Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests
- WP:RFAR redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:RfA Review (WP:RREV).
A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.
To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.
This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.
Please make your request in the appropriate section:
- Request a new arbitration case
- Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
- This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
- Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
- Arbitrator motions
- Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions | 10 May 2024 | 0/3/0 |
| Case name | Closed |
|---|---|
| Conflict of interest management | 13 Apr 2024 |
| Mzajac | 7 May 2024 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing | none | (orig. case) | 30 April 2024 |
| Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 | none | (orig. case) | 8 May 2024 |
| Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation | none | (orig. case) | 13 May 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Current requests
There are no requests for arbitration at this time.
Clarifications and other requests
Place requests related to amendments of prior cases, appeals, and clarifications on this page. If the case is ongoing, please use the relevant talk page. Requests for enforcement of past cases should be made at Arbitration enforcement. Requests to clarify general Arbitration matters should be made on the Talk page. To create a new request for arbitration, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Place new requests at the top. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/How-to other requests
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Persistent WP:IDONTLIKEIT behavior in WP:NCROY discussions | 10 May 2024 | 0/3/0 |
| Case name | Closed |
|---|---|
| Conflict of interest management | 13 Apr 2024 |
| Mzajac | 7 May 2024 |
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing | none | (orig. case) | 30 April 2024 |
| Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 | none | (orig. case) | 8 May 2024 |
| Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation | none | (orig. case) | 13 May 2024 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Current requests
Request for clarification: User:FayssalF
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- Russavia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- FayssalF (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFayssalF&diff=244523883&oldid=244515474 notification to user])
Statement by Russavia
I was blocked by User:Moreschi due to alleged harrassment of another editor. What brought this accusation of harrassment up was due to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive169#Serious_ban_request After a two week block which I received (and was addressed separately to ARBCOM), Fayssal proceeded to do a check-user on myself and User:Miyokan which he announced here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive169#Russavia.2C_confirmed_sock_of_Miyokan.3F. An admin, User:Tiptoety then proceeded to indef block both myself and Miyokan on case of being sockpuppets (Miyokan as being one of my socks).
I attempted to have this sockpuppet block removed on account of providing my IP address in an open fora, so that editors/admins could see that I was in Perth (Western Australia), whereas Miyokan was in Nizhniy Novgorod (Russia). These attempts were denied due to the check-user that had been performed by FayssalF. A check-user which he himself confirmed the results of in that thread above. I proceeded to send an email to Miyokan (for only the 3rd time that I can remember we have ever had a direct discussion) in order to talk to him about this. In the meantime, Fayssal had posted a message to my talk page which in effect stated that Miyokan being in Nizhniy Novgorod is not the case, and that I should know this as both Russavia and Miyokan are in Australia.
When discussing with Miyokan not long after I sent the email, I found out that he was in fact located not in Nizhniy Novgorod, but in Adelaide (South Australia). After that, I then became aware of the message Fayssal left on my TP; and I responded to the effect that the results of the check-user should be revealed, as I know I am in Perth, and I know that Miyokan is in Adelaide (but did not mention Miyokan's location due to privacy).
Luckily, and thankfully, I was able to convince Miyokan to place his IP on his talk page, with a note to say it is for my use. I then posted both IPs on my talk page, and provided the relevant links to check them (www.network-tools.com and www.geohacks.com) and that would reveal that we are not in the same location, and hence not the same user.
Fayssal said that he tried but was getting timeout messages and would look again. Whilst all of this is happening, discussions is still going on at the Admin noticeboard, and nothing short of Wikimurder was going on - a fact I pointed out to Fayssal at the time.
Eventually Fayssal came back and confirmed that what was being said all along my myself was in fact the truth. He placed a notice on my talk page with an apology. This and my response can be found at User_talk:Russavia/Archive_4#Unblocked_and_apologies
That's the background. Now here's the problem.
What has occurred here is a total breakdown in admins doing check-users or the check-user system itself is horribly flawed and needs to fixed. This does not take into account our totally different style, completely different editing subjects, with little or no interaction, etc.
Consider this one question. If I was not able to convince Miyokan to reveal his IP, where would we be at now? That is the question that needs to be considered in conjunction with the fact that a Geo-IP check is a simple operation, an internet novice is able to do it. How is it that FayssalF was not able to immediately determine upon doing a check-user that both Miyokan and myself are located in opposite sides of the country. Either that system has failed FayssalF or FayssalF has failed the system; its one of the two. I do believe that whatever the breakdown, that FayssalF was somewhat rash in putting 2 and 2 together, except he reached 5 instead of the expected result, and that this sole judge, jury and executioner system is fraught with danger.
I am not alone in these concerns, as User:Irpen has raised this issue at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive169#What_the_hell_happened_here.3F And my Irpen's concerns mirror my own. Who? What? How?
I would like this to be investigated and for the community to be advised as to what has caused this breakdown.
If it was the "fault" of the check-user system that you use, then obviously that needs to be looked at and rectified asap.
If it was the "fault" of Fayssal, then I would expect some type of sanction against himself. I believe a revocation of check-user rights would be in order.
Statement by other user
Clerk notes
Arbitrator views and discussion
Request for extension: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2
- Involved users
- Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party;
- TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notification).
Statement by Phil Sandifer
TTN was banned from deletion activities for six months for his failure to work "collaboratively and constructively with the broader community" on the area of notability and deletion. Since the expiration of his ban, his contributions have been entirely to "merge" content (I say merge because, in fact, he simply redirects pages without discussion), and mass-nominate articles for deletion. For instance, his mass-redirection of articles with identical edit summaries: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] and so on. These edits were unaccompanied by any edits to talk pages to garner consensus. Indeed, even as the very policies he cites as justification are under heavy discussion, including an RFC that got a watchlist notice, TTN has made no contributions towards seeking consensus. None. Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise shows no comments by him.
Regardless of the appropriateness of his nominations, this is the behavior he was previously sanctioned for. And he has returned to it. The routine norm, in such cases, is, at a minimum, to restore the sanctions that were actually effective at preventing the behavior.
Therefore, given his continued failure to work collaboratively and constructively, and the fact that he has returned to the exact behavior that got him previously sanctioned, I request that the arbitration committee restore Remedy 1 from the relevant case without expiration. Phil Sandifer (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- In response to some of the comments below, this is not about the accuracy of TTN's deletion nominations. I would vote delete on about half of them myself. The issue is not whether his proposals are within consensus or not - it is on whether he is working collaboratively and constructively with the broader community. That necessarily involves some level of dialogue with said community. As for the suggestion that editors of fiction articles are also working outside of consensus, I do not see extending this remedy as precluding enforcement against other problematic users, and I would be surprised if the arbcom did.
- A further piece of evidence as well. I encourage anybody to look at [6]. Those are TTN's talk page contributions. Note that the overwhelming majority of them are redirects or template removals of pages. There are only a handful of cases - once every two or three days - where TTN is discussing his edits. Compare to the 8 edits he has made so far to talk pages making any discussion of his edits in October to the over 250 edits he has made so far to articles either nominating them for deletion or merging them in October. That is in no way, in letter or spirit, complying with the directive to work collaboratively and constructively with other editors. Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- Protonk, I'm not pillorying TTN over the deletion or merger. But if we don't have a consensus on these issues, and I agree with you that we don't, we need to try to find one. Please explain to me how over 250 merges and deletions in a week with only 8 comments on talk pages about them constitute attempts to find consensus, or to work with other editors. Please explain to me how TTN is in any way complying with the instruction that previous non-compliance with led to a six month ban from these issues. Because otherwise, this seems straightforward - he was previously sanctioned for something. He is doing it again. What's changed? Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
- In response to Bainer's comments, with all due respect, the claim that there is nowhere to discuss these issues except for AfD is absurd. When merging articles, the article talk pages are a fine place to discuss merges. (Or, more accurately, redirects) For the large batch of episodes of the TV show Heroes he recently mass redirected I would think that stopping in at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Heroes might have been effective.
- Were TTN interested in discussion and consensus-building, even with the continued contentiousness of a general guideline for fiction, many opportunities were available to him, not least of which was participating in the RFC to work on the notability issues for fiction. That TTN ignored all of these channels and ignored attempts to build consensus on this issue does not seem to me to be a good thing, and I am, frankly, baffled how you can suggest that AfD was the only channel open to him. Phil Sandifer (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement by SirFozzie
You know, I'm beginning to think "Episodes and Characters" is the ArbCom version of the Chinese Water Torture. I think TTN has been working within Wikipedia Guidelines. One can never fruitfully seek consensus to delete or redirect on a talk page, quite frankly, the most interested (or should I say biased) people to keeping an article on that article. I suggest that ArbCom deny this request and tell BOTH sides to continue to work within policy, rather then constantly seeking the heavy hammer of ArbCom to do their work for them. SirFozzie (talk) 07:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement by sgeureka
...And another E&C arbcom thread aiming to expose TTN as the evil culprit, while fan editors are sooooo totally working "collaboratively and constructively with the broader community", restoring articles that fail WP policies and guidelines left and right instead of fixing the deficiencies to a minimum level so that the messenger (TTN) leaves them alone. (I'd say more but these may-I-say-misguided TTN-arbcom appeals are just getting tiresome.) – sgeureka t•c 11:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement by CBDunkerson
TTN recently nominated Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch for deletion. The discussion was closed as a snowball keep. TTN then immediately placed a merge tag on the article. That's just not 'working within consensus'. There was an overwhelming consensus to keep the article. NOT to make it a redirect to a brief mention in another article, TTN's acknowledged definition of 'merge'... otherwise known as deletion. Continually pressing against the lack of general consensus around notability standards for fictional topics with constant deletion efforts is IMO bad enough... but ignoring consensus when it does form is a problem. When he loses an argument he needs to accept that. NOT try to get the same result people just overwhelmingly rejected through the back door. --CBD 12:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Protonk (talk)
This is the same basic request as the previous request for clarification. The answer here should be the same. We don't have a functioning guideline to deal with notability of fictional subjects--specifically those which do not cite any sources. Many, many articles on fictional subjects will either never have sources or will never cite sources (because people can't be bothered). Until we have some community accepted guideline for inclusion it doesn't help to pillory TTN over the deletion or merger of these articles.
- His case came to ArbComm because of edit warring over merger tags and redirects. Proposing mergers and nominating articles for deletion isn't the same thing. It is clear that what TTN wants to do is reduce the number of fictional articles we have on wikipedia. I don't think that the result of the previous case should read "TTN cannot work to reduce the number of fictional articles". I agree that people are pissed about the Monty Python thing, although the merger proposal was perfectly reasonable. I have fewer defenses for this copy/paste AfD rationales, but I don't think either act is a refusal to respect consensus. when I say pillory I don't mean you in particular. I mean to say that the debate is larger than TTN and that without some clear resolution of that larger debate we can't blame him for forcing current community standards on articles that people like.
Statement by Kww
TTN is working as cooperatively as possible with people that don't tend to be cooperative. He is bringing the articles to AFD, and participating in the AFD discussions. He is not performing unilateral redirect and mergings, because, even though they are far more efficient, he was told to stop.
As for Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, there actually is a cooperative merge discussion going on at Talk:Monty Python and the Holy Grail#Merge, where most of the participants are being polite and cooperative. The snowball keep came as a result of a pile-on by fans, not as a result of any policy based discussions.
I think we are at the point where reporting TTN to Arbcom is more of a problem than TTN himself.—Kww(talk) 17:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Kung Fu Man
TTN is a pain in a great deal of asses here on wikipedia, mine included. However, for the most part he is trying to be cooperative and clean things up and do it by the books: case in point an AfD that was closed by him after two people pointed out quickly the characters in the nominated article were mentioned in other books and notable. I seriously don't think at this point in time this is necessary at all.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement by nifboy
As I complained about in the previous RFAR thread, as well as an AfD filed solely because TTN didn't, this feels increasingly like bureaucracy creep. AfD is increasingly treated like a CYA, discouraging WP:BOLD across the project. Nifboy (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Black Kite
"As for the suggestion that editors of fiction articles are also working outside of consensus, I do not see extending this remedy as precluding enforcement against other problematic users, and I would be surprised if the arbcom did." This comedic request for clarification would indicate that the current ArbCom actually do think that. In the end, what do we want Wikipedia to be? If we want it to be a free-for-all without regard to independent notability, feel free to reset TTN's sanction. If we want it to be an encyclopedia, he's going about it in the only way possible - there is intrasigence on both sides here and I don't see that concentrating on TTN - yet again - is particularly helpful. Let's face it, he's not exactly doing it for his health [7].Black Kite 22:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement by DGG
I see no real evidence of cooperation. Day after day he continues to nominate 5 to 10 articles for deletion without considering the possibility of merge or redirect--if asked about why he has not done so he almost always ignores the question. Day after day he uses the same deletion summary, without indicating anything about the individual article--he does not help the discussion by even indicating what work of fiction it is or what role the character plays; when asked to clarify his deletion summaries he ignores that also. He generally nominates articles at the same time of widely varying importance from different fictions; either he is working indiscriminately, or deliberately making it very hard to defend intelligently: he can use the same deletion argument for everything, since he includes every possible reason for deleting an article, but a defense of the article has to be focused & cover them all in detail. He continues sometimes to redirect without discussion. I'm not going to add to the diffs here-- 99 % of the diffs on his contributions show this, so there's hardly need to select. But as an example, showing his consistent pattern of asking for sources and then, if found, denying relevance, see "Most recent prime-time episodes are reviewed by a number of sources" used by him as a delete argument! The one sensible close pointed out by Kung Fu Man was yesterday, and he's been quiet since--after it became clear this was going to be filed. This matches what to me is the proof of his bad faith is the immediate resumption of deletion activity immediate after the arb com moratorium. His enforced departure from merge/deletion/redirect will not hurt the deletionist cause any more than his previous enforced departure did: there are enough others trying to carry out a rationalisation of the content, generally in a less damaging way. The victory at Wikipedia discussions should not go to the most stubborn. DGG (talk) 00:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
- the BRD approach requires being willing to enter into Discussion,and only works when people are reasonable about it. There are other editors who sometimes may be unreasonable, but not to this extent. Failing to agree on a guideline discussion is not being disruptive, and not in the same category as making massive afds and redirects. That people did not all want to adopt someone's proposals does not mean they are disruptive. DGG (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC).
Statement by Sjakkalle
What ticks me off with TTN is not that he has very strict (in my opinion way too strict) standards for fictional topics. It is that he has apparently no interest at all in creating any content whatsoever. His edits are overwhelmingly target towards removing or deleting content. Even while he was banned from AFD-ing or merging fiction topics, his main activity consisted of "trimming" fiction topics.
It also concerns me that TTN has a tendency to fire off AFD nominations at machine gun pace; with several nominations taking place within the space of a few minutes. Has he taken enough time to review each article he nominates, and think carefully through what alternatives there might be to deletion?
I have worked with a lot of users who could be described (sometimes by themselves) as "deletionist", and I can recognize them as excellent contributors; their deletionism is tempered by excellent content writing. Therefore, they realize and can empathize with the challenges in locating sources. They become peer contributors who can discuss and work cooperatively, instead of policemen who hammer down on everything. I can only hope that TTN will redirect his energies towards some article writing. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Stifle
I massively oppose any reinstatement of sanctions against TTN. He is doing a very good job clearing up unencyclopedic material, is doing it civilly, and is coming up against entrenched opposition from vested interests. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement by MuZemike
As feared, it is my opinion that this (as well as any such discussion involving TTN) has devolved into a inclusionist/deletionist debate. A lot of the AfDs he nominated I happen to agree with, but some I also have disagreed; but that's beside the point. It seems that more than anything many users — which include obviously biased editors, fanboys, and others with extremely vested interests in articles to the point of ownership — want TTN with a proverbial rope around his neck, even to the point that some users have resorted to sockpuppetry and even death threats. I only see this as a ploy to keep bugging ArbCom until they get the result they so desire. MuZemike (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement by CharlotteWebb
I don't see how TTN's immediate resumption of the same behavior that let to a six-month topic ban (from merging and AFDing articles related to fiction) can be anything other than exhausting the community's patience. He's certainly exhausted mine. I don't usually edit articles related to fiction, but I do often read them whenever I can. Quite frankly it pisses me off when I have to dig through the edit history or look on Deletionpedia to find the information I'm looking for.
I urge the committee to accept this case and consider issuing a ban of greater duration and breadth. — CharlotteWebb 21:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Randomran
I just don't see any real policy breach. He's using Wikipedia's process as it has been designed:
- Be bold
- Revert edits you disagree with
- Instead of revert warring, discuss. (For example, AFD or a merge discussion.)
Bold editing is not only acceptable, it is encouraged. "Any changes you make that turn out badly can be reverted, often quite painlessly." And indeed some of TTN's changes were reverted. I disagree with many of his editing decisions, but he certainly has the right to try them out, as much as people have the right to revert them. I would only have an issue if he started revert warring, or canvassing, or waiting around until no one was looking to try the exact same thing again. But so far, he seems to get the WP:POINT whenever the consensus forms. That's good, isn't it?
The other complaints are more dubious. Nominating articles for AFD with an explanation of the policy violation is insufficient? Suggesting a merge after a failed AFD is disruptive? In my view, starting a discussion is almost always a *good* thing. That's where editors get to challenge his view of the content and build a consensus with or against him. Consensus building is always helpful! I repeat for the sake of summarizing and emphasizing: starting a discussion about content is almost always good faith, and almost always helpful.
(As an aside, the same isn't true for starting a discussion about a user's behavior. It seems there are a few editors who have piled in because TTN breached sanctions that expired a month ago. You can't ask to throw someone back in jail just because they're exercising rights that they were previously entitled to.)
The only time when discussing content stops being helpful is where it becomes repetitive, out of step with settled policy or consensus. Where discussion becomes WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT or WP:FORUMSHOPping. But that means that the editor has to be shown that he/she is re-opening the same issue over and over. Someone has to make a good faith effort to educate the problem editor, rather than jumping into accusations or bureaucratic sanctions. For example, the idea that a few reliable third-party sources are insufficient for notability seems to go against consensus -- let alone what WP:N says. I haven't taken a closer look at this particular content dispute, so maybe there's actually a policy reason that justifies TTN's viewpoint. But you won't know until you actually try to discuss it with him, preferably at his talk page away from any specific content.
As someone who just wants articles to meet guidelines -- no more and no less -- I'm sympathetic to people who are frustrated with extreme deletionists or inclusionists, who invent their own standards for inclusion. Even though extremists seldom get their way, it can be frustrating to butt heads with them over and over, after one issue has been settled. I don't think it has gotten to that point yet because I haven't seen TTN trying to re-open settled issues in a WP:POINTy or WP:GAMEy way. But everyone should do what they can to make sure it doesn't go there. That's equally true if people keep requesting new or extended sanctions against TTN without showing a real policy/guideline breach. Randomran (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Masem
If people believe TTN's present actions (which are generally targeting articles that do lack notability, and with methods that follow the WP:BRD approach) are against ArbCom, then we should be bringing up those editors (both inclusionists and deletionists) that are prevent any sort of compromise in the last year and half to resolve issues with fiction and notability. We've tried to offer a middle of the road solution (the current failed WP:FICT proposal), we're trying to work out how to resolve this on the general scale with the general notability guideline, but the same names keep coming up (for opposite sides of the issue) saying these doesn't meet what they want. Given that the second part of the ArbCom decision was to get all involved editors to work cooperatively to revolve the issue of notability and episodes and characters, and these people are not helping towards a compromise, then they are as much at fault as TTN is above by his current actions...
But of course, I'm not going to call these names forward for ArbCom arbitration, just as much as I don't believe that TTN is doing anything against the overall ArbCom case. But it is important to remind those that would like to see nothing less than TTN banned from editing WP forever that the decision was not unilaterally towards TTN's actions; cooperation and compromise are needed as well. --MASEM 23:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement by jc37
In general, as bainer notes below, there is really no "common practice" when it comes to such articles. Such AfD results often vary wildly.
Let's presume that someday we do develop some sort of policy/guideline, which most everyone can agree on.
Does that mean that we're then going to have to go back through all these articles which have been deleted/merged/redirected, and restore them? A herculean task, which should never be necessary, but will be, regardless.
I've seen enough fait accompli to understand that while theoretically, deletions (and moves, and merges, etc.) can be undone, it's usually much more difficult in practice.
I think this is just another case of "everyone's got a divergent opinion", and there are those who don't want to see the house burned down before the process of remodeling has been completed.
Incidentally, here's another "start" to such a discussion: Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise. - jc37 08:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Clerk notes
Arbitrator views and discussion
- One has to begin with the observation that the community has failed to produce a notability guideline particularly for either television episodes or fictional characters. The best there is is the general fiction notability guideline. In the absence of any specific guidance, there are really no methods available to seek the input of the community at large about such articles other than deletion debates; indeed, that's the approach envisaged by the general guideline. On what has been presented here, TTN is not repeatedly nominating articles, nor being disruptive within the discussions. The Committee is being asked (again) to remedy the community's failure to produce some coherent approach to these articles by banning someone with a particular point of view about them, and I do not think that is right. --bainer (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Request for extension: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist
- Involved users
- Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (notification).
Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday
Martinphi is under an editing restriction because he " has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior, including, but not limited to, using Wikipedia as a soapbox, threatening disruption of the project, and making deliberately provocative edits" (Finding of Fact #2, sans links). It is becoming increasingly clear that he has not yet learned proper Wikipedia behaviour. and, as the restriction is due to expire in November, I am asking that it be extended a further year.
For instance, here he claims that WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience, a part of NPOV policy that has been part of policy since 2001 in nearly the same form as today [8] does not actually have any relevance, and does not apply to articles on Parapsychology. He then attacked everyone who upheld the policy, declared intent to force changes through,[9] then leapt over to the policy page and attempted to delete the phrasing he dislikes.[10]
Here is a recent Arbitration enforcement thread about his editing of policy.
I think that Martinphi's statements in the Paranormal Request for clarification a bit below this one are also relevant. In the face of every arbitrator clearly stating that the finding of fact does not set out an explicit content ruling, but was simply an effort to understand the party's points, he continues to insist that the arbcom, in fact, made a content ruling, and that he should be able to use it to push his point of view.
Martinphi has a very bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which makes him very frustrating to work with. The Arbcom restriction somewhat mediates that, but I don't think he has demonstrated any real improvement in the last year that would justify the restriction's removal. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I would also suggest that he be banned from editing policy. Besides the examples from above, back in April, he specifically admitted to editing WP:CIVIL in order to better use it to attack ScienceApologist. [11] [12]. (Background, abridged: he was adding words he had seen ScienceApologist and other people he disliked using to the Civility policy as "actionable" examples of incivility. [13] [14] [15]) Between this, today's editing of WP:NPOV/FAQ (described above), and the more recent WP:NPOV incident (courtesy duplicate link), I don't think he can be trusted to edit policy. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Kww
Wanted to concur that MartinPhi does not seem to have learned the lessons that the original editing restriction was intended to convey. It seems to have driven him towards behaviour that is even more damaging: the constant editing of policy pages to slowly transform them into polices that favor his views. I would fully support an extension of the current editing restriction, and I think an editing restriction on policy pages should be considered.—Kww(talk) 17:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement by other user
Clerk notes
Arbitrator views and discussion
Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
- Self-ref (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- MediaMangler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Jim62sch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Trilobitealive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Johnfos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Jim_Butler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Orangemarlin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Scientizzle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).
- Party notifications
Statement by Self-ref
Specific Request for Clarification
In Category_talk:Pseudoscience we are setting about refining the applicable pages and subcategories for this pejorative categorical tag, as represented by these two threads. It would, for the purpose of this refinement, be helpful to have a clarification of the Arbcom ruling mentioned above as regards the following:
A) The Specific Treatment of the Astrology Page Within This Ruling
A1) Was it the intention of the Arbcom to explicitly specify the astrology page as an example of a "theory which has a following" AND "which is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community"?
OR
A2) Is the characterization of "something generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community" something which must ALSO be demonstrated with citation by those with an interest in applying that category tag to the astrology page?
B) The Specific Treatment of the Astrology Category and Its Contents Within This Ruling
B1) Whatever the intention of the above, does this ruling and clarification also apply to the entire astrology category, and also to all the subcategories and pages to which this category is linked?
OR
B2) Should each category and page be separately considered unless their topical areas are identical (i.e. astrology page and category but nothing else until supported by cites)?
C) Restricted, or Unrestricted-but-Challengeable, Pseudoscience Category Tagging?
C1) Should it be a preliminary requirement, before the Pseudoscience category tag is applied, that a theory be demonstrated, through convincing citation to both: 1) have a following and 2) to be generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community?
OR
C2) Should the Pseudoscience category tag be applied to and retained on pages and categories by those who have an interest, regardless of citation or the lack thereof, until and unless challenged and removed due to a lack of substantiation?
Recommendation in General
Having read the Arbcom and become interested in lending a hand to refining the implementation of the Pseudoscience category, I have been apprised as to the force and character of its content, but without clarification on its implementation, it seems difficult to fully act on it. The problem of the changing significance and usage of the term 'science' through time is not adequately addressed by this Arbitration, nor is the differentiation being made between pseudosciencES on the one hand and pseudoscience on the other. Also, no mention is made of the fundamental differences in application of the tag to a page (such as astrology) on the one hand or to other categories (such as Category:Reincarnation research) on the other.
My preference is that this pejorative category be conservatively employed, and only after demonstrating, by citation to reliable, NPOV scientific evaluations, that it is actually warranted. It is also my impression that greater specificity is needed for direction as to how best to add it to pages as well as to categories. Further, i think that it is generally unworkable as stipulated in numbers 15, 16, 17, and 18, and that an amendment may be needed so as to strictly contain its usage to what can be convincingly supported as pseudosciencES (nouns, enterprises representing themselves falsely as sciences) rather than what may be ambiguously characterized as 'pseudoscience' (noun or adjective, confusingly and ambiguously presented).
Statement by Martinphi
Astrology is well sourced as pseudoscience, I believe.
It is my general experience with the pseudoscience category that it is often used without sourcing. The ArbCom seems to have put in place a strict standard, which is that an article with this category should be sourced as "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community." [16] This seems to be a recognition that this category is pejorative, and needs more sourcing than usual. The pseudoscience category is not usually so sourced when used, I believe. I think it is seldom sourced to the level of generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community. I don't know about all the other stuff in this request, but making it clear how much sourcing is needed, if any, would help: that has caused a bunch of contention, and generally the opinions of editors, rather than sourcing, has determined when it is used. That is generally how categories seem to be assigned, so the contention in this case comes from confusion about what the Pseudoscience ArbCom means. Do we need a source which speaks for the scientific community before we use this category? If not, what quality of sourcing, if any, is necessary?
Related: can you give us more guidance as to what is "obvious pseudoscience?" [17] This is an appeal to the discretion of editors, and there is an extremely wide range of opinion here. I have generally said "the threshold is Time cube, and anything more credible than that needs sourcing." But I do not know if this is correct.
Personally, I don't think categories do much, so I don't care, but this does cause a lot of strife. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, can you confirm this:
The pseudoscience category is applicable anywhere that a reliable source has asserted or questioned whether the subject contains pseudoscientific elements.
What you're saying seems to be that what we need to look for is significant debate. However, in this case we would use the cat on Psychoanalysis, which is against the Pseudoscience ruling. There are very significant questions about psychoanalysis, as well as many other fields which nevertheless have a following and might be scientific to a large degree. So, I'm still a little confused. What you say seems to indicate a very significant expansion of the current use of the category. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Orangemarlin
This is a content dispute. ArbCom involvement isn't necessary, since the original decisions regarding Pseudoscience is awfully clear. Can we not waste ArbCom's time, and let them actually help the project along? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I would suggest that FT2 recuse himself from this discussion. His known antipathy towards me in his well-known one-man vendetta to besmirch my reputation, and his well-known support of pseudoscientific concepts such as NLP indicates he cannot provide any valid discussion to this request. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- Threaded discussion, including responses from FT2 and further comments by Orangemarlin and Jim62sch, moved to the talk page of the case. Daniel (talk) 13:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement by jim62sch
I'm not sure what the hub-bub is all about here. There are accurate definitions of PS in dictionaries, encyclopedias, textbooks, et cetera. Seems to be a case of someone wanting to project certain beliefs that are clearly PS as being scientrific by changng the definition of science. Not likely to happen as WP needs to reflect the reality of the nonce. Ta. •Jim62sch•dissera! 20:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement by NE2
Are we seriously arguing about whether astrology is pseudoscience? The answer is clearly no, since it doesn't even pretend to be science 
--NE2 00:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Nealparr
@NE2 - Yes, astrology is a pseudoscience. It's a system that appears to have a scientific basis -- the water-based body is said to be effected by gravitational pulls like the Moon creates tides (discounted, but that's the idea) -- and it's vastly complex with diagrams and classifications and so on. At first glance, it wouldn't be surprising if one thought it was science. Also, way back when, it actually was the "science" of the day. The learned men, doctors and philosophers, in ancient times practiced astrology. If you read our own pseudoscience article, it mentions that Karl Popper (one of the guys who popularized the notion that some things only pose as science) used astrology as a sort of poster-example of pseudoscience. As such, it's well-sourced; partly because of Popper, it is often used as an example of pseudoscience. It is a really good example. --Nealparr (talk to me) 13:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Ludwigs2
The correct approach to any article that contains questionable science is to include a properly sourced description of why the science used is questionable, so that no casual reader will be confused or mislead into thinking that it is proper and accepted. The pseudoscience label is a shortcut; it is not objectionable in and of itself, but it should never be used in place of or in the absence of an explanation of the failings of the science. My concern here (which is borne out by the way the category is used in practice by some editors) is that the label can slapped on the article without any justification, sourcing, or attempts to explain its presence, and held there through vague references to the ArbCom ruling. this practice amounts to the legitimization of prejudicial opinion, which is against wikipedia's core policies. Would we allow editors to place buddhism, or judaism, or scientology (or etc.) in a category called 'antichristian religions' without a great deal of discussion and reference to sources? even granting that there are certain religions (like satanism) that are overtly and explicitly antichristian, we would still require proper verification and consensus. so why would we allow this pejorative 'pseudoscience' category to be applied to whatever random article some random editor feels like?
Please let's bring this back in focus. the purpose of categories on wikipedia is to help readers find related information; they are not supposed to be used as a tool to denigrate article topics. Contentious categories like pseudoscience should only be used carefully, with attention to sourcing, and only as an adjunct to proper discussion in the article. Even with something as clearly pseudoscientific as Astrology, the category should be used only after it is made clear in the article that this is an appropriate label, and if that discussion is not there, the category should be immediately and unceremoniously removed. --Ludwigs2 17:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Scientizzle
As I indicated at Category talk:Pseudoscience, Self-ref (talk · contribs) should be encouraged to start relevant discusssions at the talk pages of individual articles on the value and accuracy of a pseudoscience categorization. Self-ref has outlined personal categorization criteria that does not jive with current ArbCom-established foundations or general consensus. As such, I would dispute any wholesale de-categorization based upon said personal criteria as I'm certain it would result in editwarring and other nonsense.
Self-ref has recently been making irresponsible large-scale changes to the categorization of pseudoscience. For example, removing Category:Phrenology from Category:Pseudoscience is manifestly ridiculous: phrenology is a classic example of pseudoscience (with important proto-science hallmarks). There has been no discussion attempted by Self-ref regarding phrenology at Talk:Phrenology or Category talk:Phrenology, which would be the appropriate places to bring this up. Even Self-ref's long-winded politicking at Category talk:Pseudoscience barely deals with phrenology...this is a wildly out-of-view location to discuss that proper categorization of phrenology.
I think it's clear that Self-ref can and should initiate discussion regarding the inclusion or exclusion of a pseudoscience category on the talk page of a subject in question. The current activity of making large-scale demands for sourcing in an under-the-radar category talk page is inefficient and unwise at best, and deliberate obfuscation at worst. I agree with the early ArbCom returns that this is a genuine content dispute that should be settled in the typical manner...so I strongly encourage Self-ref to discuss proper categorization of Subject X at Talk:Subject X. — Scientizzle 18:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Clerk notes
- I've improved the formatting throughout this thread. Although the adjustments to individuals' comments was minimal, if I have (inadvertently) altered the meaning of any editor's statement, please feel free to revert or tweak my tidying as necessary. Anthøny ✉ 16:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Arbitrator views and discussion
The issue is that a certain kind of dispute seems to exist around pseudoscience. How one draws its boundaries, and where it shades into "general dispute behavior", is a grey area, but the remedy was intended to tackle the kinds of disputes, issues, and (often the same types of) parties as are seen repeatedly in pseudoscience related disputes. The test whether a given article can have those remedies applies is basically, "are the disputes on this article of a kind that is similar in those ways to other pseudoscience-type disputes".
Examples of "how one might tell":
- Are there scientific views that the topic is at best unproven and at worst without plausible foundation, and also other significant views who believe in what might be folklore, traditional/alternative/naturalistic/intuitive views, who argue that despite lack of scientific plausibility or proof, it is "proven by experience over the ages" or by some other means which is broadly discounted as evidence by science, or the like?
- Are there concerns that a scientific fringe theory is being presented as proven or plausible based on "dressing up" -- taking what scientists view as scant, non-existent, or misrepresented (or undue weight) in a scientific sense and trying to make it seem more than it is?
- Are there similar or same parties, and similar or same themes, in the dispute, as in other pseudoscience disputes?
I would look to those, primarily. Wording such as "category of pseudoscience" are not intended to be rigid criteria but only suggestive/indicative, not least because category membership itself is changeable.
It was not the intention to force a decision "is this pseudoscience" on any topic, but much more "do the issues and the lines in the dispute reflect those of other Wikipedia pseudoscience disputes, such that remedies for pseudoscience may be useful to apply".
So turning to specific questions - (A) yes astrology may well have very similar issues and lines of dispute (commonsense says). If in fact the problems it is having, mirror those that pseudoscience has had elsewhere, and this ruling may help, then it may be usefully applicable. (B) See A. (C) Don't bother tagging (or detagging) articles to get or avoid anything under any ruling. It doesn't help and it won't really affect whether the nature of the topic and its disputes share a lot in common with disputes in "pseudoscience". Category is a useful aid, not a prescriptive rule.
- As FT2, I see two separate questions here. The first is about categorization as pseudoscience; I feel that we have explained our view sufficiently in the prior case and editors and admins should be able to follow that ruling. The second is about how far the sanctions in that case extend. As FT2, I see this as a dispute between people holding two different viewpoints; these groups appear to be able to get into conflict on any page which might be linked, however tangentially, to pseudoscience or anything that might be called such by anyone. Thus, the scope of the ruling is wider than just those pages that can accurately be categorized "pseudoscience" and they apply to any such article upon which such a dispute between those sides takes place, IMO. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal
- Involved users
- Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Party notifications
Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday
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 [18]. 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 [19] (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)
To Newyorkbrad: Can that be made explicit, then? Because as it stands, that is not clear. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
To clarify for FT2: I'd rather the Arbcom not get involved with content, but this Finding of Fact was being treated as a ruling on content by Martinphi: For instance, here, in defending his insistence that Parapsychology should be treated as a major part of the scientific community [20] he writes: "I assume the mantle of the ArbCom because the ArbCom was very clear in its decision. I know a lot of people don't like that decision, but till they can get the ArbCom to modify it, I think it should be followed ... As to the status of Parapsychology: We talked long with the ArbCom about that very issue, explained it thoroughly, and that is what they put in their decision. Did they make a mistake? Some think so. Did they do it by accident? No way."
Hence, as Martinphi insists you did make a content ruling, a clear statement - as has been made here - that that finding of fact was not a content ruling, and cannot be used by Martinphi to insist on his preferred phrasings is all that's necessary. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC) By the way, one P.S. to FT2 - I'm not actually convinced that research within the field of parapsychology is considered at all rigourous by most scientists. Certainly, I've heard some horrible things about the statistical analysis used by the Princeton lab. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Martinphi
It was not that content should be a certain way, but that content should not be a certain way: that the wording should not imply that if X is a scientist then ipso facto X thinks psychic experiments are no good [21]. Further, the implication was that if a person is a parapsychologist, then ipso facto that person is not part of the scientific community. That's what the wording said, and that's what I used the ArbCom for in that case. I shouldn't have even needed the ArbCom, really, but I think the ArbCom was very clear on this. I don't think it was a content decision. Rather it was a decision that parapsychology cannot be dismissed as pseudoscience a priori, nor scientists within the field as outside the halls of science merely because they are in that field. Nor can sources within the field be dismissed as unreliable merely because they are in that field. If you call that content, yeah, but no more so than other decisions of the ArbCom.
Any clarification, were any needed, should involve Bauder and the other Arbs on that case. We went into great detail about the status of parapsychology at the time. Please note that the major skeptics such as James Randi say parapsychology is a science.
I think the purpose of the decision was to say that one should not edit out of an a priori dismissal. That is where editors were coming from in editing the articles before the ArbCom, and that is what the ArbCom meant to damp down. FYI, the Parapsychology article itself is largely based on an article in Nature. We also discussed with the ArbCom the difference between the scientific core of parapsychology and the outlying pseudoscientists who claim the name.
Nature also once published an article on a parapsychologist's book called "A book for burning?", and the author later stated "Sheldrake's is not a scientific theory. Sheldrake is putting forward magic instead of science, and that can be condemned, in exactly the language that the Pope used to condemn Galileo, and for the same reasons: it is heresy." ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Finding 3:
Yes, NYB I interpret that [22] to be the ArbCom saying (overall in the decision): don't dismiss it, but don't eliminate criticism either. Is that a fair interpretation? I don't see the tension in the Cake finding, though. Can you make that clearer? I think the title says it- there are different aspects:
1. mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation
2. there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way
3. [there are] popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology.
4. [frosting] A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking.
This is, in fact, a direct outcome of our discussions with the ArbCom.
If you add in finding 3, I interpret it to mean:
Parapsychology engages in scientific research (is a science) but is also very controversial. I interpret this to be broader than stated, it's controversial in many ways, and criticized on many points. So don't eliminate criticism just because the scientific field which covers the subject has a consensus that psi phenomena exist.
And come on, NYB: a mere summary of the parties positions? No, it can't be that, as it is a finding of fact. That is a really novel way of interpreting a finding of fact, and indicates there is something of which I'm unaware. Are findings of fact often summaries of what one side of the dispute thinks, without including the other side, and not qualified to make it clear that this is a finding of fact about what the parties believe? ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:59, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I take it from Fred Bauder's statement below that my deductions are correct: the Three layer cake with frosting finding is not merely a statement of what the parties believe. It is a statement of the "objective situation."
and
Three layer cake with frosting is not intended to determine what content to put in an article, that is, to resolve content disputes. It is merely a statement of the objective situation which undergirds the process by which the actual content of articles are written.
The reason for such a finding would be to lay the basis for the rest of the ArbCom. It is also meant to be used by editors as a groundwork of fact for building articles, but it is not meant to be interpreted to any great degree beyond what it specifically says.
To the extent that it forms a framework, it does have some bearing on the content of articles, since the objective situation always has a bearing on content.
I interpret it this way because if findings of fact and principle have no bearing on the way in which we edit articles, then the entire ArbCom on the Paranormal said nothing, as it is all Principles and Findings of Fact, nothing else. If the ArbCom on the paranormal is relevant at all, it seems to me that it is relevant in the way I have laid out here. Findings 3 [23] and 11 [24] were relevant in the instance where I used 11 [25] (either would have sufficed).
As a general rule, there are many permutations of content which could be in an article, but they should not conflict with the ArbCom's principles and findings of fact. This is how ArbComs, in my experience, are always interpreted.
Please correct me if I am wrong. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- You stated "the Three layer cake with frosting finding is not merely a statement of what the parties believe. It is a statement of the 'objective situation' [...] Three layer cake with frosting is not intended to determine what content to put in an article [...] It is merely a statement of the objective situation which undergirds the process by which the actual content of articles are written."
- If I understand you right, you're saying that you interpret it to be a description of the objective situation (that such views exist), and some detail how they inter-relate, what significance each has, and their foundations, and as an arbcom-stated description, that it should thus underpin how the article is written. If so (which I may have misunderstood) then you might have misinterpreted. It was intended to outline broad features of the background for those reviewing the dispute and interpreting the basis of the decision. It does not mean in any way that arbitrators exhaustively reviewed the topic and concluded as editors what due weight each view should be given, and should not be used for that purpose. I've explained more below. FT2 (Talk | email) 23:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
- I interpret the Paranormal ArbCom to mean that, for example, an article should not say "Scientists discount the existence of any type of Extra-sensory perception" (indicating all scientists discount it). That indicates that if X is a scientist, X is not a parapsychologist (who believes the general consensus of the field). In other words, parapsychologists are not scientists. That is the kind of thing I use the ArbCom ruling for.
- Thus, yes, it has relevance for content. All ArbCom decisions have some connection to content, for instance the discussion below about the pseudoscience category. The category is content.
- No, due weight is not covered directly by the Paranormal ArbCom. But it does cover whether parapsychology can be summarily dismissed as pseudoscience. It does have great relevance to content in terms of whether we use the word "purported" when referring to psychics, instead of treating a psychic as a "cultural artifact." It does have relevance to content when we use "framing" links such as Paranormal in the leads of articles.
- It indicates very clearly that parapsychology does do some serious scientific study (leaving aside any discussion of results). Thus, I think it is not too much of a stretch to think that it indicates that we should not throw out all peer-reviewed sources within the field as unreliable merely because they are within the field. They might be unreliable or they might be reliable, but the fact that they are written/reviewed by parapsychologists does not make them unreliable ipso facto.
- The decision does not determine weight, or the general content of articles. But it does have some bearing on them.
- The paranormal ArbCom obviously made decisions which have real implications for content, as noted above with the word "purported." I think we need to be very careful not to take it as prescriptive as to which POVs are allowed in articles, or the WEIGHT given those POVs.
- Yet, at the same time, if we do not summarily dismiss parapsychological sources as unreliable, that will have a bearing on WEIGHT. I do not think that the decision can be entirely separated from content.
- You say "Without determining how the content issue should read, some fairly obvious facts might help to show by way of example how multiple views on the "cake" can be fitted together"
- Well, that's content. Your "obvious facts" are actually in great dispute when you say "A minor branch of science, known as "parapsychology", attempts to study psychic matters on a scientific basis." I think this ArbCom needs to be conservatively interpreted and not abused, but it does have relevance to content, and weight, as with any set of principles or facts.
I think we either need to throw out this ArbCom, or admit that its principles and findings of fact will have real implications for writing articles, that is to say, content. It does not determine content strictly speaking, but it sets parameters and gives general guidance. As in the case of Adequate framing, it was obviously originally intended to: "It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more." ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Nealparr
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 [26] (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)
Statement by MastCell
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)
Statement by Ludwigs2 (uninvolved; commentary)
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)
Clerk Notes
Arbitrator Comments
- 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) Addendum and response to Martinphi By "the parties" I should have been more clear that I mean parties to the overall (on-wiki and real-world) debate surrounding these issues, not just the parties to the arbitration case. I see that Fred Bauder has commented immediately below; he wrote the decision, as I'm sure you recall, so his comments are probably the most reliable guide to what it was intended to mean. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- We do not determine content disputes. Three layer cake with frosting is simply a restatement of the objective situation: the attitude of the mainstream scientific community; the small faction of the scientific community that attempts to study parapsychology using scientific methods; parapsychology as popular culture; and skeptics. Our articles can legitimately contain all four points of view with appropriate sourcing and handling of each. Fred Talk 01:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The intent of most ArbCom cases is to assist in settling content disputes that are not being resolved because user conduct issues make Wikipedia's usual dispute resolution processes not work. Frequently, ArbCom has to examine the underlying content dispute to understand why articles on a particular topic have ongoing content disputes. In some of these cases, the Committee makes broad observations in our finding of fact that explain the nature of the dispute, and recognize that more content disputes are likely to occur due to underlying issues that are beyond the control of Wikipedia to solve. Articles related ethnic conflicts and articles on pseudoscience (or fringe science) are examples of two topics with ongoing disputes that are not going to solved in short order by following the usual Wikipedia dispute resolution process.
