Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case

"WP:ARC" redirects here. For the former contest, see Wikipedia:Article rescue contest.

Requests for arbitration

Arbitration Committee proceedings

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

Case requests

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Complementary and Alternative Medicine		5 May 2015	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Venezuelan politics	25 May 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads	none	none	4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan	none	(orig. case)	7 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions	none	none	10 June 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Initiated by A1candidate at 01:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Involved parties

• A1candidate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
• JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Kww (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification JzG
• diff of notification Kww

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• User talk:JzG
• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive161#JzG
• User talk:Kww

Statement by A1candidate

Over the past few months, I have bore witness to a recurring pattern of highly inappropriate and uncivil behavior of two longstanding administrators: JzG and Kww. On several unfortunate occasions, I have been at the receiving end of a diverse range of personal attacks, offensive insults, and false accusations thrown against me:

• JzG called me an "advocate of quackery and fringe ideas". He also characterized me as a "SCAM apologist", "acupuncture advocate", and "quackery apologist". In addition, he bites the newcomers [1][2], uses foul languge repeatedly [3][4][5][6][7], tells an editor "you might be better off sticking to ducks". When asked by other editors to explain his offensive comments, he makes further inflammatory statements [8] and labelled an editor as a "troll".

• Kww has been engaging in a malicious campaign to eliminate me from Wikipedia. Beginning in early January 2015, he labelled me as an "accomplice" and plotted a case for arbitration against me. On 6 January 2015, he brought me in front of the Committee to face trial, stating that "dealing with these people as legitimate editors leads to unsatisfactory results" [9]. Even after being warned by John not to accuse other editors of engaging in "the promotion of quackery" on various talk pages, Kww refused to back down from his campaign to discredit other editors and continued to accuse other editors of having a COI [10]. He escalated the situation and accused me of dishonesty and "active deceit". After I denied these very serious and offensive insults to my personal integrity, he continued to imply that my edit summaries serve to "disguise the content and intent" of my edits.

Despite the serious accusations thrown at me by these administrators, I retain a clear conscience, and I am not an advocate of any particular treatment (certainly not in a financial sense). Nevertheless, my best efforts to put an end to these personal attacks against me have so far proved fertile. I tried to voice out these issues at WP:AE initially (since the talk pages were under discretionary sanctions), but my good faith attempts to highlight the problem was put down and I was accused of being "disruptive and likely tendentious". It is therefore my hope that this Committee will accept this case and hear me out. It is not my intention to disrupt or game the system, and I do not wish that these longstanding and experienced administrators be unfairly tried. All I hope is that their accusations against me and other editors may finally come to an end. -A1candidate 08:19, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Admin powers have not been used, this is a content dispute. Moreover, it is a transparent attempt to suppress dissent. He has tried this before, see a previous AE request which closed with no action.

In A1Candidate's mainspace contributions, there are a large number of articles on topics aligned to the supplements, complementary and alternative medicine (SCAM) industry. Acupuncture, reiki, TM etc. A1Candidate is clearly positive about these things and edits tend to introduce supportive material ([11] [12], [13], [14]) or remove critical material ([15], [16]). In several cases speculative claims have been asserted as fact in Wikipedia's voice, e.g. [17] which makes a clear implication of a proven mechanism for acupuncture which is inconsistent with the observed fact that sham needling has statistically indistinguishable outcomes.

I characterise this editing behaviour as advocacy. I do not think that is unfair. A1Candidate appears to believe that it is not just unfair, but uncivil - more than that, a personal attack.

The main problem is, as it was at the AE which was closed without action and which this request essentially simply reiterates, that I characterise A1Candidate as an advocate of acupuncture. So the only question of fact is: does A1Candidate advocate for acupuncture? I believe that Talk:Acupuncture and an extensive history of editing the acupuncture article, the majority of which edits serve to advance a belief in its legitimacy.

From the complaint, if you leave aside the terrible insults I hurled at a bot for repeatedly tagging an uploaded image with a rationale that did not use the correct template, you're left with a request to classify use of the word "advocacy" to describe systematic positive editing and commentary, as a personal attack and inherently uncivil. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

@Salvio: Have you seen Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans? We already have arbitration precedents that work here, covering fringe claims and clearly identifying pseudomedical practices as falling within their remit. I don't think a case on the general issue of advocacy for SCAM will yield much benefit. Fringe claims are already covered, the issue here is that A1Candidate differs from Kww, me, and many others from the reality-based community, on the demarcation between fringe and non-fringe claims. Homeopathy is unambiguous nonsense, acupuncture is at least minimally plausible, albeit not as TCM proponents describe it.

