Revision as of 12:56, 24 October 2010

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Requests for clarification

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate change

Initiated by TS at 00:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

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

• Tony Sidaway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Polargeo 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Marknutley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ChrisO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has exercised right to vanish
• Minor4th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has closed talk page and announced retirement
• ATren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• GregJackP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• A Quest For Knowledge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Verbal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ZuluPapa5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• JohnWBarber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• FellGleaming (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(All notifications linked above)

Statement by Tony Sidaway

The "Remedy 3" comprehensive topic bans are an important part of the case. As I understand it they are intended to give valuable editors a rest from the topic so that they can find ways of improving their collaborative skills and picking up once again the joy of editing.

But that isn't what's happening. I know the arbitrators are aware of the bickering and "toeing the line" that continues and some of them have opined on this . I won't go into my own abortive attempt to have this dealt with by the community, only to see it provide yet another forum for bickering by topic banned editors. Even this request is a gambit that may backfire, but I think arbcom and the clerks could deal with that.

At this point I think it would be useful to have arbitrators revisit this issue and clarify that behavior like this is unlikely to help Misplaced Pages and that it will be a consideration in any future appeal. This must sound obvious, but obvious it is not to some of these editors (though I hasten to add that most topic banned editors have not continued to obsess). The Committee has spoken, but apparently not firmly enough for some editors. --TS 00:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a request for clarification, not an attempt to relegislate the arbitration. No evidence will be given or is required. Just a clarification.

Statement by uninvolved roux

I don't see why ArbCom needs to clarify anything here. A topicban is a topicban. That means stay away from the topic. If people are pushing the envelope, warn them, once. If they keep pushing the envelope, use the block mechanisms included in the decision. → ROUX ₪ 00:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Yopienso

I very much appreciate Tony's work toward creating a good working environment and his impartiality in dealing with William M. Connelley. William, however, persists in behavior he's been instructed to avoid. When Coren made a kind, constructive suggestion that he work on a maths page, William took offense. It seems he honestly doesn't get the point. Since it cannot be made more clear to him, he simply needs to be banned from the pages where he has been contentious in the past and from other related pages even if he has not caused trouble there. Posting comments on his talk page about points he disagrees with, whether or not he intends for watchers to run "fix" them, should be strictly prohibited.

My understanding is that editors who refuse to comply with administrative decisions lose their accounts. It would be much better if William would accept correction and eventually be able to edit in those areas in which he is so knowledgeable and so passionately interested. --Yopienso (talk) 06:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by involved TheGoodLocust

I'm not sure why TS bothered to inform me of this, but I'm been watching things a little bit and here are my observations.

1) ScienceApologist (who should have been topic banned) put up a message on his talk page basically offering to meat puppet for topic banned users - and he knew full well who would ask him. IRRC William Connolley availed himself of this offer.

2) William Connolley has posted at least two diffs on his talk page to get his talk page watchers to meatpuppet for him. Apparently he didn't like the fact that an editor called climate models "estimates." He then proceeded to strike out the diffs (i.e. "done") when his watchers had done his work for him.

3) William Connolley made an edit to a climate related article. Not a climate change article, but it seems to be a pattern with him to push the limits in order to provoke others.

I recommend that William Connolley's main account be banned so he can use the WMC account that was setup to prevent the watchpage temptation.

Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 00:53, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by previously involved LessHeard vanU

Is every single editor listed by TS involved in what I will term "envelope pushing"? If not, then it behooves TS (or another editor aware of such instances) to note who is doing so, and provide an example. Those who are not engaged in such practices should be shown good faith, assuming that they have taken ArbCom's comments to heart. Other editors, and here I agree with TS, may need a nudge or stronger from a Clerk. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Cla68

It seems that much, if not all of WMC's entire Internet presence is centered on being an advocate battling to influence the content of Misplaced Pages's CC articles (also check the comments to that post and WMC's responses to them). It's up to you guys on how to proceed from here, I offer no suggestions. Cla68 (talk) 12:56, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I think it's common sense that in any appeal, we'd consider among other things whether the editor continued to engage in problematic behavior after the case was over. I would think that would go without saying, but since we've been asked, I'll say it. In particular, any continuation of bickering, name-calling, or other behavior of the types criticized in the decision should have stopped a long time ago, and certainly ought to stop now. (I am not opining on, or characterizing, anyone's specific behavior or comment; I hope it does not become necessary for the committee to do so.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
• The decision spells out a number of things that the sanctioned editors must not do; there are a number of things beyond that which common sense dictates they should not do. Certainly, remaining engaged in the topic area by "suggesting" edits to do is about as bad as it can get without breaking the letter of the ruling. The point of the ruling is to get those editors to disengage. If they are unwilling or unable to do so, then we'll have no choice but to amend the decision to be more comprehensive and draconian for those editors. — Coren  03:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience

Initiated by Ludwigs2 at 21:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

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

Directly involved

• Ludwigs2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notified)

Others are involved in the conversation and will be notified, but I don't want to commit anyone outside the direct discussion. (General notifications at the two below-noted discussions of this issue - , .)

