Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:36, 9 June 2007

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only arbitrators or clerks should edit this page, non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 10 active arbitrators of whom none are recused, so 6 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Neutral point of view

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding a subject. If there is controversy regarding the subject, all sides of the controversy should be fairly represented.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Advocacy

2) Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for advocacy, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Basis for inclusion

3) In addition to firmly established scientific truth Wikipedia contains many other types of information. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.", Wikipedia:Verifiability.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Categorization

4) Articles are placed in a category as an aid to the reader. Categories are not intended to define or limit the subject of the article as belonging exclusively to that category. Thus the articles parapsychology or psychoanalysis may properly be in both the category "psychology" and "pseudoscience". Which fork the reader takes depends on what they are looking for or interested in.

Support:

Fred Bauder 15:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The latter portion of this is a content decision. Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Categorization

4.1) Articles are placed in a category as an aid to the reader. Categories are not intended to define or limit the subject of the article as belonging exclusively to that category.

Support:

Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Pseudoscience

5) Any matter presented as scientific fact without adequate scientific investigation or evidence may be characterized as pseudoscience.

Support:

Fred Bauder 15:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Content decision. Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Appropriate handling of epistemological status

6) It is the responsibility of editors to appropriately handle any question regarding the epistemological status of a subject, that is, questions of whether something exists, is hypothesized to exist, general scientific consensus, etc. The goal is not arrival at the correct conclusion, but adequate treatment of any controversy. In the case of the paranormal, both the general scientific skepticism and the intense popular interest are notable.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Adequate framing

6a) Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include "mythical", "fictional", "a belief", and in the present case "paranormal", "psychic", "new age", "occult", "channeling". or "parapsychological researcher". "UFO", "Bigfoot", "Yeti", "alien abduction", and "crop circle" serve the same function. It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Subjects which have not been investigated

7) Subjects notable in popular culture which have not garnered sufficient interest in the scientific community to result in investigation or publication may nevertheless be noted in an appropriate way to lack scientific basis despite lack of a reliable source explicitly saying so.

Support:

Fred Bauder 15:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Perhaps "lack of scientific evidence" may be better here? Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflation of parapsychology

8) Parapsychology should not be confused with sensational, unscientific beliefs and stories about "the paranormal." FAQ Parapsychological Association

Support:

Fred Bauder 15:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Content decision; but see FoF 9.1. Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Editorial judgment regarding reliability

9) Determining the reliability of sources is a matter of sound editorial judgment informed by expertise.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Conflict of interest

10) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest strongly cautions but does not forbid editing of articles regarding subjects the editor is strongly invested it. Such editing must be done responsibly and responded to diplomatically by. Restrictions on editing should be imposed only when there is disruptive point of view editing.

Support:

Fred Bauder 15:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

There are other circumstances where restrictions may be necessary. Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Conflict of interest

10.1) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest strongly cautions but does not forbid editing of articles regarding subjects the editor is strongly invested it. Such editing must be done responsibly and responded to diplomatically by others.

Support:

Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Generally considered pseudoscience

11) Theories which have a following, such as various manifestations of the paranormal, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

12) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Loci of dispute

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Status of parapsychology

2) Parapsychology has an ambiguous status, engaging in scientific research, but strongly criticized for lack of rigor.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Davkal

3) Davkal (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected) is a disruptive editor, given to personal attacks, lack of civility and failure to extend good faith to other editors.

Examples of problematic editing by Davkal include: civility, civility, civility, incivility, civility, civility, personal attack, foul personal attack, another nasty attack, personal attack, incivility, incivility, civily and assertion of fact in issue, assertion of fact in issue, 3RR, civility, civility, civility, civility, civility, civility, extreme civility violation, civility, removal of warning, removal of warning, removal of warning, removal of warning, vandalism of another's attempt to discuss removal of warnings, meatpuppet, sockpuppets, and Leonovski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive227#Unending_personal_attacks_by_User:Davkal, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive137#Davkal_again, and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Davkal_blocked_for_personal_attacks.2C_please_review.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Cultural artifacts

4) "Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Subjects without referents

5) Wikipedia covers many notable subjects which may not have a referent in the real world. A discussion of the epistemological status of such subjects is often included in articles regarding such subjects such as "mythical creature" or "a hypothetical conflict", but every refereral to mythical beasts and projected future events is not accompanied by a qualifier.

Support:

Fred Bauder 18:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be better as a principle? Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

External campaigning

6) Activists, including a "Tom Butler" have put up pages which campaign regarding the content of Wikipedia articles [1] and [2]. Here Martinphi refers a new user Crystal Healer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the external site.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Popular culture

7) Wikipedia includes many articles regarding matters that are of notable popular interest such as alien abductions, animal mutilations and crop circles. Often there exists little scientific interest or analysis of such purported events.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Flat statements of fact

8) Articles exist which contain flat assertions of fact regarding fantastic formulations, for example Astral projection starts off "Astral projection (or astral travel) is an out-of-body experience achieved either awake or via lucid dreaming or deep meditation." and contains nowhere in the article the viewpoint that there is no such thing. Others such as Astral plane contain attribution, "The astral plane, also called the astral world or desire world, is a plane of existence according to esoteric philosophies, some religious teachings and New Age thought."

