Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed decision

Arbitrators active on this case

 * Charles Matthews
 * FloNight
 * Fred Bauder
 * Jdforrester
 * Jpgordon
 * Kirill Lokshin
 * Morven
 * Paul August
 * SimonP
 * UninvitedCompany

Inactive/away
 * Blnguyen
 * Flcelloguy
 * Mackensen
 * Neutrality
 * Raul654

"aggressive editing"
Given that Fred Bauder himself has said that parapsychology is an "obvious pseudoscience," I am honestly confused as to why he would think something like this is "aggressive." And this isn't even touching the fact that my edit was a simple cleanup of what Fred agrees was a WP:POINT violation by Martinphi.  Simões  ( talk/contribs ) 01:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Parapsychology is what I call faith-based science. However it's still a branch of psychology. And frankly behaviorism, which made such a noise about being scientifically limited to what is observable, had its faith-based elements too, being a sort of monastic discipline sequestered from the messy realities of human experience. Fred Bauder 15:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Outside of our resident parapsychology enthusiasts, you're alone on the subdiscipline issue. All reliable outside sources do not consider it a subdiscipline. And behaviorism has been out of vogue for over forty years. But all this aside, why are you considering what I did aggressive?  Simões  ( talk/contribs ) 17:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I expect more from you. Fred Bauder 17:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm just a mostly-lurking observer here, but I feel compelled to note that that isn't an answer. I expect more from an Arbitration Committee member. RedSpruce 20:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Simply dismissing it as "pseudoscience" is aggressive. Fred Bauder 14:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * And what about "obvious pseudoscience"?  Simões  ( talk/contribs ) 15:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's it. It is not obvious. On its face it looks scientific and parts of it are. Fred Bauder 18:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * But you said it was obvious pseudoscience! Are you now deciding to contradict yourself?--ScienceApologist 18:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Parapsychology is not an obvious pseudoscience. Fred Bauder 18:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So you were wrong before? How did you figure that out? And what makes you so sure of yourself? --ScienceApologist 20:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I investigated the matter more fully. Fred Bauder 13:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Y'all might be interested in this. Can't an arbitrator change his mind?

Has no one seen the other evidence of agressive editing I inserted in the evidence page?  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * A random click on one shows nothing but appropriate editing. By aggressive I meant aggressive biased editing, not merely bold. We approve of that. Fred Bauder 13:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, dude, if you only click on one of the links, instead of following the story, you're not gonna get the story. I even included one or two good edits, just to show that he wasn't all bad.  What do you expect?  All negative all the time?  Zero context?  Get someone else to assemble the evidence.  Try this one, where he takes out loads of stuff without even citation requests on it.  I later cited most of it, if I correctly remember.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the edit I mentioned in the comment Fred randomly selected (wups!). What's more, you've championed that very editing practice, even going so far as to point out that you learned it from me. WP:CITE legitimizes the practice, so you're going to have a hard time arguing that it's disruptive.  Simões  ( talk/contribs ) 20:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I put in citation requests first, and then wait for a while, before axing everything. You didn't even like that very much in the List article.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Comments on Dean Radin
Comments about Dean Radin on my Kazuba user page are based on documented sources and facts. My sources are plainly listed. I welcome anyone to examine them for their content. If I have made errors I will gladly delete or correct them. I love to research things well. I have explained that the Radin material exists ONLY on my user page because anything critical about Dean Radin is removed from his entry page with the flimest of excuses. This material is not biographical, Radin broomed from UNLV, (that was Martinphi), or this is insignificant information, Radin and his explanation of the Indian rope trick, (again Mr. Martinphi) or you are trying to smear his reputation. I have also tried to explain I have nothing personal against Mr. Radin. He is what he is. At the the least he is colorful. I've pretty well explained myself on my user page. As I have said I am no master of words. It is interesting if Mr. Radin says he is curious scientist he is praised. But when I say I am a curious grunt that is not okay. Kazuba 03:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you are focusing intently on another Wikipedia user, both on your user page and in your editing of the article. Fred Bauder 14:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Kazuba It would seem only logical the Dean Radin entry on the Wikipedia focuses on Dean Radin. Who else would it be about? I am ordered to stay away and not research Radin to the best of my ability and show my results ANYWHERE because Radin is a Wiki user ? Therefore, he is not to be historically investigated like anyone else? He has celebrity immunity? Sounds like book burning to me.Use:Kazuba 08 Jun 07

Kazuba
15) 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.

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.

This is what we are talking about. Just don't overdo it in the way you have in the past. He's an editor in good standing, not a snake. Fred Bauder 18:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Kazuba Many of the criticisms raised by Mr. Radin on his user page pertain to outdated revised materials formerly on my user page. Radin has not kept up to date with my latest user page revisions.(I claim the right to change my mind if new evidence is discovered). I agree with you Mr. Radin is not a snake, but from what I have observed his honesty, selectivity as is his own claimed personal PK abilities are questionable. As for Mr. Radin's own valuable comments; he prefers to make himself, his work, his cronies, and even J. Z. Knight look good. I am honored that he found me a troublesome editor. Perhaps I've lowered his credibility, book sales and lecture fees. Possibly this is what this complaint is all about. Over and out.User:Kazuba 08 Jun 07
 * Wikipedia does not offer resolution of the issues you raise. If he reports a spoon grew soft and he bent it that's good, as an interesting fact (not that any spoon was bent, but that he reported it). That such claims cast doubt on his integrity is also good, as an interesting fact. These things need to presented in the article on him, in a sober conservative way, not presented as part of a personal campaign against him. That is where you are going wrong. Fred Bauder 13:39, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Kazuba I don't know how many times I must repeat this; I am not attacking Mr. Radin. It seems to me if I were attacking someone I would be feeling some kind of emotional fervor. Ho-hum, I am not. I am merely recording and exploring historical events. Things Radin has said and wrote, things he has done, and historical events in which he has been involved, to the best of my abilities. A critical examination is more like it. Attempts WERE made to place these items as SOBERLY as I know how in the article on him, but they were ALWAYS removed. If someone did not not like my tone they could have edited my statements, rather than remove them. I'll take all the help I can get. As mentioned some of the favorite deleting excuses were: you are attempting to smear him, this material is irrevelant, and possibly the best one, again by, big Radin fan, Martinphi: information concerning Radin's research does NOT belong in HIS BIOGRAPHY. Say what? Where does it belong? Do me a favor Fred go read my exchanges with others, including Mr. Radin, on the Dean Radin discussion page. Do I seem to be excited or calm? How does Mr. Radin come across? Is it paranoia? (By the way Fred, you forgot Mr. Radin's other PSI ability, his mental control of falling dice). Here, to end this I'll make everyone happy. If you guys feel I have done anything truly wrong or dishonest I apologize and it won't happen again. User:Kazuba 9 Jun 07.


 * The article grew highly biased, with a lot of criticism and controversy. It would have been slanted even for an article, but for a bio it wasn't right.  A Wikipedia bio just isn't the place for all this.  A private website would be.  And remember you have to have RS sources- and I doubt you will find one which says "Radin reported a bent spoon.  Bent spoons are known not to occur.  Therefore, Radin is a liar." Or some such.  I never said that about his research.  What I may have said, was that his bio is about the man primarily, not his research results, nor criticism thereof.  Criticism/controversy belongs in the bio.  As a side dish or desert, not the main course. You were overdoing it- and I'd say the same thing about someone I disliked.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Go look at other bios. They don't ususally have criticism sections.  Look at Randi's, how small the criticism is relative to the article.  Treat Radin like anyone else.  Or go and expand the criticism section of your personal friend James Randi, till it takes up half the article (Yes, Kazuba knows Randi).  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:34, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Kazuba WOW! Criticism and controversy does belong in a bio. Especially within the field of parapsychology. Things can easily go overboard. Take a look at a biography of Walter Franklin Prince, Joseph Rhine, Joseph Rinn or Harry Houdini. Yeah, I guess James Randi and I go back a long way. It began with me seeking the correct scientific explanation for Kirlian photography. We communicate with each other once in a while. Usually I start it. Even though he asked my wife whether or not I was insane, he had never had met anyone like me. Martin Gardner understood a curiosity like mine, but not James Randi. Most others I have met have the same problem. "Kazuba, I just don't understand you." If Randi is my friend I am honored. If it wasn't for Randi Uri Geller would still be a star in the parapsychology labs and Project Alpha would never have taken place. Randi is not noted for his interest in history even within the conjuring world, but he is noted for his ethics. That's a goal for any man, magician or not, to shoot for. Milbourne Christopher was a historian and friend I never got to meet.User:Kazuba 10 Jun 2007


 * Yeah, Kazuba, I do kind of understand you, which is why I like you. I just think that we should cut Radin -and anyone else- some slack in their bio.  Yeah, look at Houdini.  He doesn't even have a controversy section, and he's dead. Yes, controversy, but not a lot of criticism that makes people look bad.  And you can't name other people involved in the paranormal as examples of how a bio should be written, because they are likely to be mis-written the same way Radin's used to be.  Note that even Rhine's criticism section is small compared to the rest of it.  I really really think you should have your own website.  It could be free, or only cost 3 or 4 bucks a month.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Kazuba ''Honest criticism is the father of improvement. Humanity learns from its mistakes''. You take this PSI stuff too seriously. It ain't worth it. Go out dancing. Enjoy the moment. Read a Carl Hiaasen book and learn to have fun again. In a few moments I'm going to sit down and read Jeffery Deaver's The Devil's Teardrop to my wife. It gives her great pleasure. Just a minute ago I ran around outside with my grandchild. We chased each other with squirt guns and laughed. Enjoy your life, now! User:Kazuba 10 Jun 07


 * Yeah you too, Kazuba. That's why people think you're crazy, and that's why I like you.  You take this history stuff too seriously.  We have only the moment. (=  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Kazuba 14:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Martin you missed it. It is important that the study of history be taken very seriously. Those who do not study history remain as children.

Reverting
Although I'll be doing little editing of Wikipedia in the future, I'd like to register my consternation that the paranormal articles are being handed over to the skeptics, who have many more occasional editors. Reverting the occasional editors who insert unfounded bias into the articles is necessary. It would be much much better (if you have to do this at all) to say that frequent editors of the paranormal get only one rv a week against each other.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Just as a small example, this edit, removed by Nealparr. It isn't skeptically biased, but it is an example of what needs reverting very very often. The articles simply can't do without reversion!  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The revert parole is an experimental remedy. In the case of the cited edit, cleaned of the misspellings, it is not that remarkable. Fred Bauder 13:42, 9 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But many of those kinds of edits, where you take out something which a good faith -but uninformed- editor inserted, would count as reverts. That's the problem.  And how do we know what's really going to  be counted as a revert?  Minderbinder and others have admin friends- and you know he's going to report you.  Maybe some of the "paranormalists" have admin friends.  We'd just never be able to change things, if it meant taking out another editor's stuff.   Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:26, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The three-revert rule already contains plenty of exceptions and protections, intended to protect any good-faith editor who's merely maintaining the quality of the article against random noise edits. My suggestion for the "revert parole" idea is that, to be fair and workable, it should be defined not "from scratch" but as an extension of the existing 3RR: the 3 changes to a 1, and the day to a week. SheffieldSteel 14:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Perfectblue
You seem to have it wrong with regard to at least one point concerning Perfectblue97. "Scum of the Universe" is the tag line from the movie "Men in Black" and the Mission Statement from "Men in Black II". The character on prefect's page is dressed as a "Man in Black" from the movie (it's an anime type charicter). This isn't being uncivil, it's a linking of the Wikipedia-tan character with Men in Black. This is not incivility, it's pop culture.

Also, the puzzlement over what is covered in parapsychology is genuine. EVP is in fact studied by parapsychologists sometimes, as a concrete example, by David Fontana. We were both genuinely debating how to apply "parapsychology" to articles. This was not misuse, because it is genuinely debatable.

And also, Perfectblue in this edit isn't talking about reliable sources relative to science, but reliable sources relative to pop culture. So really anything popular would do fine. The debate here was not science, but notability, and the sources, again, are fine for that.

I think you're being really unfair to Perfectblue.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's some links to the tag line, so you can check out the "scum of the universe" thing:

  Large image:  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

She originally had the phrase linked to the article on "what is a troll": 

More proof that she meant it as a MIB character, where she describes her inspiration for the character: 

It's interesting to note that none of the editors who objected to it mentioned anything about the "scum of the universe" tagline, it doesn't appear to have offended anyone or been thought of as something that attacked the skeptics.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't understand the MIB connection until you "explained" it, and Fred didn't either. I'm sure many others would take it the wrong way, too. My opinion: it's a rather poor cultural pun, and needlessly antagonistic. She should voluntarily remove the controversial slogan. --- LuckyLouie 17:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, Fred, you have erroneously attributed one of Martinphi's edits to PerfectBlue here in ref #3. --- LuckyLouie 17:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You're correct that it's my edit on Perfectblue's talk page- we were trying to figure out the correct position of parapsychology for Wikipedia articles, and this is a legitimate discussion which this ArbCom should settle.

But the main point is that it should be obvious to anyone who knows about the movies “Men in Black” and “Men in Black II” that this was not Perfectblue “engaging in incivility toward other editors with respect to the paranormal.”