- In these instances, our ruling does not intend to set in stone any particular set of content facts, but instead the Committee offers a reasonable interpretation of how the issue can be framed based on core Wikipedia polices, in particular Neutral point of view. In these cases, our rulings should be seen as a starting place for sorting out ongoing content issues. It is not our intension for our ruling to mandate a particular point of view be included, or establish the weight that should be given to a point of view. Rather, it is a good faith attempt by Wikipedian's that are knowledgeable about content policy to frame the issues in a way that works with the particular articles in question in the particular dispute that we are addressing. Frequently, but not always, the decision can be reasonable way to settle similar content disputes. In future disputes, uninvolved experienced users might be aided in resolving the dispute by reviewing previous case rulings since they may explain the underlaying dispute. But, our past rulings should not replace new good faith attempts by uninvolved users to sort out a new disputes in different ways. And new or ongoing problematic user conduct that were not resolved in a previous case can addressed through the normal dispute processes or through case sanctions (if appropriate).
- Specific to this case: The ruling frames the underlying issue (the vastly different views of different groups of people on the topic.) in a manner that is compatible with writing an article on the topic using Wikipedia's core policies as a guide. It remains up to editors to apply the policies to the particular content of a particular article. In this instance, since the involved users have given their input on the topic many times before, it might be helpful for them to step back and let other users give their views. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Not a lot to add to my colleagues words. This case seems to be asking for a content finding, which I would rather not go into. The original decision should not be sought to be used as a finding of content. It was clearly intended far more, as a part of describing the Wikipedia dispute being addressed, and identifying the significant views and in the field that underpinned the dispute. Either way it is not prescriptive in any way of "how we should see the topic" (although it might be a fair description of the views which were being argued over).
Sometimes the quickest way to resolve an NPOV dispute is to show how different views might be better accomodated with reasonable due weight. Without determining how the content issue should read, some fairly obvious facts might help to show by way of example how multiple views on the "cake" can be fitted together:
"Psychic" matters are studied both with scientific rigor, and without it, as well as being the subject of beliefs that do not have scientific backing. Mainstream science tends to neither study, nor express interest in psychic matters. This is for various reasons based on professional culture, reputation, publication, falsifiability, conservatism, and past history of the field. A minor branch of science, known as "parapsychology", attempts to study psychic matters on a scientific basis, however the topic is generally treated as controversial and marginal by scientists outside its own field. Research outside the scientific world is usually not considered to meet the basis of formality needed to scientifically prove any given result, although some matters have been studied now and then, and skeptics ("debunkers") are often given credence in demonstrating the need for rigorous evidence-based testing.
I don't say that is perfect, and it could surely be improved, but it may (if cited) give an indication of how the subject might give a balanced view of the main aspects and each layer of the "cake". It seems my colleagues have covered the dispute issues and principles; I feel it may just help to give an example "how the intro might be done", even though this can in no way be considered part of a "decision" on the dispute. FT2 (Talk | email) 17:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Request for clarification: editing the Wikipedia:Arbitration policy
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- This request is of relevance to every editor.
Statement by Happy-melon
The recent concerns over the provisions of, and adherence to, the Arbitration Policy, discussed at length in the recent Request for Comment, has posed significant questions over the how the Policy and Committee have functioned and how they could be improved. Resolution of what appear to be substantive issues in some cases has been hampered by confusion over how, if at all, the Arbitration Policy can be modified or amended. The only ArbCom statement on the matter of which I am aware is from March 2005, by then-Committee member Grunt, to indicate that "Jimbo Wales has also suggested that Arbitraton Policy is not open to amendment by the community". No evidence is given to support this statement, which nonetheless leaves it open to question exactly who is eligible to amend the policy, and by what method. This unresolved issue had not been a problem for most of the intervening three and a half years because there had been no serious consideration of amendments to the policy. Such modification has now been suggested and appears to have a measure of community support thereto, so it is now necessary to resolve the issue of how modifications to the policy should be enacted. The clarification I am requesting from the Committee, therefore, is an official answer to the question "to what extent, and subject to what restrictions, is the Arbitration policy open to amendment or modification by the community; and by what method should such changes be enacted?". Happy‑melon 16:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Barberio
I think it may be unwise to leave the question of "how may the Arbitration Committee's ruling policy" be amended in the hands of the Arbitration Committee it's self. --Barberio (talk) 18:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
To clarify my point, the Arbitration Committee certainly have input to the process, and provide a point of view and knowledge of the system that others might not have. And as such they were involved in the current process being used to put up policy, having been invited to take part in the RfC. But it would not be healthy for them to be the sole owners of the Arbitration Policy. --Barberio (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Note, if the Arbitration Committee decided to alter Arbitration Policy by themselves to add some of the suggested policy changes to it, then I wouldn't object to removing them from the vote. --Barberio (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Carcharoth
The first part of the statement is largely a repost of what I posted at the RfC here. The second and third parts are new comments and updates.
- (1) Changes to Arbitration policy
- repost from 1 July 2008
Extended content
|
|---|
Wikipedia:Arbitration policy is not clear on how the policy should be changed. To quote from the messagebox: In the lead section we have: The 'citation needed' tag has been on that page since November 2007. There have also been (very rare) edit wars on this policy page, where the arbitration committee have made clear that they are the ones that decide what the page says (see this one from September 2006: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]). The policy has also been edited by Wikimedia Foundation officials and board members, such as here, and by arbitration committee members and clerks, as here and here and here and here. At the end of the arbitration policy page, we have the following, under the header of "Unresolved issues": The subpage Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Procedure for changing this policy says: The sub-subpage Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Procedure for changing this policy/Old proposal also exists. Given the above, in the context of this request for comment (RfC), more interaction between the community and the arbitration committee should take place, such as at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration policy (see also the archives of that talk page), and that any conclusions from this RfC should be presented at that talk page and a response requested from the arbitration committee and Jimbo Wales. The policy should also be updated to facilitate any future proposals to changes in the arbitration policy, and both the community and the arbitration committee should follow that page and its talk page more closely. It may also be beneficial to retain a core policy that is unchanging, but to allow more room for reform outside of that core policy. |
- (2) Changes made since July 2008
- (a) The "citation needed" bit (the whole sentence) got removed on 10 July 2008 with this edit. It has not been re-added since (nearly three months). What this means is unclear.
- (b) A formal change was made to the arbitration policy with this edit (29 July 2008). The diff quoted in support of that (it's in the edit summary of one of the intermediate revisions in the diff I provided) is here. I think the full discussion being referred to is the one here.