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Conflation of parapsychology with unscientific concepts

9) Parapsychology has in some instances been conflated with sensational, unscientific beliefs and stories about "the paranormal.", for example Ectoplasm (parapsychology).

Support:

Fred Bauder 18:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Conflation of parapsychology with unscientific concepts

9.1) According to the Parapsychological Association, parapsychology should not be confused with sensational, unscientific beliefs and stories about "the paranormal". This has occurred in some instances; for example Ectoplasm (parapsychology).

Support:

First choice. Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Three layer cake with frosting

10) In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Paranormal as an effective tag

11) The use of a link to paranormal in the introduction of an article serves to frame the matter. Links to psychic, new age, or occult serve the same purpose.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template:Dubious

12) ScienceApologist has used Template:Dubious in an inappropriate way [3]. Clicking on the template as displayed redirects to Wikipedia:Disputed statement, a guideline.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Category:Pseudoscience

13) There has been editwarring between Minderbinder and Martinphi over inclusion of parapsychology in Category:Pseudoscience [4].

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Dradin

14) Dean Radin has edited as Dradin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but ceased in April, 2007. The senior scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, he as participated in editing its article [5], [6], [7].

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Kazuba

15) Kazuba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was cited by Dradin as a troubling editor. Kazuba presents an extensive inventory of his positions on his user page and has made significant critical comments at User talk:Dradin.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

WikiProjects

16) Wikipedia contains the following projects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism, Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Simoes

17) Simoes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in aggressive editing to discredit parapsychology [8].

Support:

Fred Bauder 18:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "which discredits" to "to discredit"; his intent is the issue here, not whether his actions had the desired effect. Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

18) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Davkal

1) Davkal is placed on civility parole. He may be blocked by any administrator for up to one hour for violations of civility. Such blocks need not be logged.

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Pointless waste of administrator time. Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Davkal

1) Davkal is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to a year.

Support:

Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Article probation

2) All articles which relate to the paranormal, liberally defined, are placed on article probation. What this means in practice is that there is a general amnesty for past behavior for most editors who have been involved in disputes in this area. This amnesty is combined with the expectation that future editing will conform with Wikipedia policies. Future behavior problems may be addressed by the Arbitration Committee on the motion of any Arbitrator or upon acceptance of a request for inquiry by any user who edits in this area.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Revert limitation

3) Editors who regularly edit articles which relate to the paranormal, liberally defined to include related areas such as the occult or ufology, are limited to one revert per week to any article which relates to the paranormal.

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

As written, this will hamstring vandal-fighting in the area. Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Revert limitation

3.1) Editors who regularly edit articles which relate to the paranormal, liberally defined to include related areas such as the occult or ufology, are limited to one revert per week to any article which relates to the paranormal. This does not include reversions of simple vandalism.

Support:

Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Dradin

4) Dradin and any other editor who is involved professionally or avocationally in the paranormal is cautioned regarding aggressive editing of articles which relate to the particular subjects they are involved with. This remedy is not effective until sufficient notice has been made to Dradin and affirmed after an opportunity to respond.

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the point of the last clause is, as there's no associated enforcement. Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Kazuba

5) Kazuba is cautioned to extend good faith to Dradin if he edits and to avoid including disparaging material about Dean Radin on his user page. This remedy is not effective until sufficient notice has been made to Kazuba and affirmed after an opportunity to respond.

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As in remedy 4. Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Application of remedies

1) The remedies in this decision apply to the parties to this case and any other editor of articles related to the paranormal, the occult, ufology and similar subjects who has been notified on their user talk page of this decision. Notifications to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Log_of_notifications.2C_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement by block

2) Users who violate the revert parole imposed by this decision may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Log_of_notifications.2C_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by arbitrators

General

Please consult the Workshop for extended comments on many issues. Fred Bauder 19:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

@@ Line 639: / Line 639: @@
 ===Application of remedies===
-) The remedies in this decision apply to the parties to this case and any other regular editor of articles which related to the paranormal, the occult, ufology and similar subjects who has been notified on their user talk page of this decision. Notifications to be logged at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Log_of_notifications.2C_blocks_and_bans]].
+) The remedies in this decision apply to the parties to this case and any other editor of articles related to the paranormal, the occult, ufology and similar subjects who has been notified on their user talk page of this decision. Notifications to be logged at [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Log_of_notifications.2C_blocks_and_bans]].
 :Support: