WP:ARCA

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	21 Dec 2024	11 Jan 2025

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles	none	(orig. case)	15 October 2018
Clarification request: Paranormal	none	(orig. case)	17 October 2018

Arbitrator motions

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Click here to file a referral from AE requesting enforcement of a decision.
- Click here to file a referral from AE appealing an arbitration enforcement action.
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
- Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by Shrike at 13:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Palestine-Israel articles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Shrike

In my view the only requirement to enforce the 500/30 remedy is notification via Template:Ds/alert. In recently closed WP:AE request [1].Admin AGK commented that user didn't received any clear warning so the AE action could not be taken in this regard.If the ARBCOM agree with AGK then I ask what kind of wording is required and add this as standardized template if not then clarify and amend the decision that the only requirement is notification about discretionary sanctions in the area.--Shrike (talk) 13:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BU Rob13:But to enforce the General prohibition admin must take discretionary sanction So someone could be topic banned without even receiving an alert? --Shrike (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer that it would be clearly described as AGK noted we don't expect the new users to read all the walls of texts and follow all the links.--Shrike (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Icewhiz

I'd like some clarification here, seeing that I posted "Please note, that until you are WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED, you are not supposed to edit Arab-Israeli conflict related pages (see WP:ARBPIAINTRO) - you can post talk page comments, but not edit the article themselves.[2] specifically due to the 500/30 restriction and Wickey's prior edits - but this got dismissed at AE as a "helpful postscript". Now this was framed politely (and not - "if you continue editing ARBPIA articles, I will take you to AE and try to get you banned") - but I did specifically say Wickey was not supposed to edit Arab-Israeli conflict related pages. Are we not supposed to be polite? When posting this, I was suspicious this was Wickey-nl (and was considering a SPI filing), however I was framing this (per WP:AGF) in the manner I would approach any new user. Icewhiz (talk) 14:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note - given that the DS regime applies to many different topics, and often without an special restrictions - it would be nice if the standard ds/alert template (for a-i) would include a link to WP:ARBPIAINTRO as well as clearly specifying the 1RR and 500/30 restrictions which apply project wide (without a need for specific page logging) and are additional to the usual DS rules.Icewhiz (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AGK

The committee reviewed and replaced the prior generation of standard discretionary sanctions in its 2013–14 term. I think we easily forget how troublesome the concept of "awareness" became in the community. At the time, we frequently heard from editors who – out of the blue – received sizable sanctions without having been formally made aware that standard discretionary sanctions were in effect. Obviously, a page notice on every affected article and talk page was impractical. We therefore adopted {{alert}} (and its ancillary systems, {{Z33}} and Filter 602).

The committee has adopted language (WP:ARBPIA3#500/30) that the general restriction should be enforced, preferably, using extended-confirmed protection – or using reverts, warnings, blocks, etc.

In this matter, petitioner requested enforcement of the 30/500 general restriction – an entirely different remedy to discretionary sanctions. The enforcement requested was not to revert the respondent's edits or warn them about the general restriction. The enforcement requested was a heftier sanction (for anyone can revert). I denied that request. I am rarely minded to decline enforcement where there has been a breach.

The petitioner complained to me that the separate DS alert, served on the editor in summer 2018, included a warning that the 30/500 restriction was ineffect. However, the alert template links to many pages about discretionary sanctions; none discuss the general restriction. There was indeed a single sentence appended to the alert, but it read to me like a string of alphabet soup attempting to warn about one remedy in the same breath as another. The explanation was inadequate for a remedy that the committee, by its own language, thinks ought to be enforced by technical means. Respondent's edits were to pages that lacked the standard talk banner or editnotice.

