Requests for arbitration

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors		29 November 2013	{{{votes}}}

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	10 Oct 2024	24 Oct 2024

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles (AE referral)	Motion	(orig. case)	17 August 2024
Arbitration enforcement referral: Nableezy, et al	none	(orig. case)	7 November 2024
Clarification request: Referrals from Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard to the full Committee	none	none	7 November 2024

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors

Initiated by The Cap'n (talk) at 19:49, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Askahrc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Vzaak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Barney the barney barney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Iantresman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Barleybannocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
David in DC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
74.192.84.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Lou Sander (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tumbleman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Philosophyfellow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mangoe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Liz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Askahrc

I apologize for the lengthy statement, I was unable to explain this complex problem in 500 words.

This request for arbitration is to resolve recurring threats and bullying of certain editors working on the Rupert Sheldrake page. There have been a disproportionate number of threatened and actual blocks/bans for this WP:BLP, with a particularly disproportionate number of these threats and all the bans focused on those who oppose the dominant opinion. This opinion has been to reject nearly any edit that references Sheldrake's credentials or work in a legitimate fashion, reverting most efforts and only relenting once it is impossible to resist progress without appearing abusively biased. Numerous reverts are carried out in sequence by a few editors, while a single revert attempt by an editor disagreeing with them was undone in minutes and that editor warned that any further action would be considered WP:EDITWARRING. Editors who are otherwise known to be balanced or even skeptics are called pseudoscientists, Sheldrake-fans or other, more pejorative terms if they argue that the Sheldrake page is not NPOV.

This has been justified by claiming that WP:REDFLAG & WP:FRINGE requires extraordinary evidence from any editors who are trying to cite what the proponent of the fringe theory argues (NOT presenting the fringe theory as fact), but ordinary evidence from those who denounce it. When editors have argued with this unequal burden of proof their attempts at mediation receive a flurry of WP:WIKILAWYER statements denouncing their request for aid and their intelligence, then the WP:RFC or other appeal is [down]. When editors refuse to back down from the peer pressure, threats begin appearing on the Sheldrake talk page or on the user's talk pages, warning them that if they continue editing pseudoscience articles (ie. Rupert Sheldrake) they may face blocking or banning. The threats vary in justification and tone, but share a common purpose of silencing debate on the page; the more in-depth threats include Iantresman, Alfonzo Green, Lou Sander and others.

Until recently only the so-called pro-Sheldrake editors received these threats, and the editors banned through the course of this articles work have all been those who insisted that either WP:FRINGE does not mandate an unequal burden of proof or otherwise disagreed with the negative bias on the page. Regardless of the guilt of the blocked editors, it is important to note that they were singled out specifically because they contributed on the Sheldrake page, but none were clearly shown to be disrupting the article, edit-warring or maliciously trolling the page. This is important because it is indicative of an effort to find an excuse to block dissenting opinion, regardless of whether it's disruptive. An example of this is the practice of accusing people of sockpuppetry, which editors have noted tends to elicit a swift reaction from admins. Thus Tumbleman, Oh boy chicken again, Philosophyfellow, Shaynekori and others had bans pursued with or without Checkuser reports confirming sockpuppetry based on the fact that they were editing the Sheldrake page for similar reasons. Oh boy chicken again was even confirmed as an unlikely sockpuppet but the ban was still pursued. Whether or not User:Tumbleman had a case against him, his full name, business information and personal info were distributed against his will as retribution for persisting on the Sheldrake page, leading to antagonism outside WP. That is unacceptable behavior and not just poor WP form, but cyber bullying. There is evidence for these points should the arbitration proceed.

We need to find a way to curtail the disproportionate number of AN/I warnings, blocking threats, social pressuring and unfair burden of proof enforced by a group of editors who are crushing dissent on this page. I'm familiar with and respect the editors in question, this is not an attack on them but an attempt to shift a culture that is deteriorating quality editing and giving good editors bad habits. The atmosphere has become so hostile and combative that many editors on both sides have become disillusioned with trying to improve the Sheldrake page. That said, the article itself is slowly coming together and is not the subject of this arbitration request, but rather the conduct surrounding the page that is indicative of a culture of intolerance and bullying that is gathering public attention and is detrimental to Wikipedia.

I am hoping for an intervention that will directly recognize the equality of reliable sources when reporting on (rather than arguing for) a fringe subject, a higher standard of evidence before blocks or bans are levied against editors here and, if at all possible, an investigation into the prevalence of bullying minority-opinion editors with frivolous threats.

Statement by David in DC

I've disengaged from particpating in editing this article. I make a statement here only to explain why. I'll not particpate further.

The persistent edit warring

to keep the word scientist, biologist or biochemist out of the first sentence of the lede of a Biography of a Living Person who is called a biologist, biochemist or scientist in multiple Reliable Sources and who holds a biochemistry Ph.D. from Cambridge,
to keep the word hypothesis or theory out of the article of a Living Fringe Theorist who's been proposing a Fringe Theory or hypothesis, for 30 years, noted in multiple Reliable Sources, and
to bully, harrass and derogate the WP:COMPETENCE of any editor who edits the article as I did, guided by the view that there is a tension between WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE when editing about the Living Fringe Theorist that does not exist when dealing only with his Fringe Theories,

simply grew too aggravating to bear.

No sane reader could be misled into believing morphic resonance is anything but waaaaay out on the fringe by an article that used the words the sources do. The theory is amply contextualized by all of the prose that is included in the lede and in the text of the article. The warring and bullying to enforce blacklisting the words, no matter how reliably sourced, and to derogate the living person who is the subject of this bio, is a blot on wikipedia.

The fringe-fighters have, no doubt, noble motives and a jaundiced view --- hard-won in years of battle with the acolytes of woo-meisters --- of any editing that seems to them to diminish their important work of keeping Wikipedia from legitimizing nonsense. But it has led to a binary, toggle-switch, on/off approach to editing about anything FRINGE-related.

That's an approach especially ill-suited to editing BLPs. Here it has led to stubborn, tenaciously incivil treatment of equally nobly-motivated editors who try to police BLPs, and characterization of them as indistiguishible from SPA FRINGE-supporters.

I do not deny that there are such FRINGE-supporters about. I do not share the concern expressed above about the blocking of The Tumbleman and his SOCKS. But I deeply resent being lumped in with them. I finally concluded that there were other ways to help build up this project, and that continuing to try to correct the incorrigible was a fool's errand.

I urge the Arbitration Committee to revisit the issue of Psuedoscience on Wikipedia, at least insofar as it relates to living people. The Sheldrake article and the last few months of sturm und drang over it provide an excellent opportunity. Please don't waste it by saying "we dealt with this in 2010." The 2010 decision has proven inadequate to guiding editors of this article. It's similarly inadequate for guidance in editing other articles of living people who advocate odd ideas. David in DC (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I know I said I wouldn't participate further, but I think Cacharoth's request makes too much sense to ignore. I've put a link to this diff on the talk pages of ~~all named parties~~ all named parties who are not blocked who've not yet responded, asking them to consider responding. David in DC (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

The wording of the request is itself needlessly inflammatory. I do not think this is a matter for ArbCom. Decisions have been made, some people don't like them, this will be fixed before the WP:DEADLINE.

The problem here is that the article covers two subjects: it is a biography of Rupert Sheldrake, but it is also a document of his advocacy of a pet theory that has no credible basis in fact.

If the theory did not exist, it is unlikely that Sheldrake would be notable. He is known almost exclusively for his crank theory.

Wikipedia cannot cover his theory - in reality merely a conjecture as it does not meet the scientific definition of a theory - without noting that it is comprehensively rejected by the scientific community. Needless to say Sheldrake does not like this.

Sheldrake has clearly attempted to encourage people to edit his article in support of his views. The pro-Sheldrake editors make much of WP:BLP, though most of what they object to seems to me to be entirely compliant.

There are probably some anti-Sheldrake editors. There are also a number of people whose main concern is with maintaining a proper factual article, ad as usual in any dispute of this kind they are regarded as members of the opposing camp by both extremes. This hampers resolution.

A few people have, I believe, allowed justifiable concern for the subject to overrule their normal good sense to a degree, but I do not think they have done anything deserving of sanction. I count David in DC ins this group, but he is sufficiently self-aware that he seems to recognise the issue. If everyone were as sanguine, we would have no problem.

The input of the peanut gallery has been unhelpful.

In the end, any article fully compliant with Wikipedia policy will accurately reflect the idea that Sheldrake is known primarily as an advocate of his nonsensical ideas of morphic resonance, which have virtually no currency outside his own work, and as a result it will be hated by Sheldrake, who will no doubt continue to agitate about it, perfectly understandably.

Under the circumstances the best we can hope for is an article that will be seen as fair by a dispassionate observer. I am not convinced that the pro-Sheldrake activists are prepared to accept such an article, and I believe this is why the burden of sanctions has fallen disproportionately on them. It is probably true to say that they care more about this particular article than any given Wikipedian whose interest lies in fringe science: to us, Sheldrake is a pretty insignificant figure whose ideas are, in truth, not especially important compared with, say, a prominent climate denier or alt-med activist. Guy (Help!) 23:54, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lou Sander illustrates the point. Scientifically, conservation of energy is a fact. I guess people are probably familiar with Einstein's views on thermodynamics, a field which Sheldrake also insists is mere dogma:

A law is more impressive the greater the simplicity of its premises, the more different are the kinds of things it relates, and the more extended its range of applicability. (..) It is the only physical theory of universal content, which I am convinced, that within the framework of applicability of its basic concepts will never be overthrown.
— Albert Einstein

The pro-Sheldrake posse argue that because Sheldrake says that these are dogmas, it is reasonable to portray them as such. Meanwhile, back in the real world, no observation has ever been recorded in the entire history of science that refutes or even calls into question the laws of thermodynamics or conservation of energy.

Even then, they are wrong about why science takes these things as fact. They are taken as fact because that is what observation supports. If you conduct experiments to test whether energy is conserved or entropy increases in a closed system, you always find that it is. If you think you found it isn't, then you go back and try again and find that you made an error in our experiment. If someone came along tomorrow and found conditions that violate these laws, they would have made a real discovery - but they would need solid reproducible facts to back them up.

It's worth remembering why Einstein's theory of relativity deposed classical Newtonian mechanics: it's because it made predictions that Newtonian mechanics could not account for, that were supported by observation, by a highly skeptical audience.

