Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 18

---

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• Gazimoff (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statement by Gazimoff

I am requesting clarification from Arbcomm regarding the case above. This discussion may appear to be slightly premature, but I feel that it is appropriate to raise a request for clarification in order to minimise the potential for further disruption. TTN has been involved in two Arbcomm cases relating to content disputes. As a result of those cases, TTN has been subject to the following remedies.

The remedy from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters stated the following:

• The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute.

The remedy from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 stated the following:

• TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. He is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Should he violate this restriction, he may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.
• The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute

TTN was since blocked twice for violating these restrictions as recorded here The restriction placed upon him lapsed without extension on September 10th, 2008. Since that date, TTN has created a high number of deletion discussions. The concern here is not about the articles, templates and so on being listed for deletion. It is more about the high volume of content being listed for deletion in a short space of time only days after a lapsed editing restriction prohibiting this behaviour. Such action can potentialy stretch any cleanup team a wikiproject may have over a large number of articles, potentially reducing the quality of debate that can occur and leaving TTN open to criticisms of working against the wikiprojects involved.

The requests for clarification are as follows:

• Does Arbcomm feel that the editing restrictions listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 met their required objective in encouraging good working practice from a long-term contributor?
• How does Arbcomm regard the large number of deletion discussions that have been started in relation to the encouragement "to work collaboratively and constructively" as stated at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters
• Would Arbcomm have any further reccomendations in this area in order to minimise further disruption?

I appreciate that Arbcomm are limited in resource, and hope that by presenting this concern early and cleanly, clarification can be reached with minimal impact on the project.

See also related discussion

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TTN nominating large numbers of pages for deletion (link contributed by Coppertwig (talk) 17:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC))

Statement by

GRBerry

Related WP:AE threads are currently at (reverse chronological order):

1. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Violation of TTN's restriction?
2. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive26#Eusebeus
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive22#Eusebeus still edit-warring over TV episode articles
   (partial copy also in archive 21)
4. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive21#TTN and Sonic the Hedgehog characters
5. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive20#Unreasonably broad interpretation
6. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive20#User:TTN
7. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive20#TTN and notability tagging?
8. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive20#And so it begins again

There have also been plenty of AN, ANI, et cetera threads involving many parties. I conclude that remedy #2 "The parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question. They are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute." has failed.

18:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the threads with Eusebeus's names in them were not selected for inclusion because I have any concerns about his actions, they were included to help the committee realize that the "all get together and sing

GRBerry

03:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by sgeureka

One way to look at it: TTN is quickly destroying the 'pedia with his quick AfDs. Do something about it.

Another way to look at it: Crappy fiction articles get created (in good faith) faster than they can be dealt with through what-some-would-label "recommended" channels. Cleanup templates get ignored for months (usually because the articles cannot be improved), merge proposals for popular yet crappy articles often get shot down through local fan consensus or take forever (by which time tons of new crappy articles have been created), and bold redirects or bold mergers for popular yet crappy articles get reverted and have demonstratedly already led to severe arbcom restrictions when someone tried to enforce to leave the redirects in place. AfDs however, especially for long-time cleanup-tagged articles, get quick results with community consensus. Not perfect but accomplishes the goal in the absense of other workable solutions.

Summa summarum: Leave dedicated editors at least one tool to keep up with the desperately needed cleanup. Or: fight the source of the problem (creation of crappy and unimprovable articles), not the symptom (AfDs). – sgeureka ^t•c 19:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by A Man In Black

Bearing in mind where my obvious biases are, what's the harm in a bunch of AFDs of articles that will all either be deleted or merged? TTN was censured for edit warring, not cleanup. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf

TTN is right. Censoring him was wrong from the start. It really is as simple as that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by DGG (talk)

Based on a comment by TTN on my talk page, [1], I suggested there that the AfDs are being brought deliberately because of TTN's knowledge that they will not be approved at the article talk page. This is essentially the same behavior that the arb com was first asked to address--as it is in essence continuing, with afds showing no previous attempt to discuss, in clear violation of deletion policy, the restriction should be made permanent. There are a great many articles needing redirection , merge, or deletion. There are are a great many other editors to propose them. DGG (talk) 21:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by PhilKnight - responding to DGG

In situations where an episode or character article doesn't comply with notability guidelines, the article talk page is invariably dominated by editors who are vehemently opposed to any merge, let alone deletion. The problem is one of a local consensus attempting to override policy and guidelines. The obvious solution is to take the article to AfD. Accordingly, what DGG describes as a "clear violation of deletion policy" is normal practice for this topic area. Also, looking at

, there doesn't appear to be any requirement to start discussion before nominating the article. Obviously, it's good practice to notify the article creator, and perhaps even some of the other editors, however for deletion (as opposed to deletion review), I can't see any requirement for prior discussion.

Statement by Protonk

So long as non-community enforced pathways for dealing with marginal and sub-marginal fictional articles result in intractable stalemates and so long as the community cannot agree on a daughter notability guideline to deal clearly and appropriately with these articles, we will have situations like this. AfD is a perfectly acceptable route for dealing with articles which do not meet our inclusion guidelines. Since we have no real agreed upon guidelines that are binding concerning lists of characters, episodes and other daughter articles, AfD may be the preferred route. We may wish, in an abstract sense, that editors discussed improvement, then proposed mergers, then discussed why the merger didn't gain consensus, then prod, then nominate for deletion, but any editor who learns from past experiences will be tempted to skip steps. I see this as a policy issue that needs to be worked out by the community. We don't have an agreed upon way to treat characters and episodes (as it were), so we have problems like this. Fix that policy issue and we have fixed most of the problem.

Statement by User:Randomran

We need to assume good faith, rather than assuming that TTN is somehow on a vengeful mission after being locked away for 6 months. TTN got himself in trouble when he

redirected pages en masse. He's learned his lesson, and is now soliciting the feedback of neutral Wikipedians in AFD. "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia’s article guidelines and policies." I do not echo his support for deletion in each and every case, but he's using the process as it is designed. Anything else is a discussion of actual content: discussions that TTN has initiated, and cannot unilaterally decide. That's how Wikipedia works.

That said, I might advise TTN that he could generate more good will by nominating AFDs at more scattered intervals. He hasn't broken any policy, consensus, or arbitration decision. But this does needlessly inflame the inclusionists. The

) 01:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by RyanGerbil10

So User:X was told not to do Y for Z period of time, X did not do Y until after Z (as asked), and now we're back at ArbCom? Seems to defeat the purpose if you ask me. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 19:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Norse Am Legend

Anyone's allowed to make statements here, right? What TTN is doing is similar to a police officer strongly and swiftly enforcing the law on any potential criminal that he sees or hears of. Is this acting in good faith? Possibly. Is he doing anything technically wrong? Apparently not. However, when every car in a five mile radius has a ticket on the windshield and the local courthouse is filled to the brim with people paying fines and undergoing trials, many people start to get really annoyed. Going on deletion crusades to "fully purge the video game and anime and manga character categories" and the like isn't something that should be fully endorsed without question - Norse Am Legend (talk) 02:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by ThuranX

Like many others here, I support TTN's efforts. As touched upon above, and seen in the AfDs in question, the local fan support serves to obstruct any management of a number of fiction related articles. The fans hide behind inclusionist thinking and essays, and are often good at mimicking the talking points, but they do a disservice to the real inclusionists by their actions. TTN's actions are commendable, as they make hte project stronger and more encyclopedic. ThuranX (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Kww

People need to stop expecting TTN to get blocked at the drop of a hat for making a legitimate effort to clean up a large section of Wikipedia. I'm sure he noticed articles that needed deletion during his 6 month restriction, so it looks a bit like a floodgate letting loose. However, looking over the articles that he has nominated, it looks like he is showing excellent judgement about what articles are essentially unsalvageable. As to the idea that one should discuss deletion on the talk page of an article first? Laughable. Articles essentially never get deleted by discussion on an article's talk page, because an article's talk page is watched virtually exclusively by people that think the article is interesting, and, by extension, desire to keep it around.