For these reasons, I denied the request to hand down a more rigorous sanction. I do not think we need the general restriction modified or a new template created. I do suggest editors like petitioner use the existing language to begin warning (clearly) and reverting at the first opportunity rather than requesting enforcement at the second. AGK ■ 17:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DeltaQuad: There is not really such a question here. Awareness (in the technical sense) is a precondition of DS but not of the General Prohibition. This thread is about whether enforcing the given complaint, other than by reverting, would have been proportionate. Some editors of the topic area think so; I was unconvinced that the Prohibition had been made clear. AGK ■ 17:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

Well, observers of the IP area will know that I don't often agree with Shrike and Icewhiz (and that is putting it diplomatically), but here I agree with them: with this alert on 15 July 2018, I would have considered Wickey warned, Huldra (talk) 23:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

I am also of the opinion that the warning was adequate. If the committee concludes that there was something inadequate about it, please spell out what the problem was so that we can issue better warnings in the future. Zero^talk 09:57, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel articles: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Palestine-Israel articles: Arbitrator views and discussion

I'm very much of the opinion that editors should be aware of restrictions before being sanctioned by them, however, I see in this case that the individual was made aware of ARBPIA in July, with a specific extra comment highlighting the 500/30 restriction. Since the template which was left has a clear link to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles, which also goes into depth of the 500/30 restriction, I'm interested to know what more AGK would be looking for? Worm^TT(talk) 13:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Having read AGK's explanation, I'm happy things proceeded properly - within the bounds of admin discretion and all that. I'm not sure if there's discussion at cross purposes, or just simple misunderstandings, but I believe the alert was sufficient in this case for "awareness". I do also agree that it's generally enforced by extended confirmed protection (for preference) and simple reversion where not, so a heavier sanction would need a more in depth breach, and would therefore be expected to have more "awareness", through warnings and the like. Worm^TT(talk) 20:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same concerns as Worm, just tacking on the fact that there was a link to WP:ARBPIAINTRO which clarifies all possible restrictions and also provides a link for the case. I fail to see how with both of these, it invalidates the warning for the purposes of that enforcement. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear i'm not looking to question any potential outcome as that's not what this ARCA asks of us, but simply the question of if the warning was sufficient to satisfy awareness. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the original question, the awareness requirements for discretionary sanctions do not apply here, because this is not a discretionary sanction. There are no similar requirements related to this remedy, but administrators are certainly within their discretion to issue a warning instead of a block if they feel the editor was not aware of the remedy they violated. I will note that AGK declining to enforce this remedy in this circumstance doesn't mean another admin cannot. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Shrike: Incorrect. Actions to enforce arbitration remedies are "arbitration enforcement actions", not discretionary sanctions. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:40, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 500/30 part of ARBPIA is an arbitration remedy, not a discretionary sanction, and I can see no requirement of awareness there. Admins are authorized to issue discretionary sanctions, but those potential remedies are separate from the 500/30 prohibition. Awareness is a requirement for DS, as we clarified earlier this year. An admin can issue a warning or decline to block at their discretion, including if they feel an editor was not sufficiently aware. Katie^talk 07:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Firstly, I don't see that any action is needed in response to this request as declining to take action in favour of a warning is well-within admin discretion (and is one of the things they should consider).
As the General Prohibition (AKA 500/30) is not a discretionary sanction, or the system of discretionary sanctions, the awareness requirements of discretionary sanctions do not apply. However, administrators should use their discretion to determine what the most appropriate response is to breaches of the General Prohibition. Generally this would be page protection, reverts and notification of the 500/30 requirement. If editors continue to breach the General Prohibition (and, likely, that page protection isn't a viable option) then administrators may decide that further arbitration enforcement action is required. For the general prohibition the only other enforcement option open to admins, according the remedy and case, is a block initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year. Note that a block under the General Prohibition is not a discretionary sanction but an arbitration enforcement action. Having said that, assuming an editor is "aware" of discretionary sanctions, a discretionary sanction may be issued (such as a topic/page ban) to enforce conduct requirements (including the General Prohibition and 1RR) in the topic area. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:30, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As this isn't a DS we all agree that a warning is not formally required. I agree with what Callanecc has said above, but I do think that there is one thing we could do to improve how we handle the 500/30 remedy. When I give DS alerts in this area I often had a note about 500.30, but this would be better dealt with by either a link in alert or having the remedy clearly described in the alert. Doug Weller talk 13:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not much to add here except that I agree with Callanecc's position on the matter. Mkdw ^talk 20:43, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Paranormal

Initiated by Guy Macon at 03:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected: Paranormal arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Guy Macon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Morgan Leigh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Hob Gadling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Johnuniq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
LuckyLouie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MjolnirPants (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Roxy the dog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Guy Macon

This involves the Parapsychology page. Morgan Leigh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) quoted an arbcom case from 2007[11] that says

"there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way"[12]

This conflicts with the lead of Parapsychology, which says

"It is identified as pseudoscience by a vast majority of mainstream scientists".