Statement by Ludwigs2

Clarification is needed on the use of skeptical sources in general, and the use of Stephen Barrett and QuackWatch as sources in particular. The current dispute centers around assertions of 'expertise' in skepticism. The pseudoscience decision does consider expert editors, but does not deal with similar assertions of expertise by editors about sources.

See the discussions at:

• Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Weston_Price_and_Quackwatch
• Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Noticeboards.2C_source_criticism_and_claims_of_BLP_issues

Barrett in specific

In the specific case, ScienceApologist (and others) argue that Barrett can be used to critique the work of a minor historic scientist Weston Price as pseudoscience, despite the facts that:

• Price's work would not have been considered pseudoscience at the time he was a publishing scientist.
• Barrett's critique is actually aimed at the Weston A. Price Foundation, an organization ostensibly formed around Price's (in current times) discarded theories, but which Price was never to my knowledge directly associated with.
• Barrett himself has no special training in the philosophy of science or the history of science, but is primarily notable for running the website QuackWatch.

The argument being used is that Barrett is considered an expert in the "field of quackbusting" ( assumedly by virtue of running QuackWatch), and this is defended by reference to the wording of Self-published sources , through the assertion that the following phrase:

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.

implies that Barrett is an expert because he has been published in reliable third-party publications.

The obvious problems with this arguments (from my perspective) are:

1. There is no scholarly or academic 'field' of 'quackbusting'
2. There are no objective criteria for determining expertise in quackbusting, even if such a field could be argued to exist.
3. Publication is reliable sources does not automatically confer the status of 'expert'
4. There is no reason to assume that Barrett (a retired psychologist) has any particular training or skills that qualify him as an expert at scientific practice or methodology, aside from having once been a practicing scientist.

Barrett is certainly notable (though his notability is largely due to self-promotion and self-publication through his website), and certainly reliable as a noteworthy proponent of the skeptical point of view, but (IMO) should not be defended as an authoritative expert in a non-existent field for which he has no specific training.

Skeptical sources more generally

This type of problem occurs to a greater or lesser degree across a broad number of articles. A variety of skeptical sources - including individuals such as Barrett and collected materials or journals such as The Skeptic's Dictionary or the Skeptical Inquirer - are used as though they were authoritative experts on all fringe topics. I'd like to propose that the following clarifications be made to address this problem:

1. Skeptical sources can be defined as follows:
   • They are sources which advocate against pseudoscience, fringe theories, alternate theories or other viewpoints that they considered unscientific.
     • Different sources may use any of several definitions of the term 'scientific'.
   • They are comprised of people, usually with scientific backgrounds, working as generalists rather than working in a particular field for which they are trained.
   • They use scientific arguments for refutation and often compile and use scientific research from other sources, but do not generally do research of their own and are not subject to peer review, accreditation, or the other systems that assure accuracy and objectivity in mainstream scientific research.
2. Skeptical sources should not be taken to be scientific experts, but should be treated (depending on context) as:
   • Equivalent to informed journalistic sources.
   • As primary sources advocating for a particular viewpoint.

In general, this would mean that editors who use skeptical sources would have a raised bar with respect to clear attribution, specific quoting and verification of claims, neutral and balanced language, and in other ways be obliged to stick more closely to proper encyclopedic methods and style. This should result in a general improvement of the quality of fringe articles across the project. --Ludwigs2 21:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Addendum

Just as a response to ScienceApologist's claim that this is beyond ArbCom's remit... A few points:

• This is not a mere content dispute on a single article - Barrett's is mentioned in 120+ mainspace articles, QuackWatch in 220+, and The Skeptic's Dictionary in 181. Almost all of those are examples where these sources are used as supposed experts.
• The use of these sources is always defended under the ArbCom pseudoscience ruling, citing the need to present mainstream sources as prominent, and then using the specious claims of expertise to argue that a skeptical source represents the mainstream viewpoint.