If this becomes as bad as it has before, it may become desirable to start having negative consequences for bringing unfounded cases to Arbcom's attention.Kww (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:casliber

Again, we have the editors whose opinions on the material are commenting the same way as before. Again, we have TTN who has absolutely no belief he has done anything wrong. Again we have no scope for negotiation but TTN's actions like a self-appointed wikipoliceman or a bull-in-a-chinashop behaviour which continues to aggravate editors whose opinions differ from his own. This does nothing for morale of the community. Again, I feel that editing solely to reduce content without contributing a jot of sourcing or material is tendentious or disruptive. Of course I am not impartial, but then again neither are teh owners of most statements here. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:erachima

I'll grant that the remedy's failed, but it hasn't failed due to TTN. The reason for the ongoing problem here is the inability of the community to agree on a reasonable wording for

02:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:nifboy

I feel obligated to point out that we now have users arguing that, because a redirect is effectively deletion, all efforts to redirect need to go through AfD. I am increasingly annoyed by the bureaucracy creep going on in relation to this subject. Nifboy (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Comment, I'm aware of this request. I've briefly looked into the situation. I'm not seeing a problem that needs Committee action at this time. The Community needs to deal with the content policy issues involved, not ArbCom. I do not see any user conduct that approaches disruption. I urge all involved parties to listen to the input of other users. Before giving input to other users or taking an action, try putting yourself in the other persons shoes and thinking about how what you do and say will be received. Be understanding that other people have different views, and that they want what is best for Wikipedia, the same as you do. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
• To extend a bit on what FloNight has already said... A simpler approach would be AfD-listing a few articles (a dozen or less?) and wait and see what would be the outcome. You can then, go on from there either way... stop and discuss the whole issue or list the rest. -- fayssal / Wiki me up® 01:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
  • @ Erachima. Inject new blood. Involve new uninvolved users (third opinions). Try to contact random users through their talk pages and get their opinions. Get out from that vicious circle of discussing it over and over again using the same arguments. Neither side seems to accept or understand the concerns of the other. Welcome new ideas and opinions. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 02:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

---

---

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  ) (initiator)

Statement by EconomicsGuy II

To help clarify to what degree the ruling applies to articles submitted to Articles for Deletion I'm filing this request for clarification.

The ruling in the Badlydrawnjeff case says:

• (Principle 4) Any administrator, acting on their own judgment, may delete an article that is substantially a biography of a living person if they believe that it (and every previous version of it) significantly violates any aspect of the relevant policy. This deletion may be contested via the usual means; however, the article must not be restored, whether through undeletion or otherwise, without an actual consensus to do so. The burden of proof is on those who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that it is compliant with every aspect of the policy.

I would like the arbitrators to clarify if this means that:

• Administrators are not required to delete such articles but are merely entitled to do so even when closing Articles for Deletion debates
• Articles that would otherwise qualify for speedy deletion per this principle may be submitted to Articles for Deletion instead. Specifically, if an article is submitted to Articles for Deletion before an administrator spotted it and invoked the ruling the ruling no longer applies but is superceded by deletion policy?
• Consensus on Articles for Deletion is enough to satisfy the consensus requirement and effectively change the burden of proof back to the party concerned about BLP violations since the burden of proof on Articles for Deletion is on the person wishing to have the article deleted

The ruling also says:

• (Principle 3) In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned, the rule of thumb should be "do no harm." In practice, this means that such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached.

I would like the arbitrators to clarify if this means that:

• Material removed even by non-administrators in good standing may be reincluded by anyone, specifically non-administrators, as long as this is done per consensus on Articles for Deletion even before the debate has been closed
• The burden of proof when such an article is submitted to review on Articles for Deletion is on the person making the deletion rather than the person who reincludes the disputed material thus effectively changing the burden of proof back despite Principle 4 as cited above.

Thanks.