The discussion at Talk:Parapsychology seems relevant.

Please clarify: is there an arbcom ruling that mandates calling parapsychology a scientific discipline as opposed to pseudoscience? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert:[13] --Guy Macon (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the arbitrator views and discussion section, Rob13 correctly pointed out that "the Arbitration Committee does not rule on content". Apparently, Morgan Leigh did not get the message, because he wrote "Wikipedia has already ruled that..."[14], quoting the Findings of Fact section of a 2007 arbcom request for arbitration.

In more recent arbcom cases, the findings of facts always focus on user behavior, but it seems that things were a bit different in 2007, and the case (request, really -- that's something else that was done differently back then) has multiple findings of facts that really do look a lot like the Arbitration Committee ruling on content. In my considered opinion, a simple clarification saying that ancient arbcom requests that appear to rule on content should not be used the way Morgan Leigh used this one would clarify the situation. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that in this RfC[15] Morgan Leigh has repeated his "Despite an existing arbitration ruling" language, claiming that arbcom has ruled in his favor in a content dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To Morgan Leigh's credit, he has closed the above RfC and replaced it with

Talk:Parapsychology#RfC Are the sources specified in this RfC reliable?.

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WTT, It is unclear whether Morgan Leigh now agrees that arbcom does not issue rulings on content disputes or whether he is simply following the guidance found at

Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief

and at

Wikipedia:Writing requests for comment#Neutrality.

If Morgan Leigh now agrees that arbcom does not issue rulings on content disputes, then the point is indeed moot, but I would like to see him explicitly state that rather than assuming it and then watching him continue to claim that arbcom has ruled in favor of his preferred content and having to re-file this clarification request.

Another aspect is that this should be closed in such a way that a reader in 2029 can clearly understand what the arbcom policy about content disputes was in 2018. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Morgan Leigh

There is a Request for comment underway on the talk page regarding this issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Parapsychology#RfC:_Should_reliable_sources_that_defend_parapsychology_be_excluded_altogether? Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:13, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Users left feedback they they didn't think the the RfC was neutral or specific enough. I have closed it and opened a new one here Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The focus of this dispute is about reliable sources. I have added reliable sources that defend parapsychology. Some of these sources are from the very same journals and academic publishers, and in once case from the exact same book, as sources that are in the article at present being used to criticise. Other editors are arguing that reliable sources cannot be used if they are written by parapsychologist because parapsychology is "plainly false", "we don't use poor sources like those you suggest, to falsely contradict good sources", and that my sources contained "stupid reasoning that only appeals to gullible simpletons who swallow any reasoning that points in the direction they like".

The article presently says that "It is identified as pseudoscience by a vast majority of mainstream scientists". I am trying to add cited sources that defend parapsychology to add balance. There are presently nineteen sources in the lede alone that criticize parapsychology and none that defend it. I tried to add one and it was reverted with the edit summary "reverted fringe pov". So I provided more and they were all reverted with a claim that it was "massive undue weight on a minority view".

Some examples of things I cited:

Cardeña, E. (2018). The experimental evidence for parapsychological phenomena: A review. American Psychologist, 73(5), 663-677. American Psychologist, 73(5), pp 663-677. "Increased experimental controls have not eliminated or even decreased significant support for the existence of psi phenomena, as suggested by various recent meta-analyses."

Braude, S.E., (2007), The Gold Leaf Lady and Other Parapsychological Investigations, University of Chicago Press - "But in fact, those who sarcastically dismiss parapsychology typically know little. They haven’t carefully studied the data or issues for themselves."