Wikipedians should be able to make cultural references, even if they sound antagonistic on the surface, if a proper understanding reveals that they are not personal attacks. That’s what the explanation was meant to convey. Perfectblue was not intentionally “needlessly antagonistic”. The link to MIB was clearly indicated on the Wikiproject Paranormal talk page where she introduced the character:, she says "I've also been inspired by the totally excellent MIB-Wikipe-tan so very kindly designed by Kasuga and have drawn a project mascot for us."

If you click on the image, you go, where it says the following:

Wikipe-tan, a moe anthropomorphization of Wikipedia, similar in theme to an OS-tan. In Japanese animation, "moe" characters are those designed to elicit a protective or loving response from the audience. Moe anthropomorphism is a form of anthropomorphism where moé qualities are given to non-human beings, objects, concepts, or phenomena. Like many moe characters, Wikipe-tan is designed to be a cute young girl.

Wikipe-tan first appeared in the Futaba Channel on an unspecified date, drawn by Japanese Wikipedia user Kasuga. She is drawn in the "anime style" seen in many animations in Japan. Wikipe-tan is shown here dressed as a (Wo)man in Black, the symbol in her hair is a Chinese character which the author deemed appropriate for Wikipe-tan's new guise.

Get that about "protective or loving response"? No on can misinterpret this as a personal attack except willfully, by failing to follow the link and AGF. To take this as a personal attack in an ArbCom decission may even be akin to cultural discrimination, not to mention cultural outofitness.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Somehow I still feel like I'm being called "the scum of the universe." And not to make a point too bluntly, but your mom's a fucking bitch.  Simões  ( talk/contribs ) 02:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, Simoes, but even if PerfectBlue was talking about you, and there is no reason to believe that she was -I believe she originally had the quotation linked to the WP:TROLL page-


 * What you just did...


 * Was aimed directly at my own mother.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

PerfectBlue's response
OK, would the editor please do me the courtesy of not referring to me as "he", I have made this point a couple of times before before. Secondly, it is considered polite to notify the user when a proposal is made against them so that they may defend themselves.

Now, down to business #1 firstly it should be noted that the link does not in actual fact point towards a Wikipedia entry and it does not constitute a list of what I consider to be reliable sources. It was a comment made on an Afd in which it was claimed that a subject was not notable because there was very little information about it available. In response I provided a list of books all referencing the subject. Secondly, all of the sources clearly demonstrate the sociological and pop cultural existence of the topic and were not put forward as proof of concept not proof of science. #2, parapsychology is a definable field which has definable terminology. It is therefore perfectly reasonable to attribute the meaning of a parapsychologies term to parapsychology. In fact, under Wikipedia regulations attribution of such things is often required. #3 This edit was made by a BOT, I was not involved. #4 As stated above, this was my user page, upon which I had an image that was inspired by the pop culture image of the Men in Black which included a quotation based on the tag line from the movie Men in Black. This is an acceptable form of reference and parody. I would also like it to be noted that the section of text must be taken in context, including the fact that it was included on a page that made not attacks against any user or group of user, placed no aspersions on anybody, and which was themed and made tongue in cheek references to various aspects of the paranormal and paranormal belief. When taken in this context it is clear to see that there was no intent of attack or incivility behind the text.


 * perfectblue 17:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't forget...
Arbitrators, Please don't forget to add [] and [] to the "Proposed decision" area for arbitrators to vote on. This area []. Martinphi and Davkal are the main focus of this arbitration and the person who initiated it. I would hate to see their frequent violations of policy be overlooked because it was never nominated to be voted for. Also please add [] and []. Thanks. Wikidudeman  (talk) 11:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I would like to question why I am being classified similarly to Martinphi, Davkal, and Tom Butler. Between them, former have been cited and/or sanctioned multiple times for civility 3RR COI and so on, whereas the worst that I have been accused of is annoying skeptics. - perfectblue 12:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Perfectblue. In all my brief dealings with Wiki editors, she has been one of the most determined to represent paranormal in a neutral light. I was surprised to see Fred Bauder post charges against her and then follow them up with such vigor. Banning her at all puts an explanation point on my contention that Fred is not neutral in these proceedings. Tom Butler 17:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't remember mentioning your name. Wikidudeman  (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Unclear principle/fact
Under Proposed final decision/Proposed principles/Adequate framing is this statement:
 * 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.

And under Proposed final decision/Proposed findings of fact/Flat statements of fact is this:
 * 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."

I think this could use some clarifying. As these stand, the proposed decision appears to be saying that it's okay to write that "Jeane Dixon is a psychic", but not okay to write that "Astral projection is an out-of-body experience." Not only do this "principle" and "finding of fact" seem somewhat contradictory, but these particular examples seem to me to be reversed. "Out of body experience" will be understood by many to refer to something that is a perceived, but not actual, event, whereas "Jeane Dixon is a psychic" seems to strongly advocate the notion that "a psychic" is a real thing--a person with real paranormal abilities. RedSpruce 14:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * ""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."
 * A flat statement of fact that a cultural artifact exists -such as astral projection- is OK. The principle is, "the reader is not a idiot," and an article which adequately frames and defines the subject need not belabor the fact that the subject's existence is a matter of debate (psychics), or is agreed not to exist (unicorns, faeries). Also, a finding of fact is not the same as a prescription.  The Astral projection article contains flat statements of fact, but because it is, after all, "Astral projection," and because the experience itself is real -in fact, the OBE is a real experience of being out of the body, whether or not a spirit actually leaves-, and people's interpretations contain words such as "spirit" which serve to warn the reader of controversy, this is not a bad thing.  In this we follow the example of many other mainstream sources, which sometimes use doubt words, and sometimes do not.  But for a reader otherwise capable of understanding the article, the doubt words don't add anything.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with any of your points, Martinphi (except maybe the one about "the reader is not an idiot" :-), but I still think the decision language in question could be sharpened and clarified. OTOH, I don't know to what degree the text of ArbCom decisions is used for future reference. If the answer to that is "not much," then I tentatively adjust my opinion here to "meh". RedSpruce 20:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, I imagine that the ammount of use people make of the ArbCom would differ with the subject area. I think the finding of fact can be just that- it isn't necessarily saying anything except "this is a fact."  It seems like a finding of fact either states a principle or just says something is true.  It's only the principles that we need to worry about as editors.  So the finding of fact about "flat statements of fact" maybe isn't something we need to worry about.  It's just something they're saying is true, unless they use it to justify something else later on.


 * The reader is not an idiot .....-heh-..... I think we should read that "Wikipedia should assume the reader is not an idiot." Should not treat the reader as an idiot.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Martin, in fact, the readers we should be concerned about are elementary and high school students researching a term paper. They are not idiots, but they also have little foundation for judging abstractions. We receive hundreds of emails asking if EVP is safe--mostly from young people. Their concern stems from what they have learned from their priest and from the movies. There is little discernment evident in those emails. Readers are not idiots, but they come to Wikipedia to gain knowledge and there is no "Use at your own risk" warning on any of the articles, at least not that a ten-year-old is likely to notice.

I just looked at the EVP article and see that it is sliding more and more into being a skeptic's playground. The article should simply inform the reader what EVP is thought to be, but reading it, the average reader would conclude that the evidence against the reality of EVP is overwhelming. And I am not supposed to edit the article??? Whatever this long and frustrating arbitration process produces, if it does not provide stronger guidelines for what is neutral, then it will solve nothing and the cycle will be necessarily played out again in the future.

With comments like, "Parapsychology is what I call faith-based science" spoken by Fred Bauder, I suspect that is a preordain outcome. Tom Butler 00:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So you think it's a good idea to have words like "supposed" before every mention of a paranormal subject?  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, not at all, but I do think that the articles should be specific. For instance, I do not care if the EVP article just makes the statement that "EVP are thought to be," or "EVP are described as xxx by people who believe they exist." A statement of simple truth is supportable. However, most of the words in dispute are derogatory or used in a context intended to cast doubt, rather than to clarify. If to clarify, the terms are used to clarify that skeptics do not believe a word of it.


 * I would rather the article have "supposed" in it than to have it classified as pseudoscience while equating the skeptical view with science. Even though "supposed" reeks of sarcasm, I would even rather have EVP described in terms of "supposed" than to have it classified as a subject of parapsychology. That is just a "red herring" not unlike saying that the study of UFOs is part of astronomy because Carl Sagan had an opinion of them and he was an astronomer. A faith-based assertion if I ever heard one.


 * My complaint is that I do not trust the arbitrator's neutrality and I think the result of this process is not going to make any constructive changes. The fact is that no characterization is necessary to explain subjects and having categories, characterizations and weasel words just gives the majority editors a powerful tool for controlling the subject. The facts have got to lead the discussion, and faith-based editing is in charge here. Wikipedia is not the place for creative writing. Tom Butler 04:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right that gang-editing occurs a lot here. I tried to get Bauder to say specifically that "the skeptical opinion does not necessarily equal the scientific opinion," but it didn't get in.  As far as Bauder being biased, I don't think human nature allows nonbiased people in this arena.  Thus the need for strict intellect as much as possible, while understanding we will fail to an extent.  Bauder has done well, in my opinion.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dubious discussion
This rather peculiar statement was made:

"ScienceApologist has used Template:Dubious in an inappropriate way . Clicking on the template as displayed redirects to Disputed statement, a guideline."

However, there doesn't seem to be any indication that the template was used in an "inappropriate way". What exactly was inappropriate about placing the dubious tag on the statement that parapsychology is scientific? After all, that statement is dubious as has been demonstrated in this very arbitration! --ScienceApologist 18:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The context of the edit in question is:
 * According to the Parapsychological Association, parapsychology is the scientific study of certain types of paranormal phenomena...
 * By virtue of the phrase "according to", a "dubious" tag doesn't seem appropriate unless the Parapsychological Association themselves considered their use of the word "scientific" to be dubious. RedSpruce 19:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Placing the Parapsychological Association's offered definition as the Wikipedia definition in the lead is a very dubious practice as has been made clear in the wranglings of this arbitration. Since the phrase was (to quote the relevant guideline) "written (or edited) by a user who is known to write inaccurately on the topic" I think that I was very much in line placing that tag there. Please elaborate. --ScienceApologist 20:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Is that another personal attack from you? Placing the tag there was just another example of your extreme POV-pushing, and Bauder knows it.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that SA was looking for an actual analytical response instead of a knee-jerk reaction. I could be wrong. Ante  lan  talk  20:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would like someone to explain how it is inappropriate to point out that a certain edit or text is dubious. --ScienceApologist 23:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No one said that. The issue is POV-pushing.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Martin, I quoted the remark in its entirety. "ScienceApologist has used Template:Dubious in an inappropriate way." So someone clearly did say that. --ScienceApologist 23:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * To POV push. The source was appropriate, in agreement with other sources (mainstream and otherwise), clearly referenced, and the lead wording agreed upon by multiple reliable editors, such as myself and Nealparr. If this is not the meaning, then the Arbitrator does need to elucidate.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I should have been more clear. Quoting a non-neutral source such as the Parapsychological Association for the first sentence to an article is extremely dubious and POV, IMO. However, using the tag in this way was technically incorrect, since it was applied to a single word in a sentence that was presented as (essentially) a quote. Likewise, it wouldn't be correct (IMO) to write "According to President Bush, we're winning  the war in Iraq." Though neither would it be correct to use such a sentence to introduce the article on the war. I think it's a very minor point however, and hope the ArbCom will treat it as such. RedSpruce 02:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Except what is disputed is the statement in context: not the attribution. That's clear from the talkpage of the article. If the inclusion of the statement is dubious it isn't technically incorrect to mark the statement as dubious especially when there is discussion of its dubious inclusion on the talkpage. Right? --ScienceApologist 18:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

MartinPhi and NPOV
That's a good explanation, KarlBunker. There are no more neutral sources than formal associations of scientists. Can you think of any? A secondary source such as a book is not as neutral (being a single author), nor a primary source. A statement from a scientific association is on the top of the neutrality and reliability scale.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * So long as there is no POV more neutral than the scientific POV, that might be true. Ante  lan  talk  03:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Trying to claim that the Parapsychological Association is some kind of paragon of neutrality is laughable. --ScienceApologist 18:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Laugh on. I never claimed that. I said, "There are no more neutral sources than formal associations of scientists.  Can you think of any?  A secondary source such as a book is not as neutral (being a single author), nor a primary source.  A statement from a scientific association is on the top of the neutrality and reliability scale."  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Martinphi, I think SA was interpreting your statements based on the following syllogism:
 * Major premise: "There are no more neutral sources than formal associations of scientists."
 * Minor premise: The Parapsychological Association is a formal association of scientists.
 * Conclusion: There are no more neutral sources than the Parapsychological Association.
 * Ante lan  talk  21:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt that. Here's the logic he seems to have stated:


 * Martinphi: Major premise: "Formal associations of scientists constitute neutral sources."
 * Martinphi: Minor premise: The Parapsychological Association is a formal association of scientists.
 * Martinphi: Conclusion: The Parapsychological Association is a neutral source.