Sheldrake does not have facts to back up his assertions about the laws of physics. His reason for disputing them has nothing to do with science and everything to do with the fact that his empirically unverifiable pet conjecture is refuted by the laws of physics. He wants them to be wrong so he can be right. That's not science, that genuinely is dogma.

So this is a simple case of WP:TRUTH. Wikipedia reflects the facts as they are currently understood, not as article subjects wish them to be. We document the fact that Sheldrake disputes conservation of energy and thermodynamics, but we do so in a way that makes it plain that his opinion is not supported by evidence. Exactly as we do with people who dispute much less firmly established scientific facts such as evolution and climate change. Guy (Help!) 12:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Looie496

The article is already subject to discretionary sanctions via WP:ARBPS. Unless ArbCom wants to micromanage the article, intervention would probably not be useful. Looie496 (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Lou Sander

I think Askahrc has done a good job in stating the problem. It is bullying. The bullies spare no effort in demeaning the competence or good faith of editors with whom they disagree, not to mention demeaning the subject of the article. Along with the bullying, there is a considerable ownership problem with the article.

I think David in DC has stated things very well. Like him, I have drawn back from this article and its talk page. I still regularly monitor both of them, but I rarely make edits to either. Because I have drawn back, and because I prefer not to be bullied, I haven't supplied any diffs or examples of the bullying referred to above.

I don't agree that there are "pro-Sheldrake" editors active in the article. Specifically, I don't think there are any editors who give credibility to the hypothesis (or idea, or notion) of morphic resonance. There are some editors, and I include myself in that group, whose main interest in the article is in seeing that it is a fair representation of Sheldrake's work and of the reaction to it by the world.

Besides his notion of morphic resonance, Sheldrake is notable for challenging what he calls the assumptions of science. This work is, as far as I can tell, far less "on the fringe" than the morphic stuff. Yet bullying editors demean it (and Sheldrake) along with everything else. For example, they say that it goes against the "fact" of Conservation of energy. COE is actually a Law of science, or a Principle -- something that is very well-established within certain limits. Few outside the editors of this article would call it a "fact," yet it stays in the article. Lou Sander (talk) 01:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Tom Butler

As with David in DC and for much the same reasons, I have stopped editing the Sheldrake article. I have also stopped editing in general for the same reasons. The Sheldrake article is just the latest and most painful. For me, the number of times I was personally attacked during the Electronic Voice Phenomena battle is a red letter for Wikipedia. Also see comments such as this comment, and this arbitration enforcement discussion this arbitration enforcement discussion

It is important to read the complain rather than once again assuming there is a conspiracy to sidetrack Wikipedia rules in the Sheldrake article. The complaint is about bullying and something of a cry for help moderating bullying in the Sheldrake article, and for me, other articles as well, as it is a Wikipedia-wide problem. In fact, I have not been so personally attacked in Wikipedia as I have been when I looked for help with personal attacks on a wiki:civility page. There have also been many public attacks since I am amongst the few editors with the courage to use my real name.

Most of the so-called fringe editors know they are outnumbered and have the good sense to seek balanced treatment of so-called fringe articles. From my perspective as a "fringe" editor, there is no such desire for balance expressed by the skeptical editors. It is either their hard line mainstream treatment of new ideas to make them be seen as clearly untrue or edit warring--no compromise, no consensus possible. Being outnumbered, the minority editors either give up and go away or eventually get banned. There really is no in-between.

I had personal experience with this in the days Scienceapologist was still active and it has not gotten better. Even today, I can make a modest edit in one of the "fringe" articles and expect several of his friends to show up to counter me.

Wikipedia is gaining a public reputation of being a harsh environment for editors. That poisoned water atmosphere warns off potentially good editors and drives others away, leaving only the hardliners. If that is what is wanted here, fine. We are so warned, but be aware that funding for the servers is directly related to public opinion. If there is ever a tipping point where the directors must begin selecting what to save and what not to save because of lack of funding, be sure to look back to complaints like this as fair warning. I for one do not want to see the value offered by all of those mainstream articles lost because you all can't find a way to reasonably accommodate new thought. Tom Butler (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More - This is what I mean: "I'm only monitoring that article and its talk page these days. Too much bad behavior over there. Maybe bad behavior is the norm where pseudoscience comes up. That's not good for Wikipedia." Reading the comments below by the arbitrators, I see that they believe everything is fine and Wiki rules are enough. In fact, the atmosphere is poisoned in the Sheldrake article as it has been in similar ones. Everything is not fine when editors representing half of the discussion go away because of the abuse and refusal to compromise by the other half. Tom Butler (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mangoe

I filed an apparently pointless AE request on the mistaken belief that there was some hope of getting something done about the relentless hammering on this article. The subject of that request backed down anyway and there was no more to do on that line.

As far as the "bullying" is concerned: I have done almost no editing on this article, and intend to keep it that way. But even a the most cursory of readings shows that Sheldrake's ideas are far outside accepted science. Nevertheless there is a constant stream of new and not-so-new editors especially pushing the notion that there is some degree of experimental validation of his notions, and that they have some support from other scientists. As far as I can tell these claims are defended by misrepresentations in the first case and undue emphasis on some very tentative support by one retired fellow in what comes across as an an appeal to Clarke's First Law. The article is thus being subjected to a kind of proof through exhaustion in which the sanctions of the pseudoscience ARBCOM decision are proving utterly ineffective. I am unsurprised that defenders of the orthodox position are behaving badly, because the effort needed to prevent the article from being taken over by Sheldrake's supporters is way beyond reason. Mangoe (talk) 03:07, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: Quite recently on the talk page an accusation was made by one of Sheldrake's supporters that one of the "bullying" skeptics doesn't understand science, in the course of which the accuser puts forth a typically pseudoscientific alternative to Baconian orthodoxy. Really, none of us should be having to spend the kind of effort that has been spent already pushing back against this. Yet the talk page is filled, constantly, with this kind of argument.