However other editors are constantly removing them contenting that these sources cannot be cited at all on account of them being written by parapsychologists. So I added this source, which is by a critic of parapsychology:

Sternberg, Robert J. (2007), "Critical Thinking in Psychology: It really is critical", in Sternberg, Robert J.; Roediger III, Henry L.; Halpern, Diane F., Critical Thinking in Psychology, Cambridge University Press, p. 292, ISBN 0-521-60834-1, OCLC 69423179, "throughout the more than a century and a half of psychical research and parapsychology, informed criticism has been scarce. Critics have focused on a few select examples, usually the weakest cases; have misrepresented the evidence and the claims; and have been polemical."

But it was removed with a comment that said I was "cherry picking" quotes.

For a full list of other sources cited and removed please see the RfC. Thank you. Morgan Leigh | Talk 05:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I took this issue to the NPOV noticeboard and notified all editors involved. I have only just learned, from Guy Macron's statement here, that this issue was taken to the fringe theories noticeboard by Simonm223, who did not notify me. Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User: Guy Macon has arbitrarily used closed discussion and archived my original statement in listing RfC - i.e. "Despite an existing arbitration ruling here where it was found that, "In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking.", editors are arguing that parapsychologists should not be cited at all because they are not mainstream." If he was not happy with the wording he could have asked me to change it. In order to address his concerns I have replaced the text with, "Despite this finding that, "In addition to mainstream science which generally ignores or does not consider the paranormal worthy of investigation, there is a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way, and popular culture concepts which have a following either in historical or contemporary popular culture, but are not taken seriously or investigated even by parapsychology. A fourth phenomenon is skeptical groups and individuals devoted to debunking.", editors are arguing that parapsychologists should not be cited at all because they are not mainstream." Morgan Leigh | Talk 06:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts I have removed the paragraph from the beginning to the discussion section and put a simple, more neutral sentence in its place. Morgan Leigh | Talk 07:25, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to feedback and closed the RfC and opened a new more specific one. Morgan Leigh | Talk 08:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to address the issue that the quote was taken out of context. While Guy has excerpted from the quote in presenting his request here, I quoted the entire finding as can be seen here No powerful confirming data all all.

I understand that arbcom does not rule on content. However this finding is from the last time that the issue of parapsychology was arbitrated on which is why I relied on it. There are serious problems, mostly with content, but also with user conduct at the parapsychology article that I feel need to be addressed. e.g. I have been threatened with admin action a number of times by these editors. I feel that a group of editors with a particular agenda are POV pushing. How can it otherwise be explained that the exact same sources that are deemed good enough to criticise a position are not deemed good enough to defend it? When I try to add balance with citations from within the exact same journals, books from the same university presses or even from the exact same books as criticism I am accused of cherry picking quotes. This is not how academic writing works. Morgan Leigh | Talk 21:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hob Gadling

Statement by Johnuniq

Statement by LuckyLouie

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

Statement by MjolnirPants

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

Statement by Roxy the dog

Statement by Tgeorgescu

At this moment I have nothing to add to this discussion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JJE

Um, actually that arbitration case does exist: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223

As far as I know I did not bring up anything to do with Paranormal at the Fringe noticeboard. I brought up issues related to Parapsychology at the Fringe noticeboard. And while I'm rather exasperated by Morgan Leigh's conduct there, and did eventually suggest this as a venue for their tendentious editing at Parapsychology I didn't have the time or energy to post to Arb/E and as such didn't notify them as I didn't take an action on it. I don't believe you are required to notify a user to a discussion involving their edits on a wikiproject page which is not used for the issuing of any sanctions. Simonm223 (talk) 12:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update OK, I see this is in fact about Parapsychology and yes, I did make that statement at WP:FRINGE/N but, again, I didn't open an Arb/E case, nor AN/I nor 3RR/N nor any other complaint at a board with any sort of enforcement capability, so I don't see how my failure to notify Morgan Leigh is at all relevant to this discussion. Simonm223 (talk) 14:07, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

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

Statement by {Other Editor}