User:Hans Adler/rfc

This page is intended to become the draft of an RfC on $USER, an editor that I do not want to mention here. However, depending on further developments, it may also morph into something else, such as a content RfC or documentation for an Arbcom.

I invite every editor who finds this page and understands what it is about to collaborate here in the usual way. But please do not name the editor in question: Some of the draft statements may not be accurate. In that case, "$USER is a convicted criminal", while still bad enough, is at least better than the same sentence with "$USER" expanded to its intended meaning. Let's use this page for organising the material collaboratively, and the talk page for discussing it.

Given that $USER was involved in an Arbcom case in 2007, it seems reasonable to use 1 January 2008 as a cut-off date for behavioural problems, apart from citing the Arbcom case as far as appropriate.

Hans

$USER's most relevant talk page archives:

General background[edit]

$USER joined Wikipedia in December 2005 and has made more than 25,000 edits since then. Judging from raw editing statistics [1], $USER maintains a healthy mixture of edits in the various name spaces. He has a very active user talk page. His next most frequently edited pages fall almost exclusively into the area of alternative medicine and criticism of such. In April 2009 he changed his user name.

Arbcom cases[edit]

Pseudoscience (2006)[edit]

This case is mostly unreleated to $USER, but is a relevant part of the background. (He does have a brief appearance on the Evidence page.) Here is the case description by the Wikipedia Signpost:

Pseudoscience: A case involving the actions of ScienceApologist, Ian Tresman and others, involving the insertion and removal of so-called "pseudoscience" on various articles. As a result of the case, Tommysun was banned from science- and pseudoscience-related articles, Elerner was banned from articles relating to his real-life work, Iantresman was placed on probation, and ScienceApologist was "cautioned".

Barrett v. Rosenthal (2007)[edit]

In 2007, $USER was involved in an Arbcom case that was summarized by the Wikipedia Signpost as follows:

Barrett v. Rosenthal: A case brought by Peter M. Dodge involving the actions of Ilena and Fyslee. According to Dodge, Ilena was initially reported to AN/I for "posting links to sites that some considered to be attack sites". Various users attempted to assist Ilena, but "This was sabotaged...when Fyslee posted a link to a site that attacked Ilena in a personal manner". The title of the case refers to Barrett v. Rosenthal, a decision of the Supreme Court of California, which ruled that internet users and providers were not liable for the republication of defamatory statements, which some editors believe provides protection for Wikipedia. It has been alleged that some editors were involved in the real-life litigation of the case. As a result of the case, Ilena was banned for one year, and indefinitely banned from editing articles relating to alternative medicine.

The findings include:

$USER is a health activist who participates in a number of internet sites critical of alternative medicine

$USER has engaged in incivility and personal attacks

$USER has repeatedly used Quackwatch and similar partisan sites as references

He was cautioned:

$USER is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a NPOV. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits.

(The case was amended in early 2009. The amendment only concerned the correction of a misleading heading and did not affect the text as reproduced above. [2])

Martinphi – ScienceApologist (2007)[edit]

This case is mostly unrelated to $USER, although Martinphi mentions him in two places. Case description by the Wikipedia Signpost:

Martinphi-ScienceApologist: A case involving alleged POV-pushing and incivility on pseudoscience-related articles. As a result of the case, the editing of Martinphi and ScienceApologist was restricted, and ScienceApologist limited to one account.

John Gohde 2 (2008)[edit]

In this case $USER again does not play a significant role, except: From the point of view of John Gohde himself it was primarily $USER who he was in conflict with. The Wikipedia Signpost described the case as follows:

John Gohde 2: A case involving alleged misconduct by John Gohde, which he denied. As a result of the case, Gohde was banned for one year.

Cold fusion (2008)[edit]

Here $USER commented on the workshop page. The Wikipedia Signpost described the case as follows:

Cold fusion: A case involving conduct disputes around the article Cold fusion. In the final decision, Pcarbonn was topic-banned for one year from editing Cold fusion and related articles.

Fringe science (2009)[edit]

In 2009, $USER was active on the workshop page of an Arbcom case that was summarized by the Wikipedia Signpost as follows:

Fringe science: A case initially filed about the behavior of ScienceApologist, but opened to look at editing in the entire area of fringe science, and the behavior of editors who are involved in the area of dispute. ScienceApologist was banned from editing articles related to fringe science, Pcarbonn was admonished, and general warnings to behave and seek mediation were issued. Martinphi, who was a party to this case, was community banned while the case was underway.

