda fits the bill under the psuedoscience DS.
* This particular case is probably resolved by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. It does not necessarily fix the underlying issue. Arbs have suggested the Acupuncture case as being relevant to Ayurveda and thus resolving this issue, which means they consider Ayurveda as "Complementary and Alternative Medicine". According to our articles, "Alternative Medicine" is a subtype of pseudoscience (indeed, it is by definition). In other words, that determination effectively states that Ayurveda is a psuedoscience in a roundabout way, which is apparently what the Committee wants to avoid in this case.
It's not a content decision to decide whether something fits the scope. Ayurveda obviously fits the scope, we all know that here, so that part isn't exceptional. What is exceptional is that nobody wants to say it.
Thus, I think the real lesson here is to create non-inflammatory scopes for a DS. Calling something a "psuedoscience", even under the language of WP:BROADLY, is perceived as inflammatory I guess, which is probably why Arbs don't want to say it. But nobody would hesitate clarifying NRA falls under "organizations associated with [gun control]". PSDS is probably the only active DS with a perceived inflammatory scope. But, as above, AC ultimately still has to decide if an article fits within the scope of a DS, because it's the only body that can, and it has to make this decision (even implicitly) every time it reviews an ARCA for scope overreach. Shying away from that for PSDS doesn't seem like a good idea. Easy way out seems to be a comment along the lines of NYB. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by ProcrastinatingReader 

message: Is aurveda unambiguously pseudoscience? Is the study of ayurveda permeated by pseudoscience? Are these the same thing? That would be an ecumenical matter, but that is not the question here. ArbCom would not mandate that a thing is or is not pseudoscience, they would mandate whether it falls into the pseudoscience DS. Which IMO it does, per WP:BROADLY, because there is, at the very least, solid support in RS for the idea that it is.
There appears to be consensus that the term pseudoscience can be included in the lead, as it is well sourced and in line with our approach to other pseudomedical modalities (as shorthand, Supplements, Complementary and Alternative Medicine or SCAM). The main problem is an endless succession of new single-purpose accounts following a thread on Twitter, a side effect of blowback from recent statements by the Indian medical Association characterising people practising medicine based solely on study of folkways as quacks. This is complicated by the prevalence of ayurveda in India, whose pluralistic and multitheistic culture leads to an acceptance of quasi-religious beliefs as inherently valid. This lack of judgmentalism - a core Indian value - means that quasi-religions alternatives-to-medicine are accorded parity of respect with reality-based medicine, including by the government via its Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (AYUSH).
Per 's points below, when the original DS were passed on homeopathy in 2006, it was considered thoroughly refuted by informed scientists but it was still actively promoted by national health systems. Since then, Switzerland, the UK, Australia, France, Spain and Russia have been through high level reviews and have recommended withdrawal of funding. In 2006 there were several homeopathic hospitals in the UK funded by the NHS. Now, there are none. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy would not happen today, we would simply topic ban Dana Ullman.
The status of aurveda today is not dissimilar from that of homeopathy in 2006. Because it uses pharmacologically active doses it is more resistant to trivial refutation than homeopathy, but the trajectory is similar: it is a pseudomedical system with a growing base of evidence that its fundamental approach is incorrect, and, crucially, it cannot self-correct because any honest test of whether substance A or substance B is better for condition X gives an ideologically unacceptable answer: neither. The reality-based study of herbal preparations - "does this herb contain molecules that may have a curative property" - is called pharmacognosy, ayurveda starts from the incorrect premise that some herb is always a cure and that nothing else is necessary.
The DS are there to manage behavioural issues brought on by asymmetric motivation and the collision of quasi-religious belief with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. That is present here. It needs the provisions of DS now for exactly the same reasons that homeopathy did historically, and in 10-15 years' time these too will probably have become superfluous save for rapidly separating the occasional True Believer from the article. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by JzG (Pseudoscience) 

message: It seems to me that arbitrations are a means to support that admins in highly contentious situations, that is, in situations which they cannot deal with on their own. So we have arbitration, and then perhaps a discretionary sanction so that the admins have something behind her or him when things get rough. Arbitration has declared some subject areas pseudoscience, those "which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." If arbitration was out of step with the "don't involve themselves in content disputes" well it's too late. Whether Ayurveda is a pseudoscience, "characteristically fail[s] to adhere to scientific standards and methods" or is fringe to the mainstream science is not disputed by numerous sources. Arbs don't have to agree to anything here except to support something they in the past have already agreed on. I don't see the difficulty.
And we don't have to compare Ayurveda to anything. As an alternative medicine system it is thousands of years old so we can expect there to be a huge divide between those who practice or support Ayurveda and modern medicine. I would disagree that the trajectory of Ayurveda is similar to homeopathy. Ayurveda has been around for a very long time, predates organized religion, and physicians are still being trained; my suspicion is that it will be around for a lot longer. None of that matters, though. As long as Wikipedia has both taken the mainstream scientific view and Ayurveda fits that view, then, that's what we deal with in articles. If an admin needs a clarification in a situation that is beyond one person to handle what's the sticking point. (And as aside. I think at times we use pseudoscience and fringe as weapons. Fringe simply means something is not in the mainstream. Yet (possibly). Most if not all research begins as fringe and as non-compliant with our MEDRS articles.) Littleolive oil (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Littleolive oil 

