Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Proposed decision

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Re: Experts principle 2 "Substantial academic expertise" 3 Rewriting policy 4 Disputes over expertise 5 Limitation to science articles 6 About pseudoscience and fringe theories 7 Clarification requested 8 Remedies 9 Proposed findings of fact 10 addressing the key issues 11 Significant minority viewpoints 12 ScienceApologist is deleting discussion from this page 13 Critical scientists take alternative ideas seriously 14 notable because of absurdity? 15 "aggressive bias editing" 16 Evidence against Tommysun 17 Pseudoscience vs "Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation" 18 Raul654: Calling a spade a spade 19 Banning of Eric Lerner 19.1 Aneutronic fusion 20 Raul654: Evidence supporting comments 21 Motion to close 22 Remedies 23 Vandalism issue 24 Final decision clarification

[edit] Re: Experts principle

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)

[edit] "Substantial academic expertise"

I'm not sure I'd include the word "academic", as expertise in many disciplines can be gotten elsewhere. OTOH, we shouldn't open the door for anyone to claim to be an expert. "Substantial expertise" seems to work--at a minimum, for expertese to be substantial it should either be documented (via a degree or certification, or by publication in reliable sources) or manifest (from speaking knowledgably about the subject).

At any rate... this principle looks like a prelude to a remedy or finding wherein certain editors who persist in editing articles they have no clue about (and thereby disrupting the article, regardless of their intent), ought not do so. I proposed such a remedy with regard to one such user... is that where this is going? --EngineerScotty 21:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

We certainly don't want to require a PhD in popular culture in order to edit Elvis Presly or some arbitrary requirement that would preclude Bill Gates from editing an article on Windows. Fred Bauder 00:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Come again? It is not a conflict of interest in your view for Bill Gates to edit the Windows article and it is a conflict of interest for me to edit aneutronic fusion? Can you explain this, please?Elerner 03:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think there is a problem ascertaining expertise. One of the editors has claimed to be an expert,[1] and professor,[2], but it is not verified.
• I have gone out of my way to solicit the opinion of a number of experts, including Prof. Daniel James who has contributed directly to Wikipedia discussions, and Prof. Emil Wolf whose response I also posted (see my evidence for details), both of which have been ignored by the same editor. --Iantresman 23:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Another issue that comes to mind is that different experts in a field may have different opinions, especially with some controversial subjects. For example, most expert cosmologists will differ in opinion from, say, Halton Arp, a well-published expert in cosmology. And who is considered an expert in the field of plasma astrophysics? Astronomers or plasma physicists, or both? --Iantresman 23:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Both, up to them. Fred Bauder 00:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewriting policy

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)

• I share Phil's concern on this issue. I do agree that Wikipedia should adopt some policy recognizing expertise, and Fred's proposal seems reasonable, but is it ArbComm's place to do so, particularly where ArbComm recognizes that the community has been unable to reach consensus on this issue? Creating an expert recognition policy seems much more appropriate for either a community policy debate or an office action. (I may be mistaken about the scope of ArbComm's mandate, though). TheronJ 15:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• 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)

[edit] Disputes over expertise

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)

This is really typical of the sort of misinformation that is behind much of the "mainstream" editing in this dispute. Aneutronic fusion as a process in nature exists. It has been observed in tens of thousands of experiments by hundreds of researchers and its theoretical basis is very well understood as well. This process has never been used in a device to produce net power production. Nor has the more "coventional" deuterium-tritium (DT) fusion reaction ever been used to produce net electric power production or come close to it. But aneutornic fusion exists to the exact same extent as DT fusion.Elerner 03:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Limitation to science articles

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)

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)

Perhaps, so, all French to me. Fred Bauder 21:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Mangojuice^talk 13:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About pseudoscience and fringe theories

I have drafted a proposal, but I don't know whether it is a principle, a remedy, or what. So here I place it. Move it around as you will:

Pseudoscientific and fringe science topics that are notable enough can have their own articles. Criticism of the subject can be included from the scientific community, skeptical societies, and verifiable contradictions to mainstream scientific thought. Pseudoscientific and fringe science topics are generally excluded from mainstream articles unless there is some way the topic has been established with enough notability to warrant mention. The relative weight and notability of the pseudoscience is an editorial decision, discussed in WP:NPOV#Pseudoscience, WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and WP:FRINGE, and made by editors familiar enough with the subjects to know whether something is considered generally important or not.

--ScienceApologist 21:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• When you say "fringe", do you mean "significant minority", or "extremely small", as described in NPOV Undue weight? [3]

• I mean something that is evaluated by experts in the field to be fringe. I mean both significant minorities and extremely small minorities, the difference between each is determined by editors who are familiar with the subjects. --ScienceApologist 13:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Do you think this principle should be expanded to include fringe views in all Wikipedia articles? --Iantresman 21:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Absolutely. --ScienceApologist 13:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Good discussion, my friends. Keep going. What is next? --Rednblu 21:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The basic problem is that in SA’s proposal there is neither a definition of pseudoscience or fringe science nor a verifiable way of determining what is correctly characterized as either. See my proposals below for both definitions and method.Elerner 03:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The metric here seems to be PopularityWithMainstreamScientists as quantified by the percentage of pages on the subject, such as intrinsic redshift, found in 1) PhysRev journals over the last two years and the latest edition of the 2) physics textbook. That is, it does not seem to matter whether the subject is pseudoscience or fringe science. All that matters is PopularityWithMainstreamScientists as quantified by the percentage of pages on the subject, such as intrinsic redshift, found in 1) PhysRev journals over the last two years and the latest edition of the 2) physics textbook. Does that make sense? --Rednblu 13:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification requested

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)

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)

[edit] Remedies

• 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)

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

• Are any of these open to questions the parties concerned? --Iantresman 02:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] addressing the key issues

I am somewhat surprised that so little of the workshop content seems to have been used so far in the proposed final decision. The main issues are not being addressed, as far as I can see.

These seem to be the key issues:

When can viewpoints be labeled “pseudoscience” and therefore be dismissed?

What minority viewpoints within science are significant and therefore should be covered in Wikipedia?

What needs to be done to address the conduct of the parties involved?

In addition, in the course of discussion, the idea was raised that people like me who are doing research in a field have a conflict of interest in editing article concerning that field. This has to be addressed as well, since it is a broad principle that would affect huge swaths of Wikipedia.

Finally there is the idea that certain disciplines like physics require more expert editing than others.

I want to make concrete proposals for the final decision on each of these issues

I am doing this here, since the workshop discussion seems to be a bit ignored.

No, read it all. Fred Bauder 13:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed principles

1) Topics in Wikipedia should only be labeled “pseudoscience” if they fit the Wiki definition of pseudoscience:” any subject that appears superficially to be scientific or whose proponents state is scientific but nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement of the scientific method ” , as determined by verifiable sources.

2) A “significant minority viewpoint” in a scientific field must be given coverage in Wikipedia articles. A “significant minority viewpoint” in a scientific field is one that has adherents who are prominent in the relevant field; OR is represented by a number of peer-reviewed papers, and is the work of several, not just one researcher; OR is supported or examined by major institutions, such as by funding, sponsoring seminars, or invited presentations.

3) Doing research in a given scientific field does not represent a “conflict of interest” for editing articles in that same field.

In your case you are not only doing research, but attempting to raise money. Fred Bauder 13:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Does Fred Bauder know of single research scientist who is not trying to raise money for his or her research, either from the government or from other sources? It is an obligation of every university scientist to work actively to raise money for their research. In addition, you said that Bill Gates should be able to edit the article on Windows. If Bill Gates is not trying to "raise money" , who in the world is? Are you talking about a vaguely consistent policy or a policy that applies uniquely to me?Elerner 00:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between applying for grants and soliciting money on a website. Fred Bauder 13:39, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Is not Bill Gates trying to raise money from the general public by selling his products and his company shares? How do you defend the idea that his editing of Windows would be OK, while my editing of plasma cosmology would not be?Elerner 15:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that anyone citing Wikipedia in a grant application would get laughed out of the study section. Thatcher131 13:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Federal grant money is allocated by a political process. Support for funding stem-cell research is certainly influenced by public perceptions of the scientific merit of this work. Should stem-cell researchers therefore be banned form editing the stem-cell article? In addition, there is still a great amount of research that is funded by corporations, all of which raise money form the general public by selling shares. Should all scientists working for corporations be banned from editing articles in their research fields because such articles might help their companies?Elerner 15:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest that any active Mainstream scientist is trying to raise money for his or her Mainstream research and development project that proves the text of the Mainstream Wikipedia page, such as redshift, quantum mechanics, or gravitation. Are we sure that raising money for funding research and development creates a "conflict of interest"? Or does raising money for Mainstream research and development projects require a special protection? --Rednblu 13:37, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep, trying to raise money by changing the content of Wikipedia represents a conflict of interest no matter how you slice it. --ScienceApologist 14:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Which would apply to any author who has a book to sell. I think the important point is whether such articles promote inappropriately. I don't think any part of the Eric Lerner article indicated that his company was raising money, nor worse, that it was a great investment opportunity. --Iantresman 14:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Authors with books to sell should not edit their entry or their book's entry here either, see WP:AUTO, among other things. Thatcher131 13:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This is not about editing my own page which, for the sixth time, I will say I stopped doing as soon as I was informed of the policy. It is about editing articles on scientific fields that I do reserach in.Elerner 15:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Criticism was removed by Eric in what definitely appears as a conflict of interest -- removing critical views can be seen as a way to make yourself look better for potential investors in your company. --ScienceApologist 16:08, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If he was raising money off-wikipedia, and pointing potential investors to his wikipedia entry, that is a huge and inappropriate conflict of interest, whether the fundraising was mentioned here or not. Thatcher131 13:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That accusation is 100% untrue. I have not referenced my Wikipedia article on any website, nor would I.Elerner 15:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I want to argue very strongly that designating certain fields, like physics, as especially needing academic experts is very misguided and promotes the pernicious idea that fields that require mathematics are somehow more complex than other fields. It is an idea that has gone a long way to destroying physics education in US secondary schools and turning millions off to physics. As a professional physicist, I can assure you that the phenomena discussed in history articles are far more complex and difficult to understand than those discussed in physics articles.

As to the parties involved, I would personally support the “revert parole” IF it were applied to ALL parties involved. The edit warring is a waste of time.Elerner 03:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Almost alll of your suggestions are requests for arbcom to engage in policy generation and content arbitration, both of which are, with good reason, responsibilities of the community at large. That is why, from my perspective at least, they haven't been adopted. Dmcdevit·t 03:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

These are proposed alternative formulations to the proposed decisions 15-18. I am addressing the exact same subject matter, but with more specific proposals that will not lead to endless haggling, as for example, "obviously bogus" would. My proposal on conflcit of interest is a clarification to apply to scientific research. Without it, all expert input would be excluded.Elerner 03:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Significant minority viewpoints

• This was the raison d'etre for the arbitration case, and I feel the cause of all the conflict. I note many suggestions concerning keeping pseudoscience out of science articles. There is no argument here.
• But as I tried to highlight in my evidence, some significant minority scientific viewpoints were being misrepresented as insignificant or non-notable, or worse, as pseudoscience. Not one shred of evidences was presented by any of the other parties to support the pseudoscience association, perhaps with the exception of the article on the Electric Universe (Concept), and it was me that provided the source, and the subject has not been mentioned by me in any mainstream, nor significant minority scientific viewpoint article.
• Indeed, the one person in this case who has mentioned pseudoscience in minority scientific viewpoint articles has been ScienceApologist (see my evidence), and added the category tag inappropriately to a number of minority scientific articles. --Iantresman 15:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As is coming clear in this arbitration case, it is fine to exclude minority scientific viewpoints from general scientific articles. Many of the minority opinions you want to see promoted here on Wikipedia do have the characteristics of pseudoscience. The demarcation problem indicates clearly that the minority and fringe are more likely to fall over to pseudoscience than the scientific community at large. Van Flandern is an excellent example. --ScienceApologist 16:12, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• Without any reliable sources, that is your opinion, and highlights the issue. --Iantresman 16:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sources have been provided. Criticism of minority viewpoints by the mainstream is available when those in the mainstream decide to stop ignoring those ideas. Since those ideas are either ignored or criticized, it is plainly the evaluation of the mainstream that these ideas do not belong in mainstream articles. Therefore, we are right to exclude them and shall continue to do so until you find a mainstream source that doesn't treat them as such. The onus is on you, not on me. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence which you have been remarkably unable to produce. --ScienceApologist 16:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

May I politely suggest that, since you are looking at a parole as it stands, it may be politically expedient to take a mildly less shrill tone, lest you inadvertantly convince the arbcom in ways other than how you intended? Phil Sandifer 16:39, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't see that I'm being "shrill" at all, and I'm not going to do any politicking with respect to this subject. I'm fine with a parole, but the arbitrators deserve to know what my position is. If anyone is under the impression that I'm going to suddenly not point out that marginal ideas don't belong in mainstream articles, they need to remove themselves from that misconception.

