After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only arbitrators or clerks should edit this page, non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 10 active arbitrators of whom none are recused, so 6 votes are a majority.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop. Motions which are accepted for consideration and which require a vote will be placed here by the arbitrators for voting.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Neutral point of view

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Advocacy

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Basis for inclusion

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Categorization

4) Articles are placed in a category as an aid to the reader. Categories are not intended to define or limit the subject of the article as belonging exclusively to that category. Thus the articles parapsychology or psychoanalysis may properly be in both the category "psychology" and "pseudoscience". Which fork the reader takes depends on what they are looking for or interested in.

Support:

Fred Bauder 15:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The latter portion of this is a content decision. Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kirill. James F. (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 18:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 19:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 19:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Categorization, non-content

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Pseudoscience

5) Any matter presented as scientific fact without adequate scientific investigation or evidence may be characterized as pseudoscience.

Support:

Fred Bauder 15:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Content decision. Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Content. James F. (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 18:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Content.[reply]
Charles Matthews 19:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 19:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Appropriate handling of epistemological status

6) It is the responsibility of editors to appropriately handle any question regarding the epistemological status of a subject, that is, questions of whether something exists, is hypothesized to exist, general scientific consensus, etc. The goal is not arrival at the correct conclusion, but adequate treatment of any controversy. In the case of the paranormal, both the general scientific skepticism and the intense popular interest are notable.

Support:

Oppose:

The last part of this is a content decision. James F. (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 18:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC) per James.[reply]
FloNight 19:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Appropriate handling of epistemological status, no content

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

Support:

James F. (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 02:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill Lokshin 19:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 19:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Third choice. I think that the history of this topic area demonstrates that we need to provide clearer guidance than this offers.[reply]
FloNight 19:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Paul August ☎ 18:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC) Prefer 6.2[reply]

Abstain:

Appropriate handling of epistemological status

6.2) It is the responsibility of editors to appropriately handle any question regarding the epistemological status of a subject, that is, questions of whether something exists, is hypothesized to exist, general scientific consensus, etc. The goal is not arrival at the correct conclusion, but adequate treatment of any controversy. Both general scientific skepticism and intense popular interest can be notable.

Support:

Paul August ☎ 18:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 13:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Second choice.[reply]
Fred Bauder 14:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 19:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

"Notability" does not change the demands for this, and doesn't seem to be connected ... unless I've mis-understood? James F. (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Notable as in a concept remarkable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia? FloNight 19:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Adequate framing

6a) 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.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Subjects which have not been investigated

7) Subjects notable in popular culture which have not garnered sufficient interest in the scientific community to result in investigation or publication may nevertheless be noted in an appropriate way to lack scientific evidence despite lack of a reliable source explicitly saying so.

Support:

Fred Bauder 15:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC) While I am sympathetic to this situation, our proscription of original research should apply here just as it does to other areas. I think the real solution is proper characterization of sources.[reply]
NOR would be a problem, yes. James F. (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 18:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC) per UC[reply]
Yes, it comes back to WP:NOR. It is note worthy that the NOR policy was written to stop Wikipedia from becoming a major internet host for fringe science or pseudoscience concepts. FloNight 19:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Perhaps "lack of scientific evidence" may be better here? Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Groping for a principle here.Charles Matthews 19:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflation of parapsychology

8) Parapsychology should not be confused with sensational, unscientific beliefs and stories about "the paranormal." FAQ Parapsychological Association

Support:

Fred Bauder 15:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Content decision; but see FoF 9.1. Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Content. James F. (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 18:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 19:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Editorial judgment regarding reliability

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

Support:

Oppose:

Paul August ☎ 18:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC) prefer 9.1[reply]

Abstain:

Editorial judgment regarding reliability

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

Support:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very good principle. James F. (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Kirill Lokshin 16:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 18:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are very dependent on 'reliable source' for our work; but in practical terms we want editors to hold to reasonable views on what sources are reliable. Charles Matthews 19:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 19:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Either 9 or 9.1 are acceptable to me. I support this, but urge sensible rather than dogmatic practice. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Baby out with the bathwater Fred Bauder 02:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Conflict of interest

10) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest strongly cautions but does not forbid editing of articles regarding subjects the editor is strongly invested it. Such editing must be done responsibly and responded to diplomatically by editors. Restrictions on editing may be imposed when there is disruptive point of view editing.

