Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

message: This is a set of articles where two sides have become quite entrenched. There have been quite a few inappropriate editorial actions, including edit-warring, sockpuppetry, tendentious editing, wikilawyering, etc. Many of these problems are evident at Wikipedia Talk:Requests for comment/Martinphi. This user-conduct RfC provided some gauge of community feeling about the actions of the involved editors, but went nowhere in terms of resolving conflict and facilitating consensus. Therefore, I'd ask ArbCom to look at this, primarily as a matter of user conduct which has been refractory to lesser methods of dispute resolution. Personally, I think the content aspects have important implications for how we interpret WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT, but I think the user-conduct issues are most pressing at the moment. MastCell Talk 19:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by mostly uninvolved editor [[User:MastCell|MastCell]] 

message: I consider the behaviour of Davkal around these articles to be an urgent problem. I tried to deal with it in September 2006, decided that I was getting burned-out by the sheer unpleasantness of the interaction, and opted out like a coward. I've been keeping an eye out since, though, and nothing seems to have changed. See this recent ANI thread for diffs and further comments. Bishonen | talk 20:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by no longer involved [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]]

message: I'd like to add one more voice in support of ScienceApologist, Bishonen and the tireless Minderbinder.  The comment re AAAS above  is a perfect example of the approach of these paranormal supporters: the AAAS at one point decided to admit a parapsychology group, therefore parapsychology is a valid scientific discipline, therefore the paranormal has scientific acceptance; the logical disconnects are obvious to us but not to these editors. Guy (Help!) 20:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by occasionally involved [[User:JzG|Guy]]

message: This is an important matter which goes beyond concerns over individual user conduct. There is a small body of editors who seek more respectability for paranormal beliefs than such topics would normally expect to receive in traditional encyclopaedias. The  banner has been applied to hundreds of articles, including many on which one would not expect to see it, such as Megalith, RMS Queen Mary or SETI, with at times contentious results. Now articles even further removed from the paranormal, such as evolution, have been targeted. — BillC talk 23:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by occasionally involved [[User:BillC|BillC]]

message: Like Wikidudeman, I have been invoking the regulations against Pseudoscience with regards to the paranormal articles.  I was also somewhat involved in the request for comment on Martinphi's conduct.  More recently, I've been involved in an edit dispute at Topics in ufology.  I strongly agree with the position that Wikipedia must reflect the scientific consensus, which is one point of this dispute (the matters of undue weight and fringe).  
But there is also a question of viewpoint and language, which has become apparent to me during the Topics in ufology dispute, and may explain why this dispute has gotten to this point.  I don't expect it to instantly resolve, but here is the problem I see:
I (and, I believe, various other editors) speak in the terms and language of science, and place extreme importance on clarity, distinction, validity, and the scientific consensus.  Those who support inclusion of the paranormal material as something categorized or derived from science seem to have a different outlook: they invoke any reference or usage, even inappropriate, as grounds for inclusion in Wikipedia.  I will provide two examples: Martinphi has flagged the statement 'crop circles are of human origin' with a 'fact' tag, claiming that because we haven't traced the cause of every crop circle, we can't say that they are caused by pranksters or artists (whichever term you prefer), despite every crop circle that has been so traced is from a human.  The second example is from Topics in ufology: I have removed material such as perpetual motion from this article, because it has nothing to do with UFOs, it has merely been invoked by zealous UFO advocates, only to have it added back with the claim that that invocation makes the inclusion notable.
The above may simply be a matter of educating the editors concerned on Wikipedia:Undue weight, but given the futility of prior attempts to do so, I am afraid that this deeper misunderstanding is the problem.  I am not sure how to resolve it.  Per prior ArbCom decision, Wikipedia must reflect the scientific consensus, but with the current wording, I foresee many disputes like this one. Michaelbusch 03:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by occasionally involved [[User:Michaelbusch|Michael Busch]]