• The article that prompted this is
  talk
  ) 09:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks Kirill and Flonight. That clarified it for me. I was not aware of the Footnoted quotes ruling.
  talk
  ) 13:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• One more question or actually two questions. Per your responses below do you believe that such AfDs should be closed early by non-administrators[2] and would you please explain how this edit history is possible if administrators are expected to keep disputed material out of BLPs and sanction those who keep reinserting it. It seems to me that the ruling is a lot of words that aren't being enforced.
  talk
  ) 07:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

I don't see any ambiguity here. The principle does not limit the venues at which a deletion may be made, the presumption is always that contentious material be excluded until there is clear consensus to include (that burden of proof exists for all disputed content, anything else would be a POV-pusher's charter). The only unclear thing here is that the requester seems to be asking for a reversal of the normal burden of proof at DRV, solely for BLPs, which seems perverse to me - contentious BLPs should be more likely to be undeleted? Why would we do that?

I have no idea which article prompted this question, it might be helpful to know which one. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:Scott MacDonald

The burden of proof when such an article is submitted to review on Articles for Deletion is on the person making the deletion rather than the person who reincludes the disputed material thus effectively changing the burden of proof back despite Principle 4 as cited above.

Em? No. Need we say more?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 08:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Portions of the Badlydrawnjeff ruling have been superseded by the broader enforcement provisions of the Footnoted quotes ruling. Absent an unambiguous, active community consensus to restore disputed BLP material (as provided for in the latter decision), administrators are authorized and expected to ensure that it remains removed, regardless of whether the article happens to be undergoing AFD. Kirill ^(prof) 09:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with Kirill that the BLP policy applies on every page in Wikipedia-English including articles up for Afd and where the deletion discussion is happening. The intent of the BLP policy is to modify the application of every policy on Wikipedia as it relates to content about living people. In the case of Afds, this change means that the past practice of keeping content on site if there is not consensus to delete is altered. In the short term, deletion (or blanking) is needed in some instances for articles about notable people as the content is researched for accuracy or reliable sources are found. For articles about living people the past default practice of "Keep" for notable people does not work unless the content is changed so it complies with our core polices and the BLP policy. This applies during the deletion discussion if an user raises concerns about the content and cites the BLP policy or the Footnted quotes case ruling. I hope that helps. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

• Per Kirill and FloNight. As a side note, the mentality of dealing with BLP articles the way tabloids do has to change. That is not really what Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, is about or should encourage. -- fayssal - wiki up^® 03:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

---

---

---

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

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

(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. ——Martin^phi ☎ 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. ——Martin^phi ☎ 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)

---

---

Users involved

• User:Shoemaker's Holiday (requester)
• User:Martinphi
• User:ScienceApologist

Both have been notified on their talk pages. [8] [9]

Statement by

Shoemaker's Holiday

Basically, I saw (on

. 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 [11] (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 [12] 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)

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 [13]. 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." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Finding 3:

Yes, NYB I interpret that [14] 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? ——Martin^phi ☎ 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 [15] and 11 [16] were relevant in the instance where I used 11 [17] (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. ——Martin^phi ☎ 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." ——Martin^phi ☎ 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 [18] (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)

---

---

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• 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

---

---

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)
• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )

Party notifications

• Martinphi
• ScienceApologist

Statement by

Shoemaker's Holiday

Basically, I saw (on

. 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 [20] (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 [21] 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 [22]. 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." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Finding 3:

Yes, NYB I interpret that [23] 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? ——Martin^phi ☎ 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 [24] and 11 [25] were relevant in the instance where I used 11 [26] (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. ——Martin^phi ☎ 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." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:50, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

---

Current understanding:

The Paranormal ArbCom is meant to give guidance as to when editors are being disruptive or POV pushing. It sets some basic parameters which are not restrictive in terms of article intellectual content. But they do show when an editor is POV pushing or being disruptive.

Example:

"3) Parapsychology has an ambiguous status, engaging in scientific research, but strongly criticized for lack of rigor."[27]

Thus, if an editor denies there is controversy surrounding parapsychology, or attempts to say that the issue of its status or results is decided, that editor is POV pushing. Similarly, if an editor tries to assert that a parapsychologist cannot be a scientist, or that parapsychology as a whole is nothing but pseudoscience, that editor is POV pushing.

