Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases

Need an update

This meta-article needs an update. Many arbitration cases regarding the FRINGE guidline have happened since the last one listed here. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I left off when rewriting this the cases like Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Seeyou (deals with Bates method), as I think the primary result is usually more focused on banning or topic banning a few problematic users and less on issuing general advice for editing WP:FRINGE articles. ArbCom tends to repeat themselves when presented with similar cases - maybe we could use a section linking some of the relevant Principles that such cases generate?

Glancing down Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases gives:

Socionics - deals mostly with WP:ADVOCACY.
Speed of light - mostly behavioural, but also treats disinclusion of fringe material in science topics.
Abd-William M. Connolley - again mostly behavioural, but puts Cold fusion under discretionary sanctions.

Are there any others that belong here? - 2/0 (cont.) 09:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those look good. There are also some older cases that may be good:

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute_2 - Background for the climate change arbitrations.
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ScienceApologist - Interesting one on fringe theory POV-pushing COI (similar to the pseudoscience arbitration)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi 2 - Behavioral mostly, but touching on perpetual motion.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reddi has been before ArbCom twice? By sauce and sauciness I wish I had known that last time they wandered into my editsphere.

The discussion on placing WP:GS/CC was at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Climate Change, so that can go with the RfArb. It focused mainly on trying to slip some article-building between the incessant socking and bickering though. As the long-term participants there tend to have a (historically justifiable, it has been pointed out) short fuse when it comes to perceptions of administrator bias in any particular direction, I would like to sidestep completely any such issues here. Add it or remove it, you will not hear a peep from me. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, Reddi has been the main party only once as Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Reddi was only in preparation and never was filed (back in the days when Wikipedia arbitrators weren't such sticklers for whether pages were "live" or not and you could make drafts of evidence, proposals, and statements in the arbitration space before actually filing cases). ScienceApologist (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can only think of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions, when in 2012 discretionary sanctions for pseudoscience were extended to cover also fringe science. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]