Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Evidence

"users should note that this issue has already been dealt with in an action against said user"
Perfectblue, I'm not sure what you mean by this. The issues and examples I listed have already been discussed, and there has been clear consensus that Martinphi has violated these policies. But user RfC is really just a way for other editors to comment on behavour and make suggestions to improve it, and Martin has made it clear that he intends to ignore those suggestions. Because of that, the issues are unresolved, which is a major reason we are at arbcom now. They have not been dealt with, I hope arbcom does take whatever action is necessary to deal with the disruptive behavour. --Minderbinder 13:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * What do mean by "consensus"? There were clearly a lot of people critical at the RfC but there were also many in support of Martin. There was also a point of fact found out, which was that many of those critical of Martin misinterpreted a rule which said "not rejected" and claimed that it actually meant "rejected". In such clear cases of fact, appeal to majority opinion (even consensus) is worthless.Davkal 14:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * While RfC is not a vote, in terms of sheer numbers many more editors were in agreement with the items listed than in agreement with the defenses of Martinphi. But the main point is that the issues listed certainly aren't "dealt with" and still need to be looked at, and actions considered, by the Arb committee.  --Minderbinder 14:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Minderbinder. Martinphi has been anything but "dealt with". Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"skeptic's club"
Tom, you continue to make accusations about WikiProject Rational Skepticism, but you have made no mention of WikiProject Paranormal, which seems to be the counterpart but editing from a more pro-paranormal point of view (I guess in the spirit of fairness you'd call it something like the "paranormalists club"?). And yes, I realize that their goals don't actually state that POV, but there are plenty of examples of that POV in the edits made by members and comments made on the project talk page, not to mention much attitude of "us versus them" and failure to assume good faith. This has even included discussion about kicking people out of the wikiproject for not following the unstated POV goals.

I am concerned that there are two wikiprojects covering largely the same articles but with different goals. I'd certainly agree that improvements can be made in both cases. This is beyond the scope of this arbcom, but I'd even suggest that it might be a good idea to merge the two projects to make them based on topics and not on advocacy, as well as keeping either from being a tool for canvassing. But in the meantime, are you unaware of WPParanormal, or are you just ignoring it because it weakens your argument? And at least could you use the real name of the organization instead of giving nicknames? --Minderbinder 13:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * As a member of both projects I have to say that the suggestion of merging the two seems like a good idea to me. We might also consider merging WikiProject Pseudoscience and  WikiProject Alternative Views as well. Maybe into something like a  WikiProject Fringe theories which would handle content relevant to WP:FRINGE. --ScienceApologist 13:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This would be a good outcome. WikiProject should be created by topic, not by faction. But there is a problem of not completely overlapping coverage. For a parallel: While editing Baptism, WikiProject Charismatic Christianity and WikiProject Catholicism may be tempted to work as factions, but nevertheless they cannot be simply merged. --Pjacobi 14:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I was about to suggest article collaboration projects involving both groups, however, I think the merging of the two (WPP and WPRS) projects is a VERY good idea as it would remove a source of polarization that has occurred in the recent past. - LuckyLouie 16:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I have been aware of the categorization of "paranormal" subjects, I have complained about it and I think it is a mistake. I also complained about it in my comments here. I do not see any organization behind it, as I see with the Wikipedia Skeptics. I also know that people are using the amateur definition of parapsychologist (ghost hunter) rather than academic definition (studies unusual human potential) when they are trying to cast things like EVP under that category. But neither the paranormal project or the categorization of parapsychology produce misinformation that takes the reader in an unsupported direction. If there was not so much grief coming from the skeptics, I would be working harder to eliminate both. Neither side is without sin.


 * I sort of hit a wall with the two names, "WikiProject Rational Skepticism" and "Scientific Skepticism." "Rational" is much too exalted for how it is being used here. I have not seen much evidence that people are being rational here when it comes to dealing with data. It also smacks of "The Peoples Army." How can you justify a term that essentially says everyone else is irrational? Perhaps I can compromise and refer to it as the WPRP.


 * Minderbinder, any suggestion that might change the atmosphere here is a good one. Changing names is not going to change people's agenda or combative habits--at least not at first. But if a new viewpoint can be agreed on and codified on a page which we can ask errant editors to go read, then perhaps it might work. If I understand your suggestion correctly, "... merge the two projects to make them based on topics and not on advocacy, ..." would mean that we would agree on a case-by-case basis that subjects fall within the new project.


