Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Case Opened on 00:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Case Closed on 03:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not edit this page directly unless you wish to become a participant in this case. (All participants are subject to Arbitration Committee decisions, and the ArbCom will consider each participant's role in the dispute.) Comments are very welcome on the Talk page, and will be read, in full. Evidence, no matter who can provide it, is very welcome at /Evidence. Evidence is more useful than comments.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks and bans as needed, but closed cases should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification.

Involved parties

[edit]


Requests for comment

[edit]

Statement by Minderbinder

[edit]

This proposed case involves a number of editors who have been disruptively editing articles on paranormal and pseudoscientific topics in violation of NPOV and particularly undue weight. They have given a number of articles a POV slant by emphasizing fringe views and minimizing mainstream ones, as well as including poorly sourced material including experiments that were self-published and otherwise questionable (on "historic" grounds). They have defined unproven concepts such as psychic worded as if the term is an accepted fact and refused to allow any wording that allows for the possibility that the concept isn't accepted by mainstream science (for example calling an individual a "psychic" versus "self-described psychic" [1]). In some cases Martinphi has insisted on definitions that contradict those in mainstream dictionaries and encyclopedias, calling them "demonstrably untrue" and saying "those definitions say something different from what they mean".

Much of this disruptive editing comes from either a misinterpretation or intentional wikilawyering of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, specifically arguing that "scientific consensus" doesn't mean the consensus of science overall but just the consensus of a group that has studied a particular topic, regardless of how fringe the group or topic is (for example that "scientific consensus" on the purportedly paranormal Electronic voice phenomenon means the consensus of only those who have studied EVP).[2] This interpretation has been used to justify giving undue weight to controversial fringe views and marginalizing mainstream ones.

Other specific policies that have been violated are revert warring including 3RR violations, sock/meat puppetry including use to evade 3RR: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Martinphi Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Martinphi Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Davkal, POV forking, editing wikipedia guidelines with text specifically from active disputes to bolster an argument [3], sending a "welcome" messages with a link to an off-site advocacy page [4], refusal to accept consensus, and general incivility and failure to assume good faith: "the actions of the power block on this article constituted highly disruptive, un-Wikipedia-like gang editing" .

Many specific examples for Martinphi are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Martinphi. At that user RfC there was wide agreement that he is misinterpreting WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, but he has made it clear that he has no intentions of listening to the recommendations of other editors and welcomes the idea of Arbcom looking at his behaviour and his interpretation of policy. I'd like to see Arbcom take this case so they may clarify the policies in question and take any necessary actions to stop continued policy violations, particularly consistent POV pushing. --Minderbinder 14:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A key part of a guideline not yet mentioned, WP:FRINGE: "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted or labeled as mainstream unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources. However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." In the case of these articles, absence of mainstream scientific sources has been used as justification for giving undue weight to material from fringe publications, often misrepresenting fringe positions as mainstream. If a topic only appears in fringe sources, it violates undue weight and NPOV to only present a fringe, often biased and unsupported position just because mainstream scientific publications haven't gone on record disputing it. Extraordinary claims have been made, cited to questionable sources, and justified by a lack of mainstream sources disproving those claims. This is contrary to the guideline above and an insistence on negative proof. --Minderbinder 12:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:ScienceApologist

[edit]

I first suggested that arbitration occur due to the conversations happening at Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon. A number of editors who are convinced of the reality of paranormal events have been particularly adament in their advocacy. Among the more problematic issues are:

  • Many of these editors believe that the threshhold of verifiability and reliability should be lower for attributing claims of the paranormal than for other areas of the encyclopedia. In particular, much hay has been made over the claimed employment history of one Alexander MacRae who claimed to work for NASA in the 1960s but the only citations for said claim are to paranormal promoters. Bizarre legal threats have been made by User:Davkal over this issue for ends I've yet to ascertain.
  • Complaints of bias in wording (for example, labeling various topics as "paranormal claims") have been made to the tune of advocating a sympathetic rather than a neutral point of view.
  • There is a persistent insistence that parapsychology be recognized as legitimate science and that it is not pseudoscience.
  • A number of the editors have attempted to maintain an ownership of paranormal articles through Wikipedia: WikiProject Paranormal.

These problems have risen to the level of concerted camps and are likely to make articles in this area more and more unstable. I encourage the arbitration committee to help resolve these matters.