The more I look at the discussions here the more it seems to me that this is really a demarcation issue, as between science and pseudoscience. I think the best route forward is to use the discretionary sanctions already available and not change mature articles without prior consensus on Talk. I think that would fix the problem, such as it is. It would probably work to A1Candidate's benefit as he clearly has a lot more time to devote to this than I do. Guy (Help!) 15:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Kww

I stand by my characterisation of A1candidate: he advocates pseudoscience and damages articles related to alternative medicine. The accusation of active deceit came about today: there's no way that "format" described his repeated insertion of material over the objections of other editors or that "restore after extensive discussion" characterises an edit that had failed to gain consensus during that discussion.

I think it's getting time to take an Arbcom case over alternative medicine articles in general, and acupuncture, Traditional Chinese medicine and ayurveda in particular. All have become entrenched battlegrounds with advocates of these particular forms of quackery. Ayurveda is under indefinite full protection for the simple reason that our discretionary sanctions aren't working: they attempt to focus only on editor behaviour, but don't take into account that we have a serious problem with fraud here. Acupuncture is even more difficult because there is a legitimate scientific controversy over whether it has any effects, and that glimmer of hope is constantly seized upon as evidence that TCM isn't nonsense.

We need to authorize a set of sanctions that allow us to be uneven in our application of remedies, and to be able to immediately and promptly show pseudoscience advocates the door without going through this level of pain. My efforts in this area have only rewarded me with the classification of being involved, something that is bound to occur to any administrator that tries to keep these articles in some kind of factual form.—Kww(talk) 02:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Thryduulf, your position flies against previous holdings by the Arbitration on pseudoscience, which included

1. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
2. Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
3. Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

Unless the dispute is a serious scientific dispute (not the case with TCM or ayurveda, and only on some points with acupuncture) we are supposed to "dismiss them out of hand in Wikipedia's voice". The misapplication of NPOV that you discuss is the core dispute here. Mysticism is not on par with science, and, as an encyclopedia, we might report what mystics think, but we don't use it in our editorial position.—Kww(talk) 14:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Beyond My Ken

I agree with Kww that it would be beneficial for ArbCom to open a case dealing with acupuncture, Traditional Chinese medicine, ayurveda and other naturopathic practices, but suggest that the case be as broad as possible. A narrowly-focused case will do nothing to reduce the overall friction between believers and those who wish to follow the scientific method as the controlling factor. BMK (talk) 04:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Cla68

I have had several of the alternative medicine articles on my watchlist for some time now, and I can second the accuser's complaint that one or more of the regulars in those articles frequently treat other editors with ridicule, personal comments, condenscension, and other tactics apparently designed to denigrate and discourage their inputs to the articles in question. Perhaps the accuser does appear to favor one side, but the other two editors in question unquestionably favor their side with just as much, if not more verve and stubborness. I believe the two editors in question think they can get away with it because they are siding with the "house POV" and have the support of several admins, one of whom operates an "anti-quackery" blog column off-wiki in real life. I think a case on this issue is appropriate and I'll help present evidence, because there is plenty of it. Cla68 (talk) 07:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

If you're going to accept this one you'd need to include a lot more pro-alternative medicine advocates than A1candidate - a range that stretches from civil reasonable editors, though users with COI problems right to serially disruptive fringe editors. There's a lot of all types. The problems are that (a) many edit irregularly (b) there are many sock issues, especially via IPs, and (c) there is a lot of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT (see, for example, the need for a FAQ on Homeopathy). Black Kite (talk) 11:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Aside by TenOfAllTrades

I have mentioned (diff) this filing at WikiProject Medicine: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Arbitration case filing regarding complementary and alternative medicine. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by LeadSongDog

I often edit fringe and pseudoscience topics, but consider myself uninvolved with the alleged incivilities. I do, though, consider that there is a longstanding need to reduce the burden imposed by the advocates of fringe ideas. They do serve to promote discussion and understanding of the fringe ideas, but this comes at a cost. Treating Qi meridians or Water memory as if there was real credibility to the ideas makes a mockery of editors' efforts to create a trustworthy encyclopedia. We need to say what these ideas are, not lend them a veneer of credibility. LeadSongDog come howl! 13:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Question by DrChrissy