It has been clearly documented throughout the arbitration here that ideas championed by Ian are marginalized in the community to the point of exclusion. If Wikipedia really is supposed to be an encyclopedia that reports what's in the "real world" and eschews original research and original interpretations, it is inappropriate for editors to insist on a different sort of treatment for the ideas they champion than the treatment those ideas receive in the field. This means that marginal ideas can be reported in their own articles, but they often will receive zero weight in mainstream articles unless there are compelling sources that there are mainstream evaluations that take the ideas seriously. There are examples of minority opinions in science which belong in the mainstream articles (such as MOND), but there are far more examples of non-mainstream opinions which do not belong in the mainstream articles.

Ian has a consistent habit of claiming that I am "inappropriately" excluding minority veiwpoints from mainstream articles when it is plainly a fact that the exclusion of the ideas he champions comes at the level of the sources and not at the level of my editting. I agree with the point made by three arbcom members that there may need to be notability guidelines set-up for scientific ideas because otherwise we will continue to have editors insert text that makes the marginal appear less marginal in very general and mainstream articles. I want people to be clear as to what my position is, otherwise, this will come back to haunt us again and again.

--ScienceApologist 17:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• [Undented] ScienceApologist, you described some mainstream scientific subjects as having the "characteristics of pseudoscience"; you tagged articles as pseudoscience, including Eric Lerner, Plasma cosmology and Tired light. The onus is on you to find a reliable source that supports this view.
• You have some characteristics of a brain surgeon. That does not make you a brain surgeon.
• I claim that this characterization is plain wrong since it is unsupported by any sources, and consequently your insistence of describing such subjects as pseudoscience is inappropriate to say the least. --Iantresman 20:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The cited mainstream criticisms of Eric Lerner and those who champion tired light are included in the articles. The criticisms rise to the level of pseudoscience. The way something is determined to be a psuedoscience is that is has the characteristics of pseudoscience. It is a classification that's based on editorial judgement. Criticizing me for being on one side of the issue and claiming I have to justify myself is just as much a subjective opinion. Thus, there are proposals on the table stating that simply categorizing something as a pseudoscience doesn't mean the subject is objectively a pseudoscience since describing something as a pseudoscience is a bald judgement and the demarcation problem is not solved. --ScienceApologist 23:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

• "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." (my emphasis) -- WP:V
• Your determination of pseudoscience is logically flawed. Otherwise, the way something is determined to be a human, is that is has the characteristics of human; let's see: arms, legs, eyes, communication, use of tools. So it must be human? So it must be human-like?
• Editorial judgment decides that career scientists are "Woo-Woos", or "out-and-out insane", or "pathological scientists", or "pseudoscientists", because it is believed that they have certain characteristics? Reads like phrenology to me. --Iantresman 00:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Any user can check the mainstream evaluations of the subjects you hold dear and find that they are criticized and see that the criticisms follow the definition of pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is an editorial criticism and as such it is a content issue that arbcomm will not rule on. If you can't find a single mainstream scientist who considers your pet theorists and fringe scientists to be worthy of inclusion in normal reviews they don't belong on Wikipedia. And as long as there is a demarcation problem, I'm not going to buy that you have some magical objective way of finding out how editorial decisions regarding pseudoscience are made. --ScienceApologist 02:51, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist’s view seems to be that pseudoscience is whatever he says is pseudoscience. Not a very good definition. SA has not once indicated in what way the theories of plasma cosmology or the study of aneutronic fusion violate scientific method or are unverifiable, as is necessary by the definition of pseudoscience in Wikipedia itself. In addition, he has not once pointed to any verifiable source that argues this for either field.Elerner 00:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

We have shown that there are plenty of mainstream sources the criticize your pet theories and your competence, Eric. As long as there is no solution to the demarcation problem, it seems the mainstream opinion of your abilities and ideas push toward pseudoscience. --ScienceApologist 02:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You can’t cite one verifiable source that says plasma cosmology or aneutronic fusion is pseudo science—not one. The demarcation problem is solved by the definition of pseudoscience--something which claims to be science but violates scientific method and is unverifiable. You can’t cite one verifiable source that says plasma cosmology or aneutronic fusion violates scientific method or is unverifiable. Not one. Elerner 03:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The demarcation problem exists because there isn't a well-defined demarcation for evaluating who does and doesn't use the scientific method. In your case, there are plenty of mainstream cosmologists who question your ability to understand the basic frameworks necessary to engage in the theoretical discussion in which you purport to engage. --ScienceApologist 06:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not just work that I--or Hannes Aflven for that matter-- am associated with. It is the basic policy question of the use of the term pseudoscience to exclude or dismiss significant minority scientific viewpoints. You are not responding to the fact that there is an accepted definition of pseudoscience and that it is very different from “scientific viewpoints held by a minority in the field.”

You are not responding to the fact that criticisms of your work follow the definitions of pseudoscience you claim is "accepted". There are plenty of pseudoscience supporters who love to claim "minority scientific viewpoint status". Whether they engage in "legitimate" science is an editorial decision, not an objective mark. --ScienceApologist 06:04, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That is not a fact--it is not true. Cite one verifiable source that says that plasma cosmology is pseuoscience or that aneutronic fusion is pseudoscience or does not use scientific method. There are no such verifiable sources. I would love to read the scientist that says Alfven, the founder of plasma cosmology and the winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics, did not use the scientific method. There is a big difference between scientists disagreeing with the work of other scientists and their calling the work "pseudoscience". Only you and your pals are saying that and you are not a verifiable source.Elerner 15:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

True, but if the minority viewpoint is regularly published in scientific journals it is not pseudoscience and a competent editor would know that. Fred Bauder 13:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This is making a very bold statement with regards to the demarcation problem, Fred, and it is one that is not necessarily true nor based on the way the scientific community actually evaluates ideas for possible projects or courses of research. For one, there are so many papers that are published in scientific journals that it happens more than occasionally for "pseudoscience" to slip through the peer review process whether for the shits-and-giggles of the editors or political reasons etc.. Perhaps your adverb "regularly" is meant to be an important feature of your last statement. I guess I can agree with your statement if "regularly" is defined as 1) within the last few years 2)in standard journals (as opposed to the out-of-the-way outfits) and 3) cited by people outside the minority viewpoint. It may be that things which do not live up to these criteria are also not pseudoscience, but to be sure, there are subjects which fulfill two out of the three criteria which are pseudoscience. Plasma cosmology fulfills none of these criteria in a substantive way and criterion 3) it doesn't even come close to fulfilling, with the others being marginally fulfilled at best. --ScienceApologist 21:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The definition of "significant minority" that I have proposed can be judged objectively--are there papers by more than one researcher in peer-reviewed journals? Is there support from major institutions?Elerner 15:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

And WP:NPOV on Undue weight is slightly less lenient, telling us: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;"[4]. So let's see:

• Plasma cosmology (Plasma Universe): Hannes Alfvén (Nobel prize winner), Anthony Peratt, Eric Lerner, Carl-Gunne Falthammar, James Van Allen, Per Carlqvist.
• Wolf effect: Emil Wolf, Daniel James, Sisir Roy, Dean Faklis
• Intrinsic redshift: Halton Arp, Jayant Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge
• Redshift quantization: William G. Tifft, Halton Arp, Brian Guthrie and William Napier

And I note that over half of these people are significant enough to have their own page on Wikipedia. --Iantresman 15:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

This list is nothing more than a statement of who supports parts of these ideas. It doesn't mean that these concepts represent a minority subject that should be included in any mainstream article. --ScienceApologist 21:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Not reading the literature in question (and not being able to understand it anyway), I pose the following questions:

• Has any reliable source within the scientific mainstream described the hypotheses in question as "pseudoscience"?
• Has any reliable source within the scientific mainstream questioned the methodology in such a way that it might merit an inference or charge of "pseudoscience"?
• Has any reliable source, yadda yadda, doubted the competence of anyone to produce meaningful results? SA hints that Elerner has been so criticized in the literature...where?
• Is there a proper name or category for "theories promoted by someone who is not competent in the field"? (This is an abstract question, not an accusation against elerner or anyone else. In other forums, I've often debated with others on topics where I posess expertise, wherein it soon became apparent that the opponent hadn't the necessary theoretical background to really participate, and was advancing what best could be considered "newbie theories", and was incapable of understanding just why he was so very wrong. As those forums weren't encyclopedias with reputations to uphold, I simply withdrew from the debate--no need to cast pearls before swine).

--EngineerScotty 21:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Pseudoscience is an introductory-level concept and is not bandied about in the journals very often. It's kinda like pornography, scientists know it when they see it.
• There are plenty of sources which question the methodology of each of the subjects Ian names with the possible exception of the Wolf Effect (which is not entertained by anyone in the mainstream as a mechanism for redshift of galaxies)>
• The "literature" ignores Eric. When mainstream scientists in cosmology do comment on him it is almost universally critical. Sean Carroll commented that Eric's competence was questionable.
• The proper name is generally "pseudoscience".

--ScienceApologist 21:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Note that WP:RS tells us that a reliable source for science articles requires us to "Cite peer-reviewed scientific publications"[5] (the kind of publications these significant scientific minority views appear).
• Could you give some examples for, say, Plasma cosmology
• Can you confirm that the criticism (inc. of methodology), of all theories takes place, and that this process is called "science".
• Why are you insisting on applying the Wolf Effect to galaxies? It's been described as a "new redshift mechanism" (see Ref 2 in Wiki article), (verifiable), and demonstrated in the laboratory. This is mainstream and described in books on optics. --Iantresman 22:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The fact that there are no critical reviews of plasma cosmology, intrinsic redshifts, etc. PROVES that they are not even minority opinions within the scientific community. Minority opinions, by definition, are taken seriously enough to have critical reviews. When the community doesn't think it worth their bother to critically review a work, it is obvious that the work is not a minority scientific opinion. Find me one critical peer-reviewed critique of plasma cosmology and then I'll consider your claim that it represents a minority opinion. Otherwise, it's in the same class as all the other cranky and fringe theories which the community ignores. End of story. --ScienceApologist 23:27, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, which Wiki policy, or reliable sources backs up this novel interpretation? --Iantresman 00:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ian, you've been asking for a long time what qualifies as a "significant minority theory". I have just given you your answer. --ScienceApologist 04:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ScienceApologist is deleting discussion from this page

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)

I hypothesize that this was a system glitch. --Rednblu 05:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Critical scientists take alternative ideas seriously

What is ultimately ironic about this is there are genuine "minority" viewpoints and controversies in science. For example, the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is a minority viewpoint. It is criticized by scientists who take the alternative seriously and criticize it as being an important topic worth discussing. If you contrast this to the topics Ian and Eric are pushing, there is a thundering silence from the community on this subject.

A minority opinion must be taken seriously by advocates and critics alike in order for it to be properly called a minority theory. There are currently no critics of plasma cosmology that have seriously considered it in any journal or literature. There are no critics of intrinsic redshifts, Arp's associations, tired light, or Wolf-effect quasars that consider it seriously enough to warrant any articles even attempting to refute it. That's not because scientists can't refute it: it's because they don't want to waste their time on it.

So herein lies the rub. These subjects that these proponents are trying to include fall under the category of "not even wrong". Whether they are "pseudoscience" or not is really beyond the scope of the reason for their exclusion from the mainstream. The problem is that they aren't even wrong! They don't even rise to a state of being worthy of considered alongside the mainstream position. Contrast that to actual minority positions in science and you'll see why it is clear that these ideas deserve the extreme marginalization I have advocated and will continue to advocate.

--ScienceApologist 21:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• "thundering silence" from... hundreds of scientists and engineers,[6]

You're kidding me right? You just completely missed my point. I'm saying that there is nobody who critically examines the subject who disputes it. That is to say outside of this group of fringe scientists and amateur cosmologists listed at this website, there is no one who takes the ideas seriously enough to try to refute the statements. The only people who take the ideas seriously are those who agree with the ideas. That is not a minority opinion, that's outside the dialectic of the community. --ScienceApologist 23:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• "A minority opinion must be taken seriously"... by peer reviewed articles (see articles for references)

There are zero articles which examine the claims critically. There are only positive articles. The standard for a minority theories is that someone thinks their worthy-enough to refute! --ScienceApologist 23:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's see, in the course of this single discussion page Science Apologist has argued that plasma cosmology is pseudoscience becaause mainstream scientists criticize it AND because NO mainstream scientists criticize it! SA moves beyond mere logic to the world where A AND not-A are simultaneously true.