message: There are misunderstandings on both sides of the issue about what parapsychology is and is not.  There is a distinction between 'parapsychology' and 'paranormal research' that is not being addressed here.  Parapsychology is a tiny, tiny field made up of mostly university professors, and it does enjoy some status (albeit marginal) within the scientific community.  In general, the field of parapsychology has very little to say about topics like Electronic Voice Phenomena and Jonathan Edwards (at least not anything that would support a paranormal interpretation).  There is no such thing as a "consensus of parapsychologists," especially given that a portion of academic parapsychologists (i.e. members of the Parapsychological Association) are skeptics who hold no particular belief in the paranormal.  Any legitimacy that parapsychology enjoys as a science should not be invoked and then generalized to legitimize all paranormal topics here at Wikipedia.  On the other hand, many of the broad criticisms of paranormal research do not necessarily apply to parapsychology, yet this tiny field has been inaccurately lumped into lists and categories of pseudoscience right along with belief in fairies and King Tut's curse.
We don't need the Arbitration Committee to solve the problem of demarcation for us...at least not right now.  I think that despite the differing worldviews that these editors present, it is still possible for us to stabilize these articles without arbitration.  I urge the arbitration committee to limit the scope of their decision to the user conduct issues that have been brought forward by Minderbender, and allow the larger community of Wikipedia editors to work out the rest. --Annalisa Ventola (Talk | Contribs) 04:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by occasionally involved [[User:Annalisa Ventola|Annalisa Ventola]]

message: I would like to register disagreement with Pjacobi.  The project on the paranormal is attempting to cover articles that the general public may consiter "paranormal" in nature.  Most articles in "pseudo"-science cats have been included to meet that aim.  Trying to decide the umbrella of a project with such fuzzy boarders is never going to be easy. 
As for the EVP article... I was deeply involved in that article for a few weeks... until a number of editors showed up and drastically changed the atmosphere from one of cooperation to one of combat.  I'm not going to get into the specifics of the various fights that started, but many of them were frankly stupid. My point is that the behavior of those "defending" science has become a major roadblock to collaboration and that has been more damaging then anything else.  
Wikipedia's coverage of the paranormal is always going to have a systematic bias for the main-stream.  As I stated on IRC once, "Wikipedia is the whore of the mainstream." I'm not criticizing that.  Thats just how Wikipedia is.  However, this this doesn't stop us from accurately representing "the fringe". (I put that in quotes because "the fringe" often has more acceptance in the general public then the POV of the scientific mainstream.) We need to strive to accurately describe the notable opinions of the people involved and then present what science exists. However, some of the people in this case are more interested in forcing the "fringe" into the corner and dragging everyone involved into quagmires of semantics. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 22:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by J.smith 

message: Suppression of dissent occurs when an individual or group which is more powerful than another tries to directly or indirectly censor, persecute or otherwise oppress the other party, rather than engage with and constructively respond to or accommodate the other party's arguments or viewpoint. A dissident, broadly defined, is a person who actively opposes an established opinion (e.g."mainstream science"), policy (e.g. "science orthodoxy"), or structure. J. D. Redding 02:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments by [[User:Reddi]]

message: Hopefully one of the folk involved with arbcom can answer this.  Editor Dreadlocke has been highly involved in some of these editing disputes and has made some of the same POV and other policy violations described here, but he has been inactive on wikipedia for a few weeks.  I think it would make sense to include him, but obviously it would be inappropriate to have a situation where he doesn't have the opportunity to participate and give his perspective and respond to any accusations.  How does arbcom generally handle a situation like this?  Thanks.  --Minderbinder 14:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you tried to email him? ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 22:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If other editors present evidence of edit warring or other disruptive behavior by Dreadlocke on the evidence page, the arbitrators may consider proposing remedies involving him.  If so, he will be added to the list of parties and an attempt will be made to contact him.  You can certainly contact him now if you wish. Thatcher131 00:35, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not very good at gathering evidence like the other folks here are, so I'll leave it up to them to gather the evidence on Dreadlocke. I wish I could be more helpful.Wikidudeman (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about [[User:Dreadlocke]] 