--ScienceApologist 16:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nealparr

[edit]

Articles on Wikipedia dealing with paranormal subjects are often edited by passionate editors who have strong opinions on the subject matter. This is true of both sides, believers and skeptics. Finding a dispassionate, neutral tone is often difficult and requires patience on the part of editors involved. Recent research [5] suggests that belief in the paranormal is widespread despite there being a substantial controversy over whether science supports paranormal phenomena, or even research on paranormal phenomena. There's a lot of gray area here involving a Demarcation problem of science that hasn't fully been solved outside of Wikipedia. Because of this, it is sometimes unclear on how to approach paranormal subjects within Wikipedia. The specific question that often comes up that I'd like addressed (hence my participation here), is whether Wikipedia as an entity is willing to say unequivocally that science has ruled out the possibility of paranormal phenomena completely, or completely dismissed research into the paranormal. This is the sole question I have (not as interested in the other stuff), because that is the position some editors have taken in dealing with paranormal articles on Wikipedia. Statements that science has declared parapsychology as pseudoscientific often go unsourced as obvious. I don't believe it's as obvious as they make it out to be, especially when looking for sources to support the claim that it is the official position of science. Pseudoscience is a negative term meant to be dismissive. For that reason alone clear sources should be used when applying it. My position (separating myself from the pro-paranormal crowd) isn't one of legitimizing parapsychology as science, or elevating it beyond its marginalized position within science. Instead, my position is that there is a controversy over whether science has dismissed parapsychology completely, as some editors state as obvious. I advocate treating it as a controversial position versus an obvious state of fact.

For my part, let me be clear. I do have interests in paranormal topics, but not from a supported by science perspective. I certainly don't advance that position. To my knowledge, none of my edits are all that controversial. All I'm here to do is ask that:

  • 1) Attributed statements be made and sources provided when applying the negative term pseudoscience to parapsychology, and
  • 2) Sources should match the statement being made. For example, if a statement is made that there is a broad consensus in mainstream science, the source should come from mainstream science and show a broad consensus.

I'd also like to ask that Wikipedia not endorse the statement that parapsychology is an obvious pseudoscience, for neutrality reasons that I'd be happy to cover in the arbitration.

As for guidelines, this is the relevant part of the WP:FRINGE guideline: "However, a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources."

When asking for such sourcing, it's suggested that myself and others are looking for negative proof to elevate parapsychology to a level of widespread acceptance. That's not the case at all (at least not in my case). It's asking for any statement using pseudoscience to be sourced correctly. The term pseudoscience is often applied without sourcing in paranormal articles. Asking for a source to a statement that there is a broad consensus in mainstream science concerning parapsychology is in response to an unsourced statement that made that claim.

For my part, I'm also trying to keep proposed policies and guidelines, and interpretations of those proposals neutral, per /Workshop.

--Nealparr (yell at me|for what i've done) 17:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LuckyLouie

[edit]

I support the statements of Minderbinder and ScienceApologist as they are a clear outline as to the nature of this dispute. While certain of a small group of editors appear to edit WP solely to push a paranormal agenda, others, although admittedly pro-paranormal, appear to understand that WP cannot be used as a platform to promote their particular minority beliefs and enthusiasms. There does however appear to be some attempt to do an "end run" around WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV using claims of 'grey areas' as a lever with which to edit paranormal articles from the fringe/proponent POV. It has already been expressed that, while NPOV requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy, "significant alternatives" refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. For example, Electronic voice phenomenon violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation, solidly placing it in the category of psuedoscience. Yet much 'creative interpretation' has been attempted to justify giving undue weight to that article's controversial fringe views while marginalizing mainstream ones. Since at least a dozen articles ranging from Psychic to Parapsychology are similarly subject to POV pushing from a small group of pro-paranormal editors, the intercession of the arbitration committee is requested. -- LuckyLouie 19:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SheffieldSteel

[edit]

I support the statements by Minderbinder, ScienceApologist, Nealparr, Mastcell, LuckyLouie, Bishonen and Guy above. It has been an uphill struggle to ensure that the Electronic Voice Phenomenon article maintains a neutral, or mainstream scientific, or small-s skeptical point of view. There is apparently a grey area in the wikipedia guidelines where it comes to fringe subjects upon which no definitive opinion has been published by mainstream scientific organisations (such as EVP and in contrast to creation science). Pro-paranormal editors have argued that, as a result of science's lack of opinion on the subject, the parapsychology enthusiast community should become the arbiter of mainstream consensus and of what constitutes a reliable source. SheffieldSteel 00:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by frequently involved Wikidudeman

[edit]

I support the statements by Minderbinder, ScienceApologist, and LuckyLouie.

I won't rant on because this is a conduct issue and not a content issues. I will however state my basic beliefs regarding paranormal articles because it might be of some importance to the arbitrators. I believe that [[6]] should be expanded to bring emphasis that things relating to the 'paranormal' would be considered either "pseudo science" or "questionable science". Ufology, Parapsychology, etc. I believe that Wikipedia should solidify it's stance against bias editing in favor of things relating to the paranormal and put more emphasis on the burden of such editors to provide solid scientific peer-reviewed studies from reputable scientific journals to support whatever assertions they are making in the articles. Journals that would not be considered "reputable" would be for instance the "Journal of parapsychology". I believe that Wikipedia should also solidify it's stance that if such studies are provided(if they do meet the criteria, which they rarely do) then wikipedia should also give all relevant viewpoints in the scientific community concerning said study or viewpoint Per Undue weight. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Martinphi

[edit]

I have made several mistakes on Wikipedia. First, was edit warring. Second, without knowing that I was breaking any rule, I "created" a meat puppet. I also made the mistake (retrospectively) of arguing some points which were merely debatable, such as the meaning of dictionary definitions, and whether they should be taken at face value on Wikipedia. I've made one violation of WP:POINT (which no one seemed to notice). The edit warring is by far the worst thing I've done. I should have gone to mediation much sooner: it was a bad way to edit, and I have, and intend, to correct my ways. I have also written of what I considered the disruptive, POV, or otherwise inappropriate edits of others, without, I hope, ever resorting to personal attack. I believe this is sometimes necessary to promote responsibility, and I stand by the content of what I said. I said all this before, but apparently it hasn't satisfied those who brought this RfA.