By the way, does Hannes Alfven fall into the category of "fringe scientist" or that of "amateur cosmologist"? One would have thought that a Nobel prize sort of makes someone a mainstream scientist by defintion, at least in his field of expertise. Of course we know that SA's credentials are so far beyond a mere Nobel prize that we should not question him in any way. He is in himself all verifiable sources rolled into one.Elerner 03:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Alfven is a fringe scientist when it came to cosmology post-ambiplasma which did get at least one peer-reviewed critical evaluation. A Nobel prize does not give one a carte blanche to pursue whatever flight-of-fancy one so desires. The evaluation of the community is a necessary component in the development of science. --ScienceApologist 03:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• And your other characteristics seem to mirror those mentioned in the article on Pseudoskepticism --Iantresman 22:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Name calling will get you nowhere, you Velikovskian. --ScienceApologist 23:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Your characteristics of minority scientific viewpoints. --Iantresman 00:04, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[De-indent.] Much of this is missing the point. The point is that we cannot allow the supporters of minority or fringe scientific theories to promote their theories via Wikipedia by (among other things) creating a false appearance of controversy within the mainstream scientific community. The point is not that the fringe theories are pseudoscientific - they may well not be, i.e. they may be developed and tested with good scientific methodology. The point is simply that they are not currently serious competitors for the attention of the scientific community. This is what Wikipedia has to worry about as an attempt to be a serious encyclopedia.

It is also not true (or not necessarily so) to say that the fringe theories "are not even false" - actually some of them may be, but that isn't the point. When philosophers say that a theory "is not even false", it is a way of saying that the theory is incoherent in some sense - such as being meaningless on its face, too vague to amount to a coherent claim, or internally self-contradictory. I have no reason to believe that that is so of plasma cosmology, for example. Nor is the fact that plasma cosmology is largely ignored by mainstream cosmologists good evidence of any such thing. They may ignore it simply because the mainstream theories are currently very successful - they represent a paradigm that is not in crisis (in Kuhnian terms) or a set of hypotheses that has survived numerous attempts at refutation without the need for ad hoc ancillary hypotheses (in Popperian terms). There is no reasonable motivation for them to bother scrutinising the fringe theories.

There is no call for any Wikipedian to attack fringe theories as incoherent or pseudoscientific, without a source for it, or for calling their proponents pseudoscientists or woo-woos. The point is simply that we must save Wikipedia from misrepresenting these theories as currently being serious candidates for scientific acceptance, and we must save the encyclopedia from giving a false impression to the public that (certain) mainstream theories are currently controversial or in crisis. I think that SA is entitled to insist on this very strongly, and I'll support him. However, going on to talk about pseudoscience or incoherence, or to label individuals as woos-woos, etc, is over-reaching. Metamagician3000 03:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

But this gets back to the key question of what are the criteria for a minority opinion to be significant enough to include in Wikipedia? My three criteria are that it must either be supported by someone prominent in the field OR the subject of many peer-reviewed articles by more than one researcher OR supported by or at least investigated by major institutions. This crieria question is a question that the arbitrators can address and decide.

If the criteria are decided on, then editors can argue over whether a given topic fits the criteria. But at least this gives parameters. What do you think of the criteria, Metamagician?Elerner 04:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Criteria is simple: if there is no peer reviewed critical analysis of the subject then the minority opinion does not deserve mention in mainstream science articles. Everything else can be described in their own articles and subject to the context in which they are discussed, but marginalization of subjects by the scientific community should be mentioned when the subjects claim to be scientific. --ScienceApologist 04:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You are reaching too far away from the meta-analysis, metamagician. Points are "not even false" when no evaluation can or has been made to the effect of a positive or a negative. It is a comparative point, to be sure, but it is not an invalid one. The point we agree on is that when there is no controversy, for all intents and purposes the "theory" doesn't exists as far as the community is concerned. I am going to insist that in order to include a fringe theory on a mainstream page that there has to be a critical analysis of the idea. Otherwise, there is no indication that the idea has ever been carefully considered with a critical eye (which is a requisite for science). You're right that this has nothing to do with demarcating pseudoscience. It has to do with determining what is and isn't going to be included in a verifiable and reliable encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 04:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think ScienceApologist and Metamagician3000 are both right and talking past each other just a little bit. Meta on "not even false" strikes me as talking more from a philosophical point of view (logical positivism comes to mind for me) while SA's talk about "not even false" strikes me as utilitarian aimed at specific criteria needed for this specific case. "no indication that the idea has ever been carefully considered with a critical eye (which is a requisite for science)" seems meant also in that vein but it says "for science" and for science it is experimental results that are key and further from their point of view they have considered it with a critical eye and they think they are part of science - so I think you misspoke your point. WAS 4.250 07:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Metamagician3000 wrote: "we cannot allow the supporters of minority or fringe scientific theories to promote their theories". So why is it that minority theories are being promoted, yet mainstream theories are not just being described?
• Wiki policy tells us to describe all significant views, even minority ones, and to describe the majority views an majority views, and the minority ones as minority views. As long as we describe then neutrally, and with reliable sources, that is all the Wikipedia requires, and neither are being "promoted".
• The novel suggestion that minority views must additionally have "peer reviewed critical analysis" is science by non-science. Recall that Hannes Alfvén recounted that many of his articles had to be published in "out of the way" journals because referees did not understand his papers (which finally earned Alfvén a Nobel prize). [7]
• Peer reviewed journals include minority scientific views, and Wikipedia should reflect that. --Iantresman 11:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The Alfvén case is exceptional. There are many more cases in which "out of the way" journals publish rubbish. And Wikipedia should not concern itself with determining which theories are rubbish and which are not. That would be another example of Original Research. So, the theories by Alfvén should not have been included in Wikipedia until they were published in regular respectable peer-reviewed journals.

One person's respectable peer-review journal, is someone else's "out of the way" journal. Editors have claimed that, for example, the IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is out of the way, and perhaps it's standard of peer review is to be questioned. That's because they are not plasma scientists, and neither are most astronomers. As far as plasma scientists are concerned, many astronomy journals are "out of the way". But what type of person would consider only their publication to be the centre of the universe. --Iantresman 11:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem with IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science is that a Peratt is an editor and all they publish are positive reviews of plasma cosmology (ne'er a critical review in sight). Giving preferential treatment to positive reviews of your pet theory is not the way to establish a minority scientific field. This illustrates precisely why critical review is so important. If there was acknowledgement by anybody in the cosmology community that plasma cosmology represented a perspective that was worthy of refute, then someone would publish a paper that refuted plasma cosmology and plasma cosmology would be a minority scientific opinion. But as it is there are precisely zero such works. Plasma cosmology is excluded from the community and therefore rightly excluded from mainstream articles here on Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 13:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting theory of yours. I'm sure you have at least one source from someone suggesting that their critical review of plasma cosmology, or any minority scientific view, was rejected? It sounds like the same criticism that some of the "fringe" scientist make of mainstream journals. Except that I have citations from several authors which suggest that their critical reviews were not accepted in mainstream journals; to name but eight:

• Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005)
• British scientists exclude 'maverick' colleagues, says report (2004)
• Peer review is stifling for scientists on fringe (2002)
• Publication Prejudices: An Experimental Study of Confirmatory Bias in the Peer Review System (1997)
• Trial by peers comes up short (2003)
• Rejecting Nobel class papers (2003)
• Suppression Stories (1997)
• Challenging dominant physics paradigms (2004)
• Publications on whistleblowing and suppression of dissent by Dr Brian Martin

So do you have any sources supporting your theory ideas? --Iantresman 13:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ian, you have again missed the point. A minority scientific theory is one that is part of controversy within the scientific community. Since you have not shown there is any controversy within the scientific community with regards to the subjects you are championing, it is clear that these subjects are not part of the scientific community in a minority capacity or otherwise. When the scientific community ignores an idea it does not make it a minority idea. --ScienceApologist 17:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed critical assessments are not the only way a scientific community reacts to significant minority views. Verifiable information on this also includes: funding support from major institutions, invited seminars and presentations at major institutions, discussions in textbooks and discussions outside of peer-reviewer journal if by experts in the field.

Plasma cosmology certainly qualified as being discussed in these ways. I personally have been invited to give presentations on plasma cosmology at the European Southern Observatory(2006), NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center(2004), Princeton University, the University of Pavia (Italy)(2003), The University of Buenos Aires(2006), Argentina and the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden. There was also the debate at Princeton that nealry the entire astronomy department seesm to have attended. Plasma cosmology is discussed, and criticized in standard cosmology textbooks such as Peebles' Principles of Physical Cosmology. And of course Ned Wright devoted a long critique to my work on his website.

In the case of aneutronic fusion and plasma focus device, which SA and some of the arbitrators also seem to consider to be pseudoscience, there is extensive financial support extending over decades from a large number of major funding institutions around the world such as NASA, US Air Force, Chilean Nuclear Energy Commission and dozens of others.

ScienceApologist has always been eager to remove this information from Wiki articles, since it contradicts his assertion that all these theories are totally ignored.Elerner 17:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Eric, this is a whitewashing attempt at self-aggrandizement. Many of these invitations apply to a different decade, a different community, and frankly, would not happen today. How many places today will invite you to present? How many astrophysicists who disagree with you even entertain listening to you? Do you now repudiate your signing of the cosmologystatement which claims that you are ignored by the mainstream? --ScienceApologist 19:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I added dates for those of the past five years. Ned Wright made a special, and I was told, quite unusual, request to be included remotely in my seminar at European Southern Observatory so as to present a critical viewpoint.Elerner 00:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The cosmology statement actually says that the discordant data is ignored, not the whole field. It says that non-Big Bang research is supressed. That is very different than ignored, as the inhabitants of any authoritarian regime know.Elerner 01:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, Eric, there is little difference to the mainstream whether you think you're being "supressed" or "ignored". Wikipedia is not here to right the wrongs you perceive as being leveled against you. --ScienceApologist 13:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, making a presentation does not mean that you represent a significant minority in a field. Gene Ray has made presentations at two research institutions, but that does not make Time cube a minority scientific opinion. Wackjob presentations happen at universities and research institutions all the time (not to say that your presentations are wackjobs, Eric, only to say that you can't use the existence of a presentation to prove legitimacy), sometimes for nothing more than the wicked sense of humor of the inviters, sometimes as part of an aggressive agenda to promote an idea that hasn't received notice in the community because it isn't deemed significant by mainstream scientists. I've been to invited creationists lectures at the University of Colorado. Does that make creationism a minority scientific opinion? Obviously not. The point is that being invited to give a presentation does not lend your idea legitimacy or significant minority status. Only verifiable critical review in the journals suffice as evidence for those of us writing an encyclopedia based on the principles outlined in applicable Wikipedia guidelines and policies. --ScienceApologist 19:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You have tailored your definition to exclude plasma cosmology. I see no reason to accept your one criterion. If a veiwpoint has a prominent advocate, if it has many peer-reviewed papers by several authors, if it is being discussed at seminars or being funded by major institutions, it is a significant minority.

I might add that you have in no way replied on aneutronic fusion or the plasma focus device. Both topics are routinely included in review papers on fusion fuels and fusion devices. No one in the filed would even remotely argue that they are ignored.Elerner 00:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've not tailored "my" definition, the fact is that there are plenty of examples of people who give presentations. The ideas they hold do not rise to the level of significant minority within science. I am arguing that plasma cosmology does not rise to a significant minority view withing science. So far, all I've seen is a lot of poorly considered evidence offered by you that does not show any sort of critical analysis published in the journals. I have no desire to comment on aneutronic fusion, having only been obliquely involved in that debate. --ScienceApologist 13:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

One more thing, Eric falsely claims that Jim Peebles critiques plasma cosmology in his book. This is false. Peebles critiques the Alfven-Klein model. They are two different things. Plasma cosmology, in particular, does not use the matter-antimatter annihilation any longer, according to what you yourself have said, Eric. I find this kind of obfuscation very disingenous and indicative of the kind of deceptive maneuvering that has characterized Eric's contributions. --ScienceApologist 22:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyoone can see that my characterization is accurate by looking at the book. The section is titled "plasma universe". Yes, plasma cosmology has evolved since Peebles book was written in 1993 and Peebles did ignore work which was not published at the time. I might add that the Big bang looks a lot different than in 1993 as well.Elerner 00:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

So you admit it is a mischaracterization. If you are arguing that the Alfven-Klein model is the same plasma cosmology as you currently hold, are you saying that ambiplasma annihilation is still part of your theory? Because that's what Peeble's critiques. He doesn't critique any other part of plasma cosmology, and since it would appear you and your cohort Peratt have removed this idea from the codex, Peebles hasn't commented on any of the ideas remaining in the plasma cosmology page. --ScienceApologist 13:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that Eric, as one of two living professionals in the world who advocate plasma cosmology, has the liberty to change what the definition of plasma cosmology is at his own leisure. If he wants to exlcude Alfven-Klein today and include them tomorrow, how are we to keep up? --ScienceApologist 13:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] notable because of absurdity?