Also, looking at the article, I see that his notable scientific achievements are represented in the lead paragraph and in one other short paragraph. All of the rest of the article is going on, at length, about his pseudoscientific theories. None of his supporters can legitimately complain about a lack of balance in this, because it is they who have brought it to that state. Yet the constant effort to rein this in is "bullying". The article is dominated by SPAs on one side and by a bunch of people who actually do other stuff, even other stuff unrelated to fringe material, on the other. While ARBCOM refuses to do anything about this, the trial-by-endurance will go on; AE is just another onerous way to drag things out further. Mangoe (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Barney the barney barney

I think that ‎JzG (talk · contribs), who has had little involvement in this article, yet merely as a bystander has hit the issue on the head.

The use of the word "bullying" in the title is disingenuous. This is a dispute mostly concerned about wording and content. It is not a school playground. I like Mangoe (talk · contribs) think that topic bans are in order, especially for the WP:SPAs and those who have similar existing and related topic bans.

There is already WP:ARB/PS; any decision should be consistent with previous precedent on this issue.

This is clearly a fringe issue. A few editors have tried to argue it's not, claiming "it's philosophical", but this is just poor quality Wikilawyering to try to get out of WP:FRINGE.

The wording dispute focuses mostly on the lead paragraph, because I guess that's what most people read first. Within that, what should we primarily label Dr Sheldrake? A "biologist" which implies scientist, which implies a person who follow the scientific method, when it is quite clear that a great deal of expert opinion thinks he isn't following the scientific method. This is the position taken by his fans, but is clearly not WP:NPOV, or actually factual. Nor does it highlight what he's notable for, which is writing and promoting new age ant anti-scientific books.

The other thing that these fans are trying to do is to try to claim that the description of the criticism in the lead isn't accurate, or is based on "synthesis" of sources. This involves a bit more Wikilawyering, combined with either stupidity, incompetence, or outright lies which deny a source says what it does in fact say.

Finally, the Sheldrake's fans have tried to argue that the sources that are anti-Sheldrake are individual scientists and not speaking on behalf of the wider scientific community, and should therefore be weaselled to "a few scientists" or "some scientists". Yet as I have demonstrated, the vast majority of the scientific community just ignores Sheldrake, because he's not scientifically relevant. He doesn't publish in scientific journals and he's not cited by his peers. The few sources with scientific background who support Sheldrake tend to go for the "he just might be onto something, we need more research" line, which is more supportive of free inquiry than it is of Sheldrake, and also tend to be related to the crazier end of left-wing environmentalism. It is clear that the sources are speaking as professional scientists on behalf of the wider scientific community.

I have tried to include positive sources in the article, and found and included small number, which ironically is more than his supports have done.

I also anticipate that most of his fans would also like to gut most of the article itself, but for now they are working for small victories in the most visible part of the article. For that reason, I think David in DC (talk · contribs) is right - anyone reading the entire article should not gain the wrong impression - but wrong insofar as we should not compromise on WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, and this is a slippery slope and his fans would like to do a much much more to subvert WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE in a way that is very anti-Wikipedia and very anti-consensus. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by iantresman

It seems like I am the next target. I have just been reported at WP:AN "Sheldrake"(permalink) by JzG, where it appears he can read my mind, knows what I believe, and can predict the outcome of my discussions on the article in question. Not one diff in support. He is also not the first editor to "check" whether I could be banned for daring to be involved in this discussion, see "Barney objections"(permalink)

The problem as I see it, is two-fold

It is not whether Sheldrake is right or wrong (that's a content issue), nor whether such subjects foster a negative editing environment, it's that admins turn a blind eye to the behviour of certain editors, and are not very tolerant to others.
And the elephant in the room is that WP:ARB/PS is broken, because it assumes there is something called "obvious pseudoscience". Editors think they know where the line is drawn (I know it when I see it, contrary to WP:SYNTH), whereas the "demarcation problem" tells us that not even science knows. --Iantresman (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad Your comment on "titles of case requests should be worded neutrally." is interesting. When I started the original WP:ARB/PS on 2 Oct 2006, I carefully worded the title of the case as "Pseudoscience vs Pseudoskepticism"[1] reflecting both sides of the issue. But when the case was opened on 12 Oct, it was no longer about "Pseudoskepticism" the term having been removed from the name of the case,[2] and it became (in my opinion) somewhat one-sided. --Iantresman (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Carcharoth & Roger Davies Are these the kind of examples about editors you were seeking?:

"Fans of Sheldrake", "incapable of rationally judging ", "Sheldrake's fans", "some people have basic WP:COMPETENCE issues"(WP:FTN/Sheldrake again)
"beyond your evidently meagre ability to understand basic topics"(WP:BLPN/"Sheldrake again")
"A fringe theorist, .. has posted a conspiracy theory about the Rupert Sheldrake article on his blog", "The True Believers catch a break every now and then. After all, you were unbanned", "you have invited your 'psychic' buddies to join Wikipedia"(WP:ANI/Conspiracy: Rupert Sheldrake)
" I think the other pro-Sheldrake, anti-WP:FRINGE (and therefore anti Wikipedia) editors, particularly WP:SPAs need to be considered there as well"(WP:AN/Consensus by exhaustion at Rupert Sheldrake
"Several "fans" of Sheldrake"(WP:FTN/Rupert Sheldrake)
".. to show fringers ..", "fringers have a peculiar mix of being both educated and ignorant"(WP:FTN/Conveying .. fringe idea in the scientific community)
"I would see little benefit in trying to reason with conspiracy theorists", "these woo believers have got confused", "we can't reach the hard-core conspiracy-minded", "I'm not going to interact with the crazy"(WP:FTN/Fringe squared)
"Fringe theorists on the Rupert Sheldrake", "some parapsychologists and fringe proponents have turned up on the talkpage on the Rupert Sheldrake", "editors here and asking other psychic believers to come over to Wikipedia", "The user Tumbleman (also a psychic believer", "all these paranormal believers have teamed up", "As fans, they have a natural tendency to massively overestimate the importance of accuracy of Sheldrake's work"(WP:FTN/Fringe theorists on the Rupert Sheldrake)
"Iantresman is a believer in concepts that are considered fringe or nonsense by the scientific community", "he is advocating for the fringe beliefs"([3]) --Iantresman (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Of course I don't want to get you banned .. Do I report this .. I'd regret having to do that"[4]

Note: I haven't quoted any comments from the Sheldrake talk page, but they are available on request.--Iantresman (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The list includes some comments from current administrators. In the past, I've even had Arbitrators condone editors calling me "incompetent", "close-minded ignorance", "not to be a dick"[5]
My 2007 Community Ban includes several disparaging remarks, eg. a "POV-warrior of all sorts of pseudoscience and fringe science ideas"[6] and a false accusation of harassing a "new" user, who was actually an existing editor using a sock abusively.[7] The Community Ban noticeboard was eventually withdrawn, citing my vary case as being "rather unfair to a longtime user"[8]
Of course, not one single disparaging statement is supported with a diff. --Iantresman (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@TheRedPenOfDoom On reading this point again, you are correct. See my comment on the Sheldrake talk page. --Iantresman (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad It might be worth mentioning that there have been at least a dozen attempts at dispute resolution or administrator intervention, in the last 2-3 months alone:

Statement by jps

I think that an arbitration on this matter would be a bad idea. This is a contentious area, but I actually think progress has been made in moving towards compromise. The work is slow going and hampered by the known issues with wiki technologies and culture, but I actually think the lede, for example, is better now than it was five months ago [9]. I think people of all perspectives have something to add, and I think there has been an inordinate amount of work done to respect everyone's right to comment. I also have been pleasantly surprised that the editors have exercised restraint. What I don't think will help is if the admin class at this website starts throwing around their weight as I complained about here. But this is a relatively minor complaint, and we're working on ironing out some of those details at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring where I think some of the arbitrators' and arbitration lurkers' opinions as community members would be most appreciated. jps (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by vzaak

In Askahrc's statement there are a lot of sweeping accusations with no accompanying evidence. Without specifics, it is unclear what the complaints are, or whether they have validity.

Generally speaking, the main problems I see surrounding the Sheldrake article are currently,

Intense off-site canvassing from pro-paranormal websites and from Sheldrake himself, who even went on BBC World Service to complain about Wikipedia. The article was relatively quiet until the canvassing.
Tumbleman. Admins have called Tumbleman "pure WP:SOUP", "likely just a troll", "a thoroughly disruptive editor, and either a troll or else someone with serious WP:COMPETENCE issues", etc.[10] Askahrc says, "all the bans focused on those who oppose the dominant opinion", but all the bans have been Tumbleman's sockpuppets. There has been only one person banned: Tumbleman.
"Threats". The discretionary sanctions warnings given out by Bbb23 have caused apprehension and have been controversial. (Bbb23, citing an ArbCom draft not yet in effect, apparently did not realize the warnings were for misconduct; I will supply incontrovertible evidence to support this assessment upon request.) I was very much intimidated by the warning, and I assume others were too. TheRedPenOfDoom has left and jps has backed off editing. Following the lead of Bbb23, 134.139.22.141, an account having the same geolocation as Tumbleman and acting hours after another Tumbleman sockpuppet was blocked, began issuing discretionary sanctions warnings to others involved with the Sheldrake article. Whether that is another troll or the same troll is not an interesting question. Askahrc didn't specify what the "threats" were, but I'm guessing they were these warnings.

Looking at the links in "Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried", most of them revolve around Tumbleman's disruptions. For instance the BLPN thread was begun by Tumbleman's sock Philosophyfellow. Askahrc apparently feels threated because Philosophyfellow was blocked "based on hunches",[11] but just look at the evidence! This is no "hunch", and Tumbleman didn't even bother to deny it in the SPI. There's no question about the other socks either. In any case, if Askahrc wants to challenge the SPI admins, here is not the place to do it.

