Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed decision

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I expect more from you. Fred Bauder 17:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Simply dismissing it as "pseudoscience" is aggressive. Fred Bauder 14:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And what about "obvious pseudoscience"? Simões (talk/contribs) 15:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: But you said it was obvious pseudoscience! Are you now deciding to contradict yourself?--ScienceApologist 18:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Parapsychology is not an obvious pseudoscience. Fred Bauder 18:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I investigated the matter more fully. Fred Bauder 13:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "aggressive editing" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Comments on Dean Radin

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Kazuba

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Reverting

message: 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)
thread_title: PerfectBlue's response

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I don't remember mentioning your name.Wikidudeman (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please don't forget... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Let's all take a deep breath and calm down 

message: 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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Workshop#Martinphi.27s conduct. Simões (talk/contribs) 06:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Martinphi's conduct 

message: "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 Antelan talk 20:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Status of parapsychology

message: Noted by Antelan talk 20:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: "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 Antelan talk 20:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Conflation of parapsychology with unscientific concepts

message: Noted by Antelan talk 20:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: "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)
thread_title: Three layer cake with frosting

message: *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)
thread_title: Why this is notable

message: Noted by Antelan talk 20:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Jumping the gun

message: 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. Antelan talk 01:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Antelan talk 02:10, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Please, let's handle content disputes on the relevant article talk page. MastCell Talk 02:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. Antelan talk 02:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: It continues

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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? Antelan talk 04:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns about conflation 

message: The revert limitation proposal is bad and against the spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines for four reasons:
# 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.
# 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?
# 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.
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: They don't seem to be responding to my suggestions either. Wikidudeman (talk) 05:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Thank you, and I completely agree. It's been extremely frustrating. Maybe something along the lines of encouraging or imposing a WP:1RR#One-revert_rule 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)
thread_title: Revert limitation bad for 4 reasons

message: 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)
replies: text: I need to find a Wiki-icon for thumbs-up. Antelan talk 19:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Parapsychology receives GA status

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Antelan talk 01:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Antelan talk 05:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Proposed decision

message: :::Refactored title  per page format issue. Franamax (talk) 06:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To Newyorkbrad: I didn't think of that - sorry! I've done it now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

text: 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's Holiday (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: Strike part of the above, the case is indeed closed, and the correct link goes to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal#Adequate_framing.  Sandstein  20:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

text: * - Each editor needs to comment under a separate heading. Tiptoety talk 01:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for clarification: [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed_decision#Adequate_framing|Paranormal - Adequate Framing]] Feb 2009

message: 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's Holiday (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To Newyorkbrad: I didn't think of that - sorry! I've done it now. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

text: 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's Holiday (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Shoemaker's Holiday|Shoemaker's Holiday]]

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comment(s) by [[User:Fred Bauder|Fred Bauder]] 

message: 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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed decision#Adequate framing, 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)
replies: text: Strike part of the above, the case is indeed closed, and the correct link goes to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal#Adequate_framing.  Sandstein  20:09, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:Sandstein|Sandstein]] 

message: @ Sandstein: They are generally treated as enforceable, even unanswerable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:Shoemaker's Holiday|Shoemaker's Holiday]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:GRBerry|GRBerry]] 

message: *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)
replies: text: * - Each editor needs to comment under a separate heading. Tiptoety talk 01:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clerk notes 

message: *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)
thread_title: Arbitrator comments