Example:

"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."[28]

If an editor of an article which adequately frames and presents differing prominent views in its text is nevertheless insisting that doubt needs to be cast on the subject through means similar to those described by the ArbCom, that editor is POV pushing. Just as, in the opposite case an editor is POV pushing who inserts "Jeane Dixon is known for her amazing psychic powers." ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:36, 12 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 [29] (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)

---

---

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

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

(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. ——Martin^phi ☎ 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. ——Martin^phi ☎ 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)

---

---

• 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

• MediaMangler
• Jim62sch
• Trilobitealive
• Johnfos
• Martinphi
• Jim_Butler
• Orangemarlin
• Scientizzle

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." [35] 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?" [36] 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. ——Martin^phi ☎ 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. ——Martin^phi ☎ 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)

Statement by Shoemaker's Holiday

I think the problem is not so much that Self-ref has questioned the categorization, but that they had neither checkd the articles in question for referencing.

For instance:

SECOND CALL also on the defense of Category:Patent medicines and Category:Reiki as pseudoscience. These are not the same as homeopathy. Without such a defense these will be removed from the category Pseudoscience.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break with your "second notices." Read the Arbcom ruling linked to at the top of this page. As long as RS source exists establishing that a V viewpoint exists that a topic is pseudoscience, it can and should be categorized as such. That's the ruling. You need to stop trying to enforce your own rules and start following the Arbcom's. Odd nature (talk) 18:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Does a reliable source exist supporting that view? If so, where? For all three of these categories??-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I pointed out a source from the

saying that homeopathy was pseudoscience. self-ref's response?

Astrology and homeopathy are obviously perceived as pseudosciences. Are they really such things? I haven't yet seen good clear evidence of it..

. They were told about the Arbcom ruling, that didn't allow them to keep bossing around every editor of pseudoscientific topics, so they ignored it. They didn't bother to look at the articles, they wanted every single person involved to get the evidence for them, and to act on their schedules, or they would make controvbersial, disruptive actions.

The ruling is clear:

Generally considered pseudoscience: "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience."

Self-ref was aware of this, she doesn't care, so long as it lets her continue to bully people around. I would ask for Self-ref to be chastised under the sanctions in question.

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.
  ✉
  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.

  FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

• 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)

---

---

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:

• MBisanz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• Hemanshu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - notified
• Jaysweet (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - notified

Statement by MBisanz

I am requesting that Hemanshu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) be blocked and desysopped pending the re-establishment of communication. As is documented in this AN thread, over the last year various users have attempted to initiate communication with Hemanshu over various edits he has made that conflict with editing guidelines. Hemanshu has not responded to communication since 2005. Jaysweet (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and myself have attempted numerous times to contact Hemanshu, using both EmailUser and emails found on a google search of his name, without success in establishing communication. Yesterday, I left a firm message on Hemanushu's talk page [37] that if he continued to make controversial edits without responding to any inquiry, I would file a request for desysopping and blocking. Several hours subsequent to my post, he continued to make the same form of edits [38] without response. Therefore, I am filing this request. I believe this can be dealt with in the same manner as the CSCWEM case as in both instances the users in question have refused to respond to any inquiries to their actions. MBisanz ^talk 02:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

NE2: As administrators can unblock themselves, it seems prudent to perform a desysop + block, since the same communication that would undo the block would also result in the re-sysopping. MBisanz ^talk 02:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Further research shows he has been desysopped at the Marathi Wikipedia and that over half a dozen users have tried to contact him on his enwiki talk page: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. I believe the community has exhausted all ways in which to communicate with him and that an RFC would be pointless as he will not respond to any inquiry. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

NE2, unblocking oneself generally isn't grounds for emergency desysop, and having an indef blocked admin account seems rather pointless. MBisanz ^talk 02:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

NYB: It could be I guess, but since I'm not asking for a fullblown case and the other party is silent, I thought a straight request would be the most proper action. And this is the Clarifications and other requests section. MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by NE2

Since he's only used his admin tools once in the past two years, why is the AbrCom needed? Can't he just be blocked? --NE2 02:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

To MBisanz: isn't self-unblocking somewhere higher in the level of sins? If he unblocks himself after a consensus-supported block, you shouldn't have any trouble finding a steward to desysop. --NE2 02:31, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Taxman