ArbCom had the remit to deal with sourcing issues in the original ruling, therefore it has the remit (and I would argue the obligation) to clarify its ruling. --Ludwigs2 01:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ScienceApologist

This seems to me to be a content dispute: mainly beyond arbcom's remit. I include, below, a rationale for why Ludwigs2 is incorrect in specific claims he made above only for completeness as I do not expect arbcom to actually agree to post any clarification on the issue except maybe to clarify that they are not permitted to adjudicate sources (c.f. this amendment to the Barrett v. Rosenthal arbitration case).

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by BruceGrubb

In this specific case, the claims of Barrett regarding Price can be shown to be incorrect or out of date using reliable sources.

1. Barrett's claims regarding what Price ignored are contradicted by Price's own book (published by Paul B. Hoeber, Inc; Medical Book Department of Harper & Brothers) (see Talk:Weston_Price#Weston_Price_and_Stephen_Barrett_in_their_own_words as well as in a 1923 publication by Price called Dental Infections, Oral and Systemic
2. Barrett's claims regarding focal infection theory are shown to possibly out of date by

• Saraf (2006) Textbook of Oral Pathology Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers; pg 188
• Bergenholtz, Gunnar; Preben Hørsted-Bindslev, Claes Reit (2009) Textbook of Endodontology; Wiley page 135-136
• Henderson, Brian; Michael Curtis, Robert Seymour (2009) Periodontal Medicine and Systems Biology, Wiley; Page 33

1. With the exception of the focal infection none of Berrett's claims regarding Price have a reference.

This for me raises a lot of WP:RS issues regarding the use of Berrett in a biography of a man who died in 1948 when the understanding and state of dentistry and nutrition was much different than it is now. Price's work might have been perfectly good for his time but later research may have showed underlying premises common to his time were flawed or simply wrong. The problem is with no references we can't tell if these claims regarding Price are just Berrett's opinion, were the view of Price's contemporaries, or were the view of later researchers critiquing Price. Coupled with the idea the focal infection statement may be out of date, lack of information as where most of the claims are coming from, and apparent contradiction with Price brings up the issue of "if this is flawed then what else in this article is flawed?" putting WP:RS in the ICU.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Addendum by BruceGrubb

I would like to add another reason for ArbCom to reconsider its remit; one editor seems to be using WP:BLP as a Censorship hammer to squelch meaningful challenges to Stephen Barrett's expertise.

1. It has been used to call another editor a drunk ()
2. It in conjunction with WP:BLP has resulted in apparent Misplaced Pages:WikiBullying (see Ludwigs2, Hans Adler, The Founders Intent, Griswaldo and BruceGrubb)
3. It has been used to claim that Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_1#Stephen_Barrett, Talk:Stephen_Barrett/Archive_9#copied_from_Ronz.27_talk_page, Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive19#Stephen_Barrett are off topic in the BLP noticeboard (an archive of the BLP Noticeboard is not on topic for the BLP Noticeboard? SAY WHAT?!?)

In short because of a lack of the requested clarification we effectively have possible conduct issues going on and will likely see this kins of problem in the future; I seriously doubt ArbCom had this mess in mind when it made its ruling. We really need to have clarification on how sites like can be used and if owner is the author how WP:BLP applies to them in the talk pages.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Ronz

This is purely a content dispute. --Ronz (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Itsmejudith

It seems to me that we reasonable people on FTN rapidly reached a realistic consensus about Barrett/Quackwatch: a useful source in some circumstances but with limitations that need to be respected. That's true of any source, really. Although SA continues to demur from this, we can discuss such sources case by case like grown-ups. I can't see much that ArbCom can add. I agree with Ludwigs that "Quackbusting" isn't an area of expertise. The UK writers like Ben Goldacre and Simon Singh develop the phenomenon beyond Barrett's starting point. They make a point of referring to recognised experts, so we can use them as starting points and follow the cite trail to excellent sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other user

It appears to me from sources in the Price article that Price was quite respected during his time. In fact he occupied a chairmanship position in research with the ADA, is the credit with several major technological breakthrough for his time. Furthermore his research in nutrition among aboriginal tribes in several regions is consider unique and rare due to the fact is could not be reproduced today, simply due to demographic changes. No one has been able to successfully determine that his work is flawed. At the time of his work, two opposing views in dentistry were being debated that of nutrition based the concept that caries were caused by system disease, and due to local infection from bacteria. Caried caused by local infection won the argument, and has guided dentistry for the most part since. Barrett's critique does not account for the context (time) of Price's research, and compares it to modern criteria. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT _{GOOD WORKS} 01:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• We're not going to rule on what is essentially a content dispute here, I see no conduct issues that need to be looked at. SirFozzie (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• Per Fozzie. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
• The good news is that I don't see any significant misconduct in the history of this disagreement so far. The bad news is that does leave the matter in the category of "content dispute, ArbCom can't help you." If you want my individual thoughts as an editor, feel free to ask me on my talkpage after this request is closed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Request for clarification: DIGWUREN

Initiated by Petri Krohn (talk) at 21:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Statement by Petri Krohn

I am seeking clarification on whether this edit I made yesterday to Mass killings under Communist regimes a) constitutes edit warring, b) is a part of a BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, or c) is unrelated to any ongoing edit war in the article.