{copied from Wikipedia talk:Notability (science). Errabee 11:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This does not look like a good criterium for inclusion. There are infinitely more absurd theories out there than real scientific theories. I've come across a person who believes the speed of light is zero and "proves" that by math like 1 km + 1 sec = 1 km/sec. Do we really want to include those theories, or do we rather want to protect these people from themselves and not include them?

Furthermore, some theories can be harmful or even insulting. Take a look at this theory. Imagine that you are diagnosed with cancer, and someone like this editor comes along and claims that established treatments are doomed to fail. How would you feel?

I suggest that alternative theories should not be included unless a theory has attracted considerable media or scientific attention. This should of course be proven by providing sources. Errabee 11:08, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the best example is flat earth, which not even the ancients believed. Fred Bauder 14:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course. No one is suggesting we include alternative theories that are not peer reviewed at the least. As an example, the Wolf effect (a redshift mechanism) has over a 100 articles about it, was first described in Nature magazine, has been confirmed in the laboratory, is described as "a new redshift mechanism" in several sources, and yet it gets less mention in the article on Redshift than radar guns, quantum gravity and transverse redshift. --Iantresman 11:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Since there are no current articles that refute the fringe's claim that the Wolf Effect has anything to do with quasar redshifts, the Wolf Effect is excluded from all mainstream articles regarding it as being a source of quasar redshifts. --ScienceApologist 13:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• I love it, irrefuted mainstream theories are consensus, but irrefuted minority theories are ignored.
• So why is the Wolf effect excluded as a new redshift mechanism? Reliable sources describe it as such, it's been confirmed in the laboratory, there are a hundred papers on the subject, it's in books on optics, and also some books on astronomy.
• Incidentally, Wolf's original paper on "Noncosmological redshifts of spectral lines" (1987)[8] has been cited over 100 times (See "Citations to the Article" in citation given). That's hardly being ignored. --Iantresman 14:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"irrefuted mainstream theories are consensus, but irrefuted minority theories are ignored" Yep, that's exactly right. If your idea is in the minority and no one has attempted to refute it, there is no reason to include it in the article because it is, by definition, not a minority scientific opinion. Since nobody bothers to refute the Wolf Effect as a redshift mechanism for quasars, it must be that this is not a minority scientific opinion. All you need to do is find a single article that critically reviews a Wolf Effect mechanism for redshifts of quasars and, boom, you've got yourself a scientific controversy that can be reported in a mainstream article. Until then, it's clear that the mainstream excludes the Wolf Effect as a redshift mechanism for quasars and so will Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 14:59, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

So as to get this discussion back on track, I did not question any theory in particular. I just tried to question the validity of the assertion that a scientific theory would be notable because it is absurd. In my opinion, this is not enough to assert notability. Errabee 16:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• I would guess that absurdity by itself is not sufficient a criteria, but there may be other criteria which makes an absurd scientific theory notable. I think Fred has suggested that Flat earth theory is absurd, but also notable, I would suggest partly for historical reasons, but also partly because it is quite absurd. --Iantresman 17:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "aggressive bias editing"

Does anybody have any idea what this means? How does an administrator determine whether "agreesive bias editting" happened? --ScienceApologist 13:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is spelled wrong; should be "aggressive biased editing" which I have corrected. It means that if you repeatedly insert your point of view into an article you may be banned from that article. It is up to the banning administrator to make the call. Any administrator may do so and unless there is plain error their decision will not be overturned. As applied to your particular case, if you repeatedly remove significant minority viewpoints from scientific articles you run the risk of being banned from the article. If you repeatedly do so at a variety of scientific articles, you run the risk of being banned from editing science articles. Fred Bauder 14:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I originally thought a warning would be sufficient, but after looking at your comments above realized you intended to continue with your disruptive behavior. Fred Bauder 14:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

And is it your opinion that it is disruptive to demand that critical review of ideas be present in order to include them in mainstream scientific articles? Because I'm of the opinion that these ideas do not represent "significant minority viewpoints" and there are plenty of other editors who agree with me. --ScienceApologist 14:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

And when Ian or Eric insert their POV into articles, are they to be sanctioned? Is the arbcom really going to encourage me to leave Wikipedia because they don't want me to keep science articles free from things that are outside the mainstream? --ScienceApologist 15:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

That is why I originally proposed warnings, but you continue on this talk page to maintain an aggressive posture regarding minority scientific opinions and you continue to make personal attacks. It would be a shame to lose a valuable contributor, but it happens. Not everyone can accept the discipline required to edit on Wikipedia. You would need to be more civil and avoid taking a rigid position regarding minority viewpoints, and by that I do mean disputes between scientists, not disputes involving crackpots. Fred Bauder 15:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Fred, how are you determining that these opinions are minority scientific opinions when nobody in the field critically evaluates them? I don't see anybody has provided any evidence that these ideas are minority scientific opinions: they are outside of the community. You are making the bold claim that there are disputes "between scientists" but the literature does not show any disputes to be extant. So how are we to verify that you are correct? --ScienceApologist 17:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"you continue to make personal attacks" -- the only personal attack I see is one that was handed-out tongue-in-cheek to Ian after he personally attacked me. Otherwise, there are absolutely no personal attacks. I will strike through that comment if you like. --ScienceApologist 17:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"It would be a shame to lose a valuable contributor, but it happens." Since one of the proposed decisions on this page is that expert editors are leaving Wikipedia, it would seem with this statement that you are basically fine with this happening if it will protect some neologistic and originally researched construct you invented of the "minority scientific opinion". --ScienceApologist 17:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

(edcon) It seems that the topics in question, occupy a bit of a grey area. Fred is correct in that they are not outright crackpottery--we're not talking about astrology, perpetual motion machines, or squaring the circle here. SA is correct in that they are theories which are outside the mainstream--the scientific literature ignores these theories; and Eric Lerner and others find themselves unable to obtain funding for their research from traditional funding channels. (Whether his attempts to raise money in other ways poses a conflict of interest with his Wikipedia edits, and whether or not the same rule might apply to a scientist who is funded by the NSF, is an interesting question but not relevant to this immediate paragraph).

So, the question remains: How to handle such topics? I think that the "scientific community" (by which, I suppose, we all mean mainstream universities, research institutes, funding sources, journals, etc. and the faculty, staff, and students therein) is the first place to look for knowledge--and peer-reviewed works originating from the scientific community are assumed to be reliable sources for the relevant topics. But what when these sources are silent?

SA posits that the silence of the scientific community on plasma cosmology et al, is both significant and damning. I agree that it is significant--articles on plasma cosmology ought to, per WP:NPOV, note that these theories (using the term "theory" in a loose sense, rather than the more constrained definition assumed by many scientists) have not been scrutinized or analyzed by the scientific community. Where criticism of these theories exists, it should be documented sufficient to satisfy WP:NPOV (in other words, avoid a hatchet job).

However, I'm not sure that it is damning. Most theories which are truly pseudoscientific and/or obvious rubbish, have been demonstrated to be so by research at one point. Phrenology, astrology, flat earth, etc. have been quite thoroughly debunked by reliable sources over the years. Plasma cosmology has not, to my knowledge. Part of that is due to the protoscientific state of cosmology in general--we're far from being able to (directly) test many of the hypotheses advanced by any particular theory. Part of that is likely due to Lerner and others not having access to the scarce resources needed to perform empirical research in this area. A catch-22 exists--without scientific respectability, researchers of alternate theories of cosmology find it difficult to get access to money, particle accellerators, high-end telescopes, etc. Without these things to conduct the empirical research necessary to buttress (or disprove) their hypotheses, alternate researches find it difficult for their these hyptheses to acquire credibility. Now, Wikipedia is--again--not the place to Right Great Wrongs; we shouldn't attempt to amend for any alleged failures of the scientific community. Nor should we engage in speculation as to which alternate theories, if any, might rise to the surface. (Nor are we an effective means for doing so--Wikipedia does not figure into how the scientific community allocates resources to ideas and researchers; as a tertiary source, there's no reason we should).

Academia and/or the scientific community, like any great institution, is flawed in many respects. It frequently isn't the meritocracy it likes to portray itself as--petty and vicious political disputes frequently arise. It can be cutthroat--especially when valuable and scarce research dollars are at stake. It has, over the years, ignored many good ideas and advanced many bad ones (though, to its credit, academia is not bound to its past mistakes). That said, it still is the most effective means for advancing human knowledge; and as such should be the primary fountain of information on scientific topics for Wikipedia to use.

However, other sources for such knowledge exist--and we may, and should, use them with caution. We simply need to ensure that what is included in the encyclopedia is properly attributed, and that we present the appropriate neutral point of view.

--EngineerScotty 17:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia policy already tells us how to assess significant minority views: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;"[9] I acknowledge that you may have your own opinion on this.
• Jimbo Wales himself, on which Wiki policy was paraphrased, tell us: "If a view is a minority view of some scientists, scientists who are respected by the mainstream that differs with them on this particular matter, then we say so."[10]
• Jimbo also says "Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it." --Iantresman 17:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The key word is "significant". In order to be significant, an idea has to be evaluated. Since no one bothers to evaluate the ideas Ian promotes, they are not significant to the field. --ScienceApologist 17:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• The quote from policy above, tells us how to determine "a significant minority" view. --Iantresman 18:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

And since these views are shown to not be significant to the scientific community, they are simply not significant. --ScienceApologist 18:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

:*I would say that "bias editing" is editing with bias, ie. POV-pushing, or editing that is non-NPOV. Aggressively means that it's done repeatedly, or at least with a determined sneer. :*I would imagine it's quite easy to spot: Continually removing significant minority views, misrepresenting such views, use of ad hominems, etc. --Iantresman 14:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, thought this was a general question, but now see that it wasn't. --Iantresman 14:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Could I ask whether the assertion that ScienceApologist has engaged in "aggressive bias editing" has been substantiated by diffs. In my reading of the evidence page, I didn't notice any such evidence. Accordingly, I would suggest that it's possibly unusual to introduce evidence at this stage of the proceeedings. Addhoc 17:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Just look higher on this page. Fred Bauder 13:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you querying whether the evidence suggests either "aggressive" or "bias" editing, or specifically "aggressive and bias" editing? It's just that I felt that some of my evidence did indeed suggest bias editing, though I never described any of them as "aggressive", I think some of them could be characterized this way. --Iantresman 18:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Basically, I agree that you didn't use the word aggresive. Clearly, I'm not disputing that occasionally ScienceApologist could have chosen a more harminous word...

"well-known woo-woos"

"discredited"

"completely unauthorative"

"incompetent"

"close-minded ignorance"

"avowed Velikovskian"

"inordinate ignorance"

"basic ignorance"

...but that doesn't really equate to being aggressive. Regarding ScienceApologist's edits, I haven't really seen much evidence of a substantial concern that would require probation. Addhoc 18:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I have encountered real lawyers who employ the tactic you are using here. Denial of plain evidence will not work with me. You are not doing your client any favors. Fred Bauder 13:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

As a note - Addhoc is not representing SA to the best of my understanding - in fact, I believe he is repping Tommy, who is at odds with SA. JBKramer 14:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[de-indent for interpolation] You seriously don't consider this aggressive? I would say it is very aggressive. You must have a high threshold, dude. That said, SA is an incalculably valuable contributor. I'm a bit worried that he is evidently going to end up with more than a caution. OTOH, his editing here and on the workshop page has also been aggressive, almost as if he is trying to test the limits of the arbitrators' patience. He even saw fit to change the wording of an arbitrators' heading on the workshop page - if someone did that to me, I'd be damned pissed off (although Fred Bauder didn't actually respond in any way, so maybe he is more thick-skinned than I am). There's a limit to how much I can plead for clemency, even though I want to and think SA would be severely missed if we lost him. I don't know ... SA, why does an otherwise outstanding editor like you almost seem to go out of your way to upset people? You seem to have no inhibitions about doing/saying things that I (for example) would never dream of. I'm sure it would help if you just showed more sign of understanding the problem. Metamagician3000 00:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

SA, why does an otherwise outstanding editor like you almost seem to go out of your way to upset people? You seem to have no inhibitions about doing/saying things that I (for example) would never dream of. I'm sure it would help if you just showed more sign of understanding the problem. -- It would help if you gave examples rather than speaking extemporaneously. Are you seriously telling me that pointing out that Ian suffers from "basic ignorance" after presenting kilobytes of evidence to that effect is something you would "never dream of"? Are you saying that pointing out that Ian is a Velikovskian is something you would "never dream of"? Are you saying that describing sources and people as "discredited", "incompetent", or "completely unauthorative" is something you would "never dream of"? The only one that seems slightly rude is describing Marmet and Carezani as a "well-known woo-woo". On a talkpage. Discussing sources. I'm really stretching it here to try to understand where you are coming from. Maybe you don't like to disparage anything. That's fine. But is there a policy at Wikipedia which says "thou shalt NEVER disparage ANYTHING?" I am of the opinion that this is a cultural thing. I have no problem telling others I come in contact with in my day-to-day life that what they are advocating for is utter nonsense. I just did this today, in fact, when someone suggested having a conference on "the theory of intelligent design". I recognize that other people aren't used to critical analysis, but that doesn't mean that I'm the one who is wrong -- unless you are willing to pass judgement on my culture. (Maybe that's what you'd like to see -- I don't know). --ScienceApologist 01:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't suffer fools; Wikipedia requires that you be courteous to everyone. Fred Bauder 13:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there are plenty of fools on Wikipedia. :) The fact that fools can edit as easily as experts (and I'm not suggesting this change--I should also note in passing that often times, the fool and the expert are the same person) means fools cannot be ignored, like they can in other places. One issue mentioned several times at Wikipedia:Expert Retention is precisely this one; persons used to hierarchical institutions like universities or professional research labs sometimes have difficulty adjusting to an environment where anyone can edit, and pulling rank isn't an option. SA has long been a good contributor here--as he says below, there may be a slight cultural impedance mismatch. (That said, it is SA who must conform to Wikipedia culture, not Wikipedia culture which must conform to SA and his expectations).