 * The Devil is in the definition of how doing that would change the way an article is written. You know I am advocating a "say only what you know" approach. I have yet to read a scholastic dictionary that defines a word and then editorializes about it with terms like "alleged," and "proponents claim." Perhaps a recommendation could be made on the project page for an encyclopedic version of how dictionaries deal with words.


 * Interesting suggestion. I would certainly support the initiative.


 * I might also suggest a tag that says something like: "This article has been written in terms used by those who practice, study and/or believe in this subject. It is not the intention of Wikipedia to endorse the subject, only to explain to the reader what the subject is describe to be." Perhaps with that, we can eliminate characterization. Tom Butler 16:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see that your comments address the double standard of you complaining about WPRS but not even mentioning WPParanormal.
 * And I don't know what dictionary you're reading that doesn't have qualifiers - looking up the topics mentioned here in mainstream dictionaries, many definitions include qualifiers like "held to be", "apparently", "claiming to be", "believed to", and yes, even "alleged". "medium: a person through whom the spirits of the dead are alleged to be able to contact the living."

As usual, you are not reading my comments. I will say one more time that I have expressed a problem with the paranormal project. However, virtually all of the grievance about them I have heard your side express can be explained as a small group up against the wall trying to get a rational and NPOV article out of the skeptics. I cannot fault that.

American Heritage Dictionary: mediums. A person thought to have the power to communicate with the spirits of the dead or with agents of another world or dimension. Also called psychic. They have it wrong about the "psychic" stuff, but the qualifier "thought to be" is literally correct. Perhaps your online dictionary is about as trustworthy as Wikipedia.

Since I am not going to denounce whatever you think the "proponents" are doing, and since I have not seen any evidence that your side feels any remorse about our complaints--or inclination to change--, I will have to assume that the preceding discussion about a new cooperative project is not viable. I can see no reason to simply move the same argument under a different flag so count me out. Tom Butler 19:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As martinphi has done, now you claim that mainstream dictionaries aren't trustworthy. If you have discussed WP Paranormal, I haven't seen it - you certainly haven't mentioned them at all here.  You seem to be offended that a project made up of skeptics even exists at all, but if that's the case I'm not sure why you're not equally offended by a project made up of proponents.  Other than the fact that the other group tends to agree with your POV more often, of course.  --Minderbinder 19:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I took a side?
User:ScienceApologist said I have taken the pro-paranormal-editors side and I am biased in this arbitration. I have posted a subsection in my evidence section to indicate this is not true, what I did is only exposing some of the misbehaviors done by some skeptic editors, nothing is really wrong with that. WooyiTalk, Editor review 19:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * How about now showing your balance by exposing the worst behaviours on the paranormal side? &mdash; BillC talk 19:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. If Wooyi professes to be neutral, I find his comments about the truthfulness of psychic power somewhat confusing. - LuckyLouie 19:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Martinphi's evidence and self-analysis
 Simões  ( talk/contribs ) 05:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Compromise, in the context of Wikipedia, is the act of working out&mdash;on a talk page&mdash;an agreeable version of some article content. It is not repeatedly changing the exact same phrase/sentence/paragraph, contra-consensus, on the questionable hunch that the new edit (but none of the ones before it) will please everyone.
 * 2) Whoever sent Martinphi the message expanded my construal of WP:3RR beyond anything I ever thought of. All Martinphi's edits during this new edit war were changes to a single sentence, each one undoing the most-previous edit. This easily falls within the scope of WP:3RR, and each day people get blocked for doing precisely this. It is also not "unfair" that the other two editors had enough sense to not continue reverting before traipsing into 3RR territory. Reading motive into a collection of diffs doesn't establish that JoshuaZ and Minderbinder were attempting to sneakily avoid policy violations. What it does establish is that Martinphi, all by his lonesome, was continually editing a particular sentence for an extended time despite opposition from multiple editors.
 * I'd like to thank martin for a good example of the extent to which he is willing to wikilawyer. --Minderbinder 12:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Simoes, what specifically are you citing with number one? Also, there was nothing wrong at IONS except that the other editors didn't seem to be trying to find consensus, but kept reverting to the same version instead of trying to find a better compromise version.  This is an example of the normal failure of these editors to attempt to find consensus.  Except for this, which was edit warring, things were merely being worked out, through trying out different edits, and discussion through the summaries.  Things were not entirly out of hand till Minderbinder saw fit to file a bogus 3RR report, as if I was the one reverting. Please tell me where you got number one.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 18:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you were truly interested in finding a consensus wording, why didn't you just make a proposal on the talk page when it became obvious that other editors didn't agree with you, instead of edit warring (which is what the admin who handled the "bogus" 3rr report called it)? --Minderbinder 18:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I was trying different things every time, it never became apparent. You and JoshuaZ were the ones reverting to the same version (that's called edit warring).  If you were truly interested in finding a compromise wording, and were, so to speak "edit warring in good faith," why didn't you explain your reverts on the talk page?  I was editing in accordance with this philosophy.  What philosophy were you using in your reverts and in your bogus report?