However,
 * ScienceApologist: Major premise: The Parapsychological Association is an association of baboons.
 * ScienceApologist: Conclusion: "Trying to claim that the Parapsychological Association is some kind of paragon of neutrality is laughable."  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how you misunderstood me. I'll be even more clear here:
 * Following your statements, it appears that you think the PA is a neutral source - indeed, it appears that you think there is no source more neutral than the PA. (See my breakdown of the syllogism above.)
 * ScienceApologist scoffed at that notion, disputing your implied claim that the PA is a neutral source.
 * You then said, "Laugh on. I never claimed that", where "that" stood for "The Parapsychological Association is the paragon of neutrality."
 * On the one hand, you appear to have said that the PA is a neutral source. On the other hand, you say that you never claimed that the PA is neutral. I think it's just a matter of wording, but as far as I can tell SA interpreted your statements correctly, unless you do not actually consider the PA a neutral source. Ante  lan  talk  01:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that. If you insist in putting words in my mouth ("The Parapsychological Association is the paragon of neutrality."), I'll just stop responding. SA interpreted my statements incorrectly- as usual. I even italicized the word which made it obvious that I wasn't saying the PA is necessarily neutral- so I have no reason to believe that SA is doing anything other that what he usually does, which is ignoring what other people say in order to push his POV. Can you think of any parapsychology sources which are dependably neutral? Can you think of any sources which are dependably neutral? Of course you can't, because humans are never dependably neutral. I almost always mean exactly what I say, and nothing more or less.

Paragon: An ideal instance; a perfect embodiment of a concept.

'''I'm not sure how you misunderstood me. I'll be even more clear here:'''

Nah you won't- you'll put words in my mouth.

Following your statements, it appears that you think the PA is a neutral source

Never said that.

 - indeed, it appears that you think there is no source more neutral than the PA.

I did say that.

ScienceApologist scoffed at that notion, disputing your implied claim that the PA is a neutral source.

SA did scoff.

I did not make the claim.

I specifically made clear that I was not making the claim, by italicizing the word "more."

You then said, "Laugh on. I never claimed that", where "that" stood for "The Parapsychological Association is the paragon of neutrality."

Nonsense.

On the one hand, you appear to have said that the PA is a neutral source.

No.

On the other hand, you say that you never claimed that the PA is neutral.

True

'''I think it's just a matter of wording, but as far as I can tell SA interpreted your statements correctly, unless you do not actually consider the PA a neutral source. '''

That's right- there are no neutral sources. We use the most neutral ones. There are no sources which I know of which are more neutral and authoritative than associations of scientists. This is why such statements are used extensively in the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts article, for instance.

Tell me: do you disqualify, say, a definition of biology because it comes from an association of biologists? Of course you don't, which serves to explain why SA's use of Template:Dubious was inappropriate POV pushing.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You said "- indeed, it appears that you think there is no source more neutral than the PA. I did say that."
 * That sentence means "There is no source that is more neutral than the PA." That can be reworded as "The PA is the most neutral source. While other sources may potentially be as neutral as the PA, none can be moreso." That seems like quite the paragon of neutrality to me. We're quibbling over semantics. Ante  lan  talk  02:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not quibbling- it's extremely important. It's the difference between being highly inaccurate, and being accurate.  It's also the difference between what SA took me to say, and what I said.  The PA may not be neutral; but it is probably the most neutral, authoritative, and accurate source we can get in the circumstance.  BTW, the PA's definition isn't materially different from other sources. Therefore, the dubious tag was inappropriate.


 * Seemingly-small -but essential- twisting of other people's words is something SA excels at. He is, after all, technicall smart, and may expect others not to pick up on what he's doing.  It's part of how he POV pushes.  If that's not true, I'd ask that he read more carefully.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, so you said that the PA was the most neutral source, although you clarified that you didn't think it was perfectly neutral. But if it is indeed the most neutral source that we have, that makes it the best exemplar of neutrality - the embodiment of neutrality - so far as neutrality exists. Or, in other words, it's the paragon of neutrality. SA's characterization of what you said was true to the letter and the spirit of your statement. Ante  lan  talk  06:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Paragon:

Wordweb: An ideal instance; a perfect embodiment of a concept.

Not what I said.

A model of excellence or perfection of a kind; a peerless example

The PA might be a peerless example- but maybe not, and I didn't assert it. I asked for a better one, and said I thought there wasn't one.

a model of excellence or perfection

Maybe.....

The important point is, that SA is only POV pushing when he sneers at it that way. The next most important point, is that whether "paragon" indicates perfection or merely the best example, I never asserted it was actually neutral. You're sort of right that this is semantics, but it's important.

And the third thing that really isn't semantics, is that what we're arguing here seems to be "truth." I originally wrote that about the PA being the most neutral source to mean what is important for Wikipedia. In other words, not "The PA is the most neutral source," but "So far as we as Wikipedia editors can assume, the PA is the most neutral source that I know of."

It seems to me now that this is where the screwup came in: SA took us off track by interpreting it in terms of his version of truth, and we then responded with a discussion of whether it is true or not, and what I really said, and semantics. But we should have noticed that we aren't talking about truth, but about what we can do as editors- and about what SA did wrong as an editor. Or, I should have noticed, because I've gone through this before. Especially with Wikidudeman, who spent endless ammounts of time explaining how he thinks parapsychology is pseudoscience. But it was irrelevant, because the question was not what we thought, but what we could do with the article. I told you it is subtle!

And there really is a difference between "The PA is the most neutral source [according to what we have to assume as Wikipedia editors]" and "The PA is a paragon of neutrality."  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I am having a hard time understanding the dynamics of this exchange. Martin made a point that I see SA and the rest of the extreme skeptics make all the time, essentially that science is the most neutral. I did not read that he said the PA is. It seems to me that SA said that. Okay, so then I see that Antelan invited himself to the party with his logic-babble and did his very best to wordsmith Martin's statement into what SA said he said.  Am I right so far?


 * I see this sort of exchange a lot in the paranormal articles and it seems clear that it is a way of manipulating the "proponents" into making editing errors that can be brought before the administrators.


 * Martin said, "Seemingly-small -but essential- twisting of other people's words is something SA excels at. He is, after all, technicall smart, and may expect others not to pick up on what he's doing. It's part of how he POV pushes." I was trying to write that the other day and decided that none of you would understand the point, so I am glad that Martin said it here. I would appreciate it if SA stuck to the facts, the issue and the subject and keeps his subtle personal insults to a minimum. and Antelan, the next time you pile on like that, please do not just try to baffle us with your bullshit.


 * All of this has nothing to do with the decisions being made here, It just distracts from what I hope is a serious resolution to this case. Tom Butler 16:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the case is more or less over. We just need to wait for the other Arbs to weight in or put in more proposals if they are going to, then they will close.
 * I did more or less say that the PA is probably the most neutral source for a definition of parapsychology, being an association of scientists, and associations of scientists being the most neutral sources I know of. Per our editing of Wikipedia.
 * Conspiracy theories- most of the time, people are just being stupid or POV-pushing. I don't think """skeptics""" here usually mean to trip up others, even if what they do has that effect.  This kind of manipulation of facts is something children learn very early, in order to manipulate their parents.  They learn it because it works, and is hard to see through.  It often isn't even done consciously- SA might not have done it on purpose, but he nevertheless managed to distract us into a discussion of truth rather than a discussion of what we can do as Wikipedia editors.


 * SA essentially changed the subject, from what we do in Wikipedia, to an argument over truth. Now that is a theme, done by lots of editors.


 * Tom's very right that I'm essentially taking the word of the """skeptics""" that science is the most neutral source. SA just wants to say that the PA isn't composed of scientists.   Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * And, I don't persue these things unless I'm having fun (since as you say they are more or less useless), but I happen to like "logic babble," at least sometimes.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Martin claimed that "A statement from a scientific association is on the top of the neutrality and reliability scale." The only thing remotely like a scientific association being discussed was PA. Therefore, MartinPhi was saying "A statement from PA is on the top of the neutrality and reliability scale". This is completely ludicrous and indicative of the absurd lengths of POV-advocacy to which this particular user will go. --ScienceApologist 13:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Since your debate has been going on for so long, I am sure I came in at the middle and only read the statement by Martin that, "A statement from a scientific association is on the top of the neutrality and reliability scale." This is supportable based on the defined intention of the scientific community. Properly executed, that intention is designed to be neutral.

However your very unscientific comment, that, "'The only thing remotely like a scientific association being discussed was PA. Therefore, MartinPhi was saying 'A statement from PA is on the top of the neutrality and reliability scale.' This is completely ludicrous and indicative of the absurd lengths of POV-advocacy to which this particular user will go." tells me that you will translate other people's words so that you can have a platform to push a favored point of view. To me, that is inappropriate characterization. Also, words such as "ludicrous" and "absurd" tell me that you are apparently unable/unwilling to seriously consider any proposal that does not 100% agree with what you believe to be true. Also, your comment sounds like the expression of a very faith-based worldview and it has repeatedly interferes with the business of Wikipedia. Tom Butler 16:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite right, Tom Butler, you should have read the entirety of the discussion before dismissing SA's remarks. His interpretation of Martinphi's statement was dead-on. Although you are free to disagree with his sentiment, disagreement with the logical connection is tendentious. Ante  lan  talk  18:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, Antelan, SA is again twisting. But in an extremely subtle way this time.  What I said did not ammount to a claim that "The PA is on the top of the neutrality and reliability scale.  It did ammount to a claim that for parapsychology and if no more neutral source can be found (I invited people to think of one), then the PA is the most neutral source as concerns parapsychology.


 * Tom is right that this is merely more obvious extreme POV pushing from SA.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * We cannot have one set of rules for some articles and a different set of rules for other articles. Either the PA is on the top of the neutrality and reliability scale or it isn't. I say that it plainly isn't. Martin wants to say that it is when it suits him but doesn't want to be called out on this in order to game the system. --ScienceApologist 13:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Twisting. Everyone is saying the opposite of that.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 14:39, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposed finding of fact- Simoes
Timeline: April 5, 2007 Original Psychology Template --> June 4, 2007 Martinphi's edit ---> June 4, 2007 Simoes' edit.

Simoes' edit was "to discredit parapsychology" only to the extent that Martinphi's was "to inappropriately credit parapsychology as comprising an entire school of psychological thought". Neither of these should rise to the level of being findings of fact; however, that one did, and the other did not, is perplexing. If the finding of fact is over Simoes' edit summary being aggressive, then let's be explicit about that. Ante lan  talk  20:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we agreed that it had more to do with the edit summary than anything else- and I believe it was an extension of his other agressive editing of the parapsychology article, as presented in evidence. Only the advocates of unscientific skepticism seem confused by this, with the possible exception of Antelan (I don't recall he's done anything unscientific, even though he advocates for those who do).  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I just don't see how Simoes' editing is any more "aggressive" than MartinPhi's, or ScienceApologist's, or Minderbinder's, nor how it is worse than the inappropriate advocacy which went on. Singling him out in a finding seems a bit odd. MastCell Talk 22:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Moreso, it seems odd that although 21 editors agreed Martinphi's aggressive advocacy of parapsychology was inappropriate, there isn't any acknowledgement that this constitutes a problem. --- LuckyLouie 22:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy with a straight answer on why my labeling parapsychology a pseudoscience is aggressive but an arbitrator's labeling it an obvious pseudoscience (specifically the one who wrote the bloody proposal) isn't.  Simões  ( talk/contribs ) 22:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's a link to the subsection containing the relevant statement about obvious pseudoscience. Ante  lan  talk  22:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand. That's the subsection I linked to.  Simões  ( talk/contribs ) 23:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? When I click on the link, it goes to the Template: Psychology_navigation diff... Ante  lan  talk  23:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops. Fixed!  Simões  ( talk/contribs ) 00:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The following explains all of this: POV-pushing. Please also see this.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, he later changed his mind. So how about a straight answer?  Simões  ( talk/contribs ) 03:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the single diff cited provides exceedingly little evidence for a finding of aggressive editing, much less sufficiently problematic editing to warrant mention in an ArbCom decision. Newyorkbrad 03:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Simoes, isn't POV-pushing a straight answer? But see also this.


 * Newyorkbrad, you're right. Have you seen the evidence I presented on Simoes?  Bauder didn't seem to think much of it, but he said he only looked at one diff at random.  Of course, that didn't show the story I was trying to tell.


 * I'm not exactly sure why Bauder singled out Simoes, except perhaps that he started this ArbCom by doing an RfC on me; there are other editors who have done much worse. It seems more as if Bauder is making a point that such POV-pushing -very common- isn't right.  Since nothing is going to actually happen to Simoes, he just used an instance at hand.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Opening an RfC was a totally appropriate part of the dispute resolution process. I do share LuckyLouie's bemusement that the proposed findings here seem to diverge significantly from the community input obtained at the RfC, but that's life. MastCell Talk 05:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * They diverge because NPOV is not a matter of consensus. If it were, the article on, say, Baptists, would be a ode to Baptist doctrine.  You can't "POV-push for NPOV."   Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This illustrates my concern perfectly. Martin seems convinced that his conduct was entirely justified and that he was upholding NPOV against all comers. I don't think that's the case, nor was that the prevailing opinion expressed in the RfC. Without a stronger finding regarding Martin's editorial behavior, I'm worried we're back at square one, or even further back since Martin seems to feel these proceedings have justified his actions. MastCell Talk 19:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * They do not justify all my actions- specifically in some of my editorial behavior. Don't put words in my mouth: I never said I was entirly justified.  I've said the opposite.