As mentioned elsewhere, one issue is ought to be addressed by this arbitration is how much room there is for remarks which are courteous, but personal in nature. SA has crossed the line into discourtesy (though not very far), but Wikipedia appears to offer little room to maneuver. I feel a few new proposals arising shortly on the Workshop page....

--EngineerScotty 18:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop/Proposed Principles. Four new ones at the end... two pairs of alternatives, essentially. --EngineerScotty 18:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The last three lines of this are a good example of the problem. Why suggest that I might have some motive that relates to passing judgment on your culture? I have no compunction about passing judgments on cultures because I am not a relativist about cultures - I think it quite appropriate to judge some as better than others - but in your case I wouldn't even have a clue what cultural background you're referring to (ethnic? national? professional?) and you have no basis to think otherwise. Nor do you have any basis to think that I (or anyone else involved here) am unused to critical analysis. In my case, nothing could be more remote from the truth (as it happens, I have my own share of refereed journal publications and have also been a referee for respected academic journals - to take just one small example of my own background). But once again, you have personalised the discussion needlessly. It's not how we're supposed to do things on Wikipedia. It adds heat rather than light, because it quickly turns the discussion into one about personalities, rather than one about the merits of arguments. Metamagician3000 10:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Metamagician, your claim to some objective critique regarding my contributions is effectively a judgement about the motivations for my contributions. I'm telling you that the motivations are cultural so you are effectively passing judgement on my culture. That's fine, but we need to call it what it is. If you think that the exmamples provided were things that you would "never dream of", then you obviously have a very different idea as to what is meant by "critical analysis" than I. This is fine, people are allowed to have different opinions. However, I do resent the insinuation that your way of making responses on talkpages is right and my way is wrong. I try to take civility seriously, but I also use the cluestick on occasion (see below). Wikipedia guidelines and policies are nebulous at best and perhaps more accomodating towards other perspectives than you in the final analysis -- it's not clear and is somewhat subject to one's taken on what is meant by "civility". You claim that discussions have become "personal needlessly", but if you look at the history of this dispute you'll find that the dispute is personal to the effect that there are specific persons who are behaving in a way I consider to be ignorantly promotional. This is a value judgement on my part, but where does it say that I'm not allowed to make a value judgement? I'm sure you are familiar with academic critical analysis. What you may not be familiar with is pedgagogical critical analysis which is generally extremely personal. The problem is that the merits of the arguments cannot be discussed because the opposing personalities are not able to understand the points I repeat over and over again. How many times on this page have I pointed out that it is a verifiable fact that these subjects are ignored in the mainstream community? How many times has this comment been swept under the rug? --ScienceApologist 12:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

We do not expect you to suspend critical judgement, just to be courteous. Fred Bauder 13:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Fred, I hear you. You think I'm discourteous. You say I don't suffer fools gladly, insinuating (unintentionally?) in the process that I should hold the Apostle Paul up as a paragon example for how to live a courteous life. Such exultation to biblical edicts may be fine in the abstract or in the Bible, but Wikipedia is not a Christian commune, it is an internet institution. Divorced of its religious implications, your opinion about courtesy to me is unclear. Apparently I am discourteous when I point out that Ian is ignorant. Why? Is it because I failed to demarcate between the person and the contributions? Is it really that simple? If I were to write instead "Ian's contributions were ignorant" would that exhibit more courtesy? What if I wrote "Marmet and Carezani's papers read as if they were advocating the perspective of woo-woos"? If I simply added more caveats that I was talking about the work and not the person, would this be satisfactory to you?

I'm actually very curious and I'm not trying to goad you. I'm really fascinated by this evaluation of courtesy because it has been leveled against me at many different places here at Wikipedia. Both of the RfAs that I have gone through had numerous people stating that I was "too confrontational" to be an administrator. I'm willing to accept this cultural evaluation, but I'm getting the feeling that you are going further and saying that I'm too discourteous to be a Wikipedian. Or maybe you're saying that I'm too discourteous to be an effective Wikipedian. Or maybe you're saying that I'm too discourteous to be a Wikipedian without probation for six months (at least, that seems to be what you are advocating on the project page). I'm not sure. I would like some clarification, however. I'm trying to be as honest and open as I can be here, Fred. I want to know what the standard is for courtesy that you are alluding to but don't completely explicate.

I just reread WP:NPA, WP:CIV, and Wikipedia:Etiquette to see if I could figure out where I'm going wrong. All I can say is that these pages say that at times things may appear discourteous even when the intention is not to be discourteous. Perhaps that is the problem. I wouldn't comment on my evaluation that Ian's contributions have been "ignorant" unless I had mounds of evidence to that effect, however that fact about me may not be coming through in my text. Is this a good analysis?

--ScienceApologist 22:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

A couple of years ago we went through this with another editor, another college professor. He thought because someone was obviously stupid, it was OK to refer to him as a moron. It is not. 22:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I think one issue that faces the ArbCom and the parties in this debate is... exactly what level of commentary is enjoined by WP:NPA? Flagrant abuse is clearly prohibited (as it should be), certain objections to a user's (alleged) behavior are generally granted safe harbor status, and wikilawyering is officially discouraged by policy (though trying to get users sanctioned under WP:NPA for bordernline-uncivil remarks is a longstanding practice). One area which isn't adequately addressed by policy, is the occasional need to inform another user that they don't know what they are talking about, or are otherwise incompetent to participate in the debate. Likewise with disparagement of sources or authorities--many of SA's remarks here held to be incivil are of the latter form--SA indicating that he considers a particular source to be unreliable or unqualified. There are some users, including one IMHO who is party to this arbitration, who clearly do not know what they are talking about. However, WP:NPA, as currently is often construed, prevents any attempt at wielding a cluestick on Wikipedia, even if done so gently. While comments like "you're a fucking idiot" have no place anywhere on Wikipedia, occasional and gentle use of a cluestick can be of benefit to a public forum. The best way to win a debate with the persistent-but-clueless is in most cases to ignore them; unfortunately, that advice fails on a wiki (where letting such individuals have the last work may leave an article in an inaccurate state). Perhaps it might be useful to recognize a safe harbor for civil questioning of an editor's competence or knowledge, or that of a quoted source or authority. Or perhaps not.

Regarding SA in particular: He's been uncivil at times, but his criticisms (referring to a disputed scientist as a "woo-woo" are meek and mild compared to some things which have been tolerated at Wikipedia). I think a caution may be in order, but probation seems unnecessarily harsh at this juncture--especially if the ArbCom can provide him (and other editors) with better advice as to what is tolerated and what is not.

--EngineerScotty 02:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

That was what I thought, but as you can see above, he just keeps on. Fred Bauder 13:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I for one can't imagine accusing anyone of "basic ignorance", at least not without first trying out several less inflammatory versions of that accusation first, and addressing any good responses to them. Ignorance isn't the problem - I'm much more ignorant about plasma than Ian is. First, I would say he is wrong (assuming he is), and explain why. If he didn't back off, I might ask others for a consensus. If he still didn't back off, I might ask him why he's so sure everybody else is wrong. If he still didn't back off, I might suggest he be more deferential to recognized experts. If he said everybody knows that he is the expert, only then would I suggest more directly that my opinion of his intelligence isn't quite so high. To keep saying things like "basic ignorance" is to invite the peanut gallery to have an opinion, and only the scientifically literate should decide between ScienceApologist and Ian. If Ian has done something awful, then we should at worst condemn what was awful. Changing the subject to ignorance distracts from how Ian could do better. Art LaPella 04:10, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

To be a bit fair to SA--the "basic ignorance" remark happened on the evidence page, after numerous interactions with Ian. (I wasn't referring to Ian above, BTW... Ian clearly has some knowledge of the subject--more than I do at any rate). And, it was quantified as "basic ignorance in the fields of astrophysics, physics, mathematics, and the natural sciences in general", whether that makes it any better I don't know. The arbitrators can go study the other evidence and edit histories, and I'm sure will find that numerous unpleasant interactions occurred between SA and Ian--his use of "basic ignorance" clearly isn't a first salvo. I also suspect that you'll find that your suggested steps--state wrongness, ask for consensus, etc. were tried at some point, without producing results. Again, "basic ignorance" is a tame remark compared to many things which could have been written. The same applies to some of the less-than-charitable remarks uttered by the other side in this arbitration--many of them skirt WP:CIVIL, none of them fall into the "fucking idiot" category. (If they did this arbitration would be much simpler).

With regards to Ian, I don't think he's ignorant. Dogmatic and stubborn, certainly--a criticism which can be applied to SA as well.

Regarding SA's blunt (if not uncivil) criticism of sources--again, I pose the question: When is the line between fair comment and personal attack crossed?

Regarding the notion of ad hominem, which the arbitrators have raised--I should point out that's a strawman in this case. Nobody has committed the ad hominen fallacy--expressed as "A supports P, A is not competent, therefore ¬P". Instead, we have many instances of "A is not competent, therefore we should disregard A"--which is a reasonable editorial judgement for an encycloepdia to make. Criticism of A which violates NPA or BLP should be removed, but civil suggestions that A is not a reliable source are entirely appropriate. Again, where exactly is the line?

The substance of many of SA's posts isn't unreasonable (not to say that it's correct--just not unreasonable); but the tone does venture beyond WP:CIVIL. I stand by my suggestion that SA receive a strong warning to modulate his tone downward.

--EngineerScotty 05:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• The first thing that ScienceApologist did in his evidence was point out that "Ian Tresman is a catastrophist who supports Velikovskian pseudoscience"? He also noted that "I am an "avowed Velikovskian"
• What's the suggestion here? That I am well suited to edit the article on Velikovsky? That I have edited articles inappropriately (no evidence provided)?
• This certainly looks like: "Ian supports Velikovsky", "Velikovsky is pseudoscience". Conclusion? --Iantresman 14:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The reason that your support of Velikovsky is important is because it sets the stage for describing your agenda which you carefully try to hide at many turns. Your agenda became very apparent to me when you posted on Arp's messageboard that you were trying to affect a new opinion about redshift through Wikipedia: an extreme broach of the principles involved in creating an encyclopedia. In that act, Ian, you demonstrated to me that good faith was going to be very hard to extend to you. Your agenda was to discredit the mainstream astronomical ideas. This fits right in with the fact that you support Velikovsky and publish about catastrophism which is decidedly rejected by the scientific community as bubkus. What you have continued to do is hound, argue, and repeat to the point of absurdity. How many times did you ask if redshift could happen on a single photon? How many times did you claim that I was saying the Wolf Effect could not cause a redshift? What's so difficult to deal with is the fact that when I simply ignore you, that's when you decide that it's time to edit the page to conform to your opinion. There's only so much hounding a person can take. I continue to be under the impression that you are trying to hound me straight off of Wikipedia so that once I'm gone you can go through and insert all the POV-nonsense you want in all of the articles. I have shown the community what many mainstream articles looked like before I arrived: they were full of unsourced innuendo and poorly-considered evidence. People like User:Jonathanischoice were content to use the cosmologystatement as a major critique of the Big Bang. The redshift page read like a page ripped out of Arp's "Seeing Red". It was so absurd that it didn't even come close to giving a NPOV picture of the subjects. Much has been made out of Wikipedia's evaluation by Nature who compared its accuracy on science articles to that of Brittanica's. That we did so well is a credit to the marginalization of insignificant minority ideas such as the ones you advocate. What will keep Wikipedia well-considered is to keep the pollution that plagued those pages before I got here out of those pages. That's the way I see things, at least. --ScienceApologist 22:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

To highlight some of the editing decisions I consider to be biased, are:

• Tagging article as pseudoscience (without reliable sources),[11]
• Replacing positive reviews with negative ones,[12]
• RfD-ing a notable article on which there are peer reviewed articles, without discussion,[13], and subsequent blanking and rewriting,[14]
• Claiming a subject "[includes] fringe and pseudoscientific suggestions."[15]
• Claiming a subject is "considered by most mainstream astronomers to be falsified."[16] (when most scientists have never heard of the subject)
• Removal of minority scientific views,[17], thoroughly,[18]
• Near exclusion of minority scientific view,[19]
• Most of the evidence presented in my subsection, "Replacing reliable sources with unsubstantiated opinion"[20]

While I accept that one or two of these by themselves could be accepted to be mistakes, taken together as a whole I believe illustrates a bias in editing against minority scientific views, and I think that ScienceApologist's views on this page reinforces that. --Iantresman 20:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If anyone carefully considers Ian's evidence they will find that his characterizations often do not coincide with the actual diffs. All tactics, no substance. --ScienceApologist 20:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[Return to margin]Ok, I'll have a look...