Nowhere does this rise to the level of the need for arbitration. Nothing has been tried other than leaving messages and emails. If unblocking isn't grounds for emergency desysopping then there certainly is no need to file an arbitration case to desysop a user on the grounds that they might do something that isn't even considered an emergency problem. Just decide if a block is warranted and handle it on the admin noticeboard. You haven't even established that an indef block is needed, so using that in your reasoning is also putting the cart before the horse. Use the right tool for the issue and this isn't it. - Taxman ^Talk 02:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

If there is disruption, block to prevent disruption. If the disruption resumes, try a longer block. If the user unblocks themselves, that may be grounds for desysopping. Work step by step. Jehochman ^Talk 03:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by

other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Shouldn't this be a new case (top of the page), rather than a request for clarification? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
• I don't see what the point of this is, to be frank. Hemanshu hardly edits at all. If I didn't like his edits, I would simply roll him back and that would take less than a minute. All the navel gazing and litigation preparations seem very efficient. If I did this kind of thing each time something like this cropped up I would never be able to get any editing done. YellowMonkey (click here to chose Australia's next top model!) 04:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

---

---

• talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log
  )

Statement by Privatemusings

Background in a nutshell is that a couple of months back, it transpired that Steve, a regular 'non-admin' editor, had logged on to others' administrators accounts, performed some admin work, and also may have forwarded some private IRC logs, and emails around a bit in the broo ha ha which followed. It seems that the arbcom and Steve came to some sort of arrangement that he wouldn't edit for 6 months - previous AN discussion diff.s available on request as well.

Steve remains active in IRC channels, and I believe he'd like to edit again as soon as possible. I wonder if some sort of process (I'd say there are quite a few options short of a formal arb case?) might be possible at this stage? I'm not sure that community members, or Steve have had an opportunity to present evidence and have discussion in the usual way?

Regardless, I think a straightforward arb motion would be sensible to confirm any existing ban - my perception is that there is some uncertaintly as to what the status quo is which shouldn't be too hard to clear up.

cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

the 'me' side of the conversation is most welcome at my talk page, or perhaps here too, where it may continue. The prevailing wind here is that the situation is actually crystal clear, so I offer my apologies for being slow - I really would just like to see some sort of public certification of Steve's ban, and ideally some sort of organised community process for discussion (some kind of lightweight evidence / workshop etc. thing?). I strongly believe it would be the right thing to do, and would help :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by SirFozzie

Knowing Privatemusings's history, I think the proper response is to remind PM that he's supposed to be discussing these things first with his mentors before bringing this up, and if Steve wants to edit sooner then his six months, he can request ArbCom review his restriction privately. I don't really consider this useful. SirFozzie (talk) 06:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

There have already been two arbitration requests for clarification on the matter, and in neither of them did anyone suppose that Steve Crossin's status was unclear. In the unlikely event that it were, then this review which took place less than one month ago ought to have settled it. Now I was as close to Steve as anyone; I still chat with him occasionally. Yet, unfortunately, this proposal compels me to repeat what I stated at Privatemusings' last unblocking proposal: I am fundamentally opposed to the notion that a banned editor (or in this matter a long term blocked editor) is entitled to unlimited numbers of unblock requests. Review is important and useful, in moderation. Two reviews in less than two months is not moderation, particularly when there is no new circumstance or evidence to weigh. I have not discussed this with the other mentors (nor was I aware this request was being raised), so I will say merely for my own part that if these requests continue the net effect of Privatemusings's efforts may be to convince the community to create a formal timetable limiting their frequency, to prevent meritless appeals from interrupting too much necessary business. Durova^Charge! 08:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by

John Vandenberg

Oddly enough I haven't spoken to the other mentors yet about this left-field, poorly researched and frivolous request. If the mentors had of been engaged about this, it looks like Durova would have been able to quickly show Privatemusings that it had been reviewed recently and FloNight had responded there twice.

