Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop

This is a page for working on arbitration decisions. The arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Separation of issues

1) That the personal conduct of individual users (specifically Davkal) be kept separate from the wider issue of paranormal/skeptical editing. For example, one of the complaints against Davkal was that he/she made inappropriate comments about a southern user This is prejudicial and 100% irrelevant to the issue at hand.

perfectblue 09:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. The views of a single editor should not reflect on disputes involving multiple editors. --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 20:17, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that this is 100% irrelevant to the issue at hand. Part of this arbitration is that there exists a concerted camp of paranormal supporters that use tactics unbecoming of Wikipedia. This is in contrast to the supposed "pseudoskeptical" camp. --ScienceApologist 13:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Here I am agreeing that the issue of user conduct shouldn't rule out other issues raised even if they aren't ruled on.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 17:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Coverage of fringe views

1) Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for advocacy. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view provides for all significant views to be documented, but does not require that they be accepted. Per previous consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, minority and fringe views should be explicitly identified as such.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment: Agreed. --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 22:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but allowance must be made in WP:RS for this. At present skeptical users merely declare the sources for non-accepted views as being non WP:RS and delete them wholesale. - perfectblue 09:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Most of them are indeed unreliable. I think this does need to be addressed, but under a separate head. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not sure what "allowance" is requested in RS. If an editor wants to add details of an experiment done by an individual and describe technical details, it needs a reliable source and shouldn't just be self published. There are currently a number of examples of experiments like this in the EVP article that are still probematic. --Minderbinder 12:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think WP:RS needs to be modified because it covers this. I did want to point out, however, that "unreliable" is not black and white and largely depends on the statement the source is supporting. The Journal of Parapsychology might be seen as an unreliable source carte blanche, but that's not true at all. It's a very reliable source for understanding what goes on in parapsychology.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 18:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Skeptical users need to accept that there is a difference between verifying that "claim was made" or that "a belief is held" and verifying said claim or belief as being science. inclusion does not equal advocacy, only proof of existence - perfectblue 07:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There are occasions where proof of existence is not enough. That where Wikipedia:Notability comes into play. --ScienceApologist 09:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think most editors would be very happy if the topics in question were presented as "beliefs being held". Problem is POV editors insisting on presenting beliefs as "proven" by experiments, particularly ones only covered by dubious sources. --Minderbinder 12:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

proposedGuy (Help!) 10:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. Seems fundamental and uncontroversial, although often ignored. MastCell ^Talk 15:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientific point of view vs. neutral point of view

2) While the scientific point of view and the neutral point of view are not synonymous, they may be considered equivalent, or at least very closely aligned, in the case of subjects portrayed as scientific. In matters of science, the neutral point of view is best represented by consensus among the mainstream scientific community, as judged by publication and debate in the scientific journals. Due consideration should be given to the reputation of and community served by the journals. Papers in Nature are given substantially more weight by the scientific community than are papers in minority journals focusing on the fringes of various disciplines.

This does not prevent the coverage of minority or fringe views, provided that it is made clear that they are not generally accepted within the scientific community. Previous discussion of this issue may be found at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I agree with this to the extent that paranormal topics are presented from a scientific point of view. This is not always the case. Many times paranormal phenomena are closely tied to religious beliefs and are presented from a religious/spiritual perspective. Obviously in these cases, science would be on the back-burner. An article on reincarnation, for example, shouldn't have to suffer undue science, unless presented from a scientific perspective.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 22:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In many cases subjects are not scientific and do not pretend to be. Famous hauntings, for example. Some slack needs to be given to editors here to allow them to record "claims and beliefs". Equally, in many cases there is no mainstream consensus. Mainstream scientists have not covered many topics so there is no scientific consensus even though there is a clearly defined topic. - perfectblue 09:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. Which is why I included the rider subjects portrayed as scientific. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

While "claims and beliefs" that are notable should be documented, they need to be clearly labled as claims and beliefs. A major problem with these articles is presenting a belief and insisting that as a belief, it shouldn't be refuted with science...but then adding "scientific" detail about studies which claim to have proven the belief. --Minderbinder 12:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Minderbinder. If science is introduced, science gets a say. EMF detectors, for example, are used in ghost hunting. Mainstream science should get a say on how EMF detectors actually work if they're mentioned. Tougher situations might be the ghost article itself. Here, it's fully represented as a belief, but science still gets their digs in : ) It's a notable view, though, so that's alright. Just pointing out how there shouldn't be a "science has the only word" policy.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 18:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree that science "gets a say" in this case, however we must be cautious not to position mainstream science as a minority who have the "burden of disproof" with regard to extraordinary paranormal claims. -- LuckyLouie 18:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. Bubba73 (talk), 04:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Support, perhaps with greater emphasis on the qualifier "...in the case of subjects portrayed as scientific." Part of the problem here is a desire to have one's cake and eat it too - that is, to say that paranormal topics shouldn't have to answer to the same standards as mainstream science, but at the same time to portray paranormal research as a valid scientific field. MastCell ^Talk 15:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

SPOV v. NPOV, Version A: Verifiability

2a) Both scientific point of view and neutral point of view apply the standard "Verifiability, not truth." Both points of view value primary publications of original research as sources for what the authors have said, but both points of view depend on secondary researchers to apply the appropriate professional standards of "Verifiability, not truth" in verifying the value of assertions of both primary and secondary sources. However, neutral point of view applies to fields such as parapsychology in which the scientific method provides no Verifiable results. That is, neutral point of view still requires that ReliableSources use the standard of "Verifiability, not truth" of the appropriate discipline even though, in parapsychology for example, the professional standards for "Verifiability" might be quite different from the "Verifiability" standards of the scientific method.

Comment by arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Separation of variables as a principle for editing is a technique that draws perilously close to a sympathetic point of view rather than a neutral point of view. Claiming that science has "no verifiable results" is highly contentious and therefore should not be an endorsed position of this encyclopedia. Try Wikinfo if you want a sympathetic encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 09:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's a brain fart, but I'm not exactly sure what this proposition is asking for : ) Maybe an example would help.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 18:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed by Rednblu 03:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we would use this form of words. Considering verifiability in isolation from neutrality and appropriate weight is a recipe for p[rolonging these disputes. Guy (Help!) 13:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Notable/knowledgeable fringe views

3) Most mainstream scientists simply have no dealings with Psi, so-called "ghost hunting" or other fringe areas, and thus are not wholly qualified to discuss them in anything but a general fashion, we must therefore accept the views, finding and opinions of individual who have experience in the field as being important/relevant, even if they make up a minority of the total body of science (as being relevant, not as being mainstream, I may add).

Proposal: When dealing with Parapsychology, the view of the majority within parapsychology be declared to be "Significantly notable and valid for inclusion, despite being a fringe" even if it clashes with the majority outside of Parapsychology.

Failure to accept the opinions of the experienced minority within the inexperienced majority is the equivalent to stating that "astronomy is a fringe science and its conclusions are invalid because 9 out of 10 scientists research other areas".

perfectblue 08:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Unnecessary. This is already covered by WP:NPOV, especially WP:NPOV#Undue weight, and WP:ATT. If a crank or fringe belief is notable, it can be covered by reference to its notable proponents, and described in neutral terms. What that does not mean, and what appears to be desired in the above form of words, is that it be covered uncritically. If a crank belief is rejected by the scientific establishment, we should say so. If it is completely ignored by the scientific establishment, we should say that. If it is untested by anyone not already vested in its promotion, we should say that. Wikipedia is not here to build up the mythology of psi, it is here to document it as a mythology, just like any other belief system based on intangibles. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

1) It has to more directly stated. skeptics are constantly abusing the status quo. They simply bash anything that's not from a scientific journal using WP:RS to delete sources, WP:Weight to delete whole perspective and WP:NPOV to allow only skeptical scientists (note that scientists who are not skeptical are generally WP:RS bashed out). 2)"If a crank belief is rejected by the scientific establishment, we should say so", you try getting a skeptic to WP:V that. They simply won't or they cite Skeptics Dictionary rather than a scientist. 3) "Wikipedia is not here to build up the mythology of psi, it is here to document it as a mythology" you try doing this when Skeptics just dismiss everything that isn't science based. We need a statement SPECIFICALLY dealing with htese cases in order to stop abuse. - perfectblue 12:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong disagree. We can't present claims with an undue weight just because they are obscure enough that the mainstream hasn't commented. If they are notable, we should present them, but it should be very clear that the views presented aren't mainstream ones and haven't been accepted (or even mentioned in many cases) by mainstream publications or scientists, when the idea is proposed as scientific. --Minderbinder 12:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Huge Disagree. Wikipedia can only report on minority opinion, it cannot publish that opinion as fact. When trying to "document" a minority opinion, some editors insist on minority claims being "documented" as factual. Also, be advised, skepticism is an essential part of the scientific method. LuckyLouie 18:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The proposal only asks that the view of parapsychologists be considered notable and relevant to parapsychology, and that it is valid for inclusion. I completely agree with that. That isn't to say that it is notable to the exclusion of critical analysis and neutrality, but perfectblue didn't say that. This policy I support because it would prevent the wholesale removal of anything coming from, say, the Journal of Parapsychology, which is entirely relevant to parapsychology. Pigeon hole parapsychology, don't exclude it, especially in relation to its own article.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 18:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that equal in notability to parapsychology advocates are those who criticize them and perfectblue ignored them. --ScienceApologist 13:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The big difference is that when you add in a notable skeptic, I don't delete it. - perfectblue 07:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That's certainly not true. E.g. --ScienceApologist 09:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fringe belief still exists, and in many cases the fringe is strong and notable, just not scientifically backed.

perfectblue 07:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Belief/Experiments that exists independently of science (a question of notability)

4) That "popular beliefs which exist in the face of scientific evidence", and "experiments/event that are unscientific but are important on sociological and/or historical grounds" be declared valid for inclusion on the grounds of their notability within the field rather than their scientific value, and that sources used to reference them similarly be declared as having to be notable within the field rather than peer-review science.