message: I'm not very familiar with parapsychology as a subject, as I mostly edit law-and-politics-related articles. However, I found it very disconcerting that the so-called "skeptics" has formed a quasi gang to suppress any different opinions. In the evidence page we clearly see that the skeptic editors have deliberately remove expert qualification of professors that don't agree with them. Look at this edit, the skeptic editor basically conducts a smear campaign even on experts and distinguished professors. Anyone they disagree with were labeled "unreliable" even though they have enough academic qualifications. WooyiTalk, Editor review 19:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments by [[User:Wooyi]] 

message: The paranormal only exist in fictional TV shows like the X-Files. If it did exist, it would be scientifically provable. One of my personal heroes, James Randi, has proven that parapsychology is wrong. Therefore, this is a complete waste of the arbitrators time and Davkal should be blocked for vandalism. Chemist3456 17:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Account created on April 26, eh? Time for another checkuser on Davkal! Simões (talk/contribs) 18:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? Chemist3456 is one of the most zealous skeptic editor, he might be a SPA, but if a checkuser is to be done it should be on skeptics like you and Minderbinder, and LuckyLouie. He is the exact opposite of Davkal. Why would Davkal use a sock to advocate his own ban? WooyiTalk, Editor review 18:50, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ... Simões (talk/contribs) 18:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the strange account too. Is there such a thing as a WP:POINT-PUPPET?  This account was created only a few days ago and seems to be a parody of scientific skepticism (?) Most odd behavior. - LuckyLouie 18:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, sorry for my ignorance, but I am really confused. Were you joking or sarcastic about the whole thing? As far as I know Chemist is the opponent of Davkal, why would they be puppets? WooyiTalk, Editor review 18:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an obvious parody account, Wooyi. Note initial spelling of "the sciencetific method" , LOL. - LuckyLouie 19:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You obviously have no good arguments that I'm a sock puppet of you have to resort to personal attacks. I don't believe in the paranormal, and I find it insulting that you suggest I do. Chemist3456 21:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: That's obviously a sock-puppet in my opinion. I don't know whether or not Davkal created it or Wooyi or someone else but it is clear that it is a sock-puppet in my opinion, created with the intention to parody.Wikidudeman (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Wikidudeman I don't keep sockpuppets, please do not randomly accuse people. WooyiTalk, Editor review 21:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't random and it wasn't an accusation. I'm throwing out possibilities. If it's not your sock puppet or if it isn't a sock puppet at all then there's no problem. However based on the users previous edits it seems clear that it is a sock puppet and that it was created as a "straw man" puppet to parody. If this is the case then a user who's previous edits are generally in support of parapsychology would be suspected. That includes a lot of people and I only used you or Davkal as an example. That's different from an accusation. If you took it as an accusation then I apologize for that.Wikidudeman (talk) 22:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay since you made your good intentions clear you don't have to apologize. I should have assumed good faith. WooyiTalk, Editor review 22:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: O rly? Chemist3456 21:54, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

text: It could be a type of "Straw man sock puppet" used to make the other side look bad with parody type edits. See [].Wikidudeman (talk) 21:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not nessary 

message: Wow, looks like Simoes is actually a completely disinterested party.  Because if he were a skeptic, he'd have a COI on editing that list.  Somehow, I thought Simoes was skeptical.  Personally, however, I have little personal involvement in the items other than parapsychology specifically, and am therefore a fairly disinterested party.  I think Simoes should recuse himself.  Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 23:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Simoes latest addition

message: How long is an evidence stage supposed to last? It's looking like everyone has said what they intend to say. Simões (talk/contribs) 02:51, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, Simoes, I think arbitrators can take a look at it and convene to discuss their decision now. WooyiTalk to me? 02:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the arbitrators work on cases in the order they are received. According to the pink box on Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration, Paranormal is next after Tobias Conrad and Transnistria. - LuckyLouie 03:01, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Length of evidence stage? 