One of the links in the "confirmation" list involves Alfonzo Green, who is the most aggressive and dedicated Sheldrake SPA I have ever encountered. The NPOVN thread he started had no validity and has since been ignored. He is absolutely certain that Richard Wiseman, a critic of Sheldrake, is disingenuous, and uses this idea to rebut contradictions in his claims.[12]

I believe the questions to address are,

What to do about the influx of SPAs arriving from off-site canvassing;
What to do about persistent trolls.

Unless I am mistaken, AE was crafted to handle this kind of situation.

Going forward, I think the Sheldrake talk page should have something akin to Talk:Intelligent_design/Notes explaining that reverts and citations of policy are not meant to be rude or bullying. Perhaps this could be added to {{talk fringe}}. vzaak (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alfonzo Green

To understand this dispute, you need some background. Sheldrake's hypothesis of morphic resonance is based on philosopher Henri Bergson's idea that memory is a property of nature. Sheldrake sought to bring this idea into science by proposing a testable mechanism of natural memory. On the basis of similar form, current organisms resonate with previous organisms. Thus a human embryo develops properly because it resonates with previous human embryos, mimicking what its predecessors did at each stage of development. Accordingly, the developmental program is contained not in genes but in the composite of prior explications of embryogenesis, which is available to the current embryo via natural memory. If morphic resonance is real, it should measurably manifest not only in embryos but in adult behavior. Sheldrake has amassed evidence both from the historical record and recent experiments that seem to demonstrate the ability of organisms to gain knowledge from the experiences of previous similar organisms. One of these experiments is discussed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rupert_Sheldrake#Sheldrake_and_Steven_Rose

Right or wrong, the scientific status of morphic resonance is a simple fact. Those who attempt to deny this fact, such as John Maddox and Michael Shermer, represent a tiny fringe of opinion. The vast majority of secondary sources treat Sheldrake as a scientist and his hypothesis as scientific. By treating Sheldrake's work as pseudoscience, Wikipedia has allied itself with this fringe and allowed representatives of it to dominate the page and bully editors seeking to restore neutral POV on the basis of a wealth of secondary sources. JzG or "Guy" has gone so far as to file a complaint against the very editor who compiled this impressive dossier of source material. I can only surmise that Guy feels threatened by the facts.

Guy completely misunderstands the situation. "In the end, any article fully compliant with Wikipedia policy will accurately reflect the idea that Sheldrake is known primarily as an advocate of his nonsensical ideas of morphic resonance, which have virtually no currency outside his own work..." Yet a fully compliant article reflects secondary sources, the vast majority of which treat Sheldrake as a scientist with an unconventional hypothesis. The confusion arises over the fact that almost nobody agrees with him. The scientific community is nearly unanimous in proclaiming that morphic resonance is not real. That Sheldrake could be both wrong and scientific seems to short-circuit the judgment-forming capacity of certain editors. Guy and others just can't seem to grasp that a person can be wrong while nonetheless following the scientific method. What we have here is a failure to understand science. That a theory fails to conform to currently acceptable opinion doesn't make it unscientific.

Guy's emotional commitment is evident in the belittling tone he takes toward morphic resonance, which he calls "a pet theory that has no credible basis in fact... a crank theory... a conjecture as it does not meet the scientific definition of a theory." It's almost as if by saying it, he makes it true (though the secondary source material says otherwise). Barney the barney barney takes it a step further by inflicting the same tone on his fellow editors, accusing them of "Wikilawyering, combined with either stupidity, incompetence, or outright lies." Like Guy, Barney can't stand to be confronted with viewpoints at odds with his own. In Mangoe's complaint against me, Barney advocated banning me from "editing fringe articles, broadly construed, including talk pages." He also stated that I was only "the tip of the iceberg and that others will have to follow." Only when you've become emotionally wedded to a point of view is the presence of other views intolerable. The irritation is only enhanced when the opposition brings the facts to bear.

Please have a look at Iantresman's compilation of secondary sources, which is located at the bottom of this talk page section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake/Archive_14#Not_Pseudoscience.3F.3F.3F_Has_anybody_got_evidence_that_Shelly.27s_ideations_are_anything_but_Pseudoscientific.3F.

Mangoe's complaint is located here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive141#Alfonzo_Green

Thank you for considering this request. Alfonzo Green (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 74.192.84.101

I'm posting this, by copy-and-paste from my talk page, on behalf of a named party who cannot participate directly because this page is protected.David in DC (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge ArbCom to consider this case, because disagreement about the fundamental meaning of pillar two is the root of the constant content-disputes, the resulting frustrations for all concerned, and the repeated flareups of anti-pillar-four behavior that are caused thereby. Page is semi-prot against non-auto-confirmed editors.[13][14] Please see instead — User_talk:74.192.84.101#2013-12-01_RFAR.2C_statement_by_74.2C_concerning_Rupert_Sheldrake. Thanks. — User_talk:74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:45.678, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Liz

I should state that I am only peripherally involved in this Sheldrake article. In September/October, I noticed that disputes about this article were appearing on AN/I frequently so I went to the talk page to see what the contentious issues were and could immediately see a spirited feud between those editors who were skeptical and hostile to Sheldrake and those editors who were sympathetic or neutral about Sheldrake and his work.