For example, the "belief" that cattle mutilations are caused by aliens/black helicopters, sourced to Linda Howe. A notable belief and a notable author. Though without any scientific merit.

perfectblue 09:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

As clear an indication as could be desired that parapsychology is not science. The default in the scientific method is scepticism, scientists are required to suspend belief and actively try to disprove their own hypotheses. This proposal amounts to special pleading and is, in my view, without merit as a principle within Wikipedia. Indeed, it would be actively dangerous, I think, in that it would raise a separate standard of verifiability for subjects which lack supporting evidence. We already allow, through WP:ATT and WP:NPOV, for coverage of notable crank beliefs on the basis of being notable as crank beliefs (cf. Time Cube), so this would also be unnecessary instruction creep. Guy (Help!) 11:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect, you appear ot be unaware of exactly what parasyychology is. The paranormal and Parapsychology ARE NOT THE SAME THING. Parapsychology is a very small subset of the paranormal mostly only covering Psi. Most paranormal pages are NOT parapsychology. Crop circles, urban myths, cattle mutilation and so on ARE NOT part of Parapsychology. Parapsychology is things like telepathy, remote viewing, and so on.

I'm not asking for anything new, I'm simply asking that it be clarified that paranormal myths and legends (modern hauntings, etc) should have a similar WP:RS leeway as ancient myths and legends, and that popular belief in the paranormal be given the same leeway as urban legends. Belief in "Things that go bump in the night" is not scientific in the slightest and so it is unreasonable to ask for scientific evidence. - perfectblue 12:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The overly broad definition of "paranormal" (approaching "everything where the establishment must be battled") is IMHO the core problem here. By the current defintion in Paranormal, following phenomena would be paranormal: Cold fusion, Water fuelled car, faster than light travel, Homoeopathy, ... --Pjacobi 12:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree that we should present notable beliefs if they are identified as such, but I strongly disagree that we should present experiments published by sources that don't meet RS. Per undue weight and RS, presenting experiments that haven't been published by a reliable source, haven't been peer reviewed, haven't been cited in other publications, and haven't been reproduced by others, is usually giving attention (and credibility) that isn't appropriate. "Historical" shouldn't be a loophole to publish experiments that haven't been published or scrutnized.

And I have no objection to presenting "modern myths". The problem is the continued insistence on describing these "myths" in scientific terms and presenting claims that experiments have proved them. The inclusion of scientific refutation is generally a response to scientific claims. --Minderbinder 12:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"I strongly disagree that we should present experiments published by sources that don't meet RS". When dealing with the paranormal WP:RS should be used to ensure the accuracy of reporting, not the scientific validity an experiment itself. For example, how can we report on a statement made by notable crank if we can't use the tabloid rag in which he published it. WP:RS must be subjective, strong WP:RS for science to verify science, weaker WP:RS for cranks to verify lunacy - perfectblue 07:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Parapsychology is an important example partly because it is asserted to be scientific by its proponents despite the overwhelming rejection by the scientific establishment of its fundamental basis. The science of investigating that which is outside of science, if you will. It is also imnportant because recognition of the feld of endeavour in studying this appears to be asserted as a validation of the underlying principle, which of course it is not. Scientists can investigate ideas they discover to be false. But it is the case for many paranormal or supposedly paranormal phenomena that people will conduct scientific or pseudo-scientific investigations. Thus: paranormal theorists investigated the mysterious flattening of car batteries in Heathrow Airport's long-stay car-park through dowsing and concluded that the effect was due to ley lines. Engineers looked at it and decided it was more likely to be the fact that every time Concorde took off the alarms sounded. Although they did spot a lot of cars where the interior lights had been left on, presumably by people unloading their cars early in the morning. I understand just fine that parapsychology is not the paranormal, or vice-versa. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between the proponent asserting themselves as being scientific and a wikipedia editor asserting that the proponent is scientific when quoting them. - perfectblue 07:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It was asked that ideas be allowed to be presented that are notable despite having little to no scientific support. Since that is the pseudoscience guidelines in a nutshell, I support this. We can dish out rhetoric all day on this issue, but it's just a rehashing of earlier ArbCom discussions.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 18:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Reliability of sources

5) From Wikipedia:Reliable sources: Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy, or are authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. Reputable sources for parapsychological paranormal topics might be exemplified by the Fortean Times. As a general principle, sources should provide critical review not adovcacy. Sources which do not permit of the attribution of a given document to an author whose credentials in the subject can be independently assessed, are not in general reliable sources, although they may be appropriate as further reading if their coverage is generally representative of coverage of the subject by its adherents.

Parapsychology subjects will, by their nature, attract the attention of cranks. Crank views may be discussed and documented provided they are documented on the basis of external assessments by reputable sources, and by attribution to identified notable proponents (see Time Cube, a pseudoscientific theory promoted by an individual almost universally identified as a crank). However, cranks and their publications generally do not constitute reliable sources except in respect of their own beliefs.

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it follows that openly polemical sources, or sources which openly advocate the subject, should not be the sole sources for an article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

"cranks and their publications generally do not constitute reliable sources except in respect of their own beliefs." If a crank is notable, then it is important that we demonstrate that demonstrate "their own beliefs". Third party sources should be included for the purpose of analysis (else, it's WP:OR), but the best way to understand a crank is to listen to their ravings. - perfectblue 14:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I reject the specific wording. Anyone who is the least bit familiar with parapsychology would not consider Fortean Times an example of a parapsychological source. Is the misunderstanding over parapsychology that great? Fortean Times is a commercial, pop, arguably paranormal magazine, based on the work of Charles Fort who dealt in the collection of stories about anomalies that appeared in the science journals of his time. The magazine doesn't try to be scientific at all. Parapsychology has actual peer-reviewed journals. The extent of the "peer-review" is by no means mainstream, but they are marginally peer-reviewed. With all due respect, I seriously have to question the basic knowledge of editors in relation to parapsychology based on this (seemingly simple) flub. The proposal is otherwise a good addition. Fortean Times would be a good source for anomalous and paranormal topics. It's not scientific, but it's a reliable source for notable beliefs and ideas labeled as such.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 19:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

up, sorry, brain-fart. In this case I did mean paranormal, not parapsychological. Feel free to cite a better example, too. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I figured that's what you meant. As for examples of paranormal sources, there's a number of books. Paranormal magazines come and go. Fortean Times is probably the best of these since it's been around the longest.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 00:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Sorry it's wordy, but this is clearly a core issue as the issue of removal of asserted sources has been repeatedly raised. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. Bubba73 (talk), 04:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fitness for inclusion

6) From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Attribution, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox, it follows that openly polemical sources, or sources which openly advocate the subject, should not be the sole sources for an article. If an article has no sources other than those which are polemical or advocate an esoteric subject, then it is unlikely that a neutral, sourced article can be written - see Aetherometry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and in particular Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aetherometry (second nomination). In such cases the subject may be better discussed as part of a wider article which provudes proper context - or it may not be appropriate for inclusion at all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Basically, you're saying that unless somebody contradicts a something, it has no value? A good editor can write an NPOV page using only POV sources, it's the intent of the editor that counts. POV sources are very useful for telling us "what claims were made", who made them, and why. - perfectblue 14:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I am saying that if an idea has no independent critical review and is discussed only by those promoting the idea, then it is difficult if not impossible to write a neutral article. Critical review does not mean that it is disputed or contradicted. Guy (Help!) 15:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is relevant. I've yet to find any paranormal topic that didn't have at least some skeptical sources opposing it. James Randi is willing to pay out $1 Million dollars for proof of the paranormal, so he categorically opposes all paranormal phenomena. By default, he can be sourced.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 19:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Logical extension of above. Guy (Help!) 12:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong support as a principle, although I agree with Nealparr that its applicability to paranormal topics is unclear as these generally have sourceable critics. MastCell ^Talk 15:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Defining terms in wikipedia

7) Terms in wikipedia should be defined with a mainstream (majority) definition and be consistent with mainstream sources, as opposed to definitions found in sources presenting a minority point of view.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Minderbinder 13:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Nicely put. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Opposed, Many terms do not originate from the mainstream or are not used by the mainstream. Terms should be defined from the perspective of those who originally defined and those who use them so that their original purpose and intent can be fully portrayed. Defining a term any other way is pointless as it merely shows us "what the mainstream think of the term", not "what the term was coined to mean". - perfectblue 14:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand, I think. What Minderbinder is getting at is that many of these topics have a sort of kayfabe about them, an internal language whihc embodies assumptions which are not shared outside of the circle of believers. Consider how a Biblical inerrantist would describe the creation story, or any other element of Christian mythology, and compare that with how we actually cover it. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly support. In the past, neutral mainstream dictionary definitions have been rejected in favor of non-neutral paranormal/fringe definitions. - LuckyLouie 18:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Typically mainstream sources are pretty neutral and should be used over less neutral definitions. I would change it to say "when available".

