Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases

This case is the source for the original wording of WP:PSCI, as well as clarifying the differences that the Neutral point of view policy requires in encyclopedic coverage of pseudosciences as opposed to "significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy". It further encourages administrators to apply discretionary sanctions to prevent disruption in articles related to pseudoscience and fringe science broadly construed. Application of sanctions requires prior formal notification, for instance {{subst:Ds/alert}}, to be issued by an uninvolved administrator and logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Log of notifications. Any sanctions applied for continued disruption should be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log of blocks and bans.

In 2012, a motion extended the discretionary sanctions to "all articles relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted." A few old cases were modified to use the new standard discretionary sanctions.

This case emphasizes that Wikipedia should include subjects generally regarded as non-existent by the scientific community when there is significant coverage by other independent sources. Per WP:REDFLAG, exceptional claims require exceptional sources, and ideas should not be misleadingly characterized as generally accepted. Editing under a conflict of interest and off-wiki campaigning are treated. The role of categorization is also discussed, concluding that if there is a significant sourced viewpoint that a topic is pseudoscience, it is an aid to the reader to so categorize it.

This case covers advocacy and suppression, patterns of tendentious and disruptive editing, the abuse of dispute resolution as an attempt to intimidate editors or further rather than solve a dispute, and the damage to the encyclopedia that is caused by polarization of editors into vociferous opposing camps. Other salient points include that Wikipedia articles should not speculate on possible future levels of acceptance of fringe theories, and there is no WP:TRUTH exception for disruptive behavior. This case also emphasizes that a topic ban means "entirely prohibited from editing articles within the topic".

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming: Following obsessive and POV editing, inadequate sourcing, and failure to follow WP:ASF, the topic area was put under probation. Sanctions to be logged Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Neuro-linguistic_programming#Documentation_of_bans.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Waldorf education: Waldorf education, Rudolf Steiner, Anthroposophy, and related articles have been subject to conflict-of-interest editing, inadequate sourcing, and over-reliance on material self-published by the Anthroposophy movement.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attachment Therapy: The Conflict of Interest guideline is especially important in controversial areas.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories: Prolonged edit wars are not a valid means of achieving consensus. Articles should describe all significant views in accordance with their prominence, and fairly weight the authority accorded each view in the relevant scholarly community. Discretionary sanctions may be applied across the topic area (broadly construed) after formal warning; Log of notifications, Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Prem Rawat: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not part of an ideological struggle. Neutral point of view is better presented by summarizing quality independent sources than trying to balance polarized sources against each other. The subtopic is subject to article probation.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy: Advocacy, unseemly conduct, and inappropriate sourcing are to be avoided. The topic area (broadly construed) is subject to discretionary sanctions. Novel approaches are encouraged to further the creation of high-quality content while minimizing disruption.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion: Views should be represented according to their prominence in the relevant scholarly community; polarized sources should be replaced with higher quality independent sources rather than "balanced" with equally polarized sources. Edit warring is not part of the consensus-building process. Advocacy and other unseemly conduct interfere with building comprehensive neutral articles.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Scientology: The Neutral point of view policy is not optional. Careful editing with a conflict of interest can enhance content, but Use of the encyclopedia to advance personal agendas – such as advocacy or propaganda and philosophical, ideological or religious dispute – or to publish or promote original research is prohibited. Factional editing is likewise prohibited. Single purpose accounts and IP addresses registered to an organization editing that organization's article or related issues may be subject to additional scrutiny. Church of Scientology IP addresses are subject to immediate blocking, as with open proxies, and SPAs with a clear agenda may be blocked for up to one year. The topic area (broadly construed) is placed under discretionary sanctions.

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement From Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental_Meditation_movement#Editors_reminded, those who can't edit a particular article or topic neutrally are encouraged to voluntarily step away and edit other articles. The topic area is under discretionary sanctions.

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity Longevity is on discretionary sanctions, broadly construed. In this case, membership of a fringe group about a topic area, did not necessarily equate to a conflict of interest with respect to the fringe topic area.

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19