The article is under discretionary sanctions authorized in the Digwuren case limiting editors to 1RR per day.

I try to maintain a 0 RR policy on disputed topics – never doing blind reverts and instead finding new formulations to address the different objections. The edit war on the Mass killings under Communist regimes started October 13 and resulted in nine blind reverts by a total of six different editors. A complete list of the edits is available in in my comment on the related arbitration enforcement thread. My edits to the article were intended to stop the ongoing edit war by finding and proposing a suitable compromise wording. In the half an hour it took for me to check that my first edit was supported by facts the article went through two more rounds of edit warring.

I believe both my edits were allowed by WP:BRD, more specifically Misplaced Pages:Edit warring#What edit warring is – a Misplaced Pages policy that excludes the BRD cycle from edit warring. None of the material I added has ever been disputed; the fact that R. J. Rummel sees a causal link between communist ideology and mass killing is the only thing all editors working on the article have been able to agree on.

Here are three diffs related to my second edit:

1. the edit itself
2. diff from my previous edit in the same section
3. diff from the disputed content edit warred over

The diffs shows three words in common with my first edit and one word in common with the disputed content.

On a general note, I would like the arbitration committee to specify, if the following two statements are a correct interpretation of the relevant policies, Misplaced Pages:Edit warring and WP:3RR

1. 3RR only applies to edit warring; the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is not edit warring and is not subject to 1 / 3RR restrictions.
2. An edit should be considered part of the BRD cycle and not edit warring, if it addresses a substantial objection raised by another editor (weasel words, BLP violation) – even if it retains a large part of the challenged content.

-- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Vecrumba

I have noticed "BRD" being used to spin-doctor (my perception) reverts as being something else. (Diffs are not material, I'm not here to litigate any particular instance.) Where a BRD sets off an edit/revert war, I can see the original BRD being exempt from the edit revert chain, but only as long as:

1. the original BRD itself is not re-inserted, substantially unmodified (or modified not at all) from its initial instantiation; and
2. where there is no initial BRD, "BRD" is not invoked to reinsert substantially unmodified (or modified not at all) content from earlier instantiations of versions which comprise an edit war already in progress.

In either event: reinserting an (initial) BRD in a chain of reverts or claiming BRD within a chain of reverts, the claim for "BRD" is nullified, as to not do so would encourage editors to circumvent #RR restrictions by offering the revert "advantage" to any editor who is first out of the gate to claim "BRD." I would like to know if my interpretation is correct. Best, PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The corollary here is that claiming "BRD" to side-step rules on edit-warring may be construed as Wiki-lawyering. Edit-warring trumps BRD, not BRD trumps edit-warring. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Collect

The proimary issue is that where an article is clearly and multiply marked as "1RR", is it proper to assert "BRD" when the (at least partial) contents of two reverts clearly have been on and off reverted in the past? Where such a warning is not clearly marked (which has certainly been the case in the past) I would think the argument of BRD had merit. However, the case in hand does not have the benefit of that caution at all.

There is another issue -- has "Digwuren" now been excessively stretched? I have just been officially "warned" which means I can not edit anything about the London victory parade of 1946 -- an article I did not even know existed! Where "Digwuren" is thus so stretched, ought Arbcom sua sponte consider limiting that decision which has now been stretched more than a Hefty bag in a commercial? Collect (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Generally speaking, edit-warring is a pattern of conduct; it is difficult to say whether a single, isolated edit constitutes edit-warring. From your description of the context, I would say that you inserted yourself in an ongoing edit war, if nothing else; this may or may not have been a good decision on your part, and may or may not be considered sanctionable behavior by administrators enforcing discretionary sanctions in this area.

  As far as your other question is concerned, 3RR (and similar rules) apply to any revert, whether it is part of a BRD cycle, a blind revert, or something else; engaging in BRD does not grant an exemption from revert limitations, and one can still be engaged in edit-warring even if BRD is offered—rightly or wrongly—as an excuse. Kirill  17:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with the substance of Kirill's comments. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:36, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
• I too agree with the substance of Kirill's comments. Risker (talk) 03:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)