My entire role was attempting to broker a conversation between these two camps but by doing this, my neutrality was questioned and was then lumped with the "POV-pushers". I have no opinion about Sheldrake and am not familiar with his ideas, I just tried to get those who are skeptical to see this article was primarily a biography and BLP should apply but they argue that an article on Sheldrake must include a discussion about his theories and include labeling them as "fringe". I should say that once someone is identified as a sympathizer to Sheldrake, they will find any edit to this article challenged.

I'm not sure if I would label it "bullying" but the vigilance which those who see themselves battling pseudoscience is almost like a crusade. It places an importance on a handful of articles that is disproportionate to their presence on Wikipedia. It is destructive because it doesn't allow for possibility that an editor could be neutral, it's a "with us or against us" mentality. Probably the worst behavior I saw was ARBCOM DS warnings placed on the talk pages of only those who were sympathetic to Sheldrake with the words that that editor would be blocked if they continued to edit as they had been doing. This is damaging because it gives the appearance that sanctions are applied to editors based on their point of view or opinions instead for disruptive conduct.

I agree that the information on Wikipedia should be objective, verifiable and reliably sourced. But I don't believe that there only exists a polarity between those who support science and those who are "POV-pushers" and who are "fringe". One can desire an objective, fair portrayal of a scholar whose ideas are not mainstream and not be a kooky, fringe thinker. And the fate of a handful of articles on Wikipedia does not determine the course of western civilization. The group of 4 or 5 editors who patrol this article as if the future of science depended on it need to loosen their grip. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Olive

I am for the for the most part uninvolved; I made one, maybe two comments regarding the general area of BLP and fringe and until I looked at this article/discussion had no knowledge of Sheldrake.

The issues here are much larger than sanctioning any group of editors:

Neutrality it seems to me must be based on the ongoing, uncovering of sources, the collaborative efforts of editors to determine how reliable the sources are and how and when to add that content and its sources to the article, creating balance and so neutrality. The adjustment of the checks and balances that create neutrality (weight) is a back and forth process that theoretically is unending.

A group of editors seem to have determined that neutrality is determined by drawing a solid, immoveable line based on editor perceptions of what is fringe to knowledge. Anyone who steps over that line is then categorized as non neutral. The mistake is in thinking neutrality is determined, established, and enforced based on the opinions of an editor or small group, is immoveable, and is the central most point in terms of content and sources. Its not, and in fact there is no central fixed point. Establishing some kind of line in the sand divides the content, sources, and the editors into camps on either side of the line with the "taken" permission to attack other editors. In one instance an editor discussed eliminating the so-called, fringe supporters one by one. While there is most certainly content and its sources that is fringe to the mainstream, what must be determined collaboratively is how much by weight of that content must be used if at all. Its about collaboration not about a rigid position determined by any one group or the other, and its about collaboration without attacks. One mistake in the foundation, a skewed central point, and we have a very shaky building.

We should be acting in a professional manner. Permission for name calling occurs on our talk pages, as in this article and in other BLP articles when the subject of the articles has been determined to be fringe-connected. Our talk pages are public. This isn't professional and frankly shames all of us, and the encyclopedia.

This is the third BLP article I'm aware of where the LP's own education and training has been overriden by an opinion that the article is a fringe article so content can be moved and added to reflect that position, while education can be downplayed or left out. We should expect those LPs to voice their concern off Wikipedia.

Why send this to AE? The DR system no longer works well in today's Wikipedia. AE is a left over from the Wikipedia wild West days- one editor, a badge, and a gun. With respect to the arbs for their service and work, and the AE admins who have a tough job, I think you are naive in thinking AE is fair. How is it that a single editor must judge the efforts of multiple editors as would happen on this article, may override those more knowledgable about the sitautions then they are, and that if sanctioned, there is no real appeal for editors. For example, editors have been reprimanded for asking arbs for help, (yes this is personal) where arbs don't answer questions, where diffs don't support evidence, and where arbs accept that evidence at face value. Wikipedia is a collabortaive project, with out the individual, there is no project. Deal with each and every editor fairly and in depth, and the project will thrive. Right now there are people on Wikipedia who feel hopeless in the face of what has been going on, on this and other articles. I've had emails from them. I suggest either dealing with the big issues here, or as jps says let the editors get back to work since there seems to be progress. In the meantime, one very fine editor David in DC has been chased away by some of the goings on this article. I don't know what the answers are beyond revamping the DR process, but there is wrong here, which will, and has impacted the encyclopedia, and it must be fixed.(olive (talk) 17:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by TheRedPenOfDoom

I have been named as a party and have been involved in the editing of the talk page and a little editing on the article itself. I have been on holiday and having computer issues which will likely limit my ability to participate actively in either of them or any action here for some time.

One thing that might help the situation would be a very strict application of TPG and the PS arb ruling to the talk page itself to keep it from its continual spiraling into nonsense. I dont know if that needs to come from a new specific ruling from the ArbCom or just from heavy moderation of the talk page under existing policies and rulings. but if it could prevent nonsense such as this [15] whereing Iantresman presents Rose as stating *"Granted its scientific" - Prof. Steven Rose.[16] as if Rose is supporting the scientific nature of Sheldrakes morphic resonance, when the actual sentence from the source is "Granted its scientific and philosophical implausibility it is worth asking why the Sheldrake hypothesis has continued to receive any publicity." that could only be an improvement. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:20, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Barleybannocks

I came to Wikipedia after hearing about the Sheldrake article problems and, having some familiarity with his work (I have a background in philosophy of mind, with a interest in scientific theories of mind) I thought it should be reasonably easy to improve the article. I was wrong. By simply not editing from the standpoint that Sheldrake is one of history's most reprehensible characters, I am now taken as a "Shekdrake fan" and true believer in everything he writes. And this "tarring" of anyone who doesn't despise Sheldrake is ubiquitous and relentless.