Question Am I allowed to comment here? I am an editor who has been involved in some of the diffs presented in the case - does this make me "involved" or am I "non-party"?DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Jim1138

Mainstream doctors and scientists, it would appear, have very little interest financially, professionally, nor intellectually, in getting embroiled in debunking pseudoscience and quackery. Other examples of avoidance include 9/11 and climate change. Sources challenging alt-med are limited and these, such as Quackwatch and Science Based Medicine are under constant attack. This can be a major time waste and relief is sorely needed. Jim1138 (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Keithbob

As a veteran of the Dispute Resolution noticeboard and a member of the Mediation Committee I have observed participants resorting to name calling and unfounded personal accusations when they can no longer defend their position with facts, sources and intelligent discussion. This kind of bullying drives competent, intelligent, educated editors away from the project, limits diversity and creates a house POV that poisons the neutrality of our project. Likewise, if an editor is ignoring consensus and edit warring then that needs to be evaluated and addressed as well. I therefore encourage the Committee to accept this case before there is further bullying, incivility and entrenchment of the opposing positions.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by Olive

I don't see that there are admin related issues here, since I haven't seen admins misuse their tools. I do believe there are general behavioural issues related to editors on some WP articles. However, the real problem is more basic than behaviour alone.

• WP is an encylopedia with the self assigned task of treating its content matter in a neutral way. The NPOV line-in-the-sand has been skewed in my opinion towards an implied position that supports allopathic medicine and treats any other health care modality as garbage. This includes traditional heath care systems. I don't know if a system like acupuncture works or not, and I don't care. I do care that our articles are written in a way that respects the information and knowledge connected to those systems, that our content clearly outlines the system with out the skeptical viewpoint being featured in the article or even the lead. Its necessary to compare alternative systems to western systems given this is an English language encyclopedia, and the MEDRS guidelines are critical, but it is also necessary to respect systems that have been the mainstays in other cultures besides our own. We are in my opinion ignorant and arrogant when we label other systems and practitioners with words like quackery and quacks. Quackery suggests a lack of honesty, training, and intent. While this is sometimes the case in alternative systems it is also sometimes the case in allopathic medicine but is not a given in either.
• We have an environment that both condones and supports disrespectful language and behaviour towards alternative systems and practioners. There is implied support for incivilities towards those editors who are perceived to not support the often heavily weighted skeptical viewpoint. There are double standards per sources. I do believe A1 and other editors have been treated this way.

• If the arbs can do anything it might be to work towards supporting an environment where the line between POV and NPOV is shifted. This requires a mind shift towards respecting information and knowledge while also being able to deal with criticism. I'm not sure how that can be done so that criticism of health care systems is presented, but also presented per accurate weight, but this may be the time to give it a try.(Littleolive oil (talk) 17:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC))

Statement by QuackGuru

User:A1candidate wrote "@DrChrissy - I've restored it back to where it belongs. Hopefully, the disruption will stop."[18] However, there is a specific section for related practices. See Acupuncture#Related practices. I removed text that failed to summarise the body. The text was being misused to counter the following argument: "TCM theory and practice are not based upon scientific knowledge,[7] and acupuncture is described as a type of pseudoscience.[8][9] Many within the scientific community consider it to be quackery.[10] Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry describe it as a "borderlands science" lying between normal science and pseudoscience.[11]" The information I removed from the lede was about effectiveness not TCM or pseudoscience. For information about effectiveness please read the second paragraph: "An overview of high-quality Cochrane reviews found evidence suggesting that acupuncture may alleviate certain kinds of pain.[16] A systematic review of systematic reviews found that for reducing pain, real acupuncture was no better than sham acupuncture and concluded that there is little evidence that acupuncture is an effective treatment for reducing pain.[n 1][8]" If you check the edit history funny things were happening to the lede. Editors were repeatedly deleting Quackwatch from the body against a long established consensus.[19][20][21] User:LesVegas is criticising me but he knows I rarely press the undo button. User:Adjwilley said "there was a huge edit war."[22] I think something has to change at the acupuncture page. We should identify who is improving the page and identify the editors who are not improving the page. Then we can decide what steps can be taken to prevent the edit war from continuing. QuackGuru (talk) 18:34, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by DrChrissy

I support opening a case. Editing the Acupuncture article is not a pleasure - it has become a battle of wits to try and keep any edit that is not directly pro-dogma in the article. I try to edit as neutrally as possible, but in the past few days, I have found myself actually nervous about pressing the "Save page" button in the almost certain knowledge that I would soon have to defend my edit and/or become the subject of a personal attack!