message: I've known for years that the Indian medicine articles were hopelessly biased and I've also known for years to not even bother to make any attempt to remove what I see as the blatant bias.  India does have doctors and nurses well-trained in western medicine but many of them leave the country because they can earn more money elsewhere and those that don't leave almost invariably choose to practice in the large cities.  So that leaves most Indians with Indian medicine as their only choice.  So what that comes down to is that we have our encyclopedia saying that most of the people in India are being treated by quacks using pseudoscience.  The Indian parliament is not calling their practitioners of Indian medicine quacks.  So either they are so ill-informed that they can't understand that only western medicine is real medicine or they just don't care about their own people. I believe that it is racist to call a good number of the Indian people either stupid or uncaring or both.  Knowing what I was getting into, but never the less I tried awhile ago to change some wording that I felt was racist in one of the Indian medicine articles and eventually had to give up with many wasted words and a fair amount of wasted time. Quoting Petrarchan above, I was met with the same argument: "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery. In no way does the IMA refer to all practitioners of AY in their statement. The IMA clearly states that some practitioners of alternative therapies in India are representing themselves as qualified to practice modern medicine, but aren't properly licensed, and they are (rightly) categorized as 'quacks'."  IMO both Petrarchan's and Littleolve oil's posts are both spot on.  Gandydancer (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Gandydancer 

message: :Original discussion
Initiated by Tgeorgescu at 15:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
* (initiator)
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
=== Statement by Tgeorgescu ===
Are the sanctions from WP:ARBPS applicable to pseudohistory? tgeorgescu (talk)  15:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

text: This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
*
=== Pseudoscience: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*My initial response to the question as posed is yes, they can be, but no, they are not always necessarily. It would depend on the claims. Scanning most of the topics listed at Pseudohistory, nothing necessarily stands out to me as 100% pseudoscience, but many could veer into that territory. "Aliens built the pyramids", no, but specifically "ancient astronauts traveled through space, and their technology can cure cancer", yes. "White people are responsible for all great historical achievements", no, but "Genetics prove that white people are superior", yes. Of course, if this is a jumping-off point to a specific dispute, I'm reserving judgment. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

text: *I appreciate the clarification. I agree that this would not be covered unless it veered more clearly into scientific topics. --BDD (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification request: Pseudoscience (July 2021) 

message: Are the sanctions from WP:ARBPS applicable to pseudohistory? tgeorgescu (talk)  15:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Tgeorgescu 

message: It should be considered that, more and more, the study of history, especially ancient history, is coming to be based on scientific data, and, as such, pseudohstory which directly contradicts that data or is not consistent with it should probably be considered to be pseudoscience as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Beyond My Ken 

message: In general, subjects in the field of the humanities are not suitable for considerations as pseudoscience , and I have grave reservations against extending them even into the social sciences. . There may be some areas and topics in history that are essentially pure conspiracy theories and fringe, but in general we can deal with them without the need for the pseudoscience special treatment. 
But one area of the humanities is totally inappropriate to be considered pseudoscience, ever, and that is religion. The nature of the evidence in this field sometimes does resemble convention historical thinking, but often does not. I personally have a very strong view that   proving truth by personal revelation is never valid, and neither is proving truth by reference to the statements in sacred texts. People active in these areas from some traditions often feel the exact opposite, and it is not for WP to try to decide on this. Within the two religions I know, Judaism and Christianity, arguments about this question has been active on for thousands of years now, and is most unlikely to be settled --at least unless the traditionalists should somehow be correct, and the Last Judgment should intervene.  
What WP should never be doing is deciding on the status of religious questions.  If there are multiple views, they must be presented, but the wording of an article should never imply that any one particular version is Correct. The 1907 Catholic Encyclopedia , of course, thought about this differently, and they had every right to.   DGG ( talk ) 17:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by DGG

message: *My initial response to the question as posed is yes, they can be, but no, they are not always necessarily. It would depend on the claims. Scanning most of the topics listed at Pseudohistory, nothing necessarily stands out to me as 100% pseudoscience, but many could veer into that territory. "Aliens built the pyramids", no, but specifically "ancient astronauts traveled through space, and their technology can cure cancer", yes. "White people are responsible for all great historical achievements", no, but "Genetics prove that white people are superior", yes. Of course, if this is a jumping-off point to a specific dispute, I'm reserving judgment. --BDD (talk) 16:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: *I appreciate the clarification. I agree that this would not be covered unless it veered more clearly into scientific topics. --BDD (talk) 01:41, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience: Arbitrator views and discussion