 * At the same time, Bauder's main substantive proposals -which are agreed to by I think 3 Arbitrators now- are directly from my essay- which essay was a main point in the RfC/ArbCom. If  a confirmation from ArbCom that I have my basic understanding of NPOV correct puts you all "back at square one," which side of this debate is now in the position of POV-pushing? Which side is now disruptive?   Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I was hoping that it would be clear that both sides were disruptive. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be getting through. MastCell Talk 01:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I know. I assume you don't mean me, since I've said multiple times I've been disruptive. I've been disruptive in the bad way as I said just above. I've also (mostly) been disruptive when trying to defend NPOV against those who have violated it. ArbCom is now deciding whether I was wrong in my concept of NPOV.

"Disruptive" is only one thing we're dealing with here, and a rather small part. People were disruptive because of the different views they have.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:45, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's all take a deep breath and calm down
This arbitration is supposed to solve many problems concerning paranormal articles and right now all I'm seeing is squabbling on this page. This page is to be used to discuss the proposed decisions from the arbitrators concerning this arbitration not a soapbox or fighting pit. I think it's important for those of us concerned with the results of this arbitration to make sure we do everything to assure it goes smoothly and fairly. It seems the arbitrators are backlogged (like most of Wikipedia is) and won't get a chance to really take a look at this case for a few more weeks if not longer and all potential arbitrations are being prevented from being filed due to the long backlog. I believe it's very important for everyone involved in this arbitration to please stop the arguing about numerous parapsychology or paranormal subjects on this page unless they are directly related to the proposed decisions area of this arbitration. Thanks. Wikidudeman  (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You have a point. I've been working under the impression that it's about over.  Otherwise, I might have thought about trying to limit the ammount of stuff the Arbs find themselves presented with here.  I do feel a desire to respond sometimes, though.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi's conduct
Since the discussions have moved here, I thought I'd let everyone know that I put together a fact-finding proposal outlining the main complaints against Martinphi's editing and talk page conduct. It can be found at Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop.  Simões  ( talk/contribs ) 06:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

RfA findings of fact, revisited
Although the original locus of dispute also included the behaviors of several editors, the ArbCom has largely kept this a content and metacontent issue. Here are a few of the more notable proposals that have already received enough votes to pass:

Status of parapsychology
"Parapsychology has an ambiguous status, engaging in scientific research, but strongly criticized for lack of rigor."

Why this is notable

 * This is original research, and redefines the controversy surrounding parapsychology.

What is the result

 * This proposes as fact that the research done in the field of parapsychology is scientific.
 * Generally, that parapsychology engages in research is an accepted comment. The decision (that parapsychological research has made use of the procedures required for it to be considered scientific) should be presented with supporting evidence.

Requested remedy

 * Remove the term scientific from the statement; or
 * Present supporting evidence specifically backing this claim.

Comments
Noted by Ante  lan  talk  20:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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

Why this is notable

 * This creates a tacit finding of fact that parapsychology is scientific.

What is the result

 * The implication that parapsychology has been conflated with unscientific beliefs implies that parapsychology is not unscientific. By the law of the excluded middle, this leads to a tacit discovery of fact: parapsychology is scientific.

Requested remedy

 * The finding of fact should be clarified. The word "unscientific" should be removed.

Comments
Noted by Ante  lan  talk  20:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Conflation of parapsychology with unscientific concepts, mk. II
"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)."

Why this is notable

 * This creates a tacit finding of fact that parapsychology is scientific.
 * Parapsychology involves claims that are traditionally under the purview of physics. Consider:
 * clairvoyance and telepathy (which according to the Standard Model of physics would require a physical medium such as electromagnetic waves, but the brain has no neural component identified by neuroanatomists to send or receive such information),
 * psychokinesis (which violates Newton's second law of motion), and
 * precognition (which requires information transfer faster than the speed of light).
 * These categories of investigation have already been scientifically engaged by physicists, and their findings are in contradiction with the beliefs of parapsychologists.

What is the result

 * As above, the implication that parapsychology has been conflated with unscientific beliefs implies that parapsychology is not unscientific. By the law of the excluded middle, this leads to a tacit discovery of fact: parapsychology is scientific.
 * This rubber-stamps the Parapsychological Association's view on the epistemological status regarding several questions of physics.

Requested remedy

 * The finding of fact should be clarified or removed.

Comments
Noted by Ante  lan  talk  20:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Question: Are you saying that the investigation of any phenomenon or theory which apparently conflict with the standard model of physics are intrinsically unscientific? Paul August &#9742; 21:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * With fullest respect, I think the question is not strictly related to the point I'm raising here, but in saying that I don't mean to sidestep it. A theory not in line with the Standard Model of physics can certainly be scientific, especially if it's supported by some evidence or at least is falsifiable. (It gets tricky when you get into things like String Theory, which may only be testable at energies that will never be accessible to humans and is therefore pragmatically unfalsifiable. That's a philosophical question about one specific set of theories, though.) Indeed, it's the belief of many that we'll ultimately supplant the Standard Model with one that is even more symmetric. The reason that I think the question is somewhat orthogonal to my point (or even the subject of parapsychology) is that parapsychology offers no theoretical basis for nature of "psi effects". It is, in essence, atheoretical. Since no alternative theory is offered, it seems reasonable that the claims should be evaluated under the currently accepted scientific frameworks. At any rate, my concern is that the ArbCom is effectively ruling that parapsychology is scientific. Remaining agnostic on this issue seems the more careful route to take. Ante  lan  talk  04:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was super-wordy. Cliff's Notes: Theories don't have to agree with the scientific model, but parapsychology doesn't even have experimentally falsifiable theories to explain the psi effect. For this and many other reasons, I don't think the ArbCom should state, to be quoted throughout the ages, that parapsychology is scientific. Better would be to remove this type of content-claim from this ArbCom decision. It is also interesting to note that the Parapsychological Association accepts "ectoplasm" as a term within parapsychology, but this finding simultaneously calls parapsychology scientific and ectoplasm unscientific. As I've pointed out elsewhere, we'd probably do well to avoid this type of paradox. Ante  lan  talk  04:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Antelan brings up a good point. Parapsychology does not have any theory to explain its results- if, indeed, there are any results. Though there are things in Quantum Mechanics which are suggestive, it may well be only metaphorical.


 * But science does not begin at the stage of explanation, but at careful systematic observation. If parapsychology were like Creationism -a theory in search of data- then it would be unscientific.  But parapsychology is data -experiences people have and suggestive lab results- in search of a theory.  As long as its methods of observation and analysis remain scientific, then it is science.  This even its main critics such as James Randi, James Alcock, and Ray Hyman admit.  To quote Randi:




 * ArbCom is not taking any unusual or extreme step in calling parapsychology a scientific discipline. This is true even in the most extreme case, if parapsychology has no legitimate results at all.


 * As to evaluating parapsychology under the current framework of physics- try that on Astronomy.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * With regards to astronomy, orbital deviations from what was expected under the current framework of physics was what allowed the discovery of extra-Jovian planets (i.e., physics works so well that we discovered new planets without seeing them). At any rate, I do not think that what you've said invalidates my core point about what the ArbCom should refrain from doing in this case. Finally, creationism is not strictly a theory - it is, as is explained on the Wikipedia article about creationism - a belief. String theory is a theory in search of data. Paul August, if I haven't answered your question adequately, please let me know. Thanks. Ante  lan  talk  05:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the view that it isn't scientific is the minority view. The widespread criticism of parapsychology is that it hasn't produced any convincing results, not that it is unscientific. There wouldn't need to be an arbitration if editors didn't blow up one minority critique as fact, or even the most widespread opinion. It takes an argument to move parapsychology from science to pseudoscience. Falsifiability, for example, has its own critiques . One would have to assume the position that 1) Falsifiability is a rule of law in science and 2) That parapsychology work is not falsifiable. The opposing argument is that statistical abnormalities are falsified by the possibility that an experiment can produce no abnormalities. The arguments could go back and forth, but the point is that it requires an argument. There wouldn't need to be an arbitration or a principle about this matter if editors didn't jump to the extreme position of pseudoscience in the blink of an eye and treat the topic as a pseudoscientific topic. This principle is necessary because editors are accused of pov pushing just for putting "scientific" in the article, when even the Skeptic's Dictionary says scientific . It's not a content ruling. The article can and should address the controversy according to weight. But this principle is necessary because it goes to editor's actions. Editors have been accused of being pov editors just for saying what the majority of sources say, scientific. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 05:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying it should be ruled unscientific. I'm saying no ruling codifying one view of its scientific status is necessary, and such a ruling may even be harmful. Also, I'm saying a theory needs to be falsifiable - not the data, as you suggest. Finally, the Skeptic's Dictionary source you have highlighted does not label parapsychology as scientific, though it does say that some of methodology is (which is not an equivalent statement). Ante lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  11:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Skeptic's Dictionary creates the "tacit finding of fact that parapsychology is scientific" in several places, to use your words. The necessity of the arbitration committee to say something on the matter comes from the fact that it's being claimed that editors who say science are pov pushing and editors who say pseudoscience are merely stating a fact. However the committee wants to word it is on them, but something needs to be said about it. Some sort of finding needs to be made on this issue because it's the basis of the complaint against (some) of the editor actions. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 14:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The solution is really simple. Keeping with the idea that the arbitration committee needs to say something to resolve the dispute, and going with the idea that the simplest solution is often the best, there's no reason to reinvent the wheel. In the arbitration on pseudoscience, the arbitration committee did define a category of "Questionable science" and placed psychoanalysis in that category despite it suffering many of the same criticisms that we're facing here falsifiability, pseudoscience, and so on. The finding can be what it is now (the more or less widespread view) and the remedy can be to treat it as a "Questionable science". The article on psychoanalysis turned out fine. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 15:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Three layer cake with frosting
"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."

Why this is notable

 * This finding constitutes original research presented without evidence.
 * This finding defines mainstream science as a field that generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation.
 * This finding removes editorial control over content issues.
 * Findings of fact in an arbitration case are not subject to the prohibition on original research. That applies to articles. The finding does not define science, it just notes a fact. As to editorial control over content issues, the finding is just that, not a principle or a remedy. Fred Bauder 19:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

What is the result

 * By the creation of these categorical definitions, any scientist who has investigated or commented on parapsychology could be ejected from the "mainstream science" category and immediately placed into the "skeptical groups" category. Consider this letter in Nature magazine by an academic psychologist. Such a letter is what many would consider mainstream scientific interest in, and rejection of, parapsychological claims and research methods; however, by the definitions offered in this finding of fact, Dr. Marks would not be considered a mainstream scientist by virtue of the fact that he does not "ignore[]" parapsychology's claims but instead "consider[s them] worthy of investigation".
 * This proposal contains an explicit statement of fact: parapsychology studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way.
 * The word "scientific", when used in this sense, is traditionally a matter of editorial discretion. It should remain the "responsibility of editors to appropriately handle any question regarding the epistemological status of a subject", but this proposed finding of fact removes such responsibility and discretion.

Requested remedy

 * Restate the status of parapsychology as a field "which studies psychic phenomena in a serious [] way".
 * Unless the ArbCom actually believes that psychic phenomena are beyond the explanation of physics, and unless the ArbCom intends to exclude by definition those scientists who have spoken on parapsychology from mainstream science, the lead clause should be removed ("In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation").
 * Broadly, this finding of fact should be clarified or removed.

Comments
Noted by Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  20:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

General comments
I wanted to comment on the "original research" part of the above. Simple prima facie evidence demonstrates that it is not original research to make the statement "parapsychology is the scientific..." An exact phrase search at Google for that wording returns 3,130 results. Certainly many of those can be considered unreliable, but for the purposes of a mainstream encyclopedia, it isn't that unprecedented to use the word "scientific". Consider Encarta, Columbia, World Book, all of which specifically use the word "scientific". These are mainstream encyclopedias. Part of the problem that resulted in this arbitration is that Wikipedia generally allows such sources to be reflected in articles. However, in the past, such words as "scientific" have been removed regularly from the parapsychology article, eventhough it is easily sourced. Some times, the term "unscientific" or "pseudoscientific" have been inserted in its place. These mainstream encyclopedic sources don't say "unscientific" or "pseudoscientific". Some don't specifically say "scientific research", but instead simply say "research", like Britannica, but you get the impression that they didn't leave it out because it's a no-no to say "scientific". Edited Note: After reading one of their other articles, Britannica also says "scientific". Britannica actually says "parapsychology as a subject of serious research", which was another thing contested above. In the past, editors at Wikipedia have gone out of their way to present parapsychology as undeniably unscientific, when other mainstream encyclopedias do not give it that treatment.

The various criticisms to the proposals, as listed above, are based on variations of the idea that parapsychology should not be presented as "factually" scientific. To that I say that Wikipedia presents nothing as "factually" correct. Instead, it presents things as "verifiably" correct. In the sense of verifiability, it is much simpler to locate "scientific" in an easily accessible mainstream encyclopedia like Encarta, Columbia, World Book, etc., than it is to go delving elsewhere. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 22:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You have profoundly mischaracterized the bulk of my statements. I argue that this is an editorial content decision, not a decision that should be made by an ArbCom. My point allows for people like you and me to present evidence. The decisions, as they currently stand, pre-decide this content point.