But none of these are the main problem. The main problem is my alleged POV editing. All my edits stem from my interpretation of the Wikipedia rules, such as NPOV, WP:V, WP:ATT, and WP:FRINGE. I am not alone in these views. Also, there is disagreement over the status parapsychology as a scientific field. I have edited out of my understandings of these things, and if I am correct then my edits not disruptive but appropriate. Thus, this is a question of Wikipedia policy.

This issue has been introduced as a small band of paranormal POV-pushers who are trying to break the rules. I have no desire to break any rules, or to POV-push. But if I am right about the rules, the so-called "paranormalists" are not POV-pushing.

It seems to me that the rules of Wikipedia were not created to deal with fringe subjects. Perhaps if they had been, they would give the fringe subjects less room. As it is, I believe the rules clearly say that

  1. Wikipedia presents the scientific consensus where available.
  2. Wikipedia cannot state a scientific consensus which does not exist- such as a consensus that parapsychology is a pseudoscience, or that a subject which has not been scientifically studied has nevertheless been rejected by science (see this discussion).
  3. Wikipedia cannot invent a majority, where none can be documented- such as a majority of scientists who reject a certain position on the paranormal (see statements above).
  4. Wikipedia does not give undue weight to minority views.
  5. Wikipedia presents primarily the scientific consensus in the field of science relevant to a particular article.
  6. Wikipedia does not credit the general scientific view above the view of scientists who work in the field relevant to an article. For instance, the views of biologists are not relevant to the article on quantum physics.

One of the problems has been that in some cases,

  1. There is no scientific consensus (and maybe little or no research)
  2. The majority of people involved in the phenomenon believe it is paranormal
  3. The skeptics are not scientists, and are very distinctly in the minority (in the published works and in the numbers who do research on the subject).

This was the problem with the EVP article. Nevertheless, undue weight was given to the opinion of skeptics. You will notice above how "mainstream" is equated to mean "skeptical." Those here described as "paranormalists" wanted to write the article to present the field as un-researched, rather than rejected by a (fictional) majority.

It is not necessarily a bad thing to make Wikipedia exclusively skeptical, but if this is policy, it should be so written.

I believe parapsychology is a scientific field, and should be treated as such by Wikipedia. The reasons for this include:

  1. Critics (Randi, Hyman, Alcock etc.) of parapsychology agree with parapsychologists that it is a scientific field
  2. Parapsychology can be practiced by skeptics.
  3. Parapsychology has the institutional structure of a scientific field, including associations and peer-reviewed journals.
  4. Parapsychology uses a higher degree of quantification than some other fields, such as psychoanalysis.
  5. Parapsychology has a lot of institutional support
  6. Parapsychology is a affiliate of the AAAS (see necessary qualifications for membership)

These facts make parapsychology more a field of science than psychoanalysis. It is obvious that parapsychology falls under the heading of questionable science, but it is science nonetheless. Since parapsychology is questionable science, I advocate giving much more weight to skepticism in articles related to parapsychology than it should otherwise get according to guidelines. This is reflected in my editing of the parapsychology article, and my other edits. It should also be noted that there does not exist (contrary to statements above) a scientific consensus that parapsychology is a pseudoscience. The people putting together the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts tried very hard to find good sources, and generally failed.

Further explication of my analysis of the rules as they apply in this Arbitration can be found here. If I am wrong, I will change my ways. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 07:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Statement May 6

[edit]

I could, with plenty of space, refute the claims of Minderbinder and others. I will only give one example of our arguments. I felt it was not correct to define a psychic as someone who purportedly has paranormal powers, even though some dictionaries give that definition. I had at least two reasons: first, not all dictionaries give that definition. For instance my copy of The American Heritage Dictionary says "2. a. Of or pertaining to extraordinary, especially extrasensory and nonphysical, mental processes, such as extrasensory perception and mental telepathy." Secondly, it seemed obvious to me that when dictionaries give the first kind of definition (using "supposed" or "purported" as part of the definition of psychic), what they actually mean is "a psychic is a person who has paranormal powers, but such powers may not exist." Thus, I thought that Wikipedia (not being a dictionary) should define a psychic as someone with paranormal powers, and then, also in the summary, indicate that skeptics say that such powers do not exist.