• Tagging article as pseudoscience - probably incorrect, but hardly a serious error of judgement
• Replacing positive reviews with negative ones - this was in the criticism section, so I don't consider this to be inappropriate.
• Intrinsic redshift AfD plus rewrite - article required a severe rewrite, don't consider this very serious
• fringe and pseudoscientific comments again probably incorrect, but also structures article. Overall, not very serious
• falsified comment - sweeping statement without a reference, not very good practice
• Removal of minority scientific views - this edit possibly should have trimmed, instead of removing the section
• Removal of minority scientific views - probably shouldn't have removed the see also links
• Near exclusion of minority scientific view - probably shouldn't have removed this, but not very serious

Overall, I would suggest this is sufficient to justify a caution, but not probation. Addhoc 22:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the evaluation of the edits, Addhoc. I'll point out that the last three were evaluations of content. As per my suggestions above, these ideas don't represent significant minority views in science and so are rightly excluded. It is an editorial decision, one that was discussed on the talkpage extensively. You cannot just look at edits in a vacuum, you need to look at the associated discussions. --ScienceApologist 00:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Acknowledged, I've slightly altered my wording and recognise that my comments are subjective. Addhoc 10:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's take this one step at a time, and see whether these are "significant minority views".

1. "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;"[21]
2. The edit mention above,[22], removes Intrinsic redshift, Redshift quantization, Wolf effect from the article on Redshift.
3. Prominent adherents (some prominent enough to have their own Wikipedia article):

• Intrinsic redshift prominent adherents: Halton Arp, Jayant Narlikar, Geoffrey Burbidge
• Redshift quantization prominent adherents: William G. Tifft, Halton Arp, Brian Guthrie and William Napier
• Wolf effect prominent adherents: Emil Wolf, Daniel James, Sisir Roy, Dean Faklis

1. Reliable sources (in last 10 years, most from 2000 onwards):

Subject	Peer-reviewed articles	Text Books
Intrinsic redshift	[23] [24] [25] [26] [27]	[28] [29] [30] [31]
Redshift quantization (redshift periodicty)	[32] [33] [34]	[35] [36] [37]
Wolf effect	[38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43]	[44] [45] [46] [47]

So does this conform to the Wiki policy definition of "significant minority viewpoint"? --Iantresman 11:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

For a minority view to be truly significant in science, it needs to have been subject to critical analysis. What this table above does not do is mention any critical analysis. So in order Ian to claim that these views are truly significant, he needs to show us where mainstream scientists that disagree with these ideas have taken them seriously enough to mention them or refute them in the jorunals. It's not good enough to show where the ideas have been promoted, it has to be shown that the idea has really generated the controversy within the community required of a "minority" view. --ScienceApologist 12:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia policy says "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;"[48]". Is the information above consistent with Wiki policy?
• I can find no Wiki policy regarding minority viewpoints and "critical analysis", but please feel free to point me to it. --Iantresman 13:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously you misunderstand WP:POLICY if you think that it can be referenced in such a fashion (Wikilawyering is frowned upon). Critical analysis is the way to tell whether scientists take an idea seriously. They take an idea seriously when they critically analyze it. When they don't take an idea seriously, the idea becomes outside the scientific mainstream and therefore is not significant to the scientific mainstream. --ScienceApologist 19:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy says "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;"[49]". Do you agree? --Iantresman 21:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If p then q. X is q. Therefore X is p. Do you agree? --ScienceApologist 21:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not playing games. Do you agree with the Wiki policy definition on what defintes a significant minority view? --Iantresman 00:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a game, it's logic. And it shows why this Wiki policy does not define a significant minority view -- it only describes a characteristic of a significant minority views. Other things can have the same characteristic and not be significant minority views. If you can see the fallacy in the previous statement you'd see why. --ScienceApologist 00:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Like minority scientific subjects perhaps having some characteristics of pseudoscience, but that does not necessarily make it pseudoscience. If you can see the fallacy in your earlier statements, you'd understand why I have criticized them.
• You're analysis of the Wiki policy on minority views is at odds with Jimbo Wales' original statement which provides the necessary clarification to determine what is a minority view.[50] --Iantresman 12:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Ian, bringing up pseudoscience now is a total change of subjects and itself an informal fallacy. You tend to do this a lot when shown to be incorrect. Even so, there is no fallacy in my earlier statement because, frankly, the subjects you champion are not significant minority subjects so I never conflated a significant minority subject with pseudoscience. You are also wrong in your characterization of the "necessary clarification". The text does not read as an absolute determination. "Prominent adherents" are only a feature of significant minorities, features that other topics can have as well. "Prominent adherents" do not make an exclusive definition of "significant minority views". --ScienceApologist 13:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence against Tommysun

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...

Tommysun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) 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...
  • [51] - quotes Alan Sandage, seems ok.
  • [52] - material based on Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, again seems ok.
  • [53] - 1st revert, still ok.
  • [54] - different article, again based on Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, again seems ok.
  • [55] - another different article, again based on Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society of Canada, still not very unreasonable.
  • [56] - modified version based on 1937 Rhodes Lectures published as The Observational Approach to Cosmology, again seems okish, if a little too long.
  • [57] - 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)

[edit] Pseudoscience vs "Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation"

• ScienceApologist, this is a joke right? If you can't tag an article as "Pseudoscience",[58], you'll tag it with that well-known category, "Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation" [59]
• 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)

Shouldn't this be at Category talk:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation? --ScienceApologist 19:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raul654: Calling a spade a spade

• Raul654, I find your recent comments in the Proposed decisions, to be offensive:

• On another editor's incivility toward me, "Looks like a case of calling a spade a spade"[60]
• "I do not believe Ian Tresman's deserve good faith."[61]

• It's one thing to disagree with someone, as I obviously disagree with your statements now.
• But it's another thing to suggest that it's OK to be uncivil and use ad hominem attacks, if they are perceived to be deserved. In my opinion, that goes against the entire ethos of Wikipedia as a place where editors are supposed to cooperate in a friendly manner.
• And to suggest that an editor does not deserve good faith, I would never have expected to read from another editor, let alone an Arbitrator. You can imagine how an editor might loose faith in a particular arbitrator's decisions, based on reading such comments. --Iantresman 16:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Fred Bauder, I would appreciate your comments (and other Arbitrators) on the suitability of Raul654's statements above. --Iantresman 12:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

We don't always agree. He may even be right. I don't believe in coddling good editors. He doesn't believe in giving them grief. If I get pissy about being courteous and drive a good editor away, we'll all have a lot to answer for. If he keeps on giving good editors the idea they can run over other people Wikipedia will get nastier and nastier. Fred Bauder 23:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Fred, I think there is a double standard here, that some editors are inherently good, and other inherently "pseudoscientific". A good editor is not a good editor if they go around calling others woo-woos, and they can't distinguish minority views from pseudoscience. And I should also point out that no evidence has been presented that I have "pushed" pseudoscience in any article, nor misrepresented a minority view.
• I too have written a number of article, which since they do not involve certain editors have stood the test of time, and do not demonstrate any of the infractions I am alleged to have perpetrated. See for example:

Birkeland current Critical ionization velocity Double layer (not Maths section) Dusty plasma Electric universe (concept) 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 10:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Banning of Eric Lerner

I notice that four editors have voted to ban me from editing any articles relating to my own research. This move is not supported by any find of fact except that I am engaged in research involving plasma cosmology , aneutronic fusion and the plasma focus device, and that the Focus Fusion Society, a non-profit that I am associated with, raises money for education and research on the plasma focus device.

None of the arbitrators who support this banning has put forward any justification that applies a general rule, rather than an arbitrary action specific to me alone. The Wikipedia’s conflict of interest policy specifically allows experts to contribute to fields that they are expert into: “On the other hand, an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to it.” So my research in a subject is absolutely no bar to my contributing to article on that subject. Fred Bauder himself has supported a decision encouraging experts to contribute to articles.

There is also no policy banning researchers who work for private companies or non-profits which raise money from the public. Fred Bauder specifically advocated than Bill Gates, who certainly raises money from the public both through sales and investments, should be allowed to edit an article on Windows as an expert! Even setting this example aside, ANY researcher must raise money for his or her researcher, and since much of that money comes form the government, it is influenced by perceptions of the public.

Federal grant money is allocated by a political process. Support for funding stem-cell research is certainly influenced by public perceptions of the scientific merit of this work. Do the arbitrators who would ban me say that stem-cell researchers therefore are banned from editing the stem-cell article? The same goes for climate research, the specific example mentioned in the Wiki policy.

In addition, there is still a great amount of research that is funded by corporations, all of which raise money from the general public by selling shares. Do the arbitrators who would ban me say that all scientists working for corporations should be banned from editing articles in their research fields because such articles might help their companies?

This ban is not supported by any policy or find of fact and seems on the surface aimed at simply suppressing me as an individual for having views that the arbitrators strongly disagree with.

I pray your machine works. Fred Bauder 19:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You have not in any way responded to my arguments about your proposed banning of me.Elerner 21:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Finally as I have said seven times, I have not edited my own page, Eric Lerner, since being informed of the policy against that, so a ban of that page would be simply a gratuitous insult, since it enforces what I have voluntarily been doing for quite a while.

I would urge the other arbitrators to expres thier opinions on this issue.Elerner 16:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Eric, I think the relevant policies and guidelines are clear that stakeholders are strongly discouraged from directly editing pages that are likely to present a direct financial benefit and instead strongly encouraged to submit proposed changes on the talk pages for review and possible inclusion by other editors. See:

• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Personal benefits, and
• Wikipedia:Autobiography#If Wikipedia already has an article about you. (See also the introduction to WP:AUTO - "This applies to articles about you, your achievements, your business, your publications, your website, your relatives, and any other possible conflict of interest.")

• On one hand, I agree that banning you you from doing something that is merely "strongly discouraged" is a close call, at least without a factual finding that your edits to pages in which you have a personal interest were counterproductive.
• On the other hand (and, IMHO the gripping hand as well), the proposed ban only extends to what you were strongly discouraged from doing in the first place, editing personal interest pages directly rather than through talk page suggestions. It might be simplest just to agree to the one year ban without admitting fault, since you should probably be following the terms of that ban anyway. Thanks, TheronJ 16:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I note that WP:Autobiography and WP:LIVING says that:

• "Creating an article about yourself is strongly discouraged", and Eric did not create the article.
• "In some cases the subject may become involved in editing an article. They may edit it themselves..."
• But since it was suggested that Eric should not edit his own page, he hasn't.
• No-one has shown that Eric wrote anything in his article which was misrepresenting himself.
• It appears that Eric has followed guidelines and policies, without demonstrating impropriety, and has already voluntarily withdrawn from editing his own article.
• A ban does appear unnecessarily punitive, when a caution would seem to do --Iantresman 17:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ian, I think the "strong discouragement" clearly goes farther than just editing one's own article. As I explain above, parties are also "strongly discouraged" from directly editing articles in which they have a financial interests or are a stakeholder. If Eric recognized that and agreed to stop editing articles like plasma fusion device directly, I agree that a caution would be preferable to a ban.
• Instead, Eric denies that he has a direct stake in the outcome, because he's "associated" with a "non-profit" relating to the plasma fusion device. On reflection, I don't know if he's right or not -- clearly, we have climate change researchers editing climate change articles, and are the better for it. I'll leave it to arbcom to decide whether Eric's position wrt plasma fusion is more like an employee or researcher (who would presumably be allowed to edit) or more like an owner of a PFD company (who would be strongly encouraged to stay on the talk pages). TheronJ 18:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Agreed it's down to ArbCom in the end. I think if there was any impropriety, it would be obvious, and we'd spot such phrasing in the text... "promising technology... successful results... ", and it would deviate from NPOV language. And certainly no-one would be crazy enough to do it under their own name. It does seem that Eric is being punished for what others think could be done... in which case it should be a general policy that people can't edit their own biographies, and no individual should be singled out. --Iantresman 19:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The difference between climate change researchers and "plasma focuse device" researchers is that the plasma focus device is actively advocated and researched only by one person whereas climate change is studied by thousands of researchers. Eric stands to personally benefit if plasma focus devices are portrayed positively, but if climate change models are portrayed positively, there isn't a single personality who gains benefit. --ScienceApologist 18:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

So if it can be shown that the plasma focus device is researched by others, you'll reconsider? --Iantresman 19:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If you can show someone else who believes that the plasma focus device can result in aneutronic fusion, I'd definitely reconsider my analysis. --ScienceApologist 19:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The plasma focus device exists—it has been a subject of research by hundreds of researchers for forty years. It is a proven device for producing fusion reactions. The idea that I am the only advocate of the plasma focus device as a fusion device is about as remote from reality as the moon being made of green cheese. Dozens of researchers have also been active in the field of aneutronic fusion. Aneutronic fusion exists—it has been demonstrated in the laboratory for many decades.