 * With regards to your sources:


 * Your third source (Worldbook) reference says that parapsychology "is the scientific study of certain phenomena that cannot be explained by current scientific knowledge", a definition so loosely written that it would include everything from the study of universal constants to subjects such as dark matter.
 * Your second source (Columbia) does not say that parapsychology is scientific, but instead stakes out a position more in concordance with my proposal by calling parapsychology the "study of mental phenomena not explainable by accepted principles of science." It goes on to provide a contradistinction between scientists and parapsychologists, saying, "The popular press often reports stories that are parapsychological in nature. Many scientists criticize the claims made by parapsychologists, arguing in particular that there can be no proof of such phenomena."
 * The Encarta link is subscriber only, so I have no way of knowing what it says at the moment.


 * With regards to prima facie evidence - this term has a specific definition as something that establishes fact if uncontested. Since this is contested, the point is moot. And evidence from other encylopedias can be helpful, but is not binding nor limiting. Just because no other encyclopedia has an article about Dean Radin, should we also exclude him from ours? Likewise, just because they have made other content decisions, are we limited by their choices?


 * Finally, I am unaware of any claim that parapsychologists don't do research, as you suggest. They most certainly do. It is an editorial/content issue to decide whether or not that research passes the hurdles required to be called scientific. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  22:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If you read my comment, it was addressing what you said concerning it being "original research", as in not reflected in published sources. I was demonstrating how easily it is reflected in published sources. You can argue about the choice of wording on World Book and others as much as you'd like, but that's the choice they made. I don't know their intent in wording it that way, but I don't think it's unreasonable that they were thinking along the lines that something can be scientifically researched without having a scientific explanation for what causes it. That's one explanation for the wording, but the point is that the wording was verifiably made whether it's factual or not. The Columbia one says exactly "The organized, scientific investigation of paranormal phenomena began with the foundation (1882) of the Society for Psychical Research in London." Here's the Encarta blips outside of subscription . They say "scientific" as well. I said prima facie exactly because at first glance it says scientific, but then you can go digging for alternative views. None of these present that parapsychology is unscientific or pseudoscience as the first thought. I never said anything about parapsychology not doing research, nor did I say you said that. Where did you get that from? If you got that from my statement about Britannica saying "parapsychology as a subject of serious research", that was about where you said "This proposal contains an explicit statement of fact: parapsychology studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way," under Three Layer Cake. I was pointing out that while Britannica didn't say specifically scientific, they did say "serious research". [Edited Note: After reading one of their other articles, they also say "scientific" ] Again, all of this is just a comment about it being "original research" to make these findings, not about whether it's a content issue. Some of the findings in this arbitration are about frequently disputed content issues, as were some of the findings in the Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience decision.
 * -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 04:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Antelan- nice job of presentation. You seem to be disturbed that the ArbCom has made tacit findings of fact that parapsychology is science. As a skeptic, you should be more disturbed that ArbCom has explicitly accepted our argument that academic parapsychology is science.

Some of your assertions -especially about what in parapsychology has been contradicted by findings- are incorrect. You have conflated lack of evidence with evidence against; this is unscientific.

I am disturbed that you (all) may have decided not to accept the ArbCom decision. This goes along with MastCell's assertion that this puts you "back to square one."

The ArbCom has said nothing about whether psychic phenomena exist. It has merely said that parapsychology studies alleged psychic phenomena in a scientific way. Thorough evidence of this fact has been presented.

Your claim that the ArbCom is presenting OR without evidence ignores the evidence presented in the case. I'm sorry you don't consider our presentation (especially Nealparr's) to be evidence. The Arbitrators seem to.

ArbCom did do a lot of research- but is not obligated to.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The overt sarcasm (nice job of presentation) and namecalling (skeptic) are uncivil and unhelpful, so I will ignore them and advise you to desist. Your substantive points are too nonspecific for me to be able to reply, but if you make specific referenced points I'll do my best to have a conversation with you. Finally, the ArbCom has not finished with the decision, which is why now is the right moment for me to be voicing concerns about their Proposed decisions. Once these decisions are final, which they are not yet, voicing these concerns would at best be untimely and at worst indicate a "[decision] not to accept the ArbCom decision." Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  23:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand how you might think it was sarcasm, since I do use sarcasm. But it wasn't.  You did a very nice presentation, nice formatting, and you said well exactly what you meant.  It was a good job I admired, and since the rest of what I had to say wasn't really positive, I thought I'd start out with a compliment.  I am a skeptic.  I'm not a pseudoskeptic, and I didn't call you one.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You are free to call yourself what you'd like, but I still do not accept your attempt to label me "skeptic". Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  00:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine, but there's no reason to take offense at it. To me, skepticism is good- the way to be. And I did think you were skeptical of parapsychology's status as science.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Content decisions
I can't honestly be the one who sees OBVIOUS content decisions here? Even though I actually agree with the statements, I still firmly believe they overstep in an area the ArbCom is normally very clear that it does not rule about. namely: These are especially worrying, and are for the most part blatant content decisions.
 * Principles
 * 5) "Any matter presented as scientific fact without adequate scientific investigation or evidence may be characterized as pseudoscience."
 * 6a) The list of example is approaching content decision.
 * 8) "Parapsychology should not be confused with sensational, unscientific beliefs and stories about "the paranormal.""
 * Findings
 * 3) "Parapsychology has an ambiguous status, engaging in scientific research, but strongly criticized for lack of rigor."
 * 5) ""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."
 * 11) "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."

All of these proposed finding of facts, and likely principles, need to be shot down or heavily reworked if the ArbCom is to stay true to its traditional scope. Considering the rest of the principles and finding, there would generally be no big loss as this should be normal conclusions top reach if Wikipedia's content policies were followed. Circeus 19:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Amen. There are real user-conduct issues here, some of which are not addressed and can be expected to recur. The above, on the other hand, seem to be a step into content-related waters. MastCell Talk 19:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know the correct answer to these issues, but the ArbCom has made guideline rulings on content before, to help curb disputes over proper usage of the word pseudoscience (this is the only one I'm aware of, there may be more) at Wikipedia. Not necessarily the absolutely-correct-usage-of-the-word, but rather how it should be used here to present a neutral point of view. As a result of Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience, guidelines were added to the WP:NPOV which certainly wouldn't be considered strict rulings, but are content rulings. That's not to say they are definitive guidelines which require content to be worded in a particular way, but are instead things to consider to avoid disputes.
 * -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 20:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * One more thing. To my knowledge, ArbCom principles and findings have never superceeded prime policies and guidlelines. In other words, these findings do not represent flat statements of unsourced facts to be used in articles. Any statement in an article will still need to be worded neutrally and sourced, and all other notable views should be presented as well, including contradictory views. These findings merely reflect that such statements are, in fact, notable views. I'm sure an ArbCom member will correct me if I'm not interpreting this correctly.
 * -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 20:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In my understanding, ArbCom is not prohibited from taking on content issues, they just rarely do because content issues are complex. ArbCom does and has taken on content issues. One of the arbitrators voting on this is one of the founding members of ArbCom and one of the people who wrote the Arbitration rules. In this case, ArbCom has taken on content/principle issues, because that is the underlying problem of this entire case. It's well stated by the Arbitration Committee in this statement:

"I think that the roots of this case are in a misunderstanding on certain core principles. I believe that we are best served by clarifying these principles (which the proposals above accomplish) and leaving enforcement to the community until it becomes clear that a more prescriptive approach is necessary."  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Jumping the gun
Martin, you may want to refrain from making edits to Mediumship declaring that "Qualifiers are not necessary" until the Arbcom decision is finalized. -- LuckyLouie 19:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * As skepticism is now noted in the lead and included as a section in the article, due to my edits, we don't need qualifiers in everything. This doesn't depend on the ArbCom.   Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "As skepticism is now noted in the lead and included as a section in the article, due to my edits, we don't need qualifiers in everything". I don't know of any WP policy specifically stating this prescription. Certainly none justifying you having removed all qualifiers from the article. - LuckyLouie 21:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * LL, please do your research before making accusations initended to get an editor into trouble. I didn't remove the qualifiers last night, as far as I can remember.  On the contrary, inserted skepticism where it had been taken out.  It would be more convincing if you weren't all down on Martinphi all the time. How about a "job well done" on inserting skepticism where it was needed?  No?  Perhaps you're just out to get me? Paranoid?  Not assuming good faith?  I think not.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll ignore your ad hom nonsense, and ask again: what WP policy specifically states that qualifiers (e.g. "doubt words") are not needed in an article if skepticism is mentioned? If this is policy, I want to be aware of it. - LuckyLouie 21:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * LL, please do your research before making accusations initended to get an editor into trouble. I didn't remove the qualifiers last night, as far as I can remember. On the contrary, inserted skepticism where it had been taken out. It would be more convincing if you weren't all down on Martinphi all the time. How about a "job well done" on inserting skepticism where it was needed? No? Perhaps you're just out to get me? Paranoid? Not assuming good faith? I think not.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

One more look
Can I request that the Arbitrators take one more look at the extensive evidence of problematic behavior compiled by User:Minderbinder? I currently see 1 proposed finding dealing with Martinphi's editing, to the effect that he and Minderbinder edit-warred. True as far as it goes, but incomplete.

Martinphi has edit-warred across a wide range of articles; he asserts an unusual interpretation of policy in pursuit of his POV (e.g., ), files admittedly bogus 3RR reports against opponents while complaining about the same, etc (as per the evidence page). The RfC had no corrective effect, and Martinphi has stated, "The accusations of tendentiousness are only the result of other editor's mis-interpretations of the rules."

There is a problem here that's not being adequately addressed; Martinphi is going to (already has) interpreted this proposed decision as a validation of his behavior, and the problem will likely continue and worsen. Based on Minderbinder's evidence, it seems odd to bash Simoes and Perfectblue for "aggressive" editing or misapplying policy while remaining silent on these more significant issues. MastCell Talk 20:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Mastcell, this is bunk. I never interpreted the ArbCom as a validation of bad behavior on my part.  The ArbCom has decided to grant amnesty to a wide range of editors, in which I am included.  This is over my objections.  The ArbCom has not validated the bad aspects of my behavior (most of which have already been dealth with, but which people keep pounding on).  The ArbCom has validated my interpretation of NPOV.


 * The validation of my interpretation of the rules does not constitute a validation of some bad methods I've used to get other editors to follow the rules.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 20:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * So you contend that those methods (links to off-wiki advocacy, meatpuppetry, bogus 3RR reports, edit-warring, claiming that Time magazine fails WP:RS, wikilawyering, and tendentious editing, disregarding community input) were used in an attempt to get other editors to follow the rules? MastCell Talk 21:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Darn right. 500% right.  What kind of coding could I possibly put here to make foot-tall bright-red letters saying "that's right?"


 * That doesn't excuse any of the bad methods, which I won't use again (though not all of your charges are true or relevant). But it is right.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Revert limitation question
Is that "limited to one revert per week to any [individual] article which relates to the paranormal" or is it "limited to one revert per week to any [of the] article[s] which relates to the paranormal"? The reason I ask is because of this hypothetical situation: Editor A comes in and does perceived disruptive edits to multiple articles in one day. Editor B comes in and reverts one of the multiple articles but is forced to either 1) wait a week to address another, and another week to address another, and so on, or 2) Enlist some buddies to revert the others which is bad gang editing form. Since this proposal is experimental, I thought I'd ask because you could end up with an enterprising pov editor doing massive edits across the spectrum knowing that another editor who notices this broad editing can only address one of them. It should probably read "any individual article" so that it is truly effective. Editor A could be disruptive on multiple articles. Editor B could revert the edits. Editor A would have to wait a week to be disruptive again. This is meant to address gaming the system. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 21:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * An alternative could be that all those that are identified as falling under the revert limitation rule is instead only allowed to make one edit to any individual article per week (as opposed to one revert). Most of the editing in the past hasn't been to add anything new to articles, but rather to simply change the wording of another editor or delete it entirely. In other words, it's not constructive, it's reconstructive or destructive. Limiting to one edit (in general) per week, per article, would serve the same purpose as the intention of this proposal.
 * -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 21:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. This is going to backfire bigtime.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Some suggestions
So far there are quite a few flaws in the way this arbitration is going I believe. Flawed wording in the proposed decisions, arbitrators not proposing the decisions that caused this arbitration to start to begin with, etc. Hopefully they will work to improve it when they get done with the other arbitrations. It seems they are very bogged down and we could use some more arbitrators with more time to take a closer look at this case and introduce the main proposals that initiated the arbitration to begin with. I want to urge all concerned parties to keep an eye out on how this is going.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 03:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It's disturbing that you -and others- seem to be setting yourselves up to try and subvert the decision.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly, Why did you move my comment and re-name the title of it? I never said there was any "Flawed decision", you put that there. Secondly, There hasn't even been a decision yet. How can anyone subvert anything when there hasn't even been a decision? Thirdly, Do you disagree that the arbitrators have yet to present most of the proposed decisions to be voted on yet? Minderbinder initiated this arbitration because of the actions of editors including yourself yet so far the arbitrators haven't even gotten a chance to voted on any such thing.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 04:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I re-named it because it wasn't on the same subject as above. I never said you were subverting it. I said you and others seem to be setting yourselves up to try and subvert it.  As to the rest of your post, I think maybe you should go around and remind the Arbitrators again on their talk pages.   Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You re-named it to a title suggesting I said the decision (which hasn't even been made yet) was somehow "flawed" whatever that even means. I've re-named it since I was the one who made the post to begin with so I'll decide what implications I myself am making. I am not setting myself up for anything, I'm simply attempting to make sure the arbitrators know how the parties involved in this arbitration feel including myself. Moreover, I've notified nearly all of the arbitrators suggesting they should introduce other proposed decisions including the ones that started this arbitration to begin with, so far none have done so and only 1 of them has even responded which didn't seem to accomplish anything.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 05:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Forgive me for my interpretation of "quite a few flaws." Maybe you should go around and remind the Arbitrators again, since they've obviously forgotten. Or maybe they haven't read or considered the evidence- you could remind them and give them links.   Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see how voicing an opinion openly, in full view of everyone on Wikipedia, is "seeming to subvert" anything. I have concerns. It sounds like User:Wikidudeman does as well. We've voiced them. The Arbitrators are intelligent adults and can choose to pay them attention or ignore them. My experience leads me to believe that, as the Arbs are busy volunteers with real lives like the rest of us and this case is fairly far along, our comments here will not have much impact on the outcome. Still, I'm surprised and a little dismayed at the current proposed decision, and chose to express that here. I don't see anything underhanded about that. MastCell Talk 05:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever said anything about underhanded. Subversion is not underhanded unless one does it that way. Subversion means The act of subverting; as overthrowing or destroying a legally constituted government. In this case you seem to be setting yourself up to try and subvert the government of Wikipedia. You just don't seem very accepting that, however right you may be in the real world, you may not be correct in Wikipedia. That's seemingly a difference between you and me- I'm ready to accept it even if ArbCom gives out a decision I think wrong.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There's nothing to 'subvert'. If the arbitrators make no mention of most of your problematic edits which brought about this arbitration in the first place and only mention some aspects of your edits and never actually vote on any of them, then we could start a new arbitration dealing with just you and do the same for various other users who have made numerous problematic edits, once the backlog of arbitration works itself out. If the arbitrations make no decision regarding the majority of your edits in this arbitration then we can initiate another arbitration to deal with you specifically. Though I figure they will make new proposed decisions dealing with you for which they will no doubt vote on.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 05:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Martin, again I see you are currently removing qualifiers from paranormal articles. If you feel you are following policy set by Arbcom, I believe you are misinformed. As stated above, no formal decision has been yet made in this proceeding. - LuckyLouie 06:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My edits have nothing to do with ArbCom, as I told you before. There is no "again," as I did not remove any qualifiers last night. Tonight, I removed one qualifier, but changed no actual meaning.  I changed but did not remove other qualifiers.  I specifically left all the qualifiers in -which I could have taken out by all reasonable standards- precisely because the ArbCom has not finalized.  The false accusations don't help your case.