In my opinion, a huge part of the problem on the Acupuncture article is that an "us and them" mentality has developed amongst the pro-dogmatists. This attitude has flourished and AGF appears to flown out the window when talking to non-pro-dogmatists - see here.[23] Editors placing material that is non-dogmatist, i.e. either neutral or indicating benefits of acupuncture, are almost immediately reverted. For example, Kww completely removed a substantial piece of relevant, appropriately sourced material (NHS web-site) here[24]. The edit summary was "undue weight to political opinion". A more collegiate action expected of an administrator would have been to incorporate that information elswhere in the article.

JzG's treatment of editor's can be just as uncivil. One of their responses to me is here (the last sentence is the main concern).[25] In another interaction, JzG dropped into a dispute I had with another editor, 8 days after the dispute was posted! This caused me to raise this issue on JzG's Talk page here;[26] their first response to me was here[27]...hardly the sort of response I would expect from an administrator posting to a thread on their own talk page called "Conduct unbecoming of an administrator".

The POV editing on Acupuncture is not limited to the admins above. I made a series of edits to include content from veterinary acupunture sources (see here[28]. The amount of non-human content that is included in a human article is, of course, a subjective editorial decision, but I can't help feel that the savaging of the vet content from this[29] to what was left after this[30] was way over the top, leaving me at least, wondering whether editors simply did not like the positive results found in animals and deletion of this content was the best way out.

DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:57, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by User:Doc James

Under confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried I see links to the two users talk pages and a prior arbcom enforcement request [31]. The only comment on JzG's talk page is a notice of this case filling [32]. What about all the other forms of dispute resolution such as ANI and RfC user?

Looking at the claim that Kww " escalated the situation and accused me of dishonesty and "active deceit" here he states "your edit summaries are beginning to approach active deceit" and links [33]. User:A1candidate how can you describe that edit as "format" when you removed this 2011 review, this NIH position statement, and this 2012 review?

You than added "Most medical textbooks in the field of anesthesiology assert that acupuncture treatment has proven efficacy" and reference a single textbook Miller's Anesthesia. I have looked at the textbook and it concludes "There are promising results supporting its efficacy for adult postoperative and chemotherapy-related nausea and vomiting and for postoperative dental pain". This seems like a reasonable question following the above edit and edit summary [34] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Complementary and Alternative Medicine : Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/3>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

• Renaming this to something more neutral, other than that, awaiting statements. Courcelles (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• Wikipedia tries to be an encyclopaedia, which quite clearly entails that it should report scientific facts according to the current scientific consensus. Those who try to subvert that may be in violation of WP:NPOV and, depending on the circumstances, may be sanctioned. Those who oppose those they perceive as doing the POV-pushing should of course strive to be civil, but, in the end, in my opinion, the integrity of the encyclopaedia should be the paramount concern for all those who edit Wikipedia.

  In this case, I'm leaning towards accepting the request, but before finalising my vote, I'd rather read more comments. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 09:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

  • There is a difference, though, between saying "well, that's nothing but quackery" on a talk page (or on a noticeboard), which is merely uncivil, and saying it in Wikipedia's voice in an article, which would be a violation of our content policies. I haven't seen (admittedly, I haven't looked very hard) anyone suggesting that an article should read "X is a bunch of crock." Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:47, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
• The key issue for me is that Wikipedia is meant to be NPOV, and while that does mean that we report scientific facts according to the current scientific consensus, it does not mean that it is correct to describe everything else as "quackery" - we must fairly report the claims of the proponents of alternatives and fairly present the evidence for and against those not dismiss them out of hand in Wikipedia's voice. Equally, just because someone holds a view that differs from the mainstream consensus does not give anyone the right to be uncivil towards them nor to assume bad faith of them. Like Salvio, I'm leaning towards accepting a case but we will need to define a scope and comments to that end will be helpful - simply saying it should be "broad" or "narrow" is not helpful in this context. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

  @DrChrissy: Anyone who has something relevant to say may comment on a case request. Whether you are involved or not doesn't really matter at this stage. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2015 (UTC)