- (3) Suggestions going forward
I think the history given above, and the examples of two changes made (one by an uncontested edit, and the other by a formal discussion) may help indicate what could be done here to clarify this matter, or at least provide the arbitrators with concrete examples to discuss. Responding to Barberio, I think working with the Arbitration Committee over how the policy can be amended or changed would be better than taking it out of their hands entirely - they would, after all, be among those likely to be affected by any changes, and are the one that would have to live and work with any changes.
- Carcharoth (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- Some further comments:
- About advertising: during the RfC and proposals process, advertising was sufficient to draw a large number of people. It should be possible to list the means of advertising used (it is important to keep a record of where the RfC was advertised - is such a record available?) and to do a brief analysis of the "hundreds" of people responding to see if you obtained a balanced cross-section of the community. As an aside, more advertising should have been done on the policy page and it's talk page - I see one note was left there on 10 August 2008. I do think that incorporating votes on such changes into the ArbCom elections is a logical step, and would expose the proposed changes to a large audience and potential mandate, but it should be done with care and not made too complicated.
- Whether an edit sticks. Brad (over at the election policy change subpage) said: "The designation that the Arbitration Policy is not subject to editing like other policies means that any editor should not simply click the "edit this page" button and change the policy, and assume if the edit sticks, then the policy has been changed." I'd like to point out again that this is exactly what appears to have happened:
- The claim that the policy is not subject to amendment by the community was added on 29 March 2005 (User:Grunt).
- The claim was tagged with "citation need" in 20 November 2007 (User:Chillum).
- The tag remained for just under 8 months until it and the associated sentence were removed on 10 July 2008 (User:Karibou).
- In summary, the sentence in question ("Jimbo Wales has also suggested that the policy is not subject to amendment by the community") appeared in March 2005, was formally contested with a 'citation needed' tag in November 2007 (a year and eight months later), and was removed in July 2008 (a further eight months later).
- So how does this tally with Brad's comment that people should not assume that because the edits have stuck, that the policy has been changed? Is there some master document somewhere that is the real policy? My view is that those with an interest in the policy should have it watchlisted and should contest such changes as needed. Sometimes an edit going uncontested does speak volumes, but there is no way of knowing how many people (including arbitrators) silently reviewed the edit and decided not to revert the citation needed tag or the eventual removal in July 2008. Does anyone contest the removal of that sentence? Just letting an edit go uncontested and then (possibly) objecting to the change months later, while it may be necessary, does seem to indicate that the policy is not as closely watched as might be thought. Carcharoth (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Martinphi
I didn't know that this RfC could actually change policy. RfCs are for venting, or for taking to ArbCom. It was not made clear at the start of the RfC that it would lead to a vote on proposals which would then automatically become policy. Perhaps the RfC was announced -I think it may have been- the same way as the recent anouncment of possible changes to the RfA process. But if it was, people don't take RfCs seriously, and no mention was made specifically at the start of the RfC that the results of the RfC would be made policy. It said "This RFC will provide an opportunity for the Community to interact in a central discussion, to help shape the future of the Committee, and for how it would and could best serve the Wikipedia community." No mention of the way that "help" would be provided. The RfC was not well attended for a change of this magnitude. I think this process should start over with a much clearer statement, if indeed it is the community prerogative to change ArbCom policy, which it might be. One way or the other, there was not sufficient publicity that a tiny clique of editors was proposing policy. Nor was there warning that their proposals -which the wider community did not participate in- would be presented to the wider community without the community being invited to change the proposals (if indeed it can be said to have now been presented to the wider community). It looks to me that fewer than a hundred people participated. In short, this is far from a decent way of making policy changes. It was not properly done and should be called off and redone. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Reply to Shoemaker below:
Two things: first, it has to look like more than an RfC for venting about the ArbCom- In fact, don't even call it an RfC, that means "just venting." Call it "Community forum to formulate changes to ArbCom policy" or something. Second, advertise it well- I just talked to another regular editor, and asked if they'd even known about it. They didn't. The basic reason people didn't know what was going on is that it was an RfC, which means "lots of noise and nothing happens." You have noted this yourself, if I recall, as have many others. There was no indication in the Nutshell or near the top of the page that this would actually change policy, nor that policy would be voted on. That's what seems to have happened. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:35, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Statement by User:Shoemaker's Holiday
The RFC had the input of hundreds of users. I would like to know what level of interaction Martinphi considers necessary to change policy? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Unusually-Short Statement by Alecmconroy
- As a rule, Wikipedia's policies are decided by consensus.
- While the board (and its representatives) may supersede consensus through explicit declaration, there's no evidence they have chosen to do so in this case.
- Arbcom cannot alter policy in general, and Arbcom deciding Arbcom policy would be particularly naughty.
- But, the Arbs are some of our most respected members, so we definitely want their opinions, albeit in a non-official capacity.
- And, the Arbs seem to understand that and have been offering their personal opinions-- so Huzzahs all round! :)
- --Alecmconroy (talk) 17:28, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Response to Fred:
- The wiki process works for all our other policies, it will work fine for our arbcom policies too. As a general rule, we generate consensus directly-- when a content dispute crops up, we generate consensus-- we don't vote to elect a subset of the editors who then vote amongst themselves and thereby decide how to edit an article.
- The even bigger problem with electing arbs based on their policy views is that (officially) arbs don't pick the policies. The wiki-process, through consensus, decides the policies.
- So electing an arb based on their preferred policies is a little like hiring a baseball umpire based on his opinion of the capital gains tax. Sure you can use that criterion if you want to. But at the end of the day, a baseball umpire still doesn't get to dictate the capital gains tax rate. So too is it with arbcom and policies.
- Now, if you believe Arbcom should just sit down and write out our policies for us then that's one thing.
- But for the rest of us, if you believe that Arbitration is a step in dispute resolution, but not a step in policy formation-- then you have a quandary. Electing arbs who share your point of view won't result in generating a policy-- because any arbs who share your point of view will, ipso facto, decline to dictate policies. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement by Fred Bauder
The procedures followed by the arbitration committee were initially established by the arbitration committee itself. As the work has progressed and experience was obtained there were modifications and refinements. My thought is that those who favor change in arbitration policy should elect arbitrators who advocate the changes they favor. Or, rather than concentrate on details, elect users you trust. Fred Talk 01:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement by SirFozzie
The problem with that three years is an excessively long time, so long that individual arbitrators who were generally lauded for their view, burnt out, and did silly things like suggesting that articles on living people be redirected to Clown. SirFozzie (talk) 02:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Statement by other user
Clerk notes
Arbitrator views and discussion
- For my personal view on this, please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration_Committee Elections December 2008/Policy Changes#A view from Newyorkbrad. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- My comment is in the Wikipedia talk:Arbitration_Committee Elections December 2008/Policy Changes#A view from Newyorkbrad thread. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
- Not intending to comment on the substance of proposed changes but on the status of the page. It is a difficult question whether the Arbitration policy constitutes the standing policy of the Arbitration committee (in which case only arbitrators can make substantive changes), or whether it constitutes a special policy governing and controlling the Arbitration committee (in which case there is some community input in setting it). In reality and in history it is an uncomfortable mixture of the two, which has not caused a problem in the past because the committee and the community have largely been in step on the major issues. A long term project might be to identify which sections are the 'standing orders' of the committee which we can change to help us work better, and which are the 'constitution' which needs outside input and oversight. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I am with Sam on this, though I note that it would only make sense if the Arbitrators were a major part of such a project - and we are generally swamped by the other stuff, so it would have to be driven quite strongly to make it work. James F. (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)