The above is actually an example of an argument which I said in my statement that I should not have engaged in, and I felt that way because I was on less firm grounds there than with many of the rest of my edits and arguments. For instance, my so-called "straw man arguments" in the Controversy in parapsychology article (which I split off due to the size of the parapsychology article), were mostly upheld by direct quotations from skeptics. Also, to say that the general consensus within the field of parapsychology is that some types of paranormal phenomena exist, is simply a sourcable fact (though skeptics exist in the field). This general consensus is highly notable if parapsychology is a field of science, even a disputed one.

I would like to make another major point here: NPOV, ATT, WP:V, and other major policies which are most basic to Wikipedia are not subject to consensus. If they are violated, the violation must be corrected, regardless of how many people feel differently. I am well aware that I have gone against the general feeling, since there are many more editors of a skeptical bent than neutral or pro-paranormal ones. But while I am quite ready to accept consensus on other issues, I am not willing to accept them on the above. I believe this is proper Wikipedia conduct, AKA "defending the Wiki." This is why I want ArbCom to make things perfectly clear: are the interpretations of Wikipedia rules, out of which I and other so-called "paranormalists" have been editing, right or wrong? (I have no doubt that NPOV has been violated at times on the paranormal side).

The revision of the WP:NPOV article which was deleted from my userspace was actually something I was considering mainly for another site, or maybe a special branch of Wikipedia. It was never finished, does not represent my thought, and was probably a bad idea. Yet it is still getting dragged up.

Deletion of my Paranormal Primer essay (also never finished): This had some justification, in that I showed it to new users. Demon (the admin) might have noticed that when I said I "didn't give a fuck" whether it was deleted or not, the link meant that I had a Zen attitude about it, not that I didn't care. So that's mainly my own dumb fault.

I should also ask the arbitrators not to believe what some of the editors (unfamiliar with the subject) have said here about parapsychology. This is not a good place to get an overview. Even the Skeptic's Dictionary (skepdic.com) would be better- and you have no idea how much that is saying.

Tom Butler quotes me thus: "However, when we are presenting the viewpoint of a paranormal topic in the main body of an article, we must present it as if it is a fact."

I don't know where he got this. It seems to be from my revision of the NPOV, which was a thought experiment from another site. I don't remember most of what was in there, and I ask everyone to ignore it and all references to it. It's character assassination to bring up brainstorming drafts of old documents by a person who wasn't watching his back at the time. I told people this before (this is not Tom's intent, I'm talking to those who keep putting it in evidence).

I would like to again urge everyone to actually read Minderbinder's evidence of POV-pushing. Read it closely, and see if it is as presented:

"#Violating NPOV by modifying sentences to insert positive appraisal or legitimacy to claims in/about parapsychology/the paranormal: [7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] Additional recent example at Dowsing: [16]"

I will also say that because of the negative environment, I am drastically cutting down my editing of Wikipedia. Those who want me to leave have won, and the funny thing is, I had already made that decision when the RfC was initiated. I was merely helping out other editors, mostly by insisting that citation requests not be deleted summarily. To varying degrees, and with varying degrees of subtlety, the attitude which I have felt here is summed up by ScienceApologist when he says:

Much is made of JSPR's claim of peer review. However, it is not peer-reviewed by mainstream experts but only by unreliable pseudoscience proponents of the paranormal. Therefore, its peer-review standards should not be confused with the normal standards of scientific journals or even the standards of JSE. --71.57.90.96 16:49, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

[…]

Whether SPR is peer-reviewed or not is hardly the issue because when the "peers" that review work are untrained buffoons like they are at SPR, there is no reason to take the publication seriously. Anybody can get nonsense published in the SPR's journal because their editorial board loves to publish work that backs up their belief in the paranormal. This has been shown time-and-again with this work where the papers they publish have been discredited and discounted throughout the years its been in existence from its first reports of ESP to its lack of critical review for MacRae's nonsense. What we need to discuss it in the article is some indication that JSPR is reliable enough to use as a source. As yet, you have provided no independent evaluation of JSPR as a reliable source. Therefore, we are right to exclude it. --71.57.90.96 17:22, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

That is his IP

I don't like working with people who think I am a lesser version of an "untrained buffoon."

I have nothing more to say, nor evidence to present. I ask again that the arbitrators read my positions, and that they consider my proposed principles. I could present large quantities of evidence, or a full rebuttal of Minderbinder's evidence. But others have already presented a good sample of evidence, and I do not want to increase the burden on the arbitrators. I leave this case in their hands. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 04:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Davkal

[edit]

I agree with much of what Martinphi said above but there are a number of general and specific points I would like to add.