 * I await Simoes explanation of number one above.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer the question. Why didn't you propose a new wording on the talk page instead of edit warring?  --Minderbinder 20:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I answered the question you asked the first time. See first line above.  Your most recent question is a logical  fallacy called "Assuming the antecedent" (which, FYI, is a fallacy often used by lawyers to try to trip up a witness- "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?").  Please re-phrase in a valid form.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The first question is referring to your claim that you were seeking a compromise by changing a single sentence every time after your previous change was reverted.
 * The fallacy to which you're referring is called a leading question in law. As a fallacy, it's called a loaded question. There's no such fallacy as "assuming the antecedent." But regardless of that, how, exactly, is Minderbinder committing a fallacy of any sort here?  Simões  ( talk/contribs ) 22:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My philosophy teacher taught it to us as "assuming the antecedent." You are wrong about the fallacy not being called "assuming the antecedent. You're right that it is also called a loaded question.  But fallacies often have more than one name.

Thus, this is a good example of unscientific -illogical- skeptical thinking: you wish to deny the existence, rather than question the evidence. That is the definition of a pseudoskeptic, and why Truzzi invented the term. And if you can't see that Minderbinder used a loaded question, even with the explanation above, I think you really need to brush up on logic.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You still haven't answered the question, and I'm not really interested in your discussion on logic. Why didn't you just propose a new wording on the talk page?  Please answer.  --Minderbinder 22:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't answer fallacious questions. Don't you care that it was a fallacy? If you don't, I seriously question your good faith in asking.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The bit you quoted says "The logical fallacy is the fallacy of the undistributed middle or the fallacy of assuming the antecedent is true because the consequence has been affirmed " (emphasis mine). This is the affirmation of the consequent fallacy. It has to do with conditionals ("if ..., then..."), not questions (and is not also called "assuming the antecedent"). If your philosophy teacher taught you otherwise, he/she is wrong (but I doubt he/she taught you that). You won't even find any google hits calling it that. So you can't possibly mean this. If you're going to use pedantics to avoid answering questions, get it right and be explicit. Now, what false assumption is Minderbinder's question making that renders it loaded? The sooner you can do this, the sooner he can have a question you're willing to answer.  Simões  ( talk/contribs ) 23:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I can answer this one -- without speaking for Martinphi and just as a general rant against both sides of the dispute (including Martinphi's side). The answer is because no one ever does! : ) This is my biggest frustration in these articles. Editors tag them, or outright revert them, or simply critique them, or tell you what's wrong with them, but rarely does anyone ever offer suggestions for improvement or wordings they'd be comfortable with. Both sides are guilty of this, but the pattern has been (paraphrased):

"I dispute this." - First side

"What's wrong with it?" - Other side

"[Insert reasons]" - First side

"Well, how would you word it?" - Other side

"You figure it out and I'll let you know." - First side

-- Nealparr  (talk to me) 23:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess you're right that this sometimes happens. It also merely seems to happen when what is really going on is:

"I dispute this." - First side

"What's wrong with it?" - Other side

"[Insert reasons]" - First side

"Well, how would you word it?" - Other side

"There isn't any way to fix it as far as I know; I'm just going through the process of gettin rid of it." - First side  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is sometimes the best solution for dealing with problematic content. Not every bad sentence is salvagable; consider, for example, sentences which are simply false and unattributed. You have still yet to answer Mindbinder's question. As a reminder: Why didn't you propose a new wording on the talk page instead of edit warring? If disagree that you were edit warring (though I'm reminded of perfectblue's insistence that "it takes two to edit war": if you're accusing someone of edit warring with you, you're also confessing to edit warring yourself), then ignore that part and read it as this: Why didn't you propose a new wording on the talk page instead of changing the wording multiple times, each in different ways?  Simões  ( talk/contribs ) 00:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * No, one person can be editing, while another is edit warring, as explained in evidence. The Arbitrators are too smart for these arguments, Simoes.  To answer your question, I'll quote my answer above, which answer comes directly from the evidence page: "I was editing in accordance with this philosophy."  What philosophy were Minderbinder and JoshuaZ and Wikidudeman using in their reverts?  My question still hasn't been answered.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting concept of a war. But I take it you're saying that Perfectblue and I not clever enough to hoodwink the arbitrators. Keep on adding to the pile at your leisure.  Simões  ( talk/contribs ) 00:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, if the arbitrators are reading this, they should note I also have to deal with incivility (what kind of "pile" is he talking about?). Please also note that he assumed that I thought Perfectblue was trying to "hoodwink the arbitrators." He also assumed that I though he was trying to "hoodwink" the arbitrators- whereas I might have been merely assuming that his arguments were bad. I haven't had an answer to my question yet.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Still, his assumption wasn't entirly off-base, to be fair. When I said "the Arbitrators are too smart for these arguments, Simoes," I did wonder why a graduate student in philosophy would be making or sanctioning them- not to mention ignoring arguments and evidence (mine and anon).  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about this pile. What you're doing now is something I'd expect from Davkal.  Simões  ( talk/contribs ) 01:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm proud of a lot of that. As long as the Arbitrators judge me on my diffs, and consider my arguments, I'm happy.