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 20:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This would be good--if and only if the principle would extend also to the kayfabe of scientists who have the erroneous minority idea that parapsychology is not science unless it is Verified by the scientific method. By application of any mainstream English dictionary, most science does not involve the scientific method. --Rednblu 06:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The "kayfabe of scientists" as you call it is what we call neutrality, at least in terms of the scientific validity of something. That something is not science unless subject to the scientific method is hardly controversial, nor is the idea that something rejected by the scientific establishment is not properly considered scientific. Indeed, the definition of pseudoscience is that which is asserted to be science but is not subject to the scientific method. Guy (Help!) 13:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You must have that most rare of English dictionaries--the one that defines science as requiring the use of the scientific method! What is the title, publisher, and year of publication of this your most rare English dictionary? --Rednblu 15:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Defining topics of debated existence

8) When defining a topic that is only thought to exist by a minority, and existence is not accepted by the majority or mainstream, the definition should make clear the non-accepted nature of the topic and should not define the term in a way that sounds like existence of the topic is generally accepted. For example, "X is said by Y to be the ability to do Z" and not "X is the ability to do Y" when we don't have evidence that the ability in question is accepted as fact. In addition, phrases such as "is defined as" or "in the field of X" don't justify defining a debated topic as if it exists.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Minderbinder 13:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Yes, absolutely. I've had precisely this problem on Remote viewing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) forever - proponents resist strenuously any form of words in the lead which seeks to clarify that this is a supposed, claimed or purported ability. The latest version was to quote the Parapsychological Association's definition - but that violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight, since the PA almost certainly does not reflect the majority informed view of remote viewing (actually the majority informed view is to ignore it, but that is another problem, see above). Guy (Help!) 13:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Attributed statements make for better wording 99% of the time (neutrality prevents me from saying 100%). --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 20:20, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Partial Agree, "Said" is acceptable, "alleged", "purported", "supposed" and "so called" are not. We must also EXTREMELY CAREFUL to place "Said" in the right place. "Said" should describe the dispute over the outcome, not the definition. For example, the dispute about Telepathy about whether or not people can use it to read minds (if the power is real), not whether or not telepathy is a term used to describe people who can read minds (if the word is real). I've come across a couple of examples where skeptical users have placed the caveat in the wrong place, making it seem as if science disputes the word, not the claimed ability - perfectblue 08:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes science does dispute the word as in the case of Electronic voice phenomenon where there is a definite dispute that the thing being described is actually phenomenological. That's a dispute regarding wording, not a dispute over the outcome. --ScienceApologist 09:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Per the WP guideline WP:WTA, alleged and purported are appropriate if used correctly - they are used frequently by newspapers. You obviously don't like the word, but we follow WP guidelines, not your personal preferences. --Minderbinder 12:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words

9) While weasel words should never be used to avoid attributing claims or information, there are situations where terms like "claimed", "alleged", "said (by X) to be", "purported" etc may be appropriate and even necessary. If a claim is being made and it is not generally accepted as fact, contrary to proven scientific laws or generally accepted principles, or otherwise extraordinary, such terms help express that a concept is one that is put forward by some and not one that is generally accepted. WP:WEASEL is not a reason to change a description of a concept only accepted by a minority from "X is the purported ability to Y" to "X is the ability to Y". These "qualifier" terms should only be used when there is genuine dispute and doubt about a concept.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Minderbinder 13:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Yes. These are not actually weasel terms, in context, we are describing a belief system and ascribing it to its adherents. Guy (Help!) 13:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Alleged is a confrontational term. It should be avoided at all costs unless an "allegation" has been made. All too often it is used pejoratively and carries a strong implications of falsehood. Alternatives should be used. For example "Bob is an alleged psychic" would only be valid if a third party made an allegation. "Bob is a self professed psychic" is a far more neutral term if Bob says that he is psychic. - perfectblue 14:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

And yet some have objected to "self professed" and called it a weasel word, insisting on "Bob is a psychic". I have no objection to substituting another term for "alleged", the problem is insistence that all such terms are "weasel" and that no terms like that can be used. --Minderbinder 15:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, but there are some problems where "Psychic" (or other terms) doesn't mean that somebody has "psychic powers", but is "psychic" essentially part of their job title. For example you can't have "Bob is a self-professed telephone psychic" or "Sue is a self-professed television-medium". It's their abilities that are disputed, not their job title. - perfectblue 16:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree that WP:WEASEL is not a reason to change a description of a concept only accepted by a minority from "X is the purported ability to Y" to "X is the ability to Y". In the past, this kind of abuse of WP:WEASEL has been strategically employed on many paranormal articles. LuckyLouie 17:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually in some cases "X is the ability to Y" is 100% correct because X is the official term. After all, it is the reality of the phenomona that is questionable, not the word used to describe it. I generally find that it is best to define the term but use "said" when speaking of the effect that it describes. For example "A with ability X is said to be able to.......". - perfectblue 16:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

See wikt:allege, wikt:assert, wikt:claim, wikt:believe. The problem is usually down to incorrect usage or lack of knowledge of the word's meaning rather than inherent inappropriateness of the term, in my view. ArbCom will not rule on specific usage, but may well rule on whether the use of such terms, in line with their correct meanings, is appropriate in the face of dislike of the term, which may be founded in a misapprehension as to its proper usage. Guy (Help!) 13:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree. Terms are sometimes needed so that the article doesn't imply things that haven't been established. In legal terms this would be "assuming facts not in evidence", without the qualifying words. Bubba73 (talk), 17:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a principle that has come up in the disputes, but I don't think ArbCom should rule on what words to use. I agree that facts not in evidence should not be presented as facts. There's many ways to do this, however, some of which are more neutral. It's a matter of prose style. Words like "alleged" can be replaced by less controversial wording. Instead of "Allison Dubois is a psychic" or "Allison Dubois is an alleged psychic" use "Allison Dubois believes she has psychic abilities [source]". This is completely a style issue seeking neutral wording that is non-confrontational.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 20:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Weasel words (2)

9a) Weasel words should be avoided when possible, but there are occasions when it is appropriate to use them. Inclusion or exclusion of such wording and terminology should be justified if there is dispute.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

As a less-wordy (and less word-specific) alternative to the above. --ScienceApologist 10:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In light of the number of disputes about weasel words, I propose that we avoid them in perpetuity as a mutual peacekeeping measure. This includes avoiding words like purported in favor of words that have never been claimed to be weasel words. For example "X is purported to be ...." should be avoided in favor of "X is said to be ....", and we really need to avoid "alleged" unless we are referring to an actual "allegation" (forget grammar, peacekeeping is more important if progress is to be made). Houdini is the perfect example, we can say "Houdini was alleged to possess supernatural abilities" because Conan Doyle actually accused him of possessing them in "The Edge of the Unknown". however, nobody ever accused "Bob the telephone-psychic" of having psychic powers, so we really should avoid using that word with him in favor of "self professed" or "is said to possess" and similar. - perfectblue 16:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the wording of the proposition, especially "avoided when possible".

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 18:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Weasel words (3)

9b) Weasel words should be avoided when possible. Where dispute exists, it is apprpriate to use terms which qualify and quantify the extent of the dispute. "Critics assert X" with citations to critics (plural) is factually accurate, not a weasel phrase.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 18:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Tweak of 9a. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Peer reviewed sources

10) Peer review of a source is not a guarantee that information in an article and conclusions drawn are accurate. Even peer reviewed publications can make mistakes, and different publications have different standards so wikipedia editors may also consider other factors such as the reputation and credentials of the author and publication, other articles published, whether the article has been cited elsewhere, and whether any experiments have been reproduced by others. Wikipedia editors are not obligated to cite every peer-reviewed source on a topic or include mention of every experiment published in a peer reviewed publication and should use the guidelines at WP:RS, WP:N, WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE.

WP:FRINGE says: "While peer review is a necessary feature of reliable sources that discuss scientific, historical or other academic ideas, it is not sufficient. It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact. Subjects that are sourced solely and entirely on the basis of singular primary sources (even when they are peer reviewed) may be excluded from Wikipedia on notability grounds."