Support:

Fred Bauder 15:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This speaks to the reality on the ground in the way we try to deal with COI editors, I think. FloNight 19:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

There are other circumstances where restrictions may be necessary. Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Principles are not meant to be exhaustative. James F. (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 18:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The final sentence could stand alone. COI is potentially there whenever there is 'strong' investment. But hooking these together is not in the best possible taste. Charles Matthews 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 10.1. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Conflict of interest

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

Support:

Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 01:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Reworded for clarity. I believe the meaning is unchanged.[reply]
James F. (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 18:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 19:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Generally considered pseudoscience

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

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We take 'pseudoscience' from 'scientific consensus'. Charles Matthews 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 19:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Paul August ☎ 18:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC) Note: I have added the qualifier "with adequate sourcing", since I presume that is what is intended. However, I have serious reservations about having a category for a pejorative term like "pseudoscience". Regardless of what the category description says, placing parapsychology in the category "pseudoscience" is prima facie saying, in Wikipedia's editorial voice, that parapsychology is pseudoscience, and is therefor a violation of WP:NPOV.[reply]

Abstain:

Generally considered pseudoscience

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

Support:

Paul August ☎ 18:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 13:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC) 2nd choice. I see the category tags as a good thing.[reply]
Fred Bauder 14:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 19:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2nd choice. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

12)

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Perfectblue97

1) Perfectblue97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) fails to understand what constitutes a reliable source [1], and misuses parapsychology as a concept [2], [3]. He insists on engaging in incivility toward other editors with respect to the paranormal [4].

Support:

Fred Bauder 18:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I see nothing obviously wrong with any of these. Kirill Lokshin 21:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 18:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC) The "scum of the universe" bit is a bit cheeky, but the assertions are not established by the evidence provided.[reply]
Insufficient evidence to convince me. James F. (talk) 10:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excessive. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Charles Matthews 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loci of dispute

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Status of parapsychology

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

Support:

Oppose:

Paul August ☎ 18:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC) While I don't disagree with any of this, I don't believe that it is appropriate for us to assert this as a statement of fact.[reply]

Abstain:

Davkal

4) Davkal (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected) is a disruptive editor, given to personal attacks, lack of civility and failure to extend good faith to other editors.

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Cultural artifacts

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Subjects without referents

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

Support:

Fred Bauder 18:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be better as a principle? Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Changed for mechanics.[reply]
But yes, this smacks somewhat of a principle. James F. (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 19:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 20:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree more like a principle. In many cases, the status is obvious in context and need not be repeated. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

External campaigning

7) Activists, including a "Tom Butler" have put up pages which campaign regarding the content of Wikipedia articles [5] and [6]. Here Martinphi refers a new user Crystal Healer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the external site.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Popular culture

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Flat statements of fact

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Conflation of parapsychology with unscientific concepts

10) Parapsychology has in some instances been conflated with sensational, unscientific beliefs and stories about "the paranormal.", for example Ectoplasm (parapsychology).

Support:

Fred Bauder 18:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. James F. (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Conflation of parapsychology with unscientific concepts, mk. II

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

Support:

First choice. Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 01:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First choice. James F. (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Paul August ☎ 22:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 20:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Three layer cake with frosting

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Paranormal as an effective tag

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template:Dubious

13) ScienceApologist has used Template:Dubious in an inappropriate way [7]. Clicking on the template as displayed redirects to Wikipedia:Disputed statement, a guideline.

Support:

Oppose:

Why are we noting this particular editor for this Fof in this case? FloNight 20:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Category:Pseudoscience

14) There has been editwarring between Minderbinder and Martinphi over inclusion of parapsychology in Category:Pseudoscience [8].

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Dradin

15) Dean Radin has edited as Dradin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but ceased in April, 2007. The senior scientist at the Institute of Noetic Sciences, he has participated in editing its article [9], [10], [11].

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Kazuba

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

WikiProjects

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

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Simoes

18) Simoes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in aggressive editing to discredit parapsychology [12].

Support:

Fred Bauder 18:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Changed "which discredits" to "to discredit"; his intent is the issue here, not whether his actions had the desired effect. Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 20:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

19) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed remedies

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

Davkal placed on especial civility parole

1) Davkal is placed on civility parole. He may be blocked by any administrator for up to one hour for violations of civility. Such blocks need not be logged.