message: This arbitration was supposed to be limited to the conduct of various users and not the content of Wikipedia. The arbitrators accepted on the terms of the conduct issues not the content issues. Paul August, and Kirill Lokshin both made it clear that they were accepting to consider the conduct issues of the users in question. I believe that most of the information in this arbitration in the workshop and evidence areas are irrelevant to the conduct issues and are doing nothing but preventing the arbitrators from reviewing this arbitration case. This case was introduced over a month ago and each day more irrelevant information keeps coming in from various users. Information that has little or nothing to do with the conduct issues of the arbitration. I would suggest that everyone who has posted information on the content of Wikipedia or suggestions on rules changes regarding paranormal articles should erase their edits and leave only edits directly related to the conduct issues. Otherwise I fear this case will never be reviewed by the arbitrators or if it does, they will be so overwhelmed by the amount of information that they might overlook very important conduct issues which are at the heart of this arbitration. I have removed some irrelevant evidence that I posted in the evidence section here [] concerning whether or not being affiliate with the AAAS means a field is an 'area of science'. I figured it was irrelevant to the conduct issues at hand. Ideally one wants to present clear and concise evidence which is short and to the point. Minderbinder's evidence is a good example of how evidence should be presented in this arbitration. Please consider what I have said and remove anything that you think might fit into this category, for the sake of this arbitration. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is too much irrelevant information in this arbitration. 

message: Basically, I saw (on WP:FTN) that Finding of Fact 11 of this case, "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...", a content decision, is being used to state that parapsychology must always be treated as a science . That is an explicit, disputed content ruling, and one not supported by most non-parapsychological sources. I think that the first sentence should be vacated. 
Basically, this is a milder equivalent of the Arbcom saying that Creationism or Intelligent design must be considered science, because a few professors, such as Michael Behe, support them, as far as I can tell. Yes, a few researches have been done, but they do not have the respect of the scientific community. Here, for instance, is the journal Nature's report on the closing of a parapsychological lab  (you can only read the opening, but it'll give you the idea of the tone.  Parapsychological "research" is almost entirely published in dedicated journals. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[Shoemaker's Holiday]]

message: Regarding the article that Shoemaker referenced in Nature reporting on the closing of a parapsychological lab, it's interesting that he used it because that article actually covers three different views on parapsychology in much the same way that Fred mentioned below when he said "Our articles can legitimately contain all four points of view with appropriate sourcing and handling of each." The author of the article mentions three different views: 1) The view of Chris French, a skeptic and anomalistic psychologist, that such work is worth pursuing, 2) The view of Robert Park, a physicist at Princeton, that such work is "unscientific", and 3) The view of William Happer, another physicist at Princeton, (described as the "middle ground"), that it's within science but a waste of time. The full-text I posted here  (though technically I probably wasn't supposed to). This is directly a "viewpoint" question, and no better article demonstrates this than the one Shoemaker referenced because that article, in the respected Nature, treats it as a question rather than an answer, and again presents three different views on the matter. The question, quoted from the article, is: "But the closure highlights a long-running question: how permissive should science be of research that doesn't fit a standard theoretical framework, if the methods used are scientific?" The question both legitimizes the methods as scientific, even as it's questioning the research, but note it posed as a question rather than answer.
On a side-note, I never saw the ArbCom ruling as a definitive directive on content either. It always read as principles to consider. If you read the actual parapsychology article (at least last I checked), it does a good job of presenting all the various views on the topic. Probably not perfect, but definitely not a result of a definitive directive from the ArbCom to write the article a certain way. Several of us bumped heads in writing that article and taking it to FA status, and I don't think the ArbCom ruling had much to do with the final result. Rather it was following the sources. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Nealparr|Nealparr]]

message: Pursuant to this case, the authority of ArbCom has been used as a bludgeon in content disputes (other examples exist, but I'm too lazy to dig them up at present). It would be great if that could stop. A simple reaffirmation that ArbCom does not settle content disputes, and an injunction to sort out these issues through the usual process without recourse to name-dropping, would be enough. MastCell Talk 07:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:MastCell|MastCell]]

message: The root of this problem - and related problems in other fringe-type articles - is that it effectively boils down to efforts by wikipedia editors (on all sides) to legislate who can and cannot be considered a scientist.  This is not something the 'scientific community' (to the extent that such a thing even exists; that's really a mindless abstraction of a much more complex social structure) ever does on its own, and I'm not sure why it has become such an issue on Wikipedia.  Individual scientists may indulge in disparaging criticism of others, yes, and there are practical barriers to membership (academic degrees, access to research funding and equipment, membership in academic associations, etc.) but as a whole scientists accept and reject other scientists and their work mainly on the work's functional and pragmatic merits.  if some group of parapsychologists meet basic membership requirements and follows reasonable and rigorous methodological practices, no academic scientist could meaningfully say that these parapsychologists were not scientists or that they were not engaged in scientific research.  they might call them idiots, and might suggest that they are wasting time, money, and careers on vapid pusuits, but the fact is that one can do good research on stupid topics, so long as one is willing to admit when it fails; standing as a scientist is based on the quality of the research.  Believe me, if these parapsychologists somehow managed to produce some methodologically sound, unambiguous, reproducible result, there isn't a scientist in the world who wouldn't hail them as geniuses; their marginal state is due to the fact that they can't produce such results, and has little if nothing to do with the topic they study.
frankly, it's not our place to try to determine what is and isn't (or who is and isn't) scientific.  if there's a group of people who want to say they form "a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way", then that's ok.  We should report that, along with reporting their successes, failures, and any criticisms they've generated.  --Ludwigs2 18:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Statement by [[User:Ludwigs2|Ludwigs2]] (uninvolved; commentary)

message: *I read the "three layer cake with frosting" finding as a statement or summary of background information or the parties' positions rather than anything more. There is also some tension between the sentences of the quoted "three layer cake with frosting" finding, as well as between this finding and finding 3 in the same case, which states that "parapsychology has an ambiguous status, engaging in scientific research, but strongly criticized for lack of rigor." I do not believe that any of these observations were intended to control the outcome of any content disputes. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrator Comments

message: Request archived here. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for clarification: [[Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases]] 

message: Some of the language in this 11 year-old case has apparently been misinterpreted to suggest Arbcom has ruled on a content issue. Suggest a clarification if needed, then close. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by LuckyLouie 

message: :Honestly, I think this request should be thrown out. No offense to Guy Macon, but scrolling up the page would have contextualized the quote Morgan is harping on about and shown their use of that quote to be just cherry picking. In my opinion, an enforcement request against Morgan would be more productive, as they are clearly engaged in pro-fringe advocacy at that article and other locations. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:56, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by MjolnirPants 

message: At this moment I have nothing to add to this discussion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Tgeorgescu 

message: Um, actually that arbitration case does exist: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by JJE 

message: As far as I know I did not bring up anything to do with Paranormal at the Fringe noticeboard. I brought up issues related to Parapsychology at the Fringe noticeboard. And while I'm rather exasperated by 's conduct there, and did eventually suggest this as a venue for their tendentious editing at Parapsychology I didn't have the time or energy to post to Arb/E and as such didn't notify them as I didn't take an action on it. I don't believe you are required to notify a user to a discussion involving their edits on a wikiproject page which is not used for the issuing of any sanctions. Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Update OK, I see this is in fact about Parapsychology and yes, I did make that statement at WP:FRINGE/N but, again, I didn't open an Arb/E case, nor AN/I nor 3RR/N nor any other complaint at a board with any sort of enforcement capability, so I don't see how my failure to notify Morgan Leigh is at all relevant to this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Simonm223 

message: ArbCom does not make binding content decisions. It is also quite possible for both statements - that there is a discipline of studying it, and that psi itself is pseudoscience - to be simultaneously true. As the historical proponents of psi (Puthoff, for example) have retired, so study has focused more on the cognitive biases that cause people to believe in it, and the people working on the basis that it's real have become increasingly isolated. We're now in a situation where much of the argumentation for psi in the literature is motivated reasoning by people whose ideas have also been rejected. Guy (Help!) 16:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by JzG 

message: *I'm a bit confused by this request. The linked ArbCom case doesn't exist. I assume you meant Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience? If so, discretionary sanctions are still active from that case, and that's it for remedies that affect more than just individual editors. The Arbitration Committee does not rule on content. ~ Rob13Talk 04:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paranormal: Arbitrator views and discussion