 * You're making assumptions again. That seems to be a theme here.  I'm not going to give you a hint.


 * If you believe that what Perfectblue said "it takes two to edit war" is true, then will you admit the other editors were edit warring? If you don't, then do you admit that one person can be editing while others are edit warring?  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:43, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It's entirely possible for one editor to be edit-warring and for one or more editors to be reverting those unilateral changes - to try to maintain the consensus version of an article, for example. SheffieldSteel 04:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In this case, the text started with:


 * "The Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) is an unaccredited group that attempts to use scientific research to understand alleged paranormal phenomena such as telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis and 'mind-body health' such as the effects of meditation. 'Noetic' is derived from the Greek 'nous,' meaning 'intuitive ways of knowing.'"


 * Not neutral at all.


 * So what was Martinphi's edit that was so bad it needed to be reverted to the above?


 * "The Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) that which supports and conducts research concerning consciousness and its potentials paranormal phenomena such as telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis and 'mind-body health' such as the effects of meditation. 'Noetic' is derived from the Greek 'nous,' meaning 'intuitive ways of knowing.'"


 * I don't always agree with Martinphi, but come on, aren't editors getting just a little too revert-happy?
 * -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 05:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The above is a bit of a one-sided view. You not only left out the activity by User:DRadin that led up to that particular version, , but you failed to note that Martin's deletion of "unaccredited" was accepted by JoshuaZ. However the additional claims of research Martin added were not agreed to  and disputed . It was because of this "research" claim that the edit warring began, and not because Martin was trying to uphold NPOV. - LuckyLouie 06:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the analysis that User:DRadin led up to the article's wording, but I fail to see how that's relevant to Martinphi's attempt to fix it and the subsequent rejection of his more neutral edits in favor of wording that isn't neutral. Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with Martinphi's edits in many cases, but I also believe in fairness. In this particular case, if he didn't think he was "reverting" but instead thought he was trying to "reach a compromise", what's so bad about that? I don't think it's fair to consider this particular series of edits as just another example of Martinphi being disruptive. I understand that the admin called them reverts, but I can also see how a busy admin might not have looked at them closely. Some of these reverts incorporated the other editor's points and some of their edits incorporated Martinphi's points. That sort of seems like trying to reach a compromise, or at least I can see how Martinphi might have considered it to be that.
 * -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 19:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Explaination of evidence of SA's removal
Precedent for removing ScienceApologist from wikiproject paranormal. His "evidence" at Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Evidence lack this information ...

From wikiproject pseudoscience ....


 * 12:11, 23 December 2005 Christopher Thomas (Talk | contribs) ((rv) Removed User:Reddi's sig. You've had three project members object to your presence on this project, and nobody speak up to support it. Consensus view is that you're not a member.)
 * 1) (cur) (last) 12:08, 23 December 2005 Reddi (Talk | contribs) (→Participants - sig again)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 05:52, 23 December 2005 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) m (→Participants - rm Reddi again)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 20:19, 21 December 2005 Reddi (Talk | contribs) m (→Participants - sig)
 * 4) (cur) (last) 17:13, 20 December 2005 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) (→Participants - rm Reddi. Don't be silly)
 * 5) (cur) (last) 16:49, 20 December 2005 Reddi (Talk | contribs) (don't remove my name WMC!)
 * 6) (cur) (last) 16:40, 20 December 2005 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) m (→Participants - rm Reddi. Don't be silly)

J. D. Redding 12:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * How can a project be exclusive? If someone works on Paranormal articles they should be able to be part of that project. If a project is exclusive and excludes specific people then I don't believe it should be allowed to be a project. Wikidudeman  (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)