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Minderbinder 13:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Partially Supported 1) Peer-review must ALWAYS be taken as "proof of claim" even if it is not taken as "proof of truth" 2) Peer-review material should only be disputed IF a second source can be provided where a third party has disputed it (It is not the place of Wikipedia editors to dispute peer-review, only to show where dispute exists). - perfectblue 14:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure. The New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of Scientific Exploration are both "peer-reviewed" (and have approximately equal impact factors in terms of # of Wikipedia citations, sadly), but they are not equivalent as reliable sources. MastCell ^Talk 16:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but they are used for very different purposes. NEJM is used to verify important things things as "truth in science", the JSE is used to verify things as "verifiable as claimed/believed". You don't need a world class peer-review journal verify that somebody said that they saw a UFO, or that they think that Bigfoot trod on their cat. You can get that from a supermarket tabloid. The source only needs to be as serious as the claim being made. Remember, Redflag covers "extraordinary claims", not "Absurd claims" - perfectblue 16:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think I need clarification on this. If this is meant to consider mainstream journals over minority journals, sounds great. That's what Wikipedia is supposed to do anyway. If this is asking that parapsychology journals be excluded, I don't support that at all. I don't think that's in the spirit of WP:FRINGE, which was meant to get rid of really small ideas obscured by the general consensus. For example, the idea that human beings originated all over the world at once instead of out of Africa doesn't bare mention in an article about the origins of man. It's too small an idea. Likewise the idea that people can move objects with their mind is too small of an idea to be included in a physics article about motion. In an article dealing predominantly with parapsychology, parapsychological journals have a great deal of weight. Full critical analysis of the journals belong there too, but the journals shouldn't be excluded. In an article about psychokinesis, Jahn's work is very notable. The work should be mentioned, documented, and critiqued. That's accurate, neutral reporting. That's how Nature does it.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 22:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream/majority/minority

11) Wikipedia policies referring to "mainstream" or "majority" views mean the majority of all scientists and the overall scientific consensus, and not not the consensus of a small group that has studied an obscure topic. If a topic has not appeared in mainstream scientific publications, it can be assumed that it doesn't have mainstream scientific acceptance, and wikipedia articles shouldn't present the views only held by a small group and only presented in publications outside the mainstream with undue weight or as if they have overall scientific consensus. This particularly applies to fringe topics where claims made may contradict established and accepted scientific principles - an article can't follow undue weight if the primary (or only) perspective is "X experts" (insert Bigfoot, EVP, Time Cube etc for X).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I don't think the "asking botanists about quarks" objection applies since those fields are regularly covered by mainstream scientific publications, and such fields generally don't make claims that completely contradict accepted principles. A clarification from ArbCom on this would go a long way towards clearing up this dispute, since so many edits are based on the interpretation that "majority" means "majority of the small group talking about a fringe topic". --Minderbinder 14:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Where something is fringe, the view of "the mainstream within said fringe" should always be represented in some form so as to demonstrate clearly "what those involved in the topic believe".

"If a topic has not appeared in mainstream scientific publications, it can be assumed that it doesn't have mainstream scientific acceptance" This is not the same as rejection, it also does not account for the fact that many mainstream journals simply will not publish anything on the paranormal/parapsychology because they class it as being outside of their scope of operation regardless of truth or validity. To turn things around, how many parapsychology journals ever print an article about the link between junk food and obesity? None, but this does not mean that they do not accept the link, only that they are not a health journal. - perfectblue 15:00, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I would amend this to include "mainstream professional and technical bodies" and "current mainstream textbook understandings". In the case of "EVP" many fringe claims are made which are not shared or documented within mainstream academic or technical communities such as those devoted to electronics, audio, RF propagation, signal processing, and psychology. -- LuckyLouie 18:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that on paranormal articles, the mainstream/majority view of science is against paranormal and this view should be presented as the mainstream/majority view in science. I also agree that sometimes paranormal articles aren't presented from that viewpoint and that this needs to be fixed. As a relevant sidenote, however, when talking strictly about majority views, it appears that the majority of people in general do have paranormal beliefs [1]. In other words, the majority of people may have beliefs that aren't scientific. It's also possible that they aren't aware of this. This presents a bit of a problem in presenting articles in a way that fosters stability. Special care should be taken to elaborate on ideas that may be controversial or end up challenged. Instead of saying, for example, EVPs aren't scientific, spend a little time exploring why scientists think EVPs aren't scientific, providing background information through sourcing. Some things that might seem apparent or a given aren't, or at least aren't to everyone, and some explanation is required. In short, I don't think it's enough to present the scientific view of paranormal as a majority, the other view as minority, and call it a day. Because paranormal beliefs are so widespread, and the general populace probably doesn't think much about what is science and what is isn't, more discussion is needed in paranormal articles.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 23:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I don't think we even need to assume here, since we have quotes from decent journals detailing just how fringe some of this stuff is. One issue here would be ghosts. What do we do there? Belief in ghosts is plainly not intended to be based on scientific rationalism, and only oddballs and debunkers have conducted scientific research. Guy (Help!) 15:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What happens in the cases when the debunker uses valid scientific methods? - perfectblue 16:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Demarcation

12) It is not the role of Wikipedia to demarcate between science and pseudoscience.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposed by ScienceApologist 13:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 15:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 20:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

'Agreed: if skeptics wish to declare something as being a pseudoscience, they must find a representative mainstream source stating this clearly and unambiguously. FYI, Skeptics Dictionary cannot be counted as such a source as the writer is not sufficiently qualified to comment. -perfectblue 09:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Parity of sources must come into play here. The Skeptics Dictionary is a perfectly reliable source for inclusion in any of the subjects it discusses because the corresponding advocate-sources suffer from the same or worse qualification issues. To wit, there is no vetting process in paranormal studies for who is and isn't reliable. That is not the fault of the authors of the Skeptic's Dictionary and so this source will continue to be used despite the protestations of those who dislike it. --ScienceApologist 09:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Carrol only partially cites and attribute, and he typically has not profesional experience in the fields that he writes about. He's basically a journalist, not an expert. If he were arguing the other side, I doubt that you would accept him. As I've said before, don't cite Carrol, find out who his sources are and cite them instead. - perfectblue 16:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Huh???? Makes no sense; clarification is needed. 75.62.7.22 06:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Reporting controversy

13) As in the case of parapsychology, when there is attributable controversy over the status of an idea, it is the responsibility of a reliable encyclopedia to accurately and neutrally report the controversy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposed by ScienceApologist 13:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 16:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Labeling pseudoscience

14) Categorizaing or labeling a controversial idea "pseudoscience" or including an idea in List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts does not necessarily represent a violation of neutrality. As long as attribution to reliable sources are used, such actions are not problematic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposed by ScienceApologist 13:08, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to agree to this as written. The first part, the labeling along with attributable sources matching the statement, I'd agree with that. That's pretty much my entire position here. Still, I don't fully support the second part about the list. I don't feel strongly enough to actually dispute the list, but I'm not entirely convinced that it isn't WP:Content forking and that it meets WP:NPOV. My personal opinion is that presenting a list and saying, well it's just a list, is a clever way of circumventing discussion that leads to neutrality. I'd agree that it doesn't "necessarily represent a violation of neutrality", but I wouldn't go so far as to say "such actions are not problematic".

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 16:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. This is in line with the arbitration decision on pseudoscience. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 06:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Support: Just so long as Robert Carrol (skeptics dictionary) is blacklisted, and sources are restricted to people who are qualified in a related field (EG, no botanists discussing faster than light travel and no accountants discussing crop circles). - perfectblue 09:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wrong. This is wrong. This is wrong because this whole concept that "labeling some concept as pseudoscience does not violate neutrality" is counter to the consensus of editors on Wikipedia. I challenge you to put this notion up for vote by the whole Wikipedia community as a whole. This bigoted notion of "labeling concepts you dislike as pseudoscience" lays hostage to a wide range of Wikipedia pages and is held in place only by honorable gang mechanics and wrongful suits such as this one. What is missing here is some policy understanding, a true consensus, among editors of what Verification we expect ReliableSources to have done for us. Just because becoming the biggest winner of the PGA Tour cannot be done by the scientific method does not make it pseudoscience; it just has a different standard of Verification. --Rednblu 22:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought that in order to be pseudoscience, the subject had to be unscientific (i.e. not recognized as science by consensus of the mainstream scientific community) but presented as science. The PGA tour isn't presented as a scientific subject so it isn't pseudoscience. 75.62.7.22 06:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That's correct 75. Rednblu has staked out a relativistic stance that is so ironically dogmatic that he has rejected any notion of editorial judgement ever being possible. In other words, Rednblu does not trust editors to be able to judge reliability or verifiability, even though in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience the arbitration committee voted and passed on resolutions regarding the labeling of pseudoscience per these principles. In absense of a belief in any evidence of confirmation or rejection being ascertainable, Rednblu consistently advocated that the only consensus that counts is the one that agree with him. --ScienceApologist 09:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations for the perfect non sequitur. Here is the falsifiable hypothesis: If you give the whole Wikipedia community the vote, in a straw poll of more than 400 votes from random Wikipedia editors, more than 50% of the Wikipedia editors voting would Oppose with various rationales your proposal above as stated. --Rednblu 10:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing and attribution

15) Per Wikipedia's frings theory guidelines, in controversial articles care needs to be taken to accurately attribute text to reliable sources. With minority or fringe theories, this may mean looking for independent review and third-party evaluation of the subject rather than relying on promoters of the idea as the major source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Perhaps most important. --ScienceApologist 13:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