Support:

Oppose:

Pointless waste of administrator time. Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Davkal placed on standard civility parole

1.1) Davkal is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses. After 5 such blocks, the maximum block time is increased to a year.

Support:

Oppose:

Might as well ban him. He's a reasonably productive editor. Fred Bauder 01:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too strong, I feel, per Fred. James F. (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Davkal placed on standard civility parole, mk. II

1.2) Davkal is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses.

Support:

No expanding block time, but still allow something useful. Kirill Lokshin 16:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly change to "up to 48 hours"? Not sure... James F. (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 13:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC) Not necessary. I believe that establishing the principles is the first step.[reply]
Fred Bauder 14:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Article probation

2) All articles which relate to the paranormal, liberally defined, are placed on article probation. What this means in practice is that there is a general amnesty for past behavior for most editors who have been involved in disputes in this area. This amnesty is combined with the expectation that future editing will conform with Wikipedia policies. Future behavior problems may be addressed by the Arbitration Committee on the motion of any Arbitrator or upon acceptance of a request for inquiry by any user who edits in this area.

Support:

Oppose:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC) This is too broad and sets bad precedent.[reply]
SimonP 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Much too broad. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Revert limitation

3) Editors who regularly edit articles which relate to the paranormal, liberally defined to include related areas such as the occult or ufology, are limited to one revert per week to any article which relates to the paranormal.

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

As written, this will hamstring vandal-fighting in the area. Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per Kirill. James F. (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Revert limitation

3.1) Editors who regularly edit articles which relate to the paranormal, liberally defined to include related areas such as the occult or ufology, are limited to one revert per week to any article which relates to the paranormal. This does not include reversions of simple vandalism.

Support:

Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 01:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One revert per week excluding reverting vandalism is okay by me. I think needed to break the pattern of reverting instead of discussing til agreed up on wording is reached. Editing warring on these article drives away calm editors that do not want to see their productive edits constantly reverted as part of larger disputes. FloNight 17:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reluctantly. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)~~ On further reflection, oppose; it's too broad still. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC) I'm not convinced that this will help.[reply]
Too sweeping. Charles Matthews 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Charles Matthews on further reflection. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Dradin

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

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what the point of the last clause is, as there's no associated enforcement. Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 17:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Kazuba

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

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As in remedy 4. Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight 17:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Perfectblue97

6) Perfectblue97 is banned for one year from editing articles which relate to the paranormal and related subjects.

Support:

Fred Bauder 18:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

No evidence that this is needed. Kirill Lokshin 21:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Needs a little more justification than I've seen here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Application of remedies

1) The remedies in this decision apply to the parties to this case and any other editor of articles related to the paranormal, the occult, ufology and similar subjects who has been notified on their user talk page of this decision. Notifications to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Log_of_notifications.2C_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement by block

2) Users who violate the revert parole imposed by this decision may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal#Log_of_notifications.2C_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

Fred Bauder 14:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kirill Lokshin 18:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
James F. (talk) 12:50, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 13:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 19:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC) This is just mechanics and I'm fine with it. I don't support the revert parole itself as a remedy in this case per the votes I've made above.[reply]
If there is one imposed, naturally. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Discussion by arbitrators

General

Please consult the Workshop for extended comments on many issues. Fred Bauder 19:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the roots of this case are in a misunderstanding on certain core principles. I believe that we are best served by clarifying these principles (which the proposals above accomplish) and leaving enforcement to the community until it becomes clear that a more prescriptive approach is necessary. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

Passing at present are:
- Proposed principles 1, 2, 3, 4, 6.1, 6a, 9.1, 10.1, and 11. (I am interpreting 9.1 as superseding 9, but this is a close call; arbitrators please check.)
- Proposed findings of fact 2-9, 10.1, and 11-18.
- Proposed remedies 4 and 5.
- Proposed enforcement 2 passes numerically, but is moot unless the revert parole that it would enforce is passed. Newyorkbrad 16:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed remedy 3.1, and hence enforcement 2, now pass as well. Newyorkbrad 23:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I moved my vote to oppose, so it now only has 5 votes and does not pass with the current numbers. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC) I believe we are done here.[reply]
Close. We can close and keep a watching brief on the aspects left open. Charles Matthews 16:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. - SimonP 12:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close. We can, indeed, always re-open. James F. (talk) 11:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close - agreed we can re-open if we need to. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Close Paul August ☎ 21:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Many unresolved issues. Fred Bauder 14:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]