Firstly, the problem here has been portrayed as a pro-paranormal versus sceptical debate. I believe this in inaccurate. On virtually no occasion have any of the so-called pro-paranormal editors attempted to edit articles as if paranormal phenomena had been acknowledged and accepted as real in anything like the way that that has been portrayed, or in anything like the way that some other editors have. That is, a cursory glance at the edit histories of paranormal articles will show many attempts to promote a heavily pro-paranormal POV, but these are not made by the editors here. On the contrary, almost all the editors here have attempted to portray accurately the current scientific status of a topic (where one exists) and to attribute appropriately and without bias any other claims made. For example, I have tried on a number of occasions to include in the EVP article the point (straight out of policy) that “EVP has not been considered or accepted by mainstream science”. This has been removed repeatedly by so-called sceptical editors and often replaced with the false claim that mainstream science has explained alleged cases of EVP in such-and-such ways. As noted, this is false, and what has actually happened in the case of EVP is that a number of sceptical commentators (who may or may not have even investigated the topic) have pronounced on it negatively in a variety of general interest/advocacy magazines or websites. A further point being that many of these “sceptical” commentators openly admit to bias. For example, Robert Carroll of Skepdic openly acknowledges that his book “does not try to present a balanced account of occult subjects. If anything, this book is a Davidian counterbalance to the Goliath of occult literature. I hope that an occasional missile hits its mark…". While, Chris French (another oft quoted sceptic) says “I am biased in my approach to evidence relating to the paranormal…..I make no claim to be a neutral assessor of the evidence".

One problem here, then, is that these “sceptical” views are being put forward as the mainstream scientific view and any attempt to accurately identify these sources as non-mainstream science, or to tone down their rhetoric, is taken as pro-paranormal POV pushing. These views have their place in Wiki, but at present they are being fundamentally misrepresented as the result of careful scientific scrutiny when they are more like ideologically motivated armchair criticism.

This misrepresentation is ubiquitous. For example, Minderbinder claimed “parity of sources” re a major scientific dowsing experiment conducted and published by the German Ministry for Technology and Research with an article from the magazine of the advocacy group CSI(COP). Even though the German study concluded that a core of dowsing phenomena could be regarded as “empirically proven”, the Dowsing article stated baldly (on account of the CSI article) that dowsing had been subject to “scientific refutation”. My attempt to tone this down to say “the scientific evidence for dowsing is inconclusive” was immediately changed (please note, not by Minderbinder) to say “while serious scientists find no basis for Dowsing”. This type of thing goes on everywhere. Whenever any scientific evidence for any alleged paranormal or fringe-scientific topic exists it is written out almost entirely and the CSI/Skepdic analysis is provided. Nobody is claiming that in these cases we should write the article as if one or two experiments proved the case, but neither can we take the non-peer-reviewed articles from CSI to provide genuine scientific refutation. A middle-ground needs to be found here.

A further example of the elevation of “sceptical” views to the status of mainstream scientific consensus is evident in the List of Pseudosciences article. That article is split into two sections: the first dealing with topics specifically identified by mainstream scientific organisations as pseudoscientific; and the second dealing with topics identified by sceptical organisations as pseudoscientific. In the first section, however, we now have a number of topics sourced to “sceptical” organisations/individuals rather than mainstream scientific bodies. The way this has been done is to combine two online dictionary definitions to try to show that pseudoscience and paranormal are almost synonymous, then to find one (dubious) mainstream science source that may or may not say that anything paranormal is pseudoscientific given these defintions, then to find a variety of non-mainstream sources that say x, y, and z are paranormal, and then to conclude that we have mainstream scientific attribution for x, y and z being pseudoscience. This six-degrees-of-separation sourcing is disingenuous at best and yet those who dispute it are accused of playing at semantics! And all of this in the complete absence of the type of source that the article explicitly states is needed.

An additional point about that article is that it is set up in such a way that it almost certainly breaches NPOV. That is, it is set up such that all we need to identify something as pseudoscience is one single source. And so even if we have countless other (better) sources saying that thing is not pseudoscience we cannot use them because the article explicitly identifies one source as equaling a scientific consensus. What this means, in effect, is that undue weight has been written into the article itself - the article should in fact be called “Things that have been called pseudoscience by one group or another”, rather than the disingenuous “List of pseudosciences”. I cannot see how Wiki policy can allow for an article to be written in such a way as to deliberately exclude any competing views even if/where those views are in the majority.

Secondly, a number of the so-called sceptical editors have started to ask for almost impossible sources for any claim, however mundane, in order to cast doubt on anything associated with the paranormal. For example, in the EVP article we have not been allowed to write “Alexander MacRae, former voice-recognition consultant for NASA…” because we are unable to produce his contract with NASA from almost 40 years ago, or a NASA source outlining exactly the work he carried out. We have sourced this claim to (amongst other sources) a book by Professor David Fontana, Distinguished Visiting Fellow at Cardiff University. Despite the fact that Fontana is a noted academic whose specialist field covers transpersonal psychology, and therefore, in my opinion, makes him a perfectly reliable source for basic biographical information about people involved in that area, this has been used to suggest that nothing he says at all can be taken at face value, even where multiple other sources support these mundane points. Similarly, the well known tests that Konstantin Raudive took part in during the early seventies (that were the subject of several television programmes at the time and have been written about and referred to in numerous books – including Fontana’s) are not allowed to be described as if they actually took place. That is, the actual existence of tests themselves has to be described as a dubious claim made (up) by pro-paranormal authors. There is absolutely no doubt about the existence of the tests, nor who was involved in them, nobody has ever disputed any of it, but because the sceptical editors don’t like the fact that these tests took place (the results of which are never presented as proof-positive of EVP anyway but as merely the claims of those involved) the mere existence of the tests is disputed.