What is reliable for discussing the paranormal? Does somebody who spent their entire career in the mainstream have the necessary experience to discuss "things that go bump in the night", are they more or less reliable than somebody with an unaccredited degree in parapsychology who spent 20 years investigating so-called haunted houses? The reliability required of the source must be determined by the claim being made. It can't simply be arbitrary. - perfectblue 16:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I think for any topic on Wikipedia independent review and third-party evaluation should be sought out.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 17:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support. MastCell ^Talk 15:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's standards and principles are absolute, not relative

16) Wikipedia's standards for sources should not be lowered when dealing with a subject whose proponents may have lower standards. A source does not meet standards for reliability simply because all other relevant sources are less reliable. A source should not be described as "peer-reviewed scientific research" if those performing the review are members of a community which does not follow scientific principles such as scepticism, impartial assessment of empirical evidence, methodological naturalism, and logical reasoning. The principle that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary verification" applies equally well in a field where most, or even all, claims may be extraordinary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed SheffieldSteel 15:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

If this is meant to prevent the mischaracterization of sources as peer-reviewed or accepted by mainstream science, I agree. If this is meant to exclude parapsychological journals in all cases as unreliable, I completely disagree. The journals should be considered reliable in supporting a claim that such research was actually conducted, so that accurate reporting of the controversy and criticisms over such work can be sufficiently made. In the parapsychology article, it should be mentioned that they publish a journal, for example. In an article on psychokinesis it should say research was conducted by Jahn at Princeton. Then the criticisms and disclaimers and such should be included as well. Otherwise, there's a gap in information that doesn't exist in the most skeptical publications. This can all be done without presenting the sources as accepted by science. The standards are somewhat relative to the statement the source is supporting.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 17:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Disagree strongly: WP:RS is a sliding scale - the standard of proof must match the issue at hand. "Extraordinary" claims require extraordinary proof, "Absurd" or "trivial" claims do not. For example, scientific peer-review may be required to prove the existence of extra terrestrials, but it is complete and utter overkill to demand it to verify the existence of an individual's "claim" of alien abduction. In local newspaper interview with the alleged abductee should suffice. - perfectblue 08:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is an outright contradiction. How does one demarcate between the extraordinary and the absurd? Are we simply supposed to take your word for it? --ScienceApologist 09:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wikipedia is a mainstream encyclopedia

17)As elucidated by the Neutral point-of-view section on undue weight, Wikipedia gives preference to majority (mainstream) descriptions of subjects. NPOV is not the same thing as "sympathetic point of view".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposed by ScienceApologist 09:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Often this is untenable and will merely lead to relevant material being excluded. For example, in the case of a famous haunting the mainstream view might equate to a single footnote in an obscure textbook that simply says "Ghosts are bunk, so is this haunting", whereas the so-called fringe view might consist of dozens of books, documentaries and a walking tour three nights a week by the winner of "survivor XXXIIXI". In cases such as this the mainstream is in a distinct minority and therefore weight judged accordingly. Give weight to the mainstream when it comes to scientific conclusions, but not when it comes to pop culture, belief, myth and legend or popular belief in the face of science. - perfectblue 17:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Mainstream is never in the minority by definition. Just because something is ignored does not make it majority. This is why we have notability standards. --ScienceApologist 18:08, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually think this is the locus of the dispute. These articles attract editors who already have a strong opinion. They edit from those strong opinions that aren't neutral at all. Example (no offense SA):

"Mainstream is never in the minority by definition. Just because something is ignored does not make it majority. This is why we have notability standards."

You are only defining mainstream itself as mainstream science. Thankfully, Wikipedia makes no such claims on it's own. It's entirely a sliding scale. In mainstream culture, for example, the majority of people have paranormal beliefs. A greater majority have religious beliefs. Mainstream as a broad term doesn't ignore the paranormal. Mainstream science does.

To the proposition itself, I agree. To SA's interpretation of mainstream, I completely disagree.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 18:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Referencing credentials

18)Credentials, when used to confer reliability on a reference, must themselves by referenced by reliable third-parties who have the independence, expertise, and affiliations necessary to be able to verify the credentials.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

For example, using a psychology professor (and paranormal promoter) unaffiliated with NASA as a source for the credentials of a claimed NASA contractor who is also a paranormal promoter is not an acceptable practice. --ScienceApologist 10:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Also note that WP:BLP says "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space." --Minderbinder 13:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree with this. -- LuckyLouie 17:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Another sliding scale. There's a difference between "X is a former NASA person" (as this was probably worded), and "X claims to be a former NASA person". For the second statement it should be enough that a source is found that shows he actually made that claim. If there's some criticism over whether he actually was an NASA person, that can be documented too, but to just leave it out that the guy claimed he worked for NASA is a gap in information. It also doesn't seem justified without a source that someone did dispute that he worked for NASA. We're not trying to debunk sources here. If sources have been debunked, we report on the debunking. Ideally, it should read something like:

"Bob claims he worked for NASA [source]. [Blah, blah, blah, more stuff]. Concerns over whether Bob actually worked for NASA were raised by Joe [source]. Joe claims Bob was really working at a gas station in Philadelphia at the time he was supposedly working at NASA."

Guidelines and policies aren't broken. Editors just aren't taking the time to achieve neutrality. People are just deleting things left and right, inserting controversial material, very few times are editors taking the time to remove controversy by wording.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 18:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that a key qualifier is: Credentials, when used to confer reliability on a reference. If we write that Mr. X says he has conducted an experiment which conclusively confirms voice communications from otherdimensional entities (an extraordinary claim), both his claim and any claimed credentials which are employed to support his claim (speech recognition expert, NASA researcher, etc.) are subject to extreme scrutiny, per WP:REDFLAG. - LuckyLouie 19:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Inclusion is not advocacy

19) Editors must accept that "inclusion of a claim" is entirely separate from "advocacy of a claim". For example, the inclusion of a material in which an individual claims to have Psi abilities is not advocacy of the claim as being true. Equally, inclusion of a source stating that the individual has Psi powers is merely verification that the claim was made, not validation of the truth behind the claim.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed - perfectblue 09:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree up to a point. The problem is when certain editors due the following:

Certain individual has Psi abilities¹

and then the reference is to the certain individual's claim of psi abilities. This is far different from

Certain individual has declared that (s)he possesses Psi abilities¹

which is totally uncontroversial. There is a difference between asserting the fact of a claim and asserting that a claim was made.

ScienceApologist 09:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Agree with SA as well. --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 18:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Consensus

20) Wikipedia works by consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Seems obvious, but we've seen much unilateral editing in opposition to consensus on these articles. --Minderbinder 15:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. This would be a silly proposal were it not for some paranormal advocates' blunt, explicitly-state opposition to working by consensus.

Agreed. --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 18:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. -- LuckyLouie 19:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Disruptive editing

21) Wikipedia's definiton of disruptive editing includes editing that:

• Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
• Rejects community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors and/or administrators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Minderbinder 15:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not going to offer evidence, but I'd point out a great deal of editors on both sides are disruptive according to the above.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 18:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - LuckyLouie 19:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

22)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of the dispute is a series of articles centring on Parapsychology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and in particular Electronic voice phenomenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and its talk page, where the dispute which precipitated this arbitration has its roots.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

The EVP article is not under the aegis of parapsychology, and is a separate and much less concrete case. The dispute which precipitated this arbitration was on the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts page. This would not be a correct finding of fact. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts precipitated this arbitration. While certainly contentious, it is not the singular reason for this dispute. The path to this arbitration can clearly be seen on the EVP Talk page Talk:Electronic_voice_phenomenon#Recent_edits_from_Davkal, in the failed mediation, Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-03-13_Electronic_Voice_Phenomenon, and in the discussions of proposed arbitration,Talk:Electronic_voice_phenomenon#Arbitration_is_the_next_step. The roots of this dispute are also well-documented in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Martinphi -- LuckyLouie 22:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I was assuming it grew out of my own RfC, which started there. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:08, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, conditional on tweaking it to "parapsychology and paranormal topics". This case stems from many articles - I believe all would be described as paranormal but there has been debate as to whether some fall under parapsychology, such as crop circle, dowsing, or EVP. List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts is only one of many articles that led to both this and the earlier user RfC. --Minderbinder 12:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where it started, but it includes several articles at present.--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 22:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology as a science

2) The definition of parapsychology as scientific, asserted by those editors supporting parapsychology, is problematic. The mainstream largely ignores parapsychology, which has little representational in the popular and influential scientific journals. Because it is largely ignored, it is reasonable to state that parapsychology it is not generally considered a true scientific displine, and including it in category:science is likely to give undue weight. Two other categories exist which may be appropriate: category:fringe science and category:pseudoscience.

Regardless, the decision as to which category an article should be laced in should be taken on a case-by-case basis and should be subject to discussion and consensus, if necessary throguh article request for comment, rather than being the subject of edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment: The definition of parapsychology as unscientific or pseudoscience is equally problematic. Sourcing shows that while parapsychology is a frequently deprecated, highly marginalized, or possibly failed science, those who do take the time to comment on parapsychology do refer to it as a science. I agree that including it in category:science is likely to give undue weight, and I support inclusion in category:fringe science. I reject inclusion in category:pseudoscience or labeling as pseudoscience without appropriate sourcing that is:

• 1) Attributable and clearly stating who is making the claim
• 2) Clearly says "pseudoscience" as opposed to failed or deprecated science or something else
• 3) Accurately reflects the statement being made. For example if there is a statement that parapsychology is viewed as pseudoscience by mainstream science, versus marginalized or failed science, the source should clearly state that (I haven't seen one that does).