 * If -and the chance is slight- anyone in ArbCom is paying attention to this, I once again say please read the actual diffs . Because I'm editing now exactly as I did before the RfC.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You said My edits have nothing to do with ArbCom, as I told you before, and that you are editing now exactly as you did before the RfC. You are currently doing things such as:
 * Moving articles citing the ArbCom: Need to distinguish between paranormal and parapsychology, per ArbCom on paranormal
 * Categorizing psi as psychology citing the ArbCom: Yeah. Per ArbCom
 * Commentary on the validity of these edits aside, you definitely weren't doing this before the RfC, and it seems that the ArbCom proceedings do have something to do with your edits. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  16:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right that I did make a few edits based on the ArbCom. I've decided to hold off on that since it upset people.  Moving the Ectoplasm page was simply a good idea.  Categorizing Psi as psychology was a balancing response to your own edit- which I might probably have done without the ArbCom.


 * The edits of the Mediumship and EVP articles are what I think LL and WDM are complaining about, and they had nothing to do with the ArbCom. And LL mis-represented the edits as removing qualifiers.  A big part of what I actually did was insert skepticism back into the Mediumship article.  You'd think they'd be happy.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Martin, it is simply frustrating not to be able to take you at your word, and burdensome to be forced to fact-check the claims that you make in discussions. It is important that you allow us to AGF, and being forthright and candid would contribute to that immensely; to quote from WP:AGF: "Actions inconsistent with good faith include repeated vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying." Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  21:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * These two statements are contradictory:
 * "My edits have nothing to do with ArbCom, as I told you before."
 * "You're right that I did make a few edits based on the ArbCom."
 * &mdash; BillC talk 22:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That's right. They are. Now, go back and read what I said- you know, the actual context.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I had already read it, and would not have written what I did unless I had done so. &mdash; BillC talk 22:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You know, guys, trying to set me up to look wrong just doesn't work. For one thing, it's usually just appearances. For instance, LL's assertion that I "removed qualifiers" just doesn't stand up in any meaningful sense. Another example, BillC's facile contradictions above which ignore my statement that I was responding relative to the Mediumship and EVP articles.

For another thing, I make mistakes. Even if you catch me saying something wrong, or making an editing mistake, or editing in a way which is somehow wrong, you still haven't "got" me. So playing gotcha, even where it isn't silly, won't help your case. What you have to prove is that I am a generally bad, disruptive editor who doesn't acknowledge or intend to reform his mistakes- which you have spectacularly failed to do.

Your most significant failure is that the Arbitrators have confirmed my understanding of NPOV in the paranormal articles. You need to accept this.

Because my editing has been NPOV, my failures -such as edit warring which is the main thing I did wrong- are all in the category of "he acknowledged them and won't do them again." But you are still trying to get me for them (and some, such as putting my essay on new user's talk pages, weren't even against the rules). I've been blocked once, while some editors who are going on about how bad I am have been blocked many times.

My major sin is that I'm a thorn in your POV. I have good sources and I have insisted on NPOV. And now we all know it is NPOV.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That's just it; you haven't really acknowledged any mistakes, except in an end-justifies-the-means, I-did-what-I-had-to-do sort of way. You still don't see a problem with directing a new user to an essay on how to game the system here, and you're still defending it with wikilawyering. That's why I don't see these proceedings having a useful outcome. You're not really a thorn in my side; I don't edit paranormal articles, and certainly don't intend to start now. But when a case reaches ArbCom and generates this much heat, I'd like to think that at least the root issues have been addressed, or at least named. I don't see that here. MastCell Talk 05:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I do see something wrong with directing new users that way- at least in the situations in which I did it. However, you guys are trying to get me punished for it, and if it wasn't against the rules I shouldn't be punished.  Nor should you try to get ArbCom to punish me.


 * You really really really need to read before speaking. The AA-EVP article doesn't advocate gaming the system.  It tells how the system is gamed by users like ScienceApologist.


 * The root issues have been addressed. The root issues were POV-pushing by those who wish to discredit paranormal subjects more than the data or sources allow.  ArbCom is now addressing that problem, and hopefully the problem will be solved by the ArbCom ruling.  Bauder puts it best when he says:


 * "I think that the roots of this case are in a misunderstanding on certain core principles. I believe that we are best served by clarifying these principles (which the proposals above accomplish) and leaving enforcement to the community until it becomes clear that a more prescriptive approach is necessary."  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It continues
Please see this diff on mediumship, (my version) (his revert) in which Martinphi claims that changing entire paragraphs and removing whole sentences is a "copy edit". This is after I put considerable amount of effort into checking the actual sources used for the article and found that what he is still citing (twice) as being from dictionary.com is not supported. Using restraint, I created a version of the intro that sourced things similar in meaning that actually had backing from the citations that were used. I think you will see that the version I proposed is equally neutral, if not moreso, than the version he continues to revert to. And calling this "copyedit" is willfully misleading, as it was little more than a revert. His version still stands, since I'm not going to play that kind of game. Ante lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  01:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah- look at the diff here. Compare the versions here and here.  He's complaining about nothing.  I ended up with a rather minor change. A little patience, please, and try not to resort to edit warring so fast that I get edit conflicts. Try to work things out.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You are accusing me of edit warring. If true, then you are more culpable - you simply reverted to your version in kneejerk fashion; what is more, I was the one who put an end to the edit war by ceasing to edit. You leave no space for patience when you immediately revert others' work. Patience goes both ways - when you revert a very recent edit of a page that was on your watchlist, please try to make sure that the change was actually problematic. In the future you ought to wait and/or discuss before you revert what is, to the best of my ability, a good-faith edit that strengthens the article. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  02:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you have against the current version? Why are you angry?  Why won't you work things out?  And I had no intention of reverting, I straightened out the sources per your comments, I made sure that the sources support the text, and I put back in some qualifiers and substance you took out- which are necessary to make the lead reflect the rest of the article.  What's your problem?  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and revert back, I'm not going to war with you. But our versions are so similar, why bother?  You left out one of the main items in your version- physical mediumship (except for a mention that a reader couldn't have made heads or tails of).  We could have worked this out- why'd you go spreading it all here and on Bauder's talk page?  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, let's handle content disputes on the relevant article talk page. MastCell Talk 02:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Martinphi, you've already posted the same message on my talk page and I responded to it. This is a concern that I am raising about your behavior. As MastCell noted, this isn't the place to talk about content - I only invoke it here because it is the evidence necessary to demonstrate behavior. We can and should continue to talk about content on the Talk:Mediumship page. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  02:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Great, so I put a question there. As far as behavior, try to work things out.   Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

And continues
Martin, your removal of qualifiers from paranormal articles continues to be controversial and problematic. As Minderbinder notes, ESP can't be presented  in an article lead as if its existence is fact. -- LuckyLouie 04:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * 1. The lead says "Skeptics say that ESP does not exist, but merely seems to exist because of self-delusion, or the fraudulent use of magical techniques." 2. You guys are the ones always wanting to follow the mainstream sources.  Well, the mainstream source says:


 * "Main Entry: extrasensory perception


 * Function: noun: perception (as in telepathy, clairvoyance, and precognition) that involves awareness of information about events external to the self not gained through the senses and not deducible from previous experience -- called also ESP"


 * Putting in more qualifiers is POV-pushing. Stop POV-pushing. And tell Minderbinder to stop also.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, this has nothing to do with the ArbCom. It's just good editing practice, and sources.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You're cherry picking one source when many other mainstream sources define it with a qualifier. There are a multitude of reliable sources that document people making claims of the ability.  I have yet to see one reliable source that definitively shows that the ability exists.  In such a case, there's zero source to back up stating it as if it were an accepted fact, and yet you insist that a wording that agrees with the sources is "POV pushing"?  This is a perfect example of Martin's violation of NPOV.  Is there some reason the arbcom hasn't made any mention of it, or have you just not got around to it yet?  Martin's disruptive editing is an ongoing problem, and I don't see much if anything in the proposed decision so far that will solve this problem.  --Minderbinder 15:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Er, Martinphi, where does WP say that a fringe claim can be stated as an accepted fact as long as there's a separate sentence mentioning that some people are skeptical of the claim? I really want to know what guidelines you're following here. - LuckyLouie 22:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Where was Minderbinder's policy stating that he can insert qualifiers not supported by the source given? Nope.  Pure POV-pushing.  Where is the policy stating that we must insert qualifiers when many mainstream sources don't?  Where did you ever learn to read the definition of a term as a statement that the term refers to something real?  Er?  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Minderbinder and LuckyLouie seem to be posturing for the admins here. Actually, this is an illustration of how we got here in the first place. Milo, there are quite a few good references showing the existence of something that sounds a lot like ESP. The problem is that you all won't allow the references. If what is going on is anything like what happened in the EVP article, most of the bickering is just a few outnumbered editors trying to keep you guys from using insinuation to discredit the subject.  Tom Butler 20:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This will be settled soon enough.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Unscientific concepts like ectoplasm
Strange that the ArbCom has two unopposed findings regarding unscientific concepts like ectoplasm...

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

2) Conflation of parapsychology with unscientific concepts, mk. II
 * 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).

... but the Parapsychological Association itself says:

ECTOPLASM ''Term introduced into parapsychology by Charles Richet to describe the “exteriorized substance” produced out of the bodies of some physical mediums and from which materializations are sometimes formed. [From the Greek ektos, “outside,” + plasma, “something formed or molded”]'' (Emphasis mine). Ante lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  23:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Antelan, no one but the skeptics on Wikipedia thinks that defining a term is the same as saying that the thing defined is real. And they only believe it because it helps get their POV into the articles.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The date of that was the early 1900s. It's a throwback to their early, early days when they investigated spiritualist claims and the photos that went along with them. The photos often had a white milky substance that was passed off as materializations that only appeared on film. Ectoplasm was another term used to describe them. Those photos are believed to be fake today, partly because of early psychical researchers who helped to expose them as fraudulent. It's an old, old term popularized again by Ghost Busters the movie.
 * -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 23:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)


 * That same glossary has been used to source claims on other pages. Furthermore, it is a production of the Parapsychological Association, the same group whose work is cited in the findings of fact that I referenced above. I simply note that the Parapsychological Association has provided us with a definition of ectoplasm that includes it as a term within their field. Ectoplasm is the only example cited where parapsychology has been "confused with sensational, unscientific beliefs." This contrary statement by the Parapsychological Association is notable in this context. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  00:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There's no contrary statement. I explain a little more below, but the gist is that parapsychology should not be confused with any belief. It is not a belief system. See below for more detail. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 05:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. the definition referred to in the PA is how the word is defined. There is nothing there that says that ectoplasm is real or that it has been exhaustively studied--no journal references. Are you really arguing that defining a term is equivalent to saying that the subject of the term is real? If that is the case, then maybe we should take a look at some of the other subject areas. How about gravitational waves . The opening line is: "In physics, a gravitational wave is a fluctuation in the curvature of spacetime which propagates as a wave, traveling outward from a moving object or system of objects." They are still trying to detect the darned things, but according to what I am hearing here, we have to take the opening line as saying they exist and have been measured. By the way, I wonder if the "Indirect proof" cited is still valid given the disagreement in the Hubble Constant. Tom Butler 00:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You and Martinphi appear to be having a conversation about the reality of ectoplasm; I never addressed that topic, nor do I plan to. Whether or not it is real has nothing at all to do with the fact that the Parapsychological Association defines it as a term of parapsychology. That definition has relevance to two findings of fact in this ArbCom. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  00:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

We're saying that this is a term for something which modern parapsychology does not investigate much, if at all. Thus, though it is a term in the field, it is not a very current term.