Example (extracted from a thread):

I did not say can't use. I said academic sources should be preferred. QuackWatch could be cited as an opinion of a notable expert in the field, but it is clearly a polemic source and should be identified as such. We cannot count on them providing a neutral, factual assessment. Jehochman Talk 20:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman, you need to be more careful about how you word things. You have made some statements above that need to be tweaked, since they are already giving ammunition to fringe POV pushers who wish to see Quackwatch and Barrett banned as sources here. A simple study of the many authoritative sources that recommend Quackwatch and Barrett (we only use a few in their articles) will give an idea of what mainstream science, medicine, universities, professors, librarians, consumer organizations, and governmental bodies, think of them, and it's very positive. They are considered authoritative and can be used as good opinions. Yes, attribution is a good idea, but don't give the impression that they shouldn't be used. Some of your previous statements give that impression. BTW, when dealing with any controversial subject, "a neutral, factual assessment" is not a legitimate option. Presenting the "factual assessment" is by nature not a "neutral" act. We choose sources here, not because they are neutral, but because they exist and are often not neutral. They provide opinions about the real world as it exists, and if they are in V & RS, we use them.

I will even go so far as to point out a cardinal red flag of a fringe POV pusher - they attack Barrett and Quackwatch. Anyone who does that needs to be placed under observation, and a clue stick labelled "ban" held over them, ready for instant use if necessary. Attacking such reliable sources is a pretty obvious symptom that one's POV and ideologies are screwed up. Find anyone who is doing it, and you'll find such an editor....or someone who just doesn't have a clue, possibly because of ignorance of the issues regarding healthfraud, consumer fraud, and quackery. -- Fyslee (talk) 03:29, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I think it is up to a consensus at the article talk page or WP:RSN to determine what is a reliable source. I happen to have three doctors in my family and have seen what they read and what websites they visit. I have an idea of what constitutes a reliable source for medical information. Jehochman Talk 04:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure we agree on that. What we're talking about here isn't MEDRS stuff or peer-reviewed scientific literature, but V & RS in general, and when it comes to opinions about healthfraud, quackery, and fringe medical subjects, Barrett and Quackwatch are considered among the most reliable there are. The team behind Quackwatch is pretty knowledgeable about such things. I think we can both agree that they wouldn't be the best sources of information for purely scientific articles, but when it comes to medical controversies involving fringe science and fraud, even on those articles, then they can be useful sources. It's a matter of differentiating when to use what. Each has their appointed place in the grand scheme of things here, and fringe POV pushers, quacks, and marketers of quack products and methods would love to use anything negative said here about Barrett and Quackwatch as weapons in their continued battle to eliminate any source that exposes them for what they are. They are very RS for certain things here, and when they aren't the best, Quackwatch still provides its sources, which are often excellent ones we can use. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Upon being reminded of his own earlier Arbcom case:

Keep in mind that wasn't a good finding and wasn't backed up with any evidence that it was true. It was careless wording adopted before any evidence had been presented and it was never shown to be the case that the sources used were unreliable. No evidence was brought forward to back up that finding! It just was written and lay there as a ticking bomb. Accusations are not evidence. Keep in mind that my opposer is the one who got banned, and I was "cautioned" to do exactly what I had been doing all along. You aren't the only one who has used that unfortunate wording to further an improper agenda. It was never proven that I used unreliable sources, and Quackwatch was never shown to be an unreliable source. Search the whole ArbCom and you will only find accusations, never proof. -- Fyslee (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

$User on pseudo-skepticism. [3]

Administrators' noticeboard[edit]

[4] [5] $USER connects a new user with a vanished realname user, incorrectly.
[6] Fyslee vs. Hans Adler on homeopathy talk page
[7] Sense About Science banner; Ramaanand overreaction

Random ideas[edit]

Interpretation of pseudoscience Arbcom case and of Quackwatch reliability amendment: $USER tends to argue in a black/white fashion. If something is not beyond the bright line drawn by Arbcom, then it is required.
We should focus on recent behaviour, but also make it clear that it reaches far back and has been occurring continuously (or not).
Organise the material in several complexes (some by time, some by behavioural pattern, some by subject?), each including the attempts at resolution.
Persistent denial that there is a legitimate dispute. Persistent claims that everything has already been settled in $USER's preferred way.
Battlefield mentality
Tendentious editing
Violations of WP:UNDUE
Sockpuppet paranoia