While there are many sources that explore the idea that it is pseudoscience, there are few to none that come from a mainstream scientific source and outright calls it pseudoscience.

Sorry, to the actual proposal: I don't think it is unreasonable to make an attributed sourced statement calling it science. I likewise don't find it reasonable to state that parapsychology is not generally considered a true scientific displine without an attributed source to that effect. Even the Nature article considers it a deprecated or failed science.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 21:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Mainstream does not "ignore" parapsychology. Parapsychology is a term used to describe the scientific study of Psi etc. Therefore any and all research conducted by the scientific mainstream will automatically be classified as being Parapsychology regardless of who conducted the research. It is also not published in mainstream journals for the same reason that mainstream scientific papers are not published in woman's magazines. It's not part of their purpose in being to do so. - perfectblue 09:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You cannot have it both ways. Science is discussed in the scientific journals. If something is not discussed in the scientific journals it is not science. It may have the trappings of science or ostensibly try to conform to the scientific method, but it is not possible for a neutral source like Wikipedia to label a subject with zero presence in the scientific journals to be scientific. --ScienceApologist 09:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Where did you get such a parochial view of science? Only a small portion of "science" conforms to the scientific method, my friend, in reality; look at the facts--not to your vain wish to reform the universe of men's thinking. That kind of reform is certainly out-of-bounds in Wikipedia activities. And your assertion of the necessary condition of scientific method for "science" certainly violates the consensus of Wikipedia editors; put it to Wikipedia-wide vote; I challenge you. By application of the definition in any English dictionary, parapsychology is a "science" by being concerned with the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of the phenomena it finds of interest. None of the narrow concerns of the scientific method are required for parapsychology to be a science. Look at the facts of life, my friend. --Rednblu 05:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Status of paranormal research

3) "The status of paranormal research in the United States is now at an all-time low, after a relative surge of interest in the 1970s. Money continues to pour from philanthropic sources to private institutions, but any chance of credibility depends on ties with universities, and only a trickle of research now persists in university labs." (Nature, Feb 2007).

In some cases there may be a lack of coverage of a subject in the journals because it is an emergent field, or because thought leaders have yet to address a subject. This is not the case with parapsychology and the paranormal, which has been subject to a steadily decreasing level of scientific inquiry since the earliest days of science. Paranormal phenomena have gone from being a focus of metaphysical debate among thought leaders, through a period of investigation by parts of the scientific community in the 1960s and 1970s, to a position now where explanations for esoteric phenomena are sought in emergent mathematical and physical fields rather than through parapsychology. Understanding of what can be explained by natural law has moved forward through developments in technologies for measurement and analysis, as well as advances in mathematical and physical modelling techniques, and these advances have made the scientific community less likely to seek answers outside of natural law.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment: I completely support representing scientific paranormal research as:

• 1) Pseudoscience when sourced and attributed to a group saying it. Pejorative terms require sourcing in all cases. If not currently, they should, especially when there is a notable question of whether parapsychology (one form of paranormal research) is pseudoscience.
• 2) Frequently deprecated and marginalized. This can be achieved through loose sourcing because it's more apparent.

I reject that non-scientific research on paranormal topics is marginalized. While not scientific, ghost hunting is a popular pastime and the collection of paranormal stories (anecdotal research) is equally if not more popular. In short, pop-paranormal culture and research, while not scientific, is by no means marginalized. In fact, a recent Gallup Poll [2] shows that 3/4 of Americans have paranormal beliefs. Another study [3] showed that 2/3 of scientists in general believe in a supernatural God, despite there being no scientific support for a God. These two studies themselves qualify as paranormal research. We should qualify paranormal research in this proposal as referring to supposedly scientific research and apply 1 and 2 from above.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 21:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

We are dealing with 3 terms here. "Paranormal", "Parapsychology" and "Pseudoscience". We must be careful not to confuse them. While there is often some overlap the terms should not be seen as merely being alternative wordings of the same thing. For example, Parapsychology mainly covers Psi , but also covers the psychological aspects of certain events, which is fully scientific (basic regular accepted psychology applied to somebody claiming to have had a paranormal experience), but it does not cover things like crop circles. Equally, Pseudoscience might cover crop circles, but it wouldn't cover Hairy hands, which is paranormal, but has nothing to do with pseudoscience or parapsychology. - perfectblue 15:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. May be irreelvant as strictly a content issue, but proposed to address the claim made in some other areas that emergent disciplines will be documented Real Soon Now. Here, we have had around four decades of investigation by small groups here and there, and the trend appears to be to shut that down, not to build it up. Now we have string theory and chaos theory we no longer seem to have the same perceived need for an explanation outside of the laws of nature. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Only in the US, in Europe things are still going strong. They are also diversifying away from concepts such as remote viewing and things that the CIA was interested in using against the Russians and are directing more towards New age beliefs. - perfectblue 15:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Support: Is there a source for the robust state of paranormal research in Europe? Guy, nicely sourced. MastCell ^Talk 16:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Davkal

4) Per [4] as a representative edit, User:Davkal appears to equate his own biases with neutrality, ascribing base motives to those who disagree with him and failing to acknowledge any validity in opposing viewpoints. Admins who support other editors do so because they are "biased" and because edits support their own POV. This is uncivil, a failure to assume good faith, and may indicate a level of emotional investment in the subject which is not conducive to neutrality.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Are we arbitrating the Paranormal, or putting Davkal on trial? These are separate issues and should be treated as such. - perfectblue 12:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration is about editor conduct. The principles above are principles which underpin how Wikipedia works, and which are directly relevant to the areas in which the disputed conduct occurs, but the main thrust of the case is and will be about the conduct of editors. Arbcom does not rule on content disputes. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

BUT.... many of the complaints over Davkal are problems WITH Davkal. Yes, he was editing a paranormal article at the time, but he would probably have done similar regardless of the topic. Invite him over to "Gun control" and you'd have probably seen the same pattern emerging. Judgment should be kept separate. - perfectblue 14:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I certainly agree that Davkal, Martinphi, and probably some other editors as well have made edits that pushed POV and labled them "fixing POV". There's no question that they erroneously think that presenting fringe views over mainstream ones is "neutral". --Minderbinder 12:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

1) Often, no mainstream views exist 2) Often belief exists separate from science, in which case it needs to be recorded. - perfectblue 14:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance" In cases where a fringe topic hasn't been covered by the mainstream, Davkal and Martinphi have insisted on presenting the topic as if it exists and is generally accepted, including putting undue weight on minority theories. If no mainstream view exists, then a topic hasn't been accepted by the mainstream and that should be clear from reading the article - the mainstream has no obligation to disprove every obscure theory. And in this case, there's a connection between editor behaviour and content since the POV editing and other disruption has been defended by reinterpretations of NPOV and other wikipedia policy. --Minderbinder 14:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Except skeptical users simply dispute the reliability of any non-skeptical source regardless any other factors. "If no mainstream view exists, then a topic hasn't been accepted by the mainstream" by definition, anything that falls under parapsychology automatically falls outside of the mainstream, regardless of the veracity of the techniques used the academic qualifications of the people involved. put simply, quoting the lack of mainstream support is irrelevant as all support moves outside of the mainstream the moment that it is given. - perfectblue 09:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but I think that there are others that are similar. Bubba73 (talk), 17:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite. As structured in this complaint, this is merely a case of the BIG gang accusing the little gang of being competitive by using its own POV gang methods. However, the petty bites and growls of either gang should be ignored here in the interest of working on the real problem. For example, it would be better if everyone looked for some means of reaching a consensus on how to fairly represent the Verifiable assertions of ReliableSources on the subject matter of Wikipedia pages of concern in this case. --Rednblu 05:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology is not an obvious pseudoscience

5) Statements that parapsychology is not a science or that parapsychology is a pseudoscience should not be considered obvious. These statements should be attributed according to WP:ATT, which states in part, "Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material." Such statements are likely to be challenged considering there is an ongoing discussion outside Wikipedia on the topic. The source should also clearly match the statement being made and it should clearly show in the text of the article who is making the claim. This is especially true when applying the pejorative term "pseudoscience".