The point here is that there are countless examples of well sourced mundane details which are not paranormal in any way having to be written as if they are highly contentious extraordinary claims. This is being done to try to cast doubt not only on anything which supports the paranormal (which everyone agrees has to written cautiously) but also onto anything positive or credible about any event or person associated with a pro-paranormal position. One final example: it is well known that electronics expert Peter Hale (who supervised the Raudive tests) wrote to author Peter Bander saying he couldn’t explain what happened in the tests in normal physical terms. Now, Hale may be mistaken, but he did write the letter and that is what he said. We have numerous sources to support the point and in over 30 years nobody (outside the EVP discussion page) has ever disputed it. Yet we are only allowed to talk of this letter, if at all, in terms that strongly suggest that Bander is just making it up. As noted, this type of constant hedging and disputing of totally uncontested mundane facts (someone once worked for NASA; a letter was written) not only makes the article almost impossible to read but illegitimately casts doubt where none actually exists.

Thirdly, a number of sceptical editors have continually removed fact tags from articles - followed by a refusal to cite sources (or citing sources which in no way support the claim) - followed by threats of disruptive editing for merely placing the tags there. Again the List of Pseudosciences article provides copious examples of this. In addition, they have engaged in a significant amount of original research, for example, interpreting science/scientific papers which make no mention of EVP as providing explanations for the phenomenon and then citing those sources in support of their own ad hoc theorising. Davkal 13:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tom Butler

[edit]

This is not about an editor misbehaving in Wikipedia. This is just a turf war between people who think these subjects should be honestly presented and people who are offended by any suggestion of something outside of mainstream science.

We asked early on that the articles in dispute be made as simple as possible to avoid problems of point of view. We asked that just the fact be included and without characterization. Instead, there is a large and aggressive skeptical contingent of Wikipedia editors who seem determined to use Wikipedia as a platform to denounce anything that they see as not mainstream.

As an example, the qualifications of MacRae are not important. The fact is that he conduced an EVP experiment and published his results in a journal. The experiment and results are the point. Who MacRae is or where he worked is just a red herring offered up by the skeptics to goad other editors into a fight. If the point is not acceptable for Wikipedia, then it should be left out. And ... we should use the same standard for all of the other points. In the end, I think we would have an article on which we can agree.

Because of the aggressiveness of the skeptical editors and the small number of "proponent" editors, it is easy to push the "proponents" into edit wars, in which the skeptics can play tag-team and appear to stand above the fray. What is unforgivable is that whoever is running Wikipedia, they are condoning these acts by their silence. Tom Butler 15:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed the Dean Radin article(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Radin), and what I saw was disgusting. Minderbinder, you were part of that and your leadership here, I have to think that you condoned the behavior of Kazuba. There is no reason to expect Radin to know Wiki rules and even less reason to think he would be passive while skeptics wrote whatever they wish about him and his work. You all were just using Wikipedia to write history the way you see it--the skeptical agenda again.
Look also at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dradin where you will see that Kazuba was essentially tormenting Radin on his own talk page with endless demands for clarification of just about everything Radin has ever written. Kazuba was clearly looking for a good argument and had no reason to believe that Radin would kowtow to the demands of a person with no evident credentials to even make them seem like serious questions.
Radin has since been blocked because of conflict of interest editing--no surprise that he is now a new enemy of Wikipedia. Any business person knows that every customer that goes away angry drains growth from the business. If Wikipedia's operation is public supported, how long can it hope to have anybody but skeptics contribute when there is so much negative press?
I submit to the ArbCom committee that Minderbinder knew of and supported the treatment of Radin. I experienced essentially the same COI treatment from him, LuckyLouie and ScienceApologist. This is typical of the kind confrontation between paranormal "proponent" editors and skeptical editors. The skeptical editors are well organized, by the Radin article you can see that they are ruthless and they will say anything to win the point. This ArbCom does need to be about behavior, but disciplining people will not change the reasons this can happen in Wikipedia, it will only hurt well-meaning people. The rules need to be changed if anyone hopes to make Wikipedia work. Tom Butler 17:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Pjacobi

[edit]

Please add me to the case, I'll expand my statement ASAP. Only this now: WikiProject Paranormal is used by some of its member to organize a faction in Wikipedia. It's coverage is not defined by a specific topic, but by a specific POV. E.g. AfDs like that on Dynamic_theory_of_gravity or Electrogravitics get announced there. Articles like Megalith and Homopolar generator get tagged by the project label. --Pjacobi 18:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simoes

[edit]

I think Minderbinder and ScienceApologist have covered nearly everything that needs to be said here, and I fully endorse both of their statements. Since a couple arbitrators agreed only to address user conduct issues, I'll mostly focus on those.