Many researchers other then I have researched the plasma focus device as a possible device for aneutronic fusion. These include Winston Bostick and Victorio Nardi of Stevens Institute of Technology (both deceased), George Miley, who is head of the Department of Nuclear Engineering at the University of Illinois, Franklin Mead of the Air Force Research Laboratory and several others.

Here is just one very recent reference: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005AIPC..746..536T

Research into the use of the dense plasm focus for aneutronic fusion has been funded by NASA, US Air Force and other funding agencies. I can provide extensive references if anyone wants. The literature is quite extensive.Elerner 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you meant the plasma focus device in general. --Iantresman 19:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

How about asking Art Carlson since he has had some technical discussions with Lerner, and seems to know what he is talking about. My opinion is that a conflict of interest would arise only if Lerner was soliciting or advertising on the Wiki page. Otherwise, it would be like telling Colt or Winchester that they couldn't edit articles on firearms, or Ben and Jerry on ice cream. I have not seen evidence of solicitation, but maybe someone else can point it out to me. ABlake 20:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference because Colt and Winchester are not the only people who make firearms and Ben and Jerry are not the only people who make ice cream. --ScienceApologist 21:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

IMO, the number of researchers on any given topic has less bearing on the question of conflict of interest than the form of contribution that they make. If Lerner is soliciting funds or otherwise advertising, it is clearly a conflict of interest, but as I mentioned before, I have seen no evidence of that. His contributions should be weighed on their content, and the content has been devoid of solicitations and advertising, unless someone can point me to evidence to the contrary. When the question involves the banning of a contributor, on the basis of conflict of interest, I don't understand the focus on the number of researchers on the subject. You have already argued that Lerner is marginalized by the mainstream, and people are not arguing that, so what purpose does this line of questioning hold? You wrote, "Eric stands to personally benefit if plasma focus devices are portrayed positively." Ben and Jerry also stand to benefit if ice cream is portrayed positively, as does Baskin-Robins, etc, regardless of the number of producers. Therefore, the focus of the articles and the content of any interested contributor should be on the facts, without propaganda. Otherwise, excluding interested but knowledgeable parties could be considered POV pushing and chasing off experts, which we're trying to avoid. ABlake 22:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Aneutronic fusion reads like propaganda to me. WAS 4.250 23:16, 9

November 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to point out the specific lines that concern you. Just remember that relating facts is OK and appropriate in an encyclopedia. Furnishing biased interpretation of facts (spin) is propaganda, and is not appropriate. If it is done by someone without an interest, it is POV pushing. If done by someone with an interest, it is a conflict of interest as well as POV pushing. If you are able to point out such lines, I am absolutely in favor of changing or deleting them so that the article is appropriate. ABlake 23:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aneutronic fusion

(<--) The last time I looked at it, it was mostly unsourced and had lots of assertions concerning a device that has never existed and so can not have valid sources for its specific characteristics. Compare: "My perpetual motion machine will not need radioactive shielding due to these equations [...] and these laws of physics [...]." Talk of theory and talk of a device yet to be built - that maybe can't be built - are far different. WAS 4.250 00:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

It is always a good idea to check the literature before stating things as facts. The plasma focus has existed as a device tested in the laboratory for longer than the tokamak.Elerner 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I would be happy to add citations to that article. It has quite a few but can use more.Elerner 01:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I've had a go at the first couple of sections--mainly sprinkling with {{fact}} tags and converting to subjunctive voice--which is more appropriate for a hypothetical technology. A bit of meandering on power-conversion technology was trimmed. What do you think? --EngineerScotty 00:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Aneutronic fusion is a proposed form of fusion power where no more than 1% of the total fusion energy released is carried by neutrons. WAS 4.250 00:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The previous version was agreed to as NPOV by both me and Art Carlson, who is very skeptical on aneutronci fusion. You have labled as opinion undisputed physics facts.Elerner 01:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I posted a response on the talk page. For things which are indeed within the realm of theoretical physics, go ahead and revert (and source!) as appropriate. However, any proposed or claimed property of a powerplant is--per my comments on the talk page--an engineering issue and not a physics issue. As no detailed engineering analyses of such a thing has been--or could be--performed, any such claims are speculative at best, original research at worst. --EngineerScotty 01:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this conversation illustrates beautifully the problem with allowing principal proponents from having unfettered access to Wikipedia. Suddenly the speculative becomes confirmed and the novel becomes mundane. Critical evaluation is not the job of Wikipedia, it's the job of the community's which are formed to do critical analysis. As such, we need to make sure that ideas which are speculative are reported as such, and ideas which are unvetted, unpublished original research are completely removed from the encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 15:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You are characterizing as novel, speculative and unpublished work which has been published in peer-reviewed journals for over fifteen years, or in some cases over forty years. The earliest discussion of DPF for aneutronic fuels dates back at least 15 years and DPF experiments go back 40 years. Experiments on aneutronic fuels go back at least that far.

I note that you have declined to answer my reply pointing out that aneutronic fusion using the plasma focus is NOT just my work. I am one researcher among quite a few in all these fields, just as a climate researcher is one among many.

I also note that Fred Bauder has yet to reply as to why I should be banned from articles I am expert in, but Bill Gates should be allowed to edit an article on Windows, his company's product. Nor has he or anyone else pointed out how I differ from a climatologist edting an article on climate change.Elerner 02:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that if Bill Gates were editting articles on Windows, there might be some who would have problems with it. --ScienceApologist 15:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Do tell which speculative or novel idea you are referring to. Bemoaning the general state of affairs is unbecoming if the facts can't back it up. Please be specific. ABlake 19:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Take your pick of any of the subjects of this arbitration. --ScienceApologist 22:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Easy enough. We are discussing aneutronic fusion, and more specifically proton-boron fusion. Are we to, as you suggest, make sure that (aneutronic/pB fusion) is labeled as speculative and completely removed from the encyclopedia. I agree with the labeling where appropriate, but removal is unwarranted, and so is the banning of the contributor for alleged but undemonstrated conflict of interest. There's my pick. What's next?

With that said, be aware that my goal is to foster the best, most accurate, truthful, complete, and readable articles possible on Wikipedia. I agree that unvetted, unpublished original research should not be debuted on Wikipedia. However, I get concerned when controversial figures are treated as contemptible figures. Aneutronic fusion may be a bit controversial, but not contemptible. Likewise, various contributors may also be controversial, but not necessarily contemptible. If something is speculative, it should be labeled as such. Honestly, you have done a pretty good job of keeping the articles clean and up to par. Your contributions and comments have facilitated the improvement of many articles. But in your zeal to battle the forces of pseudoscience, don't become a pseudocynic who trims more than just the fat. The accurate version of the truth must not be sacrificed to either camp. ABlake 02:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that editors with too vested an interest in articles do exhibit a conflict of interest. Eric tries to make money off of aneutronic fusion and as it is speculative stands to benefit from its positive portrayal wherever it is done. This fact seems to be lost in the shuffle. --ScienceApologist 15:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, I note that you have declined to answer my reply pointing out that aneutronic fusion using the plasma focus is NOT just my work. I am one researcher among quite a few in all these fields, just as a climate researcher is one among many. Someone who thinks aneutronic fusion is a good idea could, for example, invest in TriAlpha Energy, which has a competing approach, or a Congressional aide might be inspired to allocate some money to University of Illinois' effort on the plasma focus. If you ban me from editing articles I am expert in, you will have to consistently ban all experts, because any professional scientist by definition has a financial interest in the funding of his or her research. Climate researchers "make money off of" climate research.

By the way, the case is even clearer with "plasma cosmology" because I never have, unfortunately , gotten funding for this work (except the stint at European Southern Observatory.)I think the discussion of "meat puppets" makes it clear that the aim is to label anyone who you happen to disagree with to be either a "conflict of interest person" or someone acting on thier behalf.

The fact that he is an interested party has not been lost. It just requires that he be especially careful (and the rest of us especially vigilant) to portray the facts in a NPOV way. We're in agreement on that point. Where I take issue is that interested parties might be completely excluded from contributing. That may present a problem because a great many experts in certain fields and subjects are experts because they are interested parties who are actively involved in research. I'm not advocating that they should have free reign on Wikipedia to peddle their wares and POVs, but I'm against them being summarily denied the chance to contribute. As long as the interested party can maintain NPOV and doesn't solicit or advertise, there shouldn't be a problem. In the case of Eric, I agree that he could stand to benefit from a positive portrayal of aneutronic fusion. No argument. Your emphasis on positive portrayal is key. The article should be adequately labeled as speculative, the facts should be presented in a NPOV way, and any positive (or negative) spin should be removed. That is the essence of a good encyclopedia. Any authors who chronically go beyond this should be blocked. My impression of the aneutronic fusion page is that it is not laced with propaganda, and I have specifically asked that others point it out to me if they find it. I would be more than happy to change it, and you know I would because we have worked out issues like this in the past. Eric's page has been scaled back and toned down to a non-propaganda level. That's the Wiki way, and it's working! ABlake 19:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:COI applies. Even without this wiki-legal process, Eric should make his points on the talk page of aneutronic fusion, not the mainpage itself. WAS 4.250 19:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User:WAS 4.250 has his finger on the pulse here, User:ABlake. I have no problem with your editting style and your ability to work in the wiki-process. But when conflicts of interest arise, even when they are just perceived conflicts of interest, it is in the best interest of the encyclopedia to err on the side of caution precisely because the wiki-porcess is so open. According to the applicable recommendations of policies and guidelines, Eric should ideally be confining his comments to the talkpage, regardless of whether they are NPOV or not if only to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest. A ban on editing the pages does not prevent Eric from commenting on the talkpages, it just is a somewhat punative request for him to conform to guidelines and policies that are applicable to this situation. Bans due to conflicts-of-interest have precedent, and the arbitration committee will have to decide if it is a good idea in this particular case. No one is saying that such bans should be a universally applied; the arbcom is only being asked to comment on this particular set of articles. --ScienceApologist 23:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, WP:COI explains it perfectly. I agree with everything that was just said. One thought that concerns me is the anonymity of some Wiki users. How do you know if JoeBlow652 is an interested party in an article. It's easy to enforce COI policy when you know someone's real identity, but what if you don't? ABlake 12:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

(<---)While it is true that contributors are allowed to be anon and outing identies is not allowed, Wikipedia policies 'take that into account by specifically letting people who act like meat-puppets (arbcom case involving editing of a young earth creationist bio) or disciples (conflict of interest guideline) be treated as if they were that person, regardless of if they are or are not. Don't deal with who the real person is behind the username. Deal with behavior from that username. A meatpuppet or a disciple must take conflict of interest considerations into account just as if they were that person. And admins can deal with meatpuppets as if they were that person. And we all get to use comon sense in judging who is acting like a meatpuppet and who is acting like a discipe. WAS 4.250 19:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

And here we are with anonymous editors labeling non-anonymous editors "pseudoscientists", "incompetent", and questioning their integrity. And instead of Admins dealing with the editors, they reverse an Admin's ban, give the editor a pat on the back, and caution one of the subject's of the incivility for daring to complain, and ban them for a related matter. So I wouldn't say it was working very well. --Iantresman 23:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Since there seem to be enough votes to ban me from editing any article that I am expert in, I just want to make a few points to each of the arbitrators personally so there is no excuse that they don’t know what they are doing.

Not one of you have said what the difference is between my case and that of a climate researcher editing an article on climate research, which is specifically allowed by the Wiki conflict of interest policy. Any professional scientist by definition has a financial interest in the funding of his or her research. Climate researchers "make money off of" climate research. Especially in any controversial field, they must appeal to the general public to generate political support for the governmental funding decisions that they depend on, if they are at universities.

Like myself, anyone working for a corporation has a financial interest in that corporation raising money from the public, both through the sale of products and the sale of shares.

Arbitrator Bauder has said that Bill Gates should be allowed to edit the article on Windows as an expert, yet in no way says how the same rule would not allow me to edit “aneutronic fusion” as an expert.

Aneutronic fusion using the plasma focus is NOT just my work. I am one researcher among quite a few in all these fields, just as a climate researcher is one among many. Nor is that the only approach to aneutronic fusion. Someone who thinks aneutronic fusion is a good idea could, for example, invest in TriAlpha’s Energy, which has a competing approach, or a Congressional aide might be inspired to allocate some money to University of Illinois' effort on the plasma focus.