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 20:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I don't dispute this, I think that category:fringe science is the best of the three likely candidates. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology is generally considered pseudoscience

6) As the subject material of parapsychology is generally outside the purview of science, like all investigations of the paranormal, it has been generally considered pseudoscience by third party evaluators.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by ScienceApologist 15:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree. There's a jump here that may seem obvious, but it isn't sourced. That's WP:OR. All the sources that have been offered (I painstakenly read through every one), coming from a scientific body, characterize parapsychology as a questionable science. Non-notable sources say "pseudoscience", but I had to pour through notable CSI's search engine to find one or two that characterize it as pseudoscience there, and they're the skeptics. It is sometimes considered pseudoscience. It is generally considered a questionable, fringe, or frequently deprecated science. And, again, saying that parapsychology is pseudoscience because paranormal is requires a demarcation ruling. Astrology is listed as "generally considered pseudoscience" because no such demarcation issues exist there.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 16:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I'd agree with that. It is a fringe subject, generally considered either irrelevant or disproven by the scientific mainstream and represented as pseudoscience by most notable sceptics. If the article said that, and categorised it as fringe science, I don't think I'd have a ny issues with that. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Strongly Disagree: I strongly suggest that the author repeal this him/herself. In order to disprove a PSI claim you must carry out a scientific study into it. This IS Parapsychology. If we consider parapsychology to be a Pseudoscience, we will automatically devalue ALL skeptical research into PSI. For example, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry investigation into the paranormal claims of Natasha Demkina is a classic parapsychology experiment that proved that she was unable to substantiate her claims. Is that a pseudoscientific experiment, too? - perfectblue 08:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In order to disprove a PSI claim you must carry out a scientific study into it. This IS Parapsychology. --> The burden of proof does not lie with those trying to "disprove" a paranormal claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The burden of proof is on the person making the paranormal claim, not those who are disputing it. While anyone is allowed to conduct whatever studies, skeptical studies are absolutely not required to declare a subject dubious. Parapsychology is necessarily then an endeavor that ignores this first step of observation/evidence before proceding directly to experimentation. Null results are not profound: they happen in situations where either the experimental set-up is lacking or the priors are not adequately accounted for. In the case of "PSI", since there is absolutely zero extraordinary evidence for the claims of the proponents, there is absolutely zero scientific basis for studying it. Thus, you see no articles in the standard journals regarding parapsychology. --ScienceApologist 09:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm completely into the philisophical discussions, but it's not like there's an absence of sources. Here there are sources and the sources say fringe, questionable, deprecated, etc. They don't say pseudoscience, or rather, that's not the general consensus.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 18:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Re ScienceApolgist's claims that there "is absolutely zero extraordinary evidence for the claims of the proponents" of PSI, and "thus, you see no articles in the standard journals regarding parapsychology." Firstly, there is a now a significant amount of evidence that even noted sceptics like Carl Sagan and Ray Hyman have commented fairly positively on and concluded that further scientific research is most definitely warranted. And secondly, there are a small but significant number of articles by parapsychologists or about parapsychological topics published in mainstream (ie., non-parapsychological) scientific journals. Those who hang on to the type of outdated views ScienceApologist espouses are, as Dean Radin put it, not only ill-informed about the current status of parapsychology, they are ill-informed about the current status of scepticism. Davkal 19:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I note the following from the James Randi article: "The James Randi Educational Foundation (JREF) currently offers a prize of one million U.S. dollars to anyone who can demonstrate a supernatural ability under agreed-upon scientific testing criteria. This suggests to me that the paranormal can be scientifically tested - even though I would argue that in Randi's case (the signing of pre-experiment contracts, Randi as sole arbiter etc.) it is pseudoscientifically done. That being said, if the editors here who are insisting that scientific testing of the paranormal is obvious pseudoscience then they should go to the Randi article and make the necessary amendments. That they will not do so demonstrates, I think, that the point being made here is a disingenuous one and that they merely want to put a pejorative term into every article they don't like while leaving all those they do like untainted by the same pejorative.Davkal 19:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Oppose per Nealparr. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 20:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom Butler

Outside status

7a) Tom Butler is currently the director of AA-EVP.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposed by ScienceApologist 13:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support - LuckyLouie 19:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Critique of Wikipedia

7b) Tom has posted post an article critical of Wikipedia on his website.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposed by ScienceApologist 13:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support - LuckyLouie 19:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree in part, dissent in part - although true, but irrelevant to this case. We are not penalizing editors solely for their outside activities. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 20:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Davkal

8) Davkal has a history of violating edit warring, making personal attacks, recruiting meat puppets, and being uncivil on a wide range of pages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposed by ScienceApologist 13:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support - LuckyLouie 19:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree, and would add use of sockpuppets to evade a block to the list. MastCell ^Talk 19:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree in part, dissent in part too strong language, and it neglected that Davkal made many good contributions. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 20:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi

Paranormal primer

9a) Martinphi posted a Paranormal primer which has been interpreted by others as a guide for how "proponents" of the paranormal should edit at Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Tom Butler describes it as such [on his website. ScienceApologist 13:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support - It is recognized that individuals may express their personal opinions via offsite essays. However, (as with Tom Butler's offsite essay) Martin's offsite essay is of particular concern because it instructs and advocates POV editing of Wikipedia articles. -- LuckyLouie 19:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - although there is precedents that editors conducting outside activities undesirable to Wikipedia can be penalized, I still think that Wikipedia community should not penalize someone solely because of his outside activities. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 20:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Editor actions

9b) Martinphi has edit warred, violated WP:POINT and WP:3RR, and created sockpuppets to aid in his advocacy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposed by ScienceApologist 13:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support - with provision that "sockpuppets" be modified to "meatpuppets" - LuckyLouie 19:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Partial agreement. There's no question about the edit-warring, 3RR, dismissal of feedback from the RfC, and WP:POINT issues. However, I don't see that he's created sockpuppets - in the case in question, it would seem to fall under the category of meatpuppetry. Martin professed to be unaware of the prohibitions in WP:MEAT, which I believe, and has not had any further issues in this arena since having it explained (so far as I'm aware). MastCell ^Talk 19:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Agree in part, dissent in part too strong language, and it neglects the fact that Martin did make many good contributions to paranormal-related topics. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 20:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Skeptic editors have engaged in dispute and warring

10) Some editors, such as User:Simoes, among others, have pushed a skeptic POV on paranormal-related pages and have engaged in edit war against pro-paranormal editors, such as Martin and Tom Butler.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 20:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Template

10) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Davkal

1a) For persistent violations of Wikipedia's code of conduct as outlined in the evidence, Davkal is banned from articles and their talkpages relating to the paranormal.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposed by ScienceApologist 13:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Support, however Davkal's incivility towards and intolerance of editors with opposing views is not limited to articles on the paranormal:

• Talk:Hilary Putnam
• Talk:Ludwig Wittgenstein
• Talk:Monty Hall problem
• User talk:Davkal

— BillC ^talk 21:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. Evidence of strong bias, inability to perceive own bias. A wider sanction may be appropriate. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. Numerous advisories, blocks, and admin actions have failed to change this users contentious behavior and aggressive bias. -- LuckyLouie 00:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. Egregious and unending personal attacks/belligerence/incivility, constant pov-pushing, and an unusually-long block log. An admin recently proffered the idea of placing an indefinite block on his account. At this point, such a remedy may not be all that extreme. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 06:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong opposition: Blocking should be made on a case by case basis. Ban individual users from individual pages when they have persistently violated regulations. - perfectblue 09:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your specific objection is. There is plenty of precedent within ArbCom rulings for banning editors from a range of articles. See for example: Barrett v. Rosenthal: "Ilena is banned indefinitely from editing articles which relate to alternative medicine"; Robert Prechter: "Smallbones is banned indefinitely from editing articles which relate to Robert Prechter"; Pseudoscience: "Tommysun is banned from editing articles which relate to science and pseudoscience"; Pat8722: "Pat8722... may be banned for an appropriate period of time from any page or set of pages for disruptive editing"; or Deir Yassin massacre: "Guy Montag is banned from articles which relate to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict". — BillC talk 18:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi

1b) For persistent violations of Wikipedia's code of conduct as outlined in the evidence, Martinphi is banned from articles and their talkpages relating to the paranormal.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposed by ScienceApologist 13:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Support, but I think it would be best to limit a community ban on Martinphi to a finite amount time (say, one month). Simões (^talk/_contribs) 05:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong opposition: Bans must be made on a case by case basis. Users should only be restricted from editing articles where a clear and persistent transgression has taken place. - perfectblue 09:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

See my note above. — BillC talk 19:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Support - Although it was sincerely hoped that the user would agree to modify his behavior, he now appears intractable and ideologically committed to continuing a widespread campaign of advocacy across a range of paranormal-related articles. - LuckyLouie 19:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Protest oppose this is unfair, the "skeptics" have also violated policy but could walk away with impunity while this user is punished unduly. Look at this edit, the skeptic editor deliberately remove useful qualification information of expert David Fontana, distinguished Visiting Fellow at Cardiff University, Professor of Transpersonal Psychology at Liverpool John Moores University. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 19:52, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

David Fontana, as it was painstakingly made clear on the talkpage, had no way of knowing whether MacRae worked for NASA or not. He was therefore judged to be not a reliable source for this information, regardless of how many accolades paranormal supporters such as yourself try to lavish upon him. If this was so concerning to you, why were you not involved in the discussions at the time? --ScienceApologist 19:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Because of Fortana's academic background, he should have met those people in the paranormal circles. And he's a distinguished professor so I assume he knows lying is wrong. I was not involved at that time because I've rarely edited paranormal-related articles, my interests on Wikipedia stick with law and politics. But now since I saw the egregious nature of some of the actions undertaken by several parties in this case, so I have followed along and I believe I should be able to comment on this case as an uninvolved editor. Another point, I'm not a "paranormal supporter", please do not label me this way. My interest on Wikipedia has never been paranormal-related topics. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 20:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

One's academic background says nothing about who one has met personally, and a personal meeting does not meet Wikipedia's standards of verifiability. Fontana is not a reliable source for who does and doesn't work for NASA, and that's pretty much the end of it. I didn't label you any way, I've only noticed a particular side you've decided to stake out. --ScienceApologist 20:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Fortana should be treated like a journalist. What he writes is true unless disputed by a third party. You must look at his personal integrity, not the integrity of the person whom he is interviewing. Verifiable not truth. -perfectblue 09:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There has been much dispute in the EVP article regarding research claims and biographical information about Alexander MacRae ("Researching The Fifth Dimension Through EVP") a Scottish paranormal investigator and author.