  • Davkal: This user has been the source of the overwhelming amount of problems on paranormal-related articles. His persistent edit warring, personal attacks, pov-pushing, and general belligerence are a drain on most editors.
  • Martinphi: I believe this user is—unlike Davkal—essentially a good-faith editor. Nonetheless, his editing practices have been highly disruptive. As copied from his User conduct RFC, he:
    • consistently seeks on multiple articles to have parapsychology described in a way that is favorable to his POV (primarily via (1) having articles speak of parapsychology as a scientific field and (2) having articles speak of "psychics" as if their abilities are real—both extremely controversial views, to say the least).
    • engages in POV-forking
    • selectively applies WP:ATT and WP:CITE so as to achieve this goal.
    • directs new users who are likely to be sympathetic to his views to an off-site, Wikipedia/paranormal advocacy webpage that, among other things, warns paranormal enthusiasts about individual Wikipedia editors (labeled as "skeptics").
    • has created sock/meat puppets to further his views and circumvent 3RR policy.
    • has repeatedly engaged in revert wars.
    • is chronically involved in content disputes.
    • made an unscrupulous attempt to get another user blocked based on a false allegation of 3RR violation (he later admitted that he was indeed attempting to game the system).
    • has created an essay detailing what seems to be his philosophy of editing articles, much of it in conflict with wikipedia policies and guidelines: User:Martinphi/Paranormal primer, which he has cited on article and user talk pages (update: this page has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Martinphi/Paranormal primer and Martin has moved the page to an offsite host and linked to it from his user talk page [17]).
    • (recent editing practice not mentioned on the user's RFC) makes a complaint on a paranormal-related article's talk page and immediately demands a compromise, regardless of how problematic his complaint appears to other editors
  • Tom Butler: This user is the author of the problematic off-site webpage mentioned above. I have not had much interaction with Tom Butler outside this, and so I leave it to other involved parties to make statements on other conduct issues—if any—with him.
  • Others: There are several other paranormalist Wikipedians (normally members of Wikiproject Paranormal) engaging in editing practices at odds with WP:NPOV, but none have had quite the impact as the above three. Those who have persistently challenged the inclusion of content on the List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts have some personal stake in the position they're maintaining: virtually all these editors are participants in fringe practices or hold fringe beliefs (and furthermore practices and beliefs that are often targets of the critiques made by the article sources): paranormal enthusiasts/believers, intelligent design advocates, homeopathy practitioners, chiropractors, acupuncturists, etc. Of course, we should all heed WP:AGF, but certain patterns of editing and talk page conduct may force one to reject initial assumptions and decide there is a serious conflict of interest problem at hand.

Simões (talk/contribs) 21:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

[edit]

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (5/0/0/0)

[edit]

Temporary injunction (none)

[edit]

Final decision

[edit]

All numbering based on /Proposed decision (vote counts and comments are there as well)

Principles

[edit]

Neutral point of view

[edit]

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view regarding a subject. If there is controversy regarding the subject, all sides of the controversy should be fairly represented.

Passed 9-0 at 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Advocacy

[edit]

2) Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum for advocacy, see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

Passed 9-0 at 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Basis for inclusion

[edit]

3) In addition to firmly established scientific truth, Wikipedia contains many other types of information. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" (from Wikipedia:Verifiability).

Passed 9-0 at 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Categorization, non-content

[edit]

4.1) Articles are placed in a category as an aid to the reader. Categories are not intended to define or limit the subject of the article as belonging exclusively to that category.

Passed 9-0 at 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Appropriate handling of epistemological status, no content

[edit]

6.1) It is the responsibility of editors to appropriately handle any question regarding the epistemological status of a subject, that is, questions of whether something exists, is hypothesized to exist, general scientific consensus, etc. The goal is not arrival at the correct conclusion, but adequate treatment of any controversy.

Passed 8-1 at 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Adequate framing

[edit]

6.2) Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include "mythical", "fictional", "a belief", and in the present case "paranormal", "psychic", "new age", "occult", "channeling", or "parapsychological researcher". "UFO", "Bigfoot", "Yeti", "alien abduction", and "crop circle" serve the same function. It should not be necessary in the case of an adequately framed article to add more, for example to describe Jeane Dixon as a psychic who appeared on TV says it all. "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing.

Passed 9-0 at 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Editorial judgment regarding reliability

[edit]

9) Determining the reliability of sources is a matter of sound editorial judgment informed by expertise.

Passed 7-2 at 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Editorial judgment regarding reliability

[edit]

9.1) Determining the reliability of sources is a matter of sound editorial judgment informed by expertise. Exceptional claims should be supported by strong sources. Sensationalist sources, when used at all, should not be the sole sources for an article. Topics for which no reliable source can be found are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Passed 7-2 at 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Conflict of interest

[edit]

10.1) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest strongly cautions but does not forbid an editor from working in subject areas where the editor is strongly invested. Such editing must be done responsibly. Other editors are expected to respond diplomatically even when they believe a conflict of interest may exist.