The case is even clearer with "plasma cosmology" because I never have, unfortunately, gotten funding for this work (except my brief stint at European Southern Observatory.)

Quite clearly no general rule seems to be operating here, at least none that any of you have chosen to defend, that distinguishes my case from that of any other professional expert who makes a living from their research.

My only conclusion is that the intent is simply censorship—to eliminate all those promoting certain viewpoints, specifically on cosmology, from Wikipedia. I assume that if I am banned for conflict on interest, anyone who in any way supports a similar viewpoint will be banned as my “meat puppet”.

If I am mistaken and you actually do have some way of showing how a general rule would lead to my banning, but not the a banning of every other professional scientist, I hope you will post it on the proposed decision talk page.

Eric LernerElerner 00:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It is definitely not about censorship. As to Bill Gates, I suppose he could get himself in trouble, but he's not editing, so just a tangent. If you were regularly receiving grants through the usual process it might still be an issue. There are several situations where we have been somewhat lax. With User:Larry Sanger editing Citizendium, for example, but basically, if your editing involves blowing your own unusual horn, it may become an issue, depending on how aggressive the editor is. Fred Bauder 02:16, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

How does my case differ from a climate researcher editing a climate article, which is explicitly allowed in the Wiki policy? How is editing an article blowing my "unusual horn"? Aneutronic fusion is a 50-year-old field with lots of researchers.Elerner 02:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

What a farce! I've been banned and not one of the arbitrators has defended the decision or said why I should be banned and not every other professional scientist. If this is not censorship, nothing is.Elerner 15:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Raul654: Evidence supporting comments

• 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)

[edit] Motion to close

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 iantresman	ArbCom findings against ScienceApologist
Contravened WP:CIVIL.[62]	Contravened WP:CIVIL ,[63] Deprecating (contravening WP:LIVING ?)[64] Edit warred,[65] Failed to extend good faith,[66]
Banned for one year	Partly 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,[67] 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)

Clerk note: Actually, there is no motion to close, and at the moment, no remedy, such as banning, has enough votes to pass. What I was doing in the "Implementation notes" section is trying to list those proposals that are currently passing. There were a number of proposals added after voting was under way, and alternate versions, so that it may not be clear exactly what the status of the case is. I expect more votes will be offered before the case actually moves to close. Thatcher131 00:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Remedies

• Could an arbitrator explain what the remedies are supposed to remedy? Do they relate directly to the "Findings of fact", or to the earlier evidence provided, or other?
• Is a remedy a punitive action? Preventative measure? Or other?
• Are remedies commensurate to an editor's "infractions"? --Iantresman 00:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

As an uninvolved user, I wanted to add some thoughts as to the relationship between Findings of Fact and Remedies. Given the findings of inapropriate and arguably inapropriate behavior by ScienceApologist, I find it surprising that the remedies cautioning him have not been voted on by most arbiters. Even given the provocations that he faced, I think that a formal caution is clearly apropriate given the findings of incivility and edit-warring (the others aren't really serious, IMHO). I would urge the arbitrators to consider voting on remedies 10 and 11 and to either pass them or explain why they are unnecessary given the findings of fact. Eluchil404 09:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• While I personally welcome your comment as the target of ScienceApologist's inappropriate behavior, I'd be interested to see an example of such provocation that warranted (a) Incivility (b) Deprecation (c) Failing to extend good faith? --Iantresman 10:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The findings of incivility are, as pointed out above, culturally specific to Wikipedia. When dealing with problematic editors, there is a grey area between descriptions of the problems that are civil and descriptions of the problems that are not civil. It appears that consensus is that my descriptions were not civil, however, this necessarily subjective judgement call is necessarily tricky. The edit-warring charge is also somewhat subjective, having mostly to do with being upset with my reliance on reverting problematic contributions and then posting explanations for these reversions on the talkpage. There are those Wikipedians who dislike reverting and will never do it. They're called inclusionists. As a deletionist, I am more trigger-happy and arbitrators have decided that this was edit warring. I consider both of these findings of fact to be particularly important warnings to me because they indicate that outside viewers of situations may make judgements based on their analysis of evidence and determine parity of responsibility despite my intentions. It is important to be careful in disputes -- above and beyond the normal cares taken in Wikipedia exchanges. --ScienceApologist 12:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• If you call an editor "incompetent", or a living person a "woo woo", they are clear-cut, unambiguous examples of incivility and "deprecation". You will note that no evidence has been presented showing that I have directed an ad hominem at you, nor insulted any living individual.
• Likewise, suggesting I am "pushing pseudoscience", but providing not one article edit diff to support this, and other assertions, I believe is not extending good faith, is unambiguous, and black and white. --Iantresman 13:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, I have only been evaluating your contributions as an editor to this encyclopedia. People may bandy-about WP:SPADE a bit much, but incivility is ultimately a judgement call. We can also make the same points about Marmet et al. regarding their work. "Woo woo" or not, I do not consider them to be reliable sources in the sense that their work is generally not highly regarded in the community. Your requirement that I provide "article diff"s is artificial and as I believe I have made my case very well in this arbitration that your major motivations here are to promote your POV (whether it be technically pseudoscientific or not), I will not retract this evaluation of your behavior. --ScienceApologist 13:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Criticizing someone work with reliable sources is useful to the Wikipedia. Calling someone names is not.
• You claim I have a motivation, but are unable to provide any article edit diffs showing impropriety. You also claimed that the motivation of some scientists researching Redshift quantization was "getting rid of the Big Bang"[68], and yet when I provided a verifiable source contradicting you, you removed it.[69] And I have more sources.
• I describe other people's verifiable points of view from reliable sources (which may or may not coincide with my own personal POV), and you have provided no article edit diffs showing otherwise.
• On the other hand, you have personally judged that the Wolf effect is not a redshift,[70][71] [72], without a verifiable source, (ie your personal POV), even removing contradictory information with verifiable reliables sources.[73][74]
• You have labelled various subjects as pseudoscience,[75] again without a verifiable source (hence your personal POV)
• You'll note that I am able to provide an edit diff, and/or reliable source supporting each and everyone one of my statements, whereas you tend to give your point of view as to why you don't. --Iantresman 14:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This last diatribe pretty much speaks for itself. The tendentious nature of your goading is documented in the evidence section of this arbitration, and this listing pretty much fits right along with your tactics. You have a really hard time understanding what constitutes a reliable and an unreliable source and your reliance on unreliable sources has been a severe problem with your contributions on the pages relevant to this arbitration. You seem to think that obscure sources can trump standard texts, that fringe scientists deserve special protection from criticism, and that there is something magical about "article diffs" as if it is impossible to be tendentious through talkpage behavior. I find all of these pieces fit together into a puzzle that indicates to me that you are on a personal crusade to reconform Wikipedia away from marginalization of minority opinions toward an overt accomodation of your favorite astronomical fashions in what I can only describe as the worst sort of perversion of the NPOV ideal.

To put this another way, while your contributions are verifiably marginal, mine are verifiably mainstream. Since Wikipedia accomodates marginal contributions in very particular ways (WP:FRINGE, for example), it is absolutely vital that marginal contributions be characterized appropriately in their articles and be marginalized in the mainstream articles. This is what will make Wikipedia an encyclopedia rather than just a hodge-podge of internet fashions and argumentative texts. I have illustrated clearly what my problem with your promotionalism is, and as far as I'm concerned it is up to the community to decide whether they want articles such as redshift and Big Bang to be as they are written today, or whether they want them to be written as they were when I arrived. It is up to the community to decide whether they want articles such as plasma cosmology and redshift quantization to be written as though these were agreed upon scientific observations and frameworks, or whether they want the marginalization of these subjects in the scientific community to be clearly delineated. I do see this as two opinions about Wikipedia is. I fundamentally disagree with your opinion about what makes a source reliable and what makes an evaluation personal as opposed to verifiable, and hopefully this arbitration will further clarify some kind of community consensus as to these subjects.

--ScienceApologist 15:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

• Reliable sources that say that the Wolf effect is a redshift include: Nature,[76] various leading optics journals,[77] [78] textbooks on optics,[79][80] one of the leading and most respected optics pioneer in the field, Emil Wolf, and over a 100 citations to Wolf's original paper.
• The Wolf effect has also been demonstrated in the laboratory.[81][82]
• I also have astronomy-specific text books discussing the Wolf effect,[83][84][85]p136p103
• The reliable sources are extensive and varied, the notability in physics and optics is evident.
• What reliable sources do you have disputing this in any way? Or are you going to personally disagree yet again, and claim that you represent the consensus without one reliable source? --Iantresman 16:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Every well-known standard introductory textbook on physics or astronomy agrees with me. --ScienceApologist 18:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You have merely suggested that the Wolf effect is not as notable in astronomy; I have no problem with that. The Redshift article starts: "In physics and astronomy..." (my emphasis). And its notability in physics and optics is abundantly clear. --Iantresman 19:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

And physics too. --ScienceApologist 19:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Jayant Narlikar's "An Introduction to Cosmology" includes the Wolf effect on page 507, and is a standard text book at:

• University of Wisconsin,[86]
• Berkeley University, [87]
• MTU's course on Galactic Astrophysics [88]
• Columbia University's course on Physical Cosmology, [89]
• Rice University's course on Astrophysics [90]
• The Institute for Astronomy at the University of Hawaii, course on Cosmology [91]
• University of Virginia Department of Astronomy, course on Extragalactic Astronomy [92]
• University of California's Physics Booklist: Recommendations, [93]
• Duke University's course, Introduction to Astrophysics, [94]
• Plus many more.

Michael Bass's "Handbook of Optics" by the Optical Society of America also discusses the Wolf effect (also called Wolf shift), and is a standard text book at:

• Too many to mention.

These examples contradict your assertion of "Every well-known standard introductory textbook", and my evidence is all verifiable. Still you have provided not one reliable source supporting your opinion.

• "Well-known" seems to mean "well known to you", and "standard" meaning books that don't mention the Wolf effect? --Iantresman 21:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

While I have a lot of respect for Narlikar as the most respectable nonstandard cosmology advocate, his work is not used as the main text for any of the courses you list save Mark Kruse's irreverant jaunt. Since I happen to know that Kruse has a rather wicked sense of humor when it comes to teaching, I can tell you that certainly no one takes Narlikar's review of cosmology to be the authorative work on introductory cosmology. In any case, I am confident that Narlikar wouldn't take issue with our redshift page as his coverage of the Wolf Effect is itself reasonably skeptical towards it being a redshift in the same sense as the orthodox mechanisms. Optics handbooks are suppoed to be exhaustive, not summative, and so this resource is not justification for inclusion of an idea in an article about redshift (not optics). --ScienceApologist 21:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism issue

• Metamagician3000 has just drawn to my attention an edit on this page which appears to have been made by me earlier on, but which is clearly vandalism,[95]
• As I have assured him, this kind of edit is not my style, and I would have nothing to gain, knowing it would be reverted, and point to me.
• I did indeed make an edit at around that time, questioning some other issues.
• I have asked Metamagician3000 whether it is possible to check more details on the post, in an attempt to identify its source.
• I have screen-grabbed this post as a record. --Iantresman 00:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I think something seriously wonky happened to the servers. I was leaving Cowman109 a short note about an edit he made and somehow an entire article talk page got jammed into his page [96]. I sure as heck didn't do it; I wasn't even reading that article much less editing it. I don't know what happened but I'll back you up on it not being intentional. Wierd. Thatcher131 00:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that... there goes the conspiracy theories :-)

I wonder whether anyone saw my actual post on "Final Decisions", rather than the vandalism shown? --Iantresman 00:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Erased from existence, I'm afraid. You'll have to repost whatever it is you wanted to say. Thatcher131 00:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that Ian's apparent vandalism was evidently not by him. I can't exactly apologise to him for accusing him of vandalism, because the record was clear ... but, hey, I'll do so anyway rather than splitting hairs. I certainly regret that I've been put in a position where I've accused him of something that he apparently didn't do - and it would have been out of character. I've suggested he change his password in case he's been hacked, but that may not be the situation. Is there any way we can get to the bottom of it? I guess it may not now be so critical from Ian's viewpoint if he's not the only one who's had the problem, so it's probably not a malicious hacker framing him. Metamagician3000 01:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be widespread. Happened to me a second time (I've changed locations, IPs and computers in the meantime BTW), also see WP:VPT. Thatcher131 01:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Happened to me too. [97] Art LaPella 05:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

The edit in question consisted of adding the last section (Final decision clarification) seen on this revision. The diffs are screwed up but the revisions themselves are fine.  --Lambiam^Talk 07:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

That may be so, but it's not what was coming up earlier today. Anyway, water under the bridge now. It wasn't the fault of anyone posting here. No shame, as they say. Metamagician3000 11:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision clarification

(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)