However, you are ignoring the fact that the article basically does not make the distinction between parapsychology the science, and the unscientific or pop culture aspects. That's what the proposal is talking about. It isn't primarily saying that ectoplasm isn't within parapsychology -although that is mostly true. It's saying that parapsychology has been confused with pop culture. Am I right, Nealparr?  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Now you're changing your tune. You insisted on using the same source in mediumship to attribute a statement about "materialization", which states that materialization is "a phenomenon of physical mediumship in which living entities or inanimate objects are caused to take form, sometimes from ectoplasm." If the Parapsychological Association is reliable enough for that article, it's reliable enough to consider here. If it's not reliable enough for this page, then it shouldn't considered reliable enough for backing assertions in Wikipedia. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  01:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I really have no idea what you mean.... not even enough to ask you a question. The PA is reliable.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 02:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * If not for one, not for any? That doesn't make any sense. WP:RS is always a case by case basis. But where's the reliability issue? All I said above is that it's an older term from back when parapsychology was interested in ectoplasm. Nothing I said diverged at all from the PA definition and I certainly did not say that the PA definition was wrong. Where I believe that you are wrong (and I hope you don't take this criticism as an attack, but rather as hoping we can get on the same page) is that you are still equating the study with that which is studied. I've mentioned this before, but this keeps coming up. If ectoplasm is not backed by scientific research, ectoplasm is not supported by science. If astrology is not backed by scientific research, astrology is not supported by science. If paranormal is not... and so on. None of this has anything to do with whether or not science can study unscientific beliefs, which it commonly does. Science was applied to the unscientific astrology to determine it is not scientific. Science is frequently applied to research on religious beliefs that are not supported by science. The two, the belief itself and the study of the belief and whether or not there is anything to it are not the same thing. In other words, parapsychology is often "confused with sensational, unscientific beliefs" of which ectoplasm is one, but paranormal itself is another. It is often confused, as you are doing now, because the study of beliefs is not belief itself. Again, not to hammer on you, but this is a recurring confusion on your part. This proposal is actually talking about what you're doing now, equating a proposed phenomenon with the belief in that phenomenon. As I pointed out above, parapsychology took the claims about ectoplasm, came up with a term for it and a definition, applied the science of the time to the evidence for it, and ended up dismissing it.
 * -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 04:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You say, "If ectoplasm is not backed by scientific research, ectoplasm is not supported by science". That is a borderline tautology. The truth condition of that statement, while interesting, has no bearing on my observation. You next say "It is often confused, as you are doing now, because the study of beliefs is not belief itself. Again, not to hammer on you, but this is a recurring confusion on your part. This proposal is actually talking about what you're doing now, equating a proposed phenomenon with the belief in that phenomenon." The PA didn't say that "belief in ectoplasm" was a feature of parapsychology - they say "ectoplasm" is. My understanding is unambiguous on this distinction. Whether or not parapsychologists believe in ectoplasm is unimportant to me and irrelevant to my observation. I am making no claim about their beliefs. I am not forcing ectoplasm on parapsychology; I am drawing your attention to a straightforward observation. According to the Parapsychological Association, ectoplasm is a term of parapsychology. In my view, this, in itself, is sufficient to make the above findings of fact worthy of revisit.
 * Ante lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  05:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Consider it for a second this way. If "the study of" is the same as "the phenomenon itself", then all the scientific research that has made conclusions that paranormal is all in our heads is likewise unscientific, because it studies the phenomena. It just doesn't work that way. This proposal is correct in noting that parapsychology is often confused with the belief in these weird things. Parapsychologists are not required to believe in anything at all, but more to the point, they aren't automatically ectoplasm if they believe in ectoplasm. Until they die and become Slimer, of course : )
 * -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 04:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You say, "If "the study of" is the same as "the phenomenon itself", then all the scientific research that has made conclusions that paranormal is all in our heads is likewise unscientific, because it studies the phenomena. It just doesn't work that way.". Since you do not believe things work like that, then it should not disturb you that the Paranormal Association has associated ectoplasm with parapsychology. You then say, "Parapsychologists are not required to believe in anything at all, but more to the point, they aren't automatically ectoplasm if they believe in ectoplasm." Belief is irrelevant to me, to the proceedings of this ArbCom, and to the articles in question. I don't know how many different ways I can say this. I encourage you to quote back to me' any statement on this page that I have made that makes you think I am conflating "belief in X" with "X", because I see no basis for this focus of yours.
 * Ante lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  05:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's not you or I that is on "trial" here. It's the proposals. The proposals read:


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


 * 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).


 * Both statements are correct. Parapsychology is often "conflated" (meld, fuse, combine into one whole) with unscientific beliefs and stories. This happens frequently. Martinphi has been criticized in this very ArbCom for doing so. It's part of the argument against his POV that he has taken pseudoscientific topics and tried to make them scientific by labeling them parapsychological. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing that he does that, but that's the argument. It has happened in the ectoplasm article, just like the proposal said. The key word in the first proposal is "conflate", which means to meld into one whole. Parapsychology cannot be melded into one whole with ectoplasm (my argument), but it has been.


 * Just talking about the proposals, I'm confused what your point is? Unless your argument is that parapsychology should actually be confused with "unscientific beliefs and stories" because ectoplasm is in their glossary, why bring it up? Otherwise the two proposals make perfect sense and are true. They're relevant to the ArbCom because it's part of the various arguments that have been going on here. In the intro to this thread and your first response to my response, you seemed to indicate that the PA glossary is contradictory, that it on one hand says that it shouldn't be confused with unscientific beliefs and stories, but that having ectoplasm in its glossary contradicts this. My point above is that parapsychology and ectoplasm aren't to be confused with one another. What was your point? I really am confused because you were down on my point which I thought was completely relevant.
 * -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 06:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't respond to your interpretation of what I seemed to say; I can only vouch for what I actually said. I'm confident this will make conversation much more agreeable for all involved. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  06:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Btw, you said


 * "PA didn't say that 'belief in ectoplasm' was a feature of parapsychology - they say 'ectoplasm' is."


 * This is taking a term that was historically "introduced into" in parapsychology and elevating it to a "feature of" parapsychology. These are exactly the types of things that these proposals are talking about.


 * Another example, you said


 * "Since you do not believe things work like that, then it should not disturb you that the Paranormal Association has associated ectoplasm with parapsychology."


 * Here you are calling it an "association". I agree with that. It is associated. But in the intro to this thread, you are using the glossary, an association, as a contradiction to the proposals which say "confused with" and "conflated with". Elevating an association to confusion or conflation is another example of what these proposals are talking about. Back to my increasingly relevant point, an "association" of parapsychology with ectoplasm is not the same thing as a "confused with" or "conflated with" ectoplasm. If it is, then the association was just conflated and that's kind of proving the proposal right.


 * -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 06:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * With respect, I ask you to imagine that instead of feature, I had said component, aspect, facet, part, or any of the other words that would be less offensive to you, and then consider responding to my point, not my word choice. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  06:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not offended in the least, just hoping to provide illustrations of some of the things this proposal is talking about. It's just a proposed finding anyway, not a remedy. Findings (I think) are just a way of saying, ok, we heard your point. Since the beginning of this ArbCom, myself and others have illustrated where parapsychology is sometimes confused with other completely (instead of arguably) unscientific things.


 * Sorry, to your actual point. I don't find it disturbing that ectoplasm was a "part" of parapsychology. Like I said, this was back in the day and addressed the issues of the time. Science has evolved and so has parapsychology. I mean, that Charles Richet guy who came up with ectoplasm died in 1935, Rhine didn't start his "experimental" approach until the 1930s. Popper didn't develop falsifiability until the 1930s. Richet was going off the science of his day. The glossary doesn't elaborate on these things, but if you look at range of sources, you'll see that ectoplasm is a historical artifact of parapsychology.
 * -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 07:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "Association", like "feature", is my word. Let us jettison both. The Parapsychological Association says that ectoplasm is a "term introduced into parapsychology by Charles Richet to describe the “exteriorized substance” produced out of the bodies of some physical mediums and from which materializations are sometimes formed." No restatement of that is necessary. To paraphrase from above, you are attempting to "un-meld, un-fuse, de-combine from one whole" parapsychology vis-a-vis ectoplasm, but ectoplasm was introduced into parapsychology long ago.  Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  07:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Right, un-conflate, un-confuse, pretty much the proposal. And if parapsychology is not to be conflated with, or confused with, "unscientific beliefs and stories", what's wrong with the proposal as a finding?
 * -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 07:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not yours, or mine, to "un-meld" or "un-fuse" parapsychology and ectoplasm, at least not if the Parapsychological Association is considered to be a reliable source on this matter. And since the proposed findings of fact hinge on this detail, they ought to be reconsidered. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  07:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, I see. You think I am trying to un-fuse it. That's not what I am saying. There was never a fusion to begin with, so there's nothing to un-fuse. They are not fused or melded because an associative link appears in a glossary. If you can find me an actual fusion, like in the contemporary work of parapsychologists, then we can talk. But, see, this is why I'm confused over where you're going with this. In your comment, you said: "since the proposed findings of fact hinge on this detail, they ought to be reconsidered". One of the proposed finding says,


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


 * If we insert "fused, melded, made one" (the definition of conflated), it would read:


 * Parapsychology has in some instances been [fused, melded, made one] with sensational, unscientific beliefs and stories about 'the paranormal', for example Ectoplasm (parapsychology).


 * I don't understand why you think that should be reconsidered since that is what you are saying here. Your saying that the glossary makes that true. All I've been saying is that the above happens but shouldn't. But you're saying that it should, because of the glossary, so out of the two of us, you should agree with that proposal more than I.


 * The other proposal simply says that "according to". That's easy. You can go and look up that and find that the proposed finding is correct.
 * -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 09:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't put things any more clearly, sorry. I'll leave this for the arbitrators. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  09:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Antelan, it isn't that parapsychology has been confused with ectoplasm or the study thereof. It's that parapsychology, in the article on ectoplasm, has been confused with pop culture. Ghost busting is not parapsychology- unless it is, that is to say, unless it is done in a scientific manner. This confusion came about because the article starts out with parapsychology, and was named (parapsychology), and does not make a firm distinction between parapsychology and pop culture. The same thing has happened on other articles. Does this explain things?  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "Antelan, it isn't that parapsychology has been confused with ectoplasm or the study thereof." I'm glad you see that now. "This confusion came about because the article starts out with parapsychology, and was named (parapsychology), and does not make a firm distinction between parapsychology and pop culture." So now that it's named ectoplasm (paranormal), are you saying that paranormal is indistinct from pop culture? Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  06:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I never said that.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * However, forget the whole thing. This is way too complex for me.  As far as I can tell, all the proposal says is that parapsychology, the science, has been confused with pop culture aspects of the paranormal. This was done in the Ectoplasm (parapsychology) article.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 08:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about conflation
I am deeply concerned about the conflation between parapsychology/paranormal topics and occult topics. The occult was not part of this dispute and I am disturbed by its inclusion in the finding of facts & especially in the remedies and their application. Most editors working on occult topics will be unaware of these limitations and may not even be aware of the massive paranormal dispute. I am mostly worried that the inclusion of the "occult" overextends this case beyond the locus of dispute and area of consideration. I am also worried that it would create an overly broad restriction (and put a cloud over) editors in a topic area completely unaffected by this dispute. Thanks for your time and consideration. Vassyana 21:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the only thing which might effect you would be the revert limitation. Users would have to be informed about the rv limitation before it effected them. Is that bad?  I also don't like the rv limitation, not because I'm into reverting, but because I foresee unforeseen consequences.  But I did all I could to prevent it.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is Bad. Sanctions and blocks are supposed to be preventative and limited to the users/topics which are problematic. Overbroad solutions violate this principle, become exceedingly difficult to enforce due to scope, unfairly impact & reflect on uninvolved parties & topics, etc. Vassyana 19:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, well that makes it even worse than I thought. My main concern was that it limits our ability to revert those anon IPs who com by once and add a sentence which doesn't belong in the article, but which isn't vandalism, either.  Martinphi  (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have much more to add, but as far as I see things, your understanding of the peripheral (non-existent?) role of "occult" articles in the events leading up to this proceeding seems accurate. Is there some sort of overlap that is causing the inclusion of "occult" articles in these rulings? Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  04:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert limitation bad for 4 reasons
The revert limitation proposal is bad and against the spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines for four reasons:


 * 1) It includes topics that were never discussed and never involved editors who actually participate in them, for example the occult, but also as a broad definition many other topics. These editors never had a chance to present their case.
 * 2) If it is meant to be interpreted as applying to any editor who regularly edits the topics, it is singling out just one interest on Wikipedia and creating a special ruleset just for that interest, where all other topics have a separate ruleset. This is unprecedented to my knowledge. Out of all the topics that sometimes result in edit wars and excessive reverts, paranormal alone is treated specially. I hate revert wars the same as anyone, but a lot of editors will be wondering why people who are interested in paranormal topics have to suffer something special when all the other often controversial topics don't. It's also confusing. How would an editor who has an interest in paranormal topics know that they have to abide by special rules? Why would they be penalized for the actions of past editors?
 * 3) If it is meant to be interpreted as applying only to editors who are parties to the arbitration, it's also bad because future editors will have the chance to walk all over past editors. Being involved in discussions shouldn't result in penalties just for being involved. Already editors who weren't involved in the arbitration are involving themselves in articles on these topics. Should the revert limitation only apply to parties in the arbitration, they have an unfair advantage in presenting their various points of view.
 * 4) If it's meant to apply to either parties or any editor who regularly edits these topic, it severly limits the possibility of having expert opinions in the articles. It's reasonable to assume that editors who regularly edit these topics have an interest in the subject, and probably are more read on the various opinions and information involved. Limiting their participation favors only those who don't edit these articles regularly, which can likewise be assumed that they are less familiar with the subject. The end result is likely to be uninformed edits because those who are more likely to be informed are burdened by the special rule.