Passed 9-0 at 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally considered pseudoscience

[edit]

11) Theories which have a following, such as various manifestations of the paranormal, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may, with adequate sourcing, properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

Passed 8-1 at 03:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Findings of Fact

[edit]

Loci of dispute

[edit]

2) The loci of this dispute are the articles centering on the Paranormal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and similar subjects such as ufology or the occult which have traction in popular culture, but not in mainstream science. Notable are Electronic voice phenomenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and their talk pages, where the disputes which precipitated this arbitration has its roots. The status of parapsychology is a major issue.

passed 9-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Status of parapsychology

[edit]

3) Parapsychology has an ambiguous status, engaging in scientific research, but strongly criticized for lack of rigor.

passed 7-1 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Davkal

[edit]

4) Davkal (talk · contribs) is a disruptive editor, given to personal attacks, lack of civility and failure to extend good faith to other editors.

Examples of problematic editing by Davkal include: civility, civility, civility, incivility, civility, civility, personal attack, foul personal attack, another nasty attack, personal attack, incivility, incivility, civily and assertion of fact in issue, assertion of fact in issue, 3RR, civility, civility, civility, civility, civility, civility, extreme civility violation, civility, removal of warning, removal of warning, removal of warning, removal of warning, vandalism of another's attempt to discuss removal of warnings, meatpuppet, sockpuppets, and Leonovski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), see also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive227#Unending_personal_attacks_by_User:Davkal, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive137#Davkal_again, and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Davkal_blocked_for_personal_attacks.2C_please_review.

passed 9-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Cultural artifacts

[edit]

5) "Psychic" or "clairvoyant" and similar terms are cultural artifacts, not people or things which necessarily exist. A psychic may not have psychic abilities, nor does use of the term imply that such abilities exist.

passed 8-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Subjects without referents

[edit]

6) Wikipedia covers many notable subjects which may not have a referent in the real world. A discussion of the epistemological status of such subjects is often included in articles regarding such subjects such as "mythical creature" or "a hypothetical conflict", but not every referral to mythical beasts or projected future events need be accompanied by a qualifier.

passed 9-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

External campaigning

[edit]

7) Activists, including a "Tom Butler" have put up pages which campaign regarding the content of Wikipedia articles [18] and [19]. Here Martinphi refers a new user Crystal Healer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the external site.

passed 9-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit]

8) Wikipedia includes many articles regarding matters that are of notable popular interest such as alien abductions, animal mutilations and crop circles. Often there exists little scientific interest or analysis of such purported events.

passed 8-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Flat statements of fact

[edit]

9) Articles exist which contain flat assertions of fact regarding fantastic formulations, for example Astral projection starts off "Astral projection (or astral travel) is an out-of-body experience achieved either awake or via lucid dreaming or deep meditation." and contains nowhere in the article the viewpoint that there is no such thing. Others such as Astral plane contain attribution, "The astral plane, also called the astral world or desire world, is a plane of existence according to esoteric philosophies, some religious teachings and New Age thought."

passed 8-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Conflation of parapsychology with unscientific concepts

[edit]

10.1) According to the Parapsychological Association, parapsychology should not be confused with sensational, unscientific beliefs and stories about "the paranormal". This has occurred in some instances; for example Ectoplasm (parapsychology).

passed 9-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Three layer cake with frosting

[edit]

11) In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking.

passed 8-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Paranormal as an effective tag

[edit]

12) The use of a link to paranormal in the introduction of an article serves to frame the matter. Links to psychic, new age, or occult serve the same purpose.

passed 8-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Template:Dubious

[edit]

13) ScienceApologist has used Template:Dubious in an inappropriate way [20]. Clicking on the template as displayed redirects to Wikipedia:Disputed statement, a guideline.

passed 7-1 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience

[edit]

14) There has been editwarring between Minderbinder and Martinphi over inclusion of parapsychology in Category:Pseudoscience [21].

passed 7-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Dradin

[edit]

15) Dean Radin has edited as Dradin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but ceased in April, 2007. The senior scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, he has participated in editing its article [22], [23], [24].

passed 7-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Kazuba

[edit]

16) Kazuba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was cited by Dradin as a troubling editor. Kazuba presents an extensive inventory of his positions on his user page and has made significant critical comments at User talk:Dradin.

passed 8-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProjects

[edit]

17) Wikipedia contains the following projects of relevance: Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism, Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pseudoscience.

passed 8-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Simoes

[edit]

18) Simoes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in aggressive editing to discredit parapsychology [25].

passed 8-0 at 03:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Remedies

[edit]

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Dradin

[edit]

4) Dradin and any other editor who is involved professionally or avocationally in the paranormal is cautioned regarding aggressive editing of articles which relate to the particular subjects they are involved with. This remedy is not effective until sufficient notice has been made to Dradin and affirmed after an opportunity to respond.

passes 8-0 at 03:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Kazuba

[edit]

5) Kazuba is cautioned to extend good faith to Dradin if he edits and to avoid including disparaging material about Dean Radin on his user page. This remedy is not effective until sufficient notice has been made to Kazuba and affirmed after an opportunity to respond.

passes 8-0 at 03:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Log of notifications, blocks and bans

[edit]

Log any notification block, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it. Notification shall include a diff to an edit on the user's talk page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal&oldid=1138654208"