From this starting position, then, in the eyes of those who very much dislike Sheldrake, everything is permitted to rid the encyclopaedia of our presence. Thus, multiple over-the-top warnings are placed on our talk page at regular intervals (and edit warred back when we remove them - see the first 8 or so edits here [17]); clearly spurious interpretations of rules and guidelines are thrown at us with almost every post - sometimes with an offensive addition in the link/wording [18]; and editors openly discuss on their talk pages their intention to plan covert campaigns to drive us off [19].

This constant questioning of our motives, competence and intelligence (Iantresman's post above lists a small fraction of this type of activity [20]), and open discussion of planned covert actions, has made the editing environment very unfriendly to anyone not fiercely opposed to Sheldrake in every conceivable way. The comments above by Olive [21], Liz [22], David in DC [23], and Lou Sander [24] bear this out, I think, and demonstrate how few neutral editors will be willing to edit under these circumstances. Is that bullying? It's certainly something that isn't very good. Barleybannocks (talk) 12:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

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

Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <1/8/0/1>

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

The filling party requests an arbitration case in order to suppress the hostile, punitive atmosphere he perceives there to be around the article in question. It seems he may not be aware that arbitration inevitably creates such an atmosphere; it is Wikipedia's most abrasive process and frequently wrecks any chance for there to be a healthy, working relationship between affected editors. If the editors of this article are not working well together, bring in more editors (use a request for comment or formal mediation) and deal with misconduct decisively and promptly (use discretionary sanctions, as I explain below).
The committee has already ruled on how editors should contribute to pseudoscience articles. The contributors affected by this arbitration request should carefully review our Pseudoscience decision in order to understand how we expect them to behave. In terms of the specific article, Rupert Sheldrake, the community has ample experience in writing a balanced biography about somebody with beliefs such as the subject's; it is unnecessary for the committee to adjudicate this dispute. Editors who are unable to contribute in a constructive way, and particularly editors who fail to obtain or respect policy-driven consensus for edits about the subject's beliefs, can be dealt with at Arbitration Enforcement (AE) or by any administrator under the Pseudoscience standard discretionary sanctions. Decline and remand to usual enforcement mechanisms. AGK [•] 11:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. The article is already under ArbCom Sanctions, so if a user or group of users are seriously misbehaving then the matter can be raised at WP:AE, and the user or users can be sanctioned as appropriate. If agreement cannot be reached at AE, then the matter can be brought before the Committee. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline and refer to AE. $Salvio$ ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:43, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RS, WP:V, WP:FRINGE and the Pseudoscience case prohibit our reporting unsupported pseudoscience or fringe science as if it enjoyed wide acceptance. WP:BLP prohibits misusing the biographies of people with unconventional views as a locus for gratuitously disparaging them, as opposed to reporting with due weight the scholarly criticism of their views. This article needs to be edited with both of these points in mind. I'll await further statements but at this point I am sure not sure that an arbitration case would help here. (Also, the titles of case requests should be worded neutrally.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The consensus of "decline" votes seems understandable at this point, but I'd be open to a new request for a case if the current ANI thread or any forthcoming AE requests don't make headway in resolving the situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:54, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline as I don't see anything here that AE can't handle. Courcelles 16:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. T. Canens (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. It's pretty clear that despite the best efforts of a lot of administrators and editors from across the spectrum of the project, the arbitration enforcement provisions aren't working terribly well here, nor are the discretionary sanctions. Risker (talk) 02:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Am undecided here at present. If this is a case of an article being poorly managed by editors and administrators, with those editors who are trying to provide a fresh perspective being driven away by being labelled WP:FRINGE supporters, that is a cause for concern (that has happened in the past in such topic areas). Equally, if the BLP concerns Newyorkbrad mentions are being ignored, that is also a cause for concern. But if there is a posse of SPAs consistently advocating for a certain POV on this article, that also needs looking at. Am leaning towards acceptance, but before deciding I would like to hear from those named in this request who have not commented so far. Carcharoth (talk) 06:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Decline - a bit more time (weeks to months, not days) is needed to see if this can be resolved at lower levels of dispute resolution, though I might accept a well-framed and coherent request at a later date if continuing efforts at dispute resolution fail. Am still interested in hearing from those who haven't commented so far, but the request shouldn't be held open indefinitely for that alone. Carcharoth (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline: If there are clear examples, supported by good evidence, identifying specific editors and/or administrators then this can and should be handled at AE. If there are none of these things, it is currently too nebulous for a case. Roger Davies ^talk 18:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Iantresman If you believe you have sufficient material to establish that specified editors have engaged in bullying, please take it to WP:AE. Roger Davies ^talk 08:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Decline: I don't think that arbitration would solve the issues here; the principles and remedies established in pseudoscience don't seem to be modified, even regarding BLPs (which have been hased out in numerous other more recent cases.) Arbitration can't do much else to brighten those lines at this point. AE seems like a more immediate and effective option. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]