Steve, rather than hanging around in a channel of a project where you have been temporarily banned from, there are other

) 09:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Lar

I find myself in complete concurrence with Durova and Jayvdb. This request came as a complete surprise. It's exactly the sort of stirring we've counseled PM not to indulge in, but I have to confess I've been a bit preoccupied the last few days. I urge swift rejection of this (without prejudice to an eventual review when the time is appropriate). ++Lar: t/c 10:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by

other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• No need for further action. As noted, this situation has been reviewed and explained several times. PM, I urge you to take the advise of your mentors. FloNight♥♥♥ 10:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
• I endorse FloNight's comments in their entirety. The involvement of third parties in this situation is not likely to be beneficial. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

---

---

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

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

) 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

) 05:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Response to below: I quoted a lengthy diff to try and give some background. I then gave several specific diffs that further support my point, for instance, [56], which I discussed above.

I would also encourage the Arbcom to review Martinphi's edits to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view from 29 August to 7 September or so, which should give clear evidence of the patterns of editing I could only hint at in this brief summary.

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 source-verifying Coppertwig

In Shoemaker's Holiday's (SH) statement above, some diffs SH gives do not appear to support the statements SH makes.

SH gives this diff, saying "here he claims that WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience... does not actually have any relevance, and does not apply to articles on Parapsychology." I do not see any such claim, or anything reasonably similar, in that diff. The diff is actually a diff of 7 revisions by more than one editor. In that diff, the words "relevant" and "apply" appear, but only within comments by Shoemaker's holiday that appear in that diff, not in any comments by Martinphi; except where Martinphi says, "Please don't mis-apply it": which seems to me to express clear intentions to support, not discard, policy.

Shoemaker's Holiday then said "He then attacked everyone who upheld the policy, declared intent to force changes through" and gave this diff: [57] I don't see anything in that diff that I would call an attack. I didn't see any statement by Martinphi that he intended to force any particular change through; instead, he was talking about more than one possible outcome of this difficult situation; he also mentioned others "editwar[ring]" and "push[ing]", but did not use those verbs in any statements about his own actions.

I contend that participation in policy discussions by those who openly discuss the way the policy is used at articles they edit is a frequent, accepted and productive part of normal policy discussion. Just to illustrate this, here is a comment in a recent discussion at

which appears to be an example of this: [58]

There are difficult questions involved in how to apply policies to fringe topics. I think much discussion will be needed to further develop the policies in this area; it won't be easy, and will require input from editors with a variety of POVs. I commend Martinphi for addressing some of these difficult questions. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Ludwigs2

Concur with Coppertwig: the diffs Shoemaker provided simply don't support the argument that Shoemaker is trying to make. I know little about the circumstances that brought these editing restrictions into play, but I see no reason to extend them from what's been given here, and certainly no reason to increase them by imposing Shoemaker's suggestion of a policy editing ban.

It's clear that Martin and Shoemaker disagree about some fundamental points of policy, and it's equally clear that neither is shy about stating his side of the disagreement. That's a good thing: vocal disagreement - so long as it's sincere and well-mannered - can only make better policy. Casting disagreement of this nature as disruptive misses the point of policy discussions entirely. --Ludwigs2 02:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Statement by olive

Concur with Coppertwig: Have I stepped into an alternate universe? I initially decided not to comment here because I couldn't believe that anyone who has been watching Martin's editing in the last few months could take seriously what is being said here. I've met Martinphi on a few of the policy pages where I have been working, and did a little work on Psychic. Here [59] he is obviously working in consort with editors who have multiple views on the topic of NOR. Martin has been clear, measured, intelligent in his comments, and obviously is collaborative in his editing. Yes, he's also strong and forthright, but needs to be given the editing environments on some of these articles. I would say on the policy pages there is very little friction among the editors, and whatever is there isn't coming from Martin. Here, he and OrangeMarlin although apparently in disagreement agree to compromise on Psychic. [60][61]. I understand as Ludwig mentioned that editors can disagree, and may have strong differences of opinion, but as with Martin and OrangeMarlin there are other, less disruptive ways of dealing with it than an Rfa.(olive (talk) 19:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC))

Statement by

other user

Clerk notes

Arbitrator views and discussion

• No further action by the Committee at this time. Thanks you to all the editors for raising their concerns in the proper venue. But for now, I'm not prepared to make or modify editing restrictions based on the information provided. In order for me to add or change the restrictions, I want the input of a broader group of editors as well as the users that regularly are in conflict. I think we will get a better outcome that way. FloNight♥♥♥ 23:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

---