It's a bad proposal any way you cut it and sets a horrible precedent on Wikipedia for this and future disagreements. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 20:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Can an arbitrator respond to this and clear things up before the voting is closed? I don't really think this is a good proposal. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 04:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * They don't seem to be responding to my suggestions either.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that it's presumably passed with 6 votes, and presumably applies to me for having participated, I really need it explained to me based on the bulleted statements above. I don't know why I have to follow special procedures when I've done nothing wrong. Does it apply to everyone who edits paranormal articles? A lot of them didn't do anything wrong either. Does it apply to new editors? Why do they have to follow special procedures based on past editors? Is there going to be a special notice placed in the 3RR guidelines so that editors know about it? If not, how would they know? Why are people interested in editing paranormal articles, enthusiasts and skeptics alike, penalized when no other controversial topic on Wikipedia is? I foresee a lot of problems with this remedy, but for now I need to know how it applies to me in particular. Not trying to be difficult, but I don't understand it. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 23:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Another reason why this proposal shouldn't be installed . User posted a link that violates WP:EL. I reverted it. Technically that would be my one revert for the entire week since it's not vandalism. What happens when the guy spams the article again? -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 17:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Having thought about this and other possible problems, I have moved my vote to oppose this remedy as being too broad and too limiting on normal, non-problematic editing. However, revert warring on these articles HAS TO STOP because it is making some of them effectively un-editable for everyone except those revert-warring. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and I completely agree. It's been extremely frustrating. Maybe something along the lines of encouraging or imposing a WP:1RR on wording choices would be more appropriate. That seems to have been what most editors war over, differing opinions on what is and isn't neutral wording. Again, thank you for reconsidering. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 22:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology receives GA status
Just bringing it to everyone's attention that several editors involved in the arbitration were able to set aside their differences and work to bring parapsychology to good article status. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 18:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I need to find a Wiki-icon for thumbs-up. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  19:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed decision
As has been noted above, the decision does stray into content issues. It implies that Dixon can be described as a psychic rather than purported psychic. Given the requirement of wikipedia for neutrality, I cannot understand this approach. What is next? ArbCom saying that "Bush is a good president" is better than "Bush is said to be a good president"? I have reviewed the evidence provided and none of it, to my mind, justifies the content intervention. If there is edit-warring, the warriors should be warned and the articles locked as appropriate. I agree that ArbCom action may be necessary in certain content issues where consensus was not able to make a useful determination. However, I saw no evidence that this last resort stage had been reached. There was no evidence presented that the use of terms like psychic could not be governed by discussion on talk pages, RFCs and ultimately by appeals for input on the Community portal. If all those avenues had failed, then there might be a role for ArbCom. It seems that this case will be closed soon. I hope the arbitrators will read this and reflect on the wisdom of the current strategy for future cases. Eiler7 00:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi Eiler. As one following the case from day one, the talk pages were filled, archived, filled, archived, and filled again. There was at least one mediation that didn't work out and it did end up with a RfC before it reached arbitration. There was a lot of discussion. That said, the above actually doesn't provide any content rulings, just suggestions and insights that might help in the future. The specific one over "psychic" and "purported psychic" lends the insight that sometimes "psychic" is just an occupation title, like "magician". The title of "magician" doesn't imply that the person has any real magical abilities, just that they act in the capacity of a magician, whatever that capacity may be. If the actual occupational role of a magician is to entertain people by fooling them, then that's what it is. If the occupational role of a psychic is to fool people into thinking they have an ability, well, that's their job morally good or bad. The insight in the proposal suggests that whatever they do (flim flam or fantastic), that's their job title. It's different than saying "Bush is a good president", because you're making a quality statement by using the word "good" versus a job title statement of simply "Bush is a president". Theoretically you could say "Bush is a purported president" because he may have lost Florida way back when, and is therefore not an actual president and only acting as a president, but he still has the title of "president". That's sort of what the proposal says. Whether or not psychics have actual psychic abilities (whether or not Bush has actual presidential abilities), they're still called "psychic" (president). Incidentally, even skeptics like Randi call them a psychic, just before pointing out how they don't have psychic abilities, for example, professional psychic Uri Geller, often criticized by Randi, but called a psychic by Randi nonetheless. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 01:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I interpret the findings the same way as Eiler7. Nealparr, I largely agree with your reasoning; however, I do not think that it is universally recognized that all "psychics" do not actually have any psychic abilities. Consequently, as a content decision, there may be cases where "purported" or "self-styled" or something similar would be necessary for clarification. These findings of fact could be interpreted as barring such clarification, even when useful. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  01:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd agree that there are cases where a qualifier is needed. In fact, I'll give an example. "Sylvia Browne is a professional psychic" (doesn't need a qualifier). "Sylvia Browne's professed abilities are..." (here the qualifier is important). I also think some qualifiers are better than others. "Professed" in this case is better than "purported". I think what you guys may be missing is that none of the proposals rule out these types of editorial judgments. The "findings of fact" relate to the "proposed remedies" as a way of explaining why those remedies were reached and the thinking behind them. I don't see any content judgments beyond findings that editors didn't necessarily act in bad faith on supposedly POV edits. I'm sure an arbitrator will correct me if I'm wrong, but nowhere in the remedies is there a prescription for content wording that prevents editorial judgment. It's always (at least in my understanding) been about editor actions. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 02:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, but my feeling is that these will come back to (I can't hold back) haunt us later, to be used as tools by anyone with an axe to grind one way or another. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  05:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, 6a says "it should not be necessary to add more". I cannot help feel that, despite your conclusions, that edits will be made along the lines of "Person X is a psychic" rather than "self-declared psychic" and such edits will use this finding as a justification. I think it is too soon for ArbCom to make such editorial decisions. Eiler7 23:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Neutrality issues aside, "self-declared psychic" isn't really accurate. Many people describe them as psychic, or at least give them the title of psychic. Self-declared chooses a very narrow view (they just call themselves that) and ignores all the other people who describe them as psychic.-- Nealparr  (talk to me) 07:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for clarification: Paranormal - Adequate Framing Feb 2009

 * Refactored title per page format issue. Franamax (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday
In articles such as psychic, telekinesis, and so on, where the subject's very existence is heavily in dispute, it seems to me to be necessary, to adequately frame the subject, to acknowledge that in the lead sentence. For instance, you could describe it as a "purported ability", but to simply define it as what proponents say it is seems to directly imply its existence, which is a problem. However, it's been said that this Arbcom ruling means that such framing is forbidden. Can you clarify whether this ruling was meant to apply in articles about such abilities and subjects themselves, or whether it was intended to instead mean that it's usually not necessary to rehash such debates in every article? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To Newyorkbrad: I didn't think of that - sorry! I've done it now. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To Fred: Please forgive me, I'm not quite sure I fully understand your point. It seems to be that, all things being equal, it's not necessary to rehash, say, the psychic debate in every article, but that instead we can just include individualised criticism to frame it, but I'm not sure how that applies in articles where the subject is, say Psychic, Parapsychology, Ghost, and so on. How would you see, say, Psychic's lead sentence or paragraph, if adequate framing is to be provided? Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment(s) by Fred Bauder
Just as one need only identify a narrative as being based on a dream in order to frame it as not real, in many instances simply identifying a subject as being "paranormal" serves to frame it as not being based on scientific observation. Thus, it is not necessary to include extensive disclaimers in order to satisfy neutral point of view. The same principle can be applied to alternative medicine. Identifying Homeopathy as alternative medicine defines it as not being based on standard medical trials of effectiveness. It is not necessary to throw the word quackery around in the introduction. Likewise with respect to the paranormal, simply stating that telekinesis is a paranormal phenomenon is generally sufficient. It is not necessary to carry on at length regarding lack of scientific evidence. The example given about Jeane Dixon, a notorious humbug who held herself out as a psychic, is illustrative. Fred Talk 18:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not forbidden to point out lack of evidence of a subject's existance in close questions; it is simply bad form to continually edit war and fuss over such language when simply stating that a phenomena falls into a generally rejected category offers more than sufficient information to the reader. Fred Talk 18:34, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Sandstein
This request is not actionable and should be closed, because it pertains to a decision that has not yet been made. This discussion belongs on the proposed decision talk page. Also, on the merits, is Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed decision, a principle enunciated by the Committee, even part of the binding arbitration decision? I was under the impression that the only operative part of arbitral decisions are the remedies. If that is so, the principle at issue is not enforceable through arbitration enforcement and the request is moot anyway.  Sandstein  19:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Strike part of the above, the case is indeed closed, and the correct link goes to Requests for arbitration/Paranormal.  Sandstein   20:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by Shoemaker's Holiday
@ Sandstein: They are generally treated as enforceable, even unanswerable. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment by GRBerry
Those attempting to understand one part of an ArbComm case should also look to other parts. In this case, it appears to me that to understand principle 6.2 "Adequate framing" and finding of fact 12 "Paranormal as an effective tag", it is necessary to also review at the least principles 6.1 "Appropriate handling of epistemological status, no content" and 11 "Generally considered pseudoscience", findings of fact 3 "Status of parapsychology", 5 "Cultural artifacts", 6 "Subjects without referents", and 9 "Flat statements of fact". The numbering indicates that principles 6.1 and 6.2 are related replacements for the rejected proposed principle 6. Personally, I would expect that in articles such as Psychic or Ghost principle 6.1 would be of more relevance than 6.2, while in the case of an individual claiming to be a psychic or a claimed particular incident/location of haunting by a ghost 6.2 would be of more relevance than 6.1. However, the amount of framing to appear in an article's lead is always going to be constrained by other standards applying to article leads, so the framing in the lead is likely to be succinct with extended discussion of epistemological status in the body of the article. GRBerry 23:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Clerk notes

 * There is some threaded discussion above, are the arbs ok with this or should it be broken out into sections for each participant?  MBisanz  talk 01:23, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * - Each editor needs to comment under a separate heading. Tiptoety  talk 01:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Archiving in approximately 12 hours--Tznkai (talk) 14:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator comments

 * Please give notice of this thread to the former arbitrator who wrote the decision. I would welcome his input on this request. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I thank Fred for his input. I believe that in past discussions concerning principles in the Pseudoscience case, the conclusion has been that they represent general background observations on the issues, and are not meant to unduly constrain the usual process of article development (i.e., there is a difference between the role of principles and the role of remedies). In this case, I think the principle suggests that it is well to avoid undue weight on a negative characterization of a subject or topic in the lead, but I do not think it would be valid in a content to dispute to expect to be playing a trump card by stating "your wording violates a principle handed down by the ArbCom two years ago." Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Interpretation of past rulings are always, as a rule, a difficult endeavor. In this particular case, I share Shoemaker's Holiday puzzlement over the examples given since it would seem to me that describing someone as a "psychic" without qualification, for instance, begs the question of the existence of psychics in the first place.  If the article on our founder began "Jimmy Wales, a 700-year old vampire", then it appears to claim not only that Jimbo might be a vampire, but that vampires do in fact exist (since he would be one).  It would appear to me that the only neutral way of framing claims of belonging to a category whose very existence is disputed requires attributing the claim. However, I am not about to guess at intent without giving the drafting arbitrator the opportunity to clarify it themself.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * My view here is that editorial discretion is key, and ArbCom shouldn't be ruling on this sort of thing, other than to uphold the principle of editorial discretion. If there is disagreement over how best to write a lead sentence, or get the balance right in the lead section, then look at how other encyclopedias (or other Wikipedia articles) have handled this. Aim to get the balance right between a suitably worded description and one that is readable. In other words, don't tie things up in knots if the end result is an awkward and clumsy sentence or paragraph. Better to have a good piece of writing that gets the point across, than a standard approach that is clumsily imposed on all articles in this topic area. And do trust the readers more. Some of them are perfectly aware of what the issues are and don't need to be (metaphorically) beaten over the head with clarifications and disclaimers and glosses to explain things. Sometimes a link and a few judiciously chosen words alone is enough. Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment to the related clarifiction above. I believe the same principle holds valid here. This is largely a ball in the community's court at this point, or so I believe. Vassyana (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)