In keeping with WP:REDFLAG, paranormal proponent websites are not considered to have the necessary degree of reliability, authority, or independence to be used as sources for factual information, especially considering that such proponent sites consistently trumpet claims which are "surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known, and claims not supported, or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. (Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.)"

Apparently David Fontana's statements regarding MacRae's credentials were made in his book "Is There an Afterlife: A Comprehensive Review of the Evidence". That Fontana is an advocate for the afterlife and a supporter of MacRae and EVP in general, there can be no doubt: "As Chairman of the Committee responsible for the award, I am delighted to announce that Alex MacRae has been awarded a research grant of £1,500 by the Society for Psychical Research." Given his advocacy, Fontana can hardly be considered an independent and unbiased source for information about MacRae.

MacRae's name appears on paranormal proponent websites, such as Victor Zammit's "...the critical work which is obtaining brilliant positive results. Alexander MacRae has received two grants for EVP research from the SPA", and User:Tom Butler's AA-EVP "..it is easy to see why (Macraes) work is so often quoted by us", however there is no independently reliable mainstream source which verifies claims made about the efficacy of his research or the details of his qualifications, which is why such assertions have been often vigorously opposed in the EVP article. -- LuckyLouie 21:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing redflag about working for NASA. Nasa is a massive organization, it's 50 years old, the world's largest user of outsourcing, and used to be (probably still is) the world's largest research grant provider. Saying that you have worked or conducted Nasa research (Macrae was an external contractor) is like being French and saying that you're a civil servant, or that you're English and drink tea. It's a ten for a dollar claim. Go into SRI or somewhere similar and ask for a show of hands. - perfectblue 09:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If working for NASA is so commonplace that it is unremarkable, then why has there been such strong insistence on inclusion of a fact that (assuming it's true) is essentially meaningless? --Minderbinder 13:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a perfectly good example of paranormal advocates arguing out of both sides of their mouth. Remarkable enough to confer legitimacy on a researcher, unremarkable enough to provide a reference. Yikes. --ScienceApologist 14:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. Evidence of strong bias, inability to perceive own bias. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Request we move the MacRae/NASA discussion (and above comments) to its own workshop section. -- LuckyLouie 18:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment if you want to ban him from editing paranormal, at least we should allow him to comment on their talk pages. Talk in talk pages is innocuous. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 20:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Tom Butler

1c) Tom Butler is banned from editing Electronic voice phenomenon and related articles. He may continue to make suggestions on article talkpages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposed by ScienceApologist 13:25, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Strong oppose per my previous comment about Martin. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 20:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Support. Sufficient evidence of inability to check his personal agenda at the door. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you specify where is the alleged "evidence"? Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 22:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. Evidence presented that he has an opinion should not warrant punitive damages beyond a warning (if that). I've seen no evidence presented of rule breaking. Posting an outside critique of Wikipedia versus being disruptive inside Wikipedia should actually be encouraged. That's actually a very good example of leaving your agenda at the door. I'm sure everyone here has seen somebody say to someone, "Take it to your blog or personal website." Gold star for him doing that. Same with Dean Radin.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 22:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support - In his essay Tom Butler encourages polarization and discord between EVP proponents and "skeptics" on Wikipedia, suggesting proponents become more "assertive". His behavior on Wikipedia includes making overt threats against Wikipedia and declaring his intentions to continue tendentious editing. -- LuckyLouie 23:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The "threat" was unspecific and vague, and it related to his life outside of wikipedia. Threats against wikipedia only count if they are legal or made on wikipedia. You cannot punish somebody on wikipeida for having a rant outside of it. That's constitutionally protected speech. - perfectblue 09:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The constitution (and I assume, by that you mean the US Constitution) is not the final arbiter of how things are run at Wikipedia, perfectblue. There are precedents set for advocacy against Wikipedia in outside venues to be taken into account when deciding what to do about a problematic editor. --ScienceApologist 14:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Strong Opposition: 1) Most disputes against Butler are old, he has shown restraint in recent times. 2) Butler's primary problems were a clash of culture and a misunderstanding over how to conduct himself, they were not willful. - perfectblue 09:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

2) User:ScienceApologist is cautioned and put on revert parole on paranormal-related topics.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I get the feeling that User:Wooyi is taking something out on me personally, but I'm not sure what. Why didn't User:Wooyi make any citations of evidence on the evidence page? Why didn't User:Wooyi single me out? These are questions that should be asked since I have really not had much contact with this particular uninvolved user. --ScienceApologist 23:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no intention to single you out, and I do not intend to do anything "punitive" to you as an editor either. What I'm trying to do here is to get the systematic skeptic bias in check. Of course there are other editors, I'm still following up the case. And if my proposal here is implemented, which is only a caution and revert parole, wouldn't even hurt you in anyway, would it? I choose you here first because yourself have picked several editors like Tom Butler to be completely banned from editing paranormal, while other editors involved don't propose things like that here. Another reason is that this is a dispute, the proposed resolutions here are almost exclusively written by you, which is biased. What I did here is only trying to balance this bias. I have nothing particularly against you. Please don't take it personally. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 00:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Wooyi, I appreciate your honesty about your reasons for proposing an injunction specifically against me. However, this feels a bit like other attempts at revenge that have been leveled against me has far back as 9 March 2005. Another thing: there is nominally a process of arbitration: statements, evidence, workshop, etc. You seem to be upset about my proposals of injunctions against various editors, basically it seems like you are trying to get back at me for being bold. While I admit I did not list any evidence against MartinPhi, I was involved with his RfC and I think that's pretty good evidence for proposing a remedy. While it is absolutely true that anyone is allowed to propose resolutions, your contention of "bias" rings very hollow since the whole point of arbitration is that decisions need to be made by (at least ostensibly) neutral arbiters. If you really want to bring "balance" to this arbitration, try to gather evidence to back up your assertions against myself and those you are opposing. I'll note that your one attempt at claiming that I was removing well-sourced information failed. --ScienceApologist 03:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. I can see no reason for this. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 13:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

proposed by Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 20:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

At this point, there aren't any diffs of SA's on the evidence page. If you're going to propose sanctions, you should probably show evidence of policy violation. --Minderbinder 20:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

There are ample evidences about his policy violations and POV-pushing in "Evidence presented by PerfectBlue" on the evidence page. PerfectBlue also presented evidences about other editor's violations, but seems here that SA is the main one. However, as I am a person of friendly nature, I think even SA should be treated leniently, a caution and revert parole are enough. SA's proposal to punish other editors is certainly unfair. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 20:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. No evidence of a problem to fix, that I can see. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. No evidence given for proposed sanctions. - LuckyLouie 18:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - Bubba73 (talk), 18:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Name nonspecific solution

3) Individual users who have persistently committed violations across several pages should be placed on probation. This includes:

1. A 2 month "cooling off" ban from the articles where they have committed a persistent violations (specific articles only)
2. A 2 month 2RR limit on all articles tagged as disputed or controversial
3. A 6 month period in which all new violations will be reviewed by an admin and will result in a 1 week ban if a violation is confirmed (including violations of civility and 3RR, but not basic NPOV or content disputes that remain civil), in order to encourage self-regulation.

This is to extend to skeptics making unreasonable demands for WP:RS and POV Pushing too.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

'Proposed

Don't know who proposed this, but unless specific parties are named, this proposal is asking for trouble. --ScienceApologist 13:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Nightmare. Vague, unspecific, asking to be gamed. Guy (Help!) 14:10, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Analysis of Evidence presented by Tom Butler - Regarding user-deleted file User_talk:Martinphi/NPOV

At Evidence_presented_by_Tom_Butler, Tom comments:

In a note to JoshuaZ, the person who initiated the delete process, LuckyLouie said on JoshuaZ's talk page that the article, "... This does not appear to be an essay. Note in particular many controversial revisions to WP core policies, such as [23] in which the User issues such dictates as, "However, when we are presenting the viewpoint of a paranormal topic in the main body of an article, we must present it as if it is a fact". A psuedo-policy such as User_talk:Martinphi/NPOV has the potential to be highly disruptive to the community and get in the way of the task of building an encyclopedia. -- LuckyLouie 22:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)" I have a copy of the essay made about that time and there is no such quote. I invite LuckyLouie to produce it.

Perhaps there is some confusion on Tom's part about which "essay" I quoted. The file in question was User_talk:Martinphi/NPOV, (Administrators who have access to records of deleted userspace files may see the particular diff at [5]). These files were voluntarily deleted by their author.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Analysis by -- LuckyLouie 18:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: