Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thatcher (talk | contribs) at 15:21, 13 August 2007 (→‎[[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand]]: fix). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Venezuelan politics 25 May 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation none (orig. case) 7 June 2024
Clarification request: mentioning the name of off-wiki threads none none 4 June 2024
Amendment request: India-Pakistan none (orig. case) 27 June 2024
Clarification request: Contentious topics restrictions none none 10 June 2024
Amendment request: World War II and the history of Jews in Poland Motion (orig. case) 21 June 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/How-to

Current requests

European Union

Initiated by JLogan at 16:27, 9 August 2007 (CEST)

Involved parties

]JLogan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Notice has been given. Newyorkbrad 12:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Lear has not agreed to discussion or mediation on the topic, which is part of my point. [1] [2] [3]

Statement by JLogan

This is a long running disagreement, primarily between myself and Lear, although I myself have had backing on issues from a few other editors (but I am not claiming I have total backing from them). Two names I would mention are RCS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Arnoutf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) but see the talk page for everyone's positions - only they can speak for their opinions.

As this is very long, I will try to keep it brief. I believe the talk page itself is the best place to see what is going on. Also to see Lear's attitude and lack of engagement with anyone else. For the edits, this is the diff between what we went with to GA and by the time Lear had finished [4] - same edits he had made every time (some other editors in the middle, include a few of mine when I was willing to compromise and talk on his first few).

  • First: GA turned down on number of points, e.g. lack of refs.
  • Missing citation tags added as part of drive to improve, always removed by Lear on account they did not add anything to the article.
  • Then: Major improvements by other editors, almost to GA again.
  • But: Contribution from Lear: reverting a number of out changes: these mainly being images that didn't belong there. See in particular, talk- use of images.
  • Lear's obsession with sports section, adding uncited and duplicated information.
  • Other unilateral edits against agreements on talk page (e.g. Language box, agreement not to include Russian). Or generally changing the format which had been agreed on the talk page - if you look you will see reasons for everything have been stated to Lear time and time again but he has never addressed those concerns. Just kept to his own edits, stating it was "standard" - even though there is no standard for a unique organisation like the EU.
  • All above without consulting other editors and against most other editors. Again, see talk page for amounts and names.

If you read the amount of times in edit summaries I've asked him to come to the talk page, asked if we would consider mediation, and then look at his replies. You can see why some editors might be slightly annoyed with his attitude. This is why I bring it here, we were just applying for GA when it has started again. Something needs to be done, I wouldn't mind if I was simply outnumbered in opinion but this is just Lear's unilateral edits. And it is not just on the EU article, see similar situation on articles such as List of countries by population. - J Logan t: 15:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a small addition, if you look at his latest edit diff: [5], he has gone even further, back on points I thought we were over and also removing content without reason. One thing I'd like to point out is that while he is "enhancing visual content", he removed a map displaying the enlargement of the EU from the enlargement section. Guess what, I made that map. He is making personal edits now, I implore you to do something to settle this. - J Logan t: 15:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0)

  • Decline. This is a user conduct case. There has not been a user conduct RFC. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. Premature. Please get the assistance of more editors in resolving this dispute. This is the fastest way to resolve issues. If after several editors have failed attempts to address the issue informally per polite discussion then use the user conduct RFC. FloNight 20:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline, premature. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:39, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Chrisjnelson: [6]
  • Jmfangio: [7]
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Seraphimblade

While I believe that both Jmfangio and Chrisjnelson do have a wish to improve the encyclopedia, at this time, their behavior regarding one another has been wholly unacceptable. Problems include revert warring [9], [10], hostility, incivility, and personal attacks in any discussion in which the two engage, ([11], [12] as examples but by no means an exhaustive list, see the above-listed talk pages as well), and a general lack of respect and assumption of good faith. It appears that at this time is nowhere near resolution [13], and attempts at intervention and discussion from other editors have failed to solve the problem, as have the above listed attempts at dispute resolution. ArbCom cannot, of course, decide the content issues on which the two disagree, but at this point, I believe that arbitration is the only step which will stop the creation of a poisonous atmosphere at several pages from the bickering and edit warring. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jmfangio

It essentially boils down to this: weeks of discussion have been futile. Said user is convinced that his way is not only right, but that it is the only right. Several others have presented a valid/viable alternative. The fact that both sides are valid results in edit conflicts (as confirmed by a person not named in this case). An impartial solution has been proposed, and despite no other suggestion, it has been rejected by Chrisjnelson simply because he feels he has the only correct "answer". The neutral solution seems acceptable to most "commentators", and they have agreed that the best way to satisfy Chris and "the other side" is to find a neutral solution. The arbcom would have been asked to address the behavior issues revolving around this, not the content. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  09:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status??

What else can I do to move this forward? The tension continues to escalate and now others are getting attacked. The hostility, wikistalking, and edit warring is starting to spread to other articles. Can anything be done to expedite this process? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:46, 8 August 2007 (UTC

Statement by Chrisjnelson

First, I will explain the debate as I see it. I believe in listing out Pro Bowl years in a players’ infobox. Further, I believe that the link should look something like this [[2006 Pro Bowl|2005]], or in other words, the link should ‘’show’’ one year and link to the Pro Bowl the following calendar year. Jmfangio feels that this is confusing to some, and that there is an equally valid argument to keep the years the same, as in [[2006 Pro Bowl|2006]]. As a compromise, he feels all infoboxes should only list the number of total Pro Bowl selections, as in 8x Pro Bowl selection or something to that effect. It is my belief that the two sides Jmfangio feels to be valid are not in fact equal. It is my intent to show that my style of edit, the kind in my first example, is much more valid and accurate than the alternative, and thereby showing a “compromise” to be unnecessary. Keep in mind that linking Pro Bowl years as I do has been a fairly common practice here at Wikipedia, and that this dispute only arose with this new template on which I collaborated with Jmfangio. To get a visual idea of each side, see these:

-Junior Seau – This is my style of edit in use. Each Pro Bowl selection uses the regular season year, but links to the correct Pro Bowl.

-[14] – this is the side Jmfangio feels has equal validity to my own. You can see that years shown are identical to the ones in each Pro Bowl linked.

-Brett Favre – this is Jmfangio’s compromise in use. Only the number of Pro Bowl selections is shown, with no individual years.

Now, a basic explanation as to why I link the Pro Bowls the way I do. As you may or may not know, the NFL’s regular season begins in September and runs through the end of the year. The Pro Bowl occurs in early February, after the Super Bowl. Therefore, the years of the regular season and corresponding Pro Bowl are not identical, but rather the Pro Bowl is in the calendar year after any given season.

Please note that I am not arguing against the naming of Pro Bowl articles or to how they are referred. The 2007 Pro Bowl was in fact the one played this past February, and I think we can all agree on that fact. But what I am saying is that, when listing Pro Bowl years in a player’s infobox, one is not referring to the game itself. Rather, the years are there to list the SELECTIONS of that individual player. I personally feel that a list of Pro Bowl years in an infobox is basically a sentence saying “Player X was select to the Pro Bowl in this season, this season, this season, etc.” In that case, the year should correspond with the regular season in which the player earned the Pro Bowl selection.

For example: In the 2006 regular season, Peyton Manning was rewarded with a selection to the Pro Bowl (which took place in February 2007). However, the regular season in which he earned he selection, and the selection itself, occurred in 2006. As evidence, here is a link, dated December 18, stating that “The teams will be announced at 4 p.m. ET Tuesday, Dec. 19 on NFL Network.” This proves that the selection for the 2007 Pro Bowl began, and was completed, during the 2006 season.

This is why it is factually inaccurate to list 2007 in Peyton Manning infobox under Pro Bowl selections. He has not played in the 2007 regular season, and no voting or selecting has taken place in 2007. Peyton Manning was in fact a Pro Bowl selection in 2006, and played in the 2007 Pro Bowl. His selection was a REWARD for the 2006 season, and without that season he could not have played in the 2007 Pro Bowl. Essentially, it was the 2006 regular season that earned him the reward of a Pro Bowl selection – a selection which occurred in 2006.

I must say I am astounded this has even become such a giant issue, because those that follow or cover the sport nearly always refer to it this way. Here are some examples of player bios on their official teams’ websites, and how they convey the Pro Bowl information:

  • Peyton Manning – Colts.com bio – The very first sentence states: “Started 16 games for ninth consecutive season in 2006 and earned seventh career Pro Bowl selection (1999-2000, 2002-06).” A look at the season-by-season highlights shows that these years mentioned in the first sentence correspond with regular seasons, NOT years of Pro Bowls.
  • Michael Vick - AtlantaFalcons.com bio – The first section has a paragraph which states “Earned his second consecutive and third overall Pro Bowl nod in 2005” and the 2002, 2004 and 2005 seasons sections all indicate that the Pro Bowl selections occurred during these regular seasons.
  • Jason Taylor – MiamiDolphins.com bio – Not far down this page, there is a section that states “CAREER PRO BOWL SELECTIONS: 5 (2000, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2006).” As you can see by looking at the year-by-year highlights, these years correspond to regular seasons, not Pro Bowl years.
  • Brian Urlacher – ChicagoBears.com bio – in the first paragraph there is a sentence that states: “Fifth player in franchise history to receive Pro Bowl selections in each of his first 4 NFL seasons.” This sentence’s wording clearly goes along with my style of edit, and there is further support of this on that page for you to see but I feel this is sufficient.
  • Ray Lewis – BaltimoreRavens.com bio – Various evidence to support my kind of edit, for example: “Ray earned his 5th consecutive Pro Bowl in 2001 when he led the NFL in tackles (196).” Again, using the regular season year when referring to the selection.

I could go on and on, and if you are still unsure I urge you to look up any former Pro Bowler on any official team website and I’ll wager you’ll find more of the same. Google something like “earned Pro Bowl selection” and see what you find. I did, and what I found were various news articles from all kinds of sources referring to selections by the season. From ESPN to Yahoo to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. This is common practice. The Pro Bowl may be the year after the regular season, but Pro Bowl selections refer to regular seasons themselves.

I believe Jmfangio’s objection to my method is that that it is confusing to the common reader. On this, I disagree. The common reader will see the years of selection and will probably naturally assume it was those regular seasons that he was selected in. But if he clicks on the links, he will also be taken to the correct Pro Bowl for those selections. I will admit that occasionally, someone will see this kind of edit in place and will change the years to match each Pro Bowl. But I do not believe it occurs enough to warrant tossing out years all together. I for one am willing to watch these pages, revert them if someone unknowingly changes the years to be incorrect and post on their talk pages explaining why the original edit was correct. I do not believe that we should avoid putting in accurate information on the chance an uninformed person might come along every once in a while and change it. If we did that, there would be no Wikipedia.

I’m not saying Jmfangio’s compromise of “Pro Bowl selection (x8)” is wrong. It’s not, and there’s nothing wrong with it. But it is my belief that having the years in the infoboxes enhances the articles, and as I have shown they are factually accurate and can be sourced as well. My proposal is to basically continue what we’ve been doing. This has been pretty standard practice for years and I see no reason to discontinue it based on what I feel is one person’s misunderstanding of the situation. No offense to you, Jmfangio, but I do feel you are incorrect in saying both my way and the way with matching years are equal. Research pretty much shows this to be true. If there were differing and equally valid views on how to list years, then Jmfangio’s compromise would definitely be satisfactory. But has been my goal to show that one view is much more accurate and valid than any other, and I feel I’ve done that sufficiently here.►Chris Nelson 18:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling that I'm going to lose this thing, possibly in large part to my behavior of late. But it's unfortunate, because I know I'm right on this and this is what is best for these football articles.►Chris Nelson 18:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Navou

I encourage the committee to look at the user conduct of all involved. Prior dispute resolution attempt ended at WP:CEM with one participant stating he would not budge on the issue, after asked to look at compromises. The mediation closed unsuccessfully at that point and quickly degenerated [read: after it was closed] into an uncivil atmosphere on that mediation page. I believe the arbitration committee can successfully diffuse the abrasive editing atmosphere. I encourage the committee to open this case.

Statement by uninvolved Isotope23

This may be worth looking into for the user conduct issues that have arisen out of the core content dispute. I observed a bit of this last evening at Brett Favre where the two editors proceeded to edit over each other and generally bicker over edits. As evidenced by their posts here today, I don't see much reason to believe they can amicably resolve this and work together on their own.--Isotope23 talk 20:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Dagomar

Hon. Arbitrators;

I humbly suggest the acceptance of this case to at the very least, keep the peace and stop the unproductive fighting that is going on.

Dagomar 01:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

(This area is used for notes by non-recused Clerks.)

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/1/0/0)

  • Accept to consider behavior of all involved. Kirill 18:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. I would like to see a user-conduct RFC first. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:53, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth realms

Initiated by Jonathan David Makepeace at 00:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Jonathan David Makepeace

This dispute centers on the capitalization of the word "realm" in "Commonwealth realm." (However, see the last paragraph of this statement for an editor conduct issue.) Wikipedia's article naming conventions state: "Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name) or is otherwise almost always capitalized (for example: John Wayne and Art Nouveau, but not Computer And Video Games)."

The British monarch is the head of state of the Commonwealth realms, and her Web site does not capitalize "Commonwealth realms"[15][16][17][18][19] [20]. (They are quite consistent.) Neither does the overwhelming majority of authors of academic articles cited in Google Scholar[21]. (One has to search the plural "Commonwealth realms" to find academic articles.) The expression "Commonwealth realm" appears nowhere on the Canadian government's[22] or Commonwealth Secretariat's[23] Web sites, seeming to lack official recognition from either body.

Indeed, there is no evidence that "Commonwealth realm" is an official title or a proper noun. "Commonwealth realm" is a common noun referring to a class of entities, like "Australian cities," "persons with disabilities" or "Commonwealth members." It is unclear why Wikipedia should capitalize "Commonwealth Realms" but not "Commonwealth Members" or Commonwealth republic or "Other Monarchies in the Commonwealth."

The British Foreign and Commonwealth Office does capitalize the term in at least some of their documents, but they use a peculiar, arcane style not widely used outside of British government or legal circles.

A couple of my opponents (primarily G2bambino) have tried to claim that "Commonwealth Realm" (big R) means something different from "Commonwealth realm" (little r). However, they have been unable to attribute that assertion, and most editors on both sides of the issue seem to reject it. A Commonwealth realm is, as the article states, "any one of the sixteen sovereign states within the Commonwealth of Nations with Elizabeth II as their respective monarch."

However, even if you find that "Commonwealth Realm" is properly capitalized, I would ask you to permit me to briefly inform readers at the very beginning of the article that most academics and the British monarch do not capitalize the expression. Otherwise, people will think that the peculiar style used by the Foreign & Commonwealth Office applies everywhere.

Chris Bennett won't even allow me to point out the different usages, exclaiming on the article's history page "When topics are in dispute you DO NOT EDIT THE GODDAM TEXT TO YOUR POV. GODDAM TROLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!."

Thank you for your consideration.

Statement by Gazzster

'Commonwealth Realm' cannot be used as a proper noun. The term does not describe what we are discussing, ie, nations sharing the same monarch, ie, Elizabeth II. These realms only happen to be in the Commonwealth. The term Commonwealth Realm also excludes nations which are members of the Commonwealth but has native monarchs.

Commonwealth realm is an acceptable phrase, but it is a description, not a proper noun.

I and other editors have been subject to accusations of trolling on account of presenting our arguments against the use of Commonwealth Realm as a proper noun.

I have suggested we continue the present usage and review at a specified time.

Thank you for your consideration.--Gazzster 01:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by hux

I find this request for arbitration both unnecessary and disingenuous. Contrary to the explanation given by Jonathan David Makepeace (hereafter JDM) above, nobody has refused to seek mediation on this. (EDIT: My mistake; I see that one editor did refuse.) Additionally, this matter has been put to a vote twice in recent days: the first time no consensus was reached, as he notes. However, the second time, after extensive discussion, the vote was 6-2 in favor of leaving the page as-is. It seems obvious that the only reason this request has taken place is that one editor is not getting his way, which seems rather unreasonable as the basis for an arbitration request.

Further, the reason given for the request - that "Commonwealth Realm" is not correct because it is not a proper noun - is a red herring. As JDM is well aware from having been an extensive participator in the discussion, the reason that "Commonwealth Realm" is asserted as being correct is because "Realm" on its own is generally capitalized to mean, specifically, "country of the Commonwealth whose sovereign is Elizabeth II" (as opposed to Commonwealth countries that have monarchs other than Elizabeth II). Therefore, if "Commonwealth" and "Realm" should both be capitalized when used separately, they should stay capitalized when brought together. It's the same reason we capitalize both words in Commonwealth English.

Finally, his noting of Chris Bennett's outburst at the end of his explanation, as if it is an indicator of serious conflict, is also unreasonable. That outburst, while regrettable, was a single incidence of frustration after having reverted multiple edits by JDM, who has been changing the article to reflect his POV on this issue even though he is well aware that it is the contentious point under discussion. JDM, having reached 3RR on Aug 5 on this matter, has now done the same on Aug 6, even after having submitted this arbitration request. These are not, in my opinion, the actions of a person who respects Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, but rather the actions of someone who is simply trying by whatever means to get his POV into an article.

Statement by GoodDay

We should abide by the July 27 to August 2 (2007) Rfc. At the venue, there was no consensus to move the article to 'Commonwealth realms'. GoodDay 13:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Chris Bennett

I concur completely with Hux's statement.

I only want to add that the reason I rejected the proposal for mediation is that I saw no point to it. All that was necessary was for JDM to abide by the result of the poll he had himself called. It is a clear indication of his ulterior agenda -- getting his way at all costs -- that he did not try to further justify a need for mediation but immediately threatened to escalate the dispute. Since I had already (and correctly) concluded that the request was disingenuous, I felt that mediation would have been a waste of everybody's time.

I disagree with arbitrator FloNight that there is no user conduct issue here. There clearly is one -- JDM is trying to impose his will at all costs. However, this request for arbitration is premature. It is an attempt, one of several, to game the system. It is better that the other editors recognise what is happening for what it is, and make it clear that such attempts to dictate will not be accepted. That will take time, but I think is slowly happening. --Chris Bennett 16:33, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

Based on further research and discussion on the article talkpage, it appears the underlying dispute is resolved. I have asked the filing party if this case can now be considered withdrawn. Newyorkbrad 11:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/1/0)

  • Reject. Seems mostly a content dispute and not an user conduct issue. Any case it is premature. Involve more editors and you can find consensus. FloNight 00:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there's something worth arbitrating, particularly given the refusal of at least one editor to agree to mediation. I'll wander over to the talk page and see what's what. Mackensen (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Reject, things are moving along now. Mackensen (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse. - SimonP 02:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaftesbury

Initiated by Curuxz at 11:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Curuxz

The Shaftesbury page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaftesbury) should link to the town website (www.shaftesburytown.co.uk) yet for some reason this user has consistantly tried to removed the link, faulsly acused it of being spam (he claims due to the activities of other users promoting the site, I fail to see how this changes the validity of the information) and now has made threats (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Curuxz&diff=149125016&oldid=149118610) because he believes he can control what is on the page of this town. The site remains the only completely non-commerical website about the town of Shaftesbury, it is highly relevent to the article and the website it self is written by the likes of the Chamber of commerece of shaftesbury and ironicaly the history section by staff of the abbey mesuem and link that this user has no problem including.

I tried arb request and he ignored it, could someone please stop him taking away the link to the town website and punish him for his libel (calling it spam) and threats (saying he has the power to ban me).

Thank you for your time. --Curuxz 11:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding my statement in light of the absurd claims by user Steinsky(Joe D):

  • Adding the links to off topic pages is nothing to do with me, so completely irrelevant and should be disregarded.
  • Putting it at the top, well its the main link the other two are minor information sources
  • Other websites removed were because they are commercial, if you bother to read them you will notice that both CHARGE money for certain types of information to be listed, making them against wikipedia rules. Shaftesburytown charges for nothing, and never has. Hence why it is kept there. Additionally one of the sites mentioned, the shaftesburyindorset.com one is dead and has been for most the year, it started then quickly stopped. Again do research and bother to check your facts and you will clearly see no change since feb in their content.
  • "Acusing others of spam/vandalism" well yes each time those links to COMMERCIAL sites were added the noncommercial site link was removed. This is spam and against wikipedia rules. pretty simple it would seem.
  • "Mischaracterisation of previous dispute" not my fault you did not resolve this sooner due to your lack of intrest
  • "checkuser Curuxz against user:Shaftesbury " feel free I would be amazed if my home ip address, the one im using now, had anything to do with this user. again accusations unfounded and unrelated to this SINGLE page and this SINGLE link.
  • Wessex inst page is again nothing to do with this.

PLEASE stay on point, I am complaining about one page, one link to the only non-commercial site, I care not one jot what other people have done in the past in my view this is 100% relevent to the page and you keep flaunting the rules and trying to cause an edit war, again as you have done in the past (see your talk page).

(Response to John254 17:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC), moved by Daniel) Thank you for your statement John it nice to see a reasoned point of view on this matter and while I think it would be better done without arbitration the page remains locked and this user remains in possession of admin rights while engaging in edit wars. Its one small link the towns website I really can not understand why he cant just leave this matter it surly cant be of consequence to him and I have acted in good faith with the rules of this site. If it gets rejected by arbitration I fear he will continue to abuse the page for whatever is his personal bias against the Shaftesbury community website project (shaftesburytown.co.uk) --Curuxz 18:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to the recent comments made by Joe D let me deal with each matter in turn, perhaps if I had divoludge this information sooner it would have made things easier and if thats the case I am truly sorry but I acted in good faith and did not read anything in wikipedia's rules about having to give out personal information in order to make edits.
  • The ongoing issue of this user accusing me of having multiple accounts, I still maintain I have nothing to do with the edits made by this user, it IS NOT my account. I do not need to tell you this but in light of seeing they have also edited the WIT page (which until pointed out I did not know about my self!) and how this does make things look rather odd I should probably say that while I have no control over the Shaftesbury user I do know WHO the shaftesbury user is in real life and they are a close relation to me who WAS involved in the ShaftesburyTown website at its very very beginning. To the best of my knowledge they have left wikipedia for good as they got into arguments with another user. At this stage I was nothing to do with ShaftesburyTown but sooner after hearing about the waste of public money going to a private company to fund one site and hearing that the other site was paid for by the council but they wer'nt not given ownership after it turned out there was no contract and some very questionable dealings there I decided to get involved. To cut a long story short, these are totally separate accounts and different people, they used to be involved on this site when I was not and I 'took over' their role after they became highly apathetic to the continued strange dealings with the websites.
  • ShaftesburyTown was started as a community site just over 2 years ago, the allegation by Joe D that it was some kind of business directory (implying it was commercial) is simply not true, the directory was added, which is free and remains free, about a year into the project with the help of the chamber of commerce in shaftesbury. Its worth noting that while the ST directory is free and NONCOMMERCIAL the other 2 websites people have tried to list are both commercially owned and charge.
  • "...particularly the removal of the Town Council site in favor of their own..." what town council website....there is not one and never has been. I don't understand your comment unless its based on the mistaken belief that the title 'official' on one of them means council owned/run, which it does not. Anyone can write official it does not mean anything in this kind of situation.
  • it seems a fact that this user edited a page in his favor and locked it AFTER this request of arbitration was filed, as other admins have pointed out this is an abuse of editing rights and further damages his argument in this case.

The simple irrevocable truth is there are 3 shaftesbury websites, 2 are commercial, 1 is pretty much dead and 1 is noncommercial. On articles such as this wikipeida forbids the link to commercial sites, it also asks for the most relevant and in my mind a website that anyone can get involved easily (i know its easy because I did myself!) and has information from orginisations such as the council, the chamber of commerce, the tourism asc, art centre, museums etc and is free and open is the only choice for this page. I can see why joe d was annoyed and on behalf of me and the other volunteers that contribute to make shaftesburytown (since there is no single 'webmaster' or 'owner') I applogise for the actions of one of our founders but you have to understand wikipedia is an important resource and there is a massive amount of bad feeling in the community of shaftesbury that two websties were paid a lot of money when both independent evaluations showed the got next to nothing in return and a free community project existed and this may have led to some people getting a little too keen. It should be also noted that the user shaftesbury did not say just they had written the pages but that most of the content was added by MEMBERS of shaftesburytown, of which they are over 30 regular editors of the site I am surprised you can prove instantly this claim is false as you state one way or another. Im not saying your wrong because I honestly don't know since I was not involved back then but you seem to be assuming bad faith at every possible turn and continuing to do so. Why cant you just accept that as someone who knows the town this is ONE link is the most relevant. Id ask you calm down, think about the page and the benefit of the information before continuing this pointless edit war over one link.

I would also like to point out I have access to the log files for the site and it clearly lists referral traffic from wikipedia as having a current average view time of over 10 minutes, if this site was spam why would users sent there from this link (when it IS on the page) bother to stay so long. --Curuxz 15:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Steinsky

Why do I consider this site spam? The site, I see, has grown a little from its origins when it was largely a business directory (I looked at the wayback machine for an example, but unfortunately it has nothing from 2004/5). The business directory aspect alone would not have made be consider it spam. This is just a little bit of the spam-like behaviour that I could be bothered looking up in the page histories which are what convinced me that this is a case of spamming:

  • Adding the link to off topic pages:
    • Dorset: [24] [25] [26]
    • Gold Hill: [27] [28] (while this page is not neccesarily off topic, being in the town, the link being added was not specifically about Gold Hill, and was being added in an inappropriate way)
    • Alfred the great: [29] [30] [31] - the user claimed to have written both the article and the website, the claim regarding the article is demonstratively untrue, and consulting other editors found no defenders for the site.
  • Editing merely to move the link to the top of the external links section - a common spam problem: [32]
  • Blatant adverts in the link blurb: [33]
  • Removal of rival websites: [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]
  • Acusing others of spam/vandalism, especially those who happen to link to rival websites: Grahamcjones ShaftesburyDorset me me again (describing the removal of links as the worst kind of vandalism - interesting)
  • Mischaracterisation of previous dispute resolution which was filed when I was on a Wikibreak, and closed due to lack of interest: [39] [40]

Not all of these were done by Curuxz, but they were all spamming the website in question. Also, if this case were actually to be opened, I'd be inclined to checkuser Curuxz against user:Shaftesbury -- it's interesting that both of these users have no major Wikipedia history, but have both spent considerable effort on two topics - adding this link to articles, and the obscure Wessex Institute of Technology -- an article that itself reads a little like a brochure.

I have protected the Shaftesbury page as a short term solution to this problem, and was planning to report the URL, and above evidence to the Spam blacklist on commons, but I'll leave the latter for now on the off chance that anybody here is at all interested in looking into the matter.

[Edited to sign] Joe D (t) 14:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to John254 17:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC), moved by Daniel) Really? Then I hope you'll be nominating this template for deletion immediately. While I have not been able to keep up with policy changes lately, it always used to be the case that these administrator tools may be used to tackle spam. Even if you are more favourable to this user's case, or the website's status than I am, the behaviour demonstrably invokes the guidelines at WP:SPAM and WP:EL which advocate the use of these tools in such a case. Joe D (t) 17:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have twice been accused of acting in bad faith by disinterested parties, even after making it clear that I was not (see for example, the unhelpful comments Melsaran felt the need to leave on my talk page). This is, I see, because the issue is being framed as a content dispute, something else I have made clear I reject, and given some of the reasons for doing so. Perhaps there is an official definition of content dispute somewhere which I am not acquainted with, in which case I beg your forgiveness, but as previously mentioned, I have not had the time to devote to Wikipedia that I would wish. But anyway, I suppose if people are still making unhelpfull comments, it is because I have not made the situation clear enough, and must give a little more background. My Wikipedia activities are largely concentrated in the area of British geography, and I discovered very early that these are a particular target for spam -- business directories, individual companies, and other inapropriate activity of the type previously documented above in relation to this case. Having to cope with this has honed my skills at spotting these links, but has also made me vulnerable to asuming that the users adding them are acting in bad faith, rather than that they are simply unfamiliar with the project (though I don't think I do so without reason, and am sure many others do the same). It has also perhaps made me deal a little harshly with spammers (but not beyond the guidelines). If I have handled this case badly then, I do not believe it is for any of the reasons, or in any of the ways I have been acused of. It is because the combination of time restrictions, and a predisposition from the beginning to asume that the user(s) adding the link were not doing so in good faith, and were most likely one and the same person and the webmaster of the site in question, led me to following the normal procedure of merely reverting the link whenever it was added (as I, and hundreds of others have done and do for persistant spam). It would have been simpler, I see now, to finish the issue off earlier by explaining why it was considered spam and requesting a checkuser to confirm whether or not my suspicions of sockpuppetry were warrented. I did not, because with final exams I did not have time to waste on such a trivial issue, and because my hundreds of previous dealings with spam told me that these issues go away anyway when the spammers realise their efforts are in vain.

So, I originally believed these user(s) to be acting in bad faith. Perhaps it's confirmation bias but I have seen nothing but evidence in favour of my original conclusion, from this dishonest message on my talk page in which the person I presume to be the webmaster claimed to have written half the Wikipedia pages the link was on (easily disproved) to Curuxz's first message on Talk:Shaftesbury suggesting that she had never before seen the website and was an impartial outsider, something I have great difficulty reconciling with Curuxz's great interest in and knowledge of the site, the many failings of its rival sites, and other activity at that time (I find the first of their edit summaries on Shaftesbury rather curious, for example, and this in particular set my sockpuppet alarm ringing; incidently, Curuxz claims my reference to WIT was irrelevant -- this is why I mentioned it: another of the many coincidences that add up). Of course, the other activity listed above did not help much either, particularly the removal of the Town Council site in favour of their own (complete with accusation of spamming on behalf of the town council). Joe D (t) 13:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by uninvolved kaypoh

This is not filed properly. For example, "statement by (party 1)" and "statement by (party 2)". I am not a clerk. Can a clerk please fix it. Take this to ANI. They can solve this problem faster. --Kaypoh 13:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John254

The question of whether the link should be included in Shaftesbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is indeed a content dispute, as conceded by the arbitrator who voted to reject this case. [41]. The fact, then, that Steinsky has improperly used administrative rollback in a content dispute [42] [43] [44], threatened to block Curuxz, with whom he was engaged in a content dispute [45], and has protected Shaftesbury to favor his position in a content dispute [46], should raise issues of administrative misconduct which are amenable to resolution by the Arbitration Committee. John254 17:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Response to Steinsky 17:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)] If the disputed website, as used in Shaftesbury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), really did constitute obvious spam, then its insertion could indeed be treated as vandalism, and reverted with administrative rollback; editors persisting in inserting it could be warned and blocked. The problem here, however, is that the disputed link isn't obvious spam, at least as it is used in Shaftesbury. Steinsky appears to be arguing that since users other than Curuxz have been attempting to insert the disputed link into a number of articles, all instances of the link in any context whatsoever can be treated as spam. This claim is untenable. Even assuming, in arguendo, that the disputed link was obvious spam in the context of many articles into which it was inserted by other users, Curuxz's insertion of a link to a noncommercial town website into an article concerning that town does not constitute obvious spam, and may not be treated as vandalism. Whether the link is proper per WP:EL, or otherwise, is therefore a content dispute, to be settled without the aid of administrative force exerted by the disputants. John254 17:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk notes

To Kaypoh: done the former. If someone wants to raise this at ANI concurrently as you suggested, they're free to do so. Daniel→♦ 13:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved threaded discussions back to author's own section with notes about responding context. Please do not have threaded discussions on this page, nor edit anyone elses' section. Cheers, Daniel→♦ 22:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (0/3/0/0)

  • Decline. (a) Content dispute; (b) Premature even if not a content dispute -- get more people involved via other means of dispute resolution before coming here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 14:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject. This is a premature request. Please use other means to resolve this dispute first. FloNight 00:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline. - SimonP 13:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Requests for clarification

Place requests for clarification on matters related to the Arbitration process in this section. Place new requests at the top.

Paranormal Clarification on the use of qualifiers as discussed in various holdings

Five arbitrators voted to take on the Paranormal case; the two who stated their reason for taking the case indicated it was for "conduct issues". Of the 29 principles, findings of fact, and remedies that passed, most did deal with conduct issues; however, an important minority dealt with some of the content that has been at the core of the protracted disputes about paranormal-related articles. I apologize for the length of the following explanation of what I see as the core content paradox within the ArbCom holdings, but I have used examples in order to, I hope, make the situation as clear as possible:

The Wikipedia article on psychic raises issues with the recently closed Paranormal ArbCom. Finding of Fact #5, "Cultural artifacts", states: ""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." Principle #6.2 states, in part, "Language in the introduction of an article may serve to frame the subject thus defining the epistemological status. Examples include ... "paranormal", "psychic" ... or "parapsychological researcher". ... "Purported psychic" or "self-described psychic" adds nothing."

Lemma 1 the Arbitration Committee sees the label "psychic" as a cultural artifact. Saying that Jeane Dixon is a psychic does not imply that she has psychic abilities or powers, or even that such abilities or powers exist. This is true to such an extent that clarification, such as "Jeane Dixon is a self-described psychic", is disallowed.

In reading the article on psychic, however, I became confused and concerned. The psychic article's lede itself states that psychic denotes paranormal extra-sensory abilities that are inexplicable by "known natural laws". This doesn't seem like a typical cultural artifact, in that this statement implies that there may exist some unknown natural law to explain it (i.e., the description invokes science, not culture). However, several sentences later we learn that the existence of this ability is highly contested. Does this resolve the situation?

No. While this skepticism helps a reader understand that psychic abilities may or may not be real, it still leaves the reader with the impression that "psychic" means "someone with scientifically inexplicable powers" - it's just that now we recognize that such people may not exist. That is, thus far, the word "psychic" has always been used to mean "someone with paranormal powers". The infobox on the right side of the page is even more explicit: "Definition: An ability or phenomona said to originate from the brain, but to transcend its confines. Primarily in relation to Psi" (see the box on the righthand side of the article).

Lemma 2: So what is a psychic? The article repeatedly indicates that a defining feature of a psychic is "an ability". There is no ambiguity. It does not say that psychics have an apparent ability. It does not say that psychics may or may not have abilities. It says that a psychic has these abilities.

Imagine that instead of psychic we were talking about a rare device, the PerpetualMotionMachine (psychic). An article states that the PerpetualMotionMachine is an infinite (paranormal) power-output device (ability). The article also has an infobox that defines PerpetualMotionMachine as "A device or product that originates from the Midwest and is capable of infinite power-output." At this point, it's pretty clear that a crucial quality of any PerpetualMotionMachine is that it is an infinite power-output device. Then, I get to the sentence, "the possibility of infinite power-output is highly contested." Now, I still believe that PerpetualMotionMachines are infinite power-output devices, but now I recognize that the term "PerpetualMotionMachine" may have no real-world referent. I now understand that there may not be even one single PerpetualMotionMachine, but if there were one, a defining quality of it would be that it could output infinite power.

Likewise with the paranormal article. It asserts that psychic powers are paranormal abilities, inexplicable by known natural laws. It also tells me that there may not actually be any psychic abilities in the real world. However, from the definitions, I still gather that if there are psychic abilities in the real world, then they cannot be explained by known natural laws. The phrasing here does not strike me as a simple cultural artifact. Just reading the sentence, I am inclined to think that scientists of various disciplines must have looked into this and decided that known natural laws cannot explain the results.

This is in contrast to the holdings of the Arbitration Committee, which found that the term psychic is just a cultural artifact. The Committee held that "psychic" may not imply that the "a psychic" actually has scientifically inexplicable abilities. Therefore, even if a psychic does exist in the real world, they may not have psychic powers. ArbCom: "Psychic means someone who has, or claims to have, these powers. These powers may not exist, but the term still refers to real people." Article: "Psychic means someone who has these powers. These powers may not exist, and in that case the term has no real-world referent."

Lemma 3: The ArbCom's operative understanding of psychic differs in a subtle but crucial way from the psychic article. Actual paranormal powers are an intrinsic quality of a psychic according to the psychic article (although the existence these powers is contested), whereas paranormal powers are not intrinsic to the ArbCom's understanding of psychic (so even if these powers don't actually exist, there still may exist psychics).

A comment was made on the psychic talk page that I think exemplifies the potential for confusion: "When we call a person a psychic we convey a constellation of meanings, all or only some of which may apply. We might be saying the person has psychic powers, performs on stage as a psychic, makes their living doing readings, fraudulently bilks people out of money by claiming paranormal abilities etc. The word has "a" meaning which is multifaceted and contradictory, and all notable ones should be contained somewhere in the psychic article. One part of the meaning of "psychic" is that a person has powers. Another part is that the person may be self-deluded or a fraud. Another is that the person may be an entertainer, comforter, psychologist..... All of these things, or any one of them, may be conveyed by use of the term psychic. It is largely up to the reader to decide which is appropriate."[47] Such a multifarious term could reasonably, from time to time, be misunderstood.

For consideration: Due to subtly different interpretations, there exist diverse understandings of the word psychic which persist, even within Wikipedia. Judicious, appropriate, and infrequent qualification of "psychic", "paranormal", and similar terms should be allowed when such qualifications are contributory to the clarity and meaning of the epistemological status of a subject. This is especially true given the content of the psychic article. This is suggestion is closely in line with Principle #6.1, and Findings of Fact #6, #8, #9, but somewhat at odds with Principle #6.2 and Finding of Fact #12.

Thank you, Antelan talk 08:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven, Soul, and a whole host of other terms that refer to something that may or may not exist do not bother saying that it is "claimed" to exist. Only terms that show up on a skeptical watchlists do. It's an issue on Energy (spirituality) but not on obscure terms that don't make it to the list like Prana. Psychic is a cultural artifact because everyone in the world already has an opinion on whether or not psychics are real, or totally bogus. Wikipedia does not have to inform them that psychics may not exist. They are quite aware of it already. No one will realistically read a technical definition at Wikipedia of psychic that says it refers to "supernatural forces, events, or powers" and walk away thinking "Holy cow, Wikipedia says psychics are real!" It's not even plausible. They have already formed their own opinion. All the other encyclopedias, dictionaries, etc. that don't bother saying that it may not exist don't waste the reader's time, or insults their intelligence, by pointing it out. If nothing else, it fails to meet the notability standard. --Nealparr (talk to me) 09:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


When we call a person a psychic we convey a constellation of meanings, all or only some of which may apply. We might be saying the person has psychic powers, performs on stage as a psychic, makes their living doing readings, fraudulently bilks people out of money by claiming paranormal abilities etc. The word has "a" meaning which is multifaceted and contradictory, and all notable ones should be contained somewhere in the psychic article. One part of the meaning of "psychic" is that a person has powers. Another part is that the person may be self-deluded or a fraud. Another is that the person may be an entertainer, comforter, psychologist..... All of these things, or any one of them, may be conveyed by use of the term psychic. It is largely up to the reader to decide which is appropriate.
So to state it the way I have at other times that the meaning of the word "psychic" is "A psychic is someone who has psychic powers, but those powers may not really exist," is not quite accurate. Rather, the word psychic conveys many meanings. The two most important to skeptics and believers, however, are the two I stated- powers and doubt about thier reality. Both of those meanings are contained in the word psychic, and both are reflected in the current Psychic lead, which is well-framed per the ArbCom. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nice prose, but I'm still not buying it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for giving it your consideration. Antelan talk 00:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Who are you talking to? Me or Antelan or Nealparr??

The psychic article says "People who are thought to have these abilities or to be able to produce these phenomena are often called "psychics". " Thus, if we call someone a psychic, is is saying just what Antelan says it should say: "psychic" = "thought to have these abilities," and of course the full understanding would be that the person might or might not. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:04, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antelan's was the nicest. --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:18, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, that's true -it was very well done- and UninvitedCompany said "still," which must have been referring to his having not bought it before either. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification on ED

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not an ED troll, but an interesting question was raised at a recent DRV (see bottom) for it. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MONGO, it was ruled that ED links and material is banned from Wikipedia. However, it was questioned in the DRV that even if reliable sources that established notability were found, would it come in conflict with the ArbCom ruling in that case? Kwsn(Ni!) 04:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ED article itself has clearly posed internal problems for us. I think the turning point for me would be this: Are there sufficient reliable sources about ED which demonstrate that ED so clearly inside our inclusion guidelines that our project would be incomplete without it? If that were the case, I myself would support an amendment to the MONGO decision to permit an article. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paranormal, Principle 6.2: Adequate Framing

The arbitration committee has closed the above case. It includes many principles, including Principle 6.2: Adequate Framing. This principle states, in part, that "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."

Psychic is a particularly troublesome word in that its meaning is not well agreed upon. The Oxford English Dictionary's definition of psychic is that "having a psychical rather than a physical or physiological origin". The OED definition does not equivocate; in its definition, someone termed a psychic must actually possess such abilities. It is straightforward in saying that a psychic's abilities do not have a physical or physiological origin. In contrast, Wikipedia's definition of "psychic" equivocates, suggesting that a psychic is simply "thought to have these abilities or to be able to produce these phenomena" (emphasis mine).

I believe that this principle, as it regards the term 'psychic', is very sensitive to the meaning of "psychic" that one is familiar with. For example, if the phrase "Jeane Dixon is a psychic" is read with the Wikipedia definition ("thought to have these abilities"), then it seems reasonable that no further framing may be needed. However, given that there are other definitions, including those from authoritative sources like the OED, this phrasing could prove problematic. Read with the OED definition in mind, "Jeane Dixon is a psychic" implies that Jeane Dixon actually, as opposed to "is thought to", possesses abilities that are, in fact, not of a "physical or physiological origin". In this case, it strikes me that additional framing would be acceptable - otherwise, we are claiming that she actually has such powers, and that such powers do not come from the physical world - a tall statement for an introductory paragraph.

With the tension between alternate definitions from reputable sources in mind, is there any clarification that can be offered, either for the principle in general, or for the principle as it pertains specifically to the ter"m "psychic"?

Thanks, Antelan talk 20:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Merriam-Webster 3rd New International Dictionary (1993), which I consider to be highly authoritative and perhaps more attuned to current usage than the OED, offers this relevant definition: "2 psychic n -s : 1 a person apparently sensitive to nonphysical forces." I believe that this concurs with the Wikipedia usage. The OED definition you cite appears to correspond to the "1 psychic" definition in M-W, which is a usage more philosophical than paranormal. I do not have an OED at hand to review any other definitions it may offer, though I am confident that the OED has many others beyond the one you identify. I would conclude that the Wikipedia usage is not unique or unsupported. Finally, since the Wikipedia article clarifies our intended usage, I believe that readers both casual and astute will understand that the use of the term does not imply the presence of actual psychic abilities confirmed by the scientific method. In conclusion, the decision is sound as it stands. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 03:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that your finding in M-W is germane to, and indeed buttresses, my point, which is that reputable (even authoritative) sources offer different interpretations of psychic. In some instances, "psychic" is held to mean someone who has said powers; in others, it is held to mean someone who is said to have said powers. Consequently, it is entirely reasonable to believe that an educated, intelligent reader of Wikipedia could come in with either prior definition in mind. Such a literate, conversant person would not think that they would have to click on "psychic" to learn which definition Wikipedia is using, since they would, reasonably, already believe that "psychic" denotes (depending on previous exposure to the word) either people who (1) do have, or (2) are simply said to have, powers.
I'm not simply offering hypotheticals; other important publications such as the New York Times and the United States Department of Justice qualify the term "psychic":
  • "Jeane Dixon, the astrologer and self-described psychic who gained fame by apparently predicting President John F. Kennedy's death, died on Saturday in Sibley Memorial Hospital in Washington." [48]
  • " According to previous in-court statements, Marks, a self-proclaimed psychic and fortune teller, agreed that she was responsible for bilking over two (2) million dollars from numerous elderly and otherwise vulnerable victims from 1994 through 2002." [49]
Nevertheless, as you and I have both noted, the term is not always used in this way; it is also used in the "is said to have" way. So, in contrast to your conclusion, it strikes me that both casual and astute readers will interpret all articles invoking the term "psychic" differently, based on their prior experience with this term. Antelan talk 08:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the ambiguity of the term "Psychic" and the conflicting definitions of the word, we are left with only a few solutions to the problem. 1. We require articles about people who claim to have psychic powers state that the individuals are "purported psychics". 2. We change the Psychic article to reflect Wikipedia's accepted definition of the term "Psychic". 3. We avoid using the term "psychic" in such articles and only state that the individuals "claim paranormal abilities" and then elaborate on which abilities they claim to have. If we stick with the definition of "psychic" as someone who claims paranormal powers opposed to someone who indeed has the powers then the Psychic article must reflect that. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow your logic that we are limited to the three choices you outline. I believe that the decision is clear as it stands regarding the use of the term. I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with the psychic article vis a vis this matter. I realize that those editors who place particular weight on debunking paranormal phenomenon may not agree with the decision. I hope they will respect it nonetheless. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's all we needed to know. All that remains is to update Wikipedia's psychic article to ensure compliance with your operative definition. Thanks for the clarification. Antelan talk 07:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't aware that there was a review. I hope it's not too late to comment. One of the most notable debunkers out there, James Randi, defines psychic as "an adjective, describ[ing] a variety of supernatural forces, events, or powers." Psychics (noun), he defines as "designat[ing] a person said to be able to call upon any of many psychic forces."[50] Randi is about as skeptical as it gets, so there's really no reason to add unnecessary qualifiers at Wikipedia either. Notice there's no "alleged", "purported", "claimed" or other WP:WTA in these definitions, only "said to" in relation to psychics (n), which is of course compatible with WP:WTA. --Nealparr (talk to me) 06:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it matters. We could define "psychic" as "having powers," and as long as we make very clear in the article that there is significant controversy about whether these powers are real, then we're OK. That is because a definition "a psychic has powers" coupled with "these powers may not exist," gives the reader this definition:

"a psychic is someone with powers, but those powers may not exist."

In other words, real psychics may not exist. So as long as we include skepticism in the articles, the issue of the first definition of psychic is not relevant. In the end what the reader comes out with is the necessary nuance, an understanding of the controversy.

We aren't a dictionary here. We don't have to have everything in one sentence. That need seems to be why dictionaries sometimes stoop to either 1) no controversy or 2) definitions which are technically inaccurate, something like "a psychic is someone with supposed paranormal powers," which would rule out psychics who didn't know they were psychic, and begs the question of what a "supposed paranormal power" is.

Anyway, Wikipedia can support a full understanding of such terms which includes skepticism without resorting to one-sentence definitions, or things like "purported," "supposed," and "self-described." This isn't an argument for defining "psychic" in a particular way, but rather for explaining the controversy rather than focusing on a single sentence like a dictionary- and giving the reader some credit for being able to fully understand the usage of a controversial term. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 06:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These terms clearly exist, from where I stand this simple fact overrides any and all questions about whether or not the phenomona/ability/whatever actually exists in reality. The arbcom ruling correctly reflects this and therefore should be kept. For example, a psychic is a cultural label applied to somebody, it is not a judgment of science or law on their possession of actual psychic powers, or a judgment on the existence of said powers in the real world. - perfectblue 19:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These edits [51] [52] read as an appeal to authority as one says "Per Arbitrator UninvitedCompany" and the other says "This is literally per the ArbCom". Are these edits actually per UninvitedCompany and meant to be "the" definition we are supposed to use? --Nealparr (talk to me) 21:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked for another opinion--a psychic is someone who has paranormal powers, and this would extend to somebody who think he has such powers. A person who knows perfectly well that he does not have such powers but pretends to have them is a pretended psychic--most stage magicians would come under such a heading. As the actual existence of such powers is hard to demonstrate, I would accept anyone who claims to actually have them as a psychic. I do not think this the least confusing. To those who do not believe in the existence of such powers, it would be follow that such a person is either self-deluded or being deliberately deceptive--since is it almost impossible to tell the difference, most skeptics would I think regard the two classes as essentially equivalent--especially given that someone who honestly believes himself to to have such powers--or who might even have them in reality-- might nonetheless deceive to make them appear more impressive. To a skeptic, calling someone a psychic is a negative criticism. To a believer, it's a compliment. Thus I would think it a neutral term, and it is satisfying to have at least one neutral term in this subject. DGG (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His version: ""2 psychic n -s : 1 a person apparently sensitive to nonphysical forces."" My version: "A psychic is a person apparently sensitive to nonphysical forces." The ArbCom made content-related findings; it is reasonable that our viewers should be exposed to their operative definition of psychic upon visiting the article. To me, it was unclear what definition of "psychic" Wikipedia was operating under. TheUninvitedCo clarified. Given this introduction to the article, I concur that "psychic" is a sufficiently descriptive term, not requiring any framing such as "alleged", "purported", "self-described", etc. Antelan talk 22:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We follow the ArbCom decision (not necessarily what an arbitrator says), but the ArbCom did not rule on the definition of "psychic." What Antelan has edit warred to insert in the Psychic article is not accurate, and merely uses other weasely words. In place of things like "supposed" and "self-described," he has put in "Apparently." He asked DGG for another opinion, and DGG did not agree with him. All Antelan is doing is POV pushing and going against consensus. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I find myself asking you to refrain from personal attacks with an alarming frequency, and I will do so again now. TheUninvitedCo used the term "apparently". DGG's opinion is well-reasoned and invaluable. In the request for clarification, I presented two reasonable interpretations of "psychic", and now I know which one is to be used on Wikipedia. Given the clarification and the updated "psychic" definition, it is perfectly reasonable that qualifiers are unnecessary before "psychic", but before this clarification it was unclear. Antelan talk 22:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In reading the above, it appears that TheUninvitedCo said that using "apparently" is fine, but that using no qualifier is fine as well, and that there wasn't anything necessarily wrong with the wording before-hand. I'm only posting this here so that TheUninvitedCo can clarify for him/herself, but shouldn't this be a consensus thing reached on the talk page? If both are fine, then editors can choose which they prefer, and it's not really "per TheUninvitedCo". Let's leave the arbitrators out of it and work it out on the talk page. --Nealparr (talk to me) 23:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nealparr, this was one of the major content-related decisions of the ArbCom, which is why I asked for clarification here. If I correctly understood TheUninvitedCo, the conclusion was that "apparently" is fine in fleshing out the meaning of psychic in the psychic article, and then we don't need to qualify the term "psychic" with apparently/purportedly/etc. elsewhere since the full meaning will then already be contained within Wikipedia's understanding of the term. (If this is not correct, I would very much appreciate correction and clarification from an Arbitrator.) Antelan talk 00:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to Antelan: gather the diffs all my "personal attacks" and take them to an admin.

The Uninvited Co said specifically he saw nothing wrong with the current article.

However, an Arbitrator's power is in his writing of and votes on decisions, not a dictatorial power. So however right or wrong UnivitedCo is, we can't just say "thus saith The Uninvited Co" and have that be that.

The ArbCom decision ruled against the need for qualifiers, as long as an article is framed- and framing includes that skepticism is included in articles used to frame. That was already the case with Psychic.

Antelan's edits were POV pushing of the kind which occurred on a regular basis before the ArbCom decision. They were also non consensual controversial edits, and he edit warred to keep them in- again, behavior just like what we had to deal with before the ArbCom. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 05:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me state it a bit simpler. If we're going to remove words such as "Purported" or "alleged" then we need to replace them with "claims to have" or "says he/she has" etc. If we don't use words such as "claims to have" then if we refer to any individual as "psychic" we need to make the Psychic article reflect the definition being used, I.E. "A person who claims powers" opposed to "A person who has powers". Very simple. The latter might be a bit confusing for most people who recgonize the term "psychic" as someone who HAS powers, but if that's how it must be.. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Stop with the "personal attacks". Just don't use that word anymore. If someone attacks you, ignore it. Discussing "purported" (no pun intended) personal attacks only distracts us from this current discussion about clarification on the RFA. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, in one case. If we say "So-and-so has psychic powers" then that's POV. So we say, "So-and-so claims to/is purported to have psychic powers."

But if we say "So-and-so is a psychic" then that is NPOV, because in the psychic article it makes quite clear that there is controversy. Thus, the word "psychic" already contains the controversy. That is to say, "psychic" has the same meaning as "purported psychic-" it contains skepticism within it.

However, the proper way to define "psychic" is as someone who HAS powers. That is the definition, and added to that is the controversy. It is subtle, but it is important. A psychic has powers, AND those powers may not truly exist in the real world. This is what "psychic" means.

BUT, a "psychic" is NOT someone who merely "claims to have powers."

The current Psychic article does contain controversy, in the body and in the lead. Thus, it is NPOV and we can call a person "psychic" without implying that the powers necessarily exist. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 21:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to go with the definition of Psychic as someone who "purportedly has psychic powers" and refer to people like Sylvia Browne as "Psychics" opposed to "Purported psychics" then we need to make VERY clear in the Psychic article that not only is there controversy about the existence of psychic powers, but that the very definition of "psychic" itself is someone who purports to have such powers and not someone who does indeed have such powers.
Defining psychic as someone who has powers would mean that anyone who is described as psychic has those powers, logically. If "Psychic" is defined as an individual who HAS powers and if we describe Sylvia Browne as a psychic then she must have powers. The fact that controversy exists disputing the existence of such powers doesn't negate the fact that we're claiming a "Psychic" is someone with those paranormal powers and Sylvia Browne is a Psychic, thus Sylvia Browne has those paranormal powers. Let me put it this way; If Psychic=Someone with said powers" then describing someone as a psychic would logically mean affirming they have said powers. Regardless of any criticism or controversy about the existence of such powers.
We can't define "Psychic" as "someone who HAS said powers" if we're going to refer to various individuals as psychics because whether they are psychic or not is disputed. If we're going to refer to them as actual psychics then we need to define the word "Psychic" as someone who claims to have such powers but doesn't necessarily have them. Which of course must be made very clear in the Psychic article. Wikidudeman (talk) 22:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The words "said to" and "say" are greenlighted by WP:WTA, purported is redlighted. --Nealparr (talk to me) 22:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I admit it's a subtle point. But here's an example. A little green man from Mars is............... a little green man from Mars. As it happens, there is controversy over whether such exist.

If I say I'm a little green man from Mars, then Wikipedia calls me a "green Martian." In the "Green martian" article, it explains that while a little green man from Mars is just that, in reality they may not exist.

We call people "psychics," and a psychic is someone with powers, but a full understanding of the word contains the controversy.

It's subtle, but it is the ArbCom decision. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you claimed to be a "Green Martian" and gained substantial notoriety and a Wikipedia article developed about you then it would be an article whos name was your name. Let's say "Martin Phi", for an example. The article would be called "Martin Phi" and would say that "Martin Phi CLAIMS to be a green Martian" not "Martian Phi IS a green Martian". There's nothing subtle about it, it's simply stating something as a fact which isn't necessarily a fact. If "Psychic" is defined as someone who HAS said powers and we call someone a "Psychic" then we are affirming they have said powers. That's basic logic. A=Psychic powers, B =Psychic. If B is defined as having A then someone who is referred to as B is affirmed to have A by the one doing the referring. Your logic seems to be "B=A, If B then not necessarily A". Wikidudeman (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't understand what I wrote, but I don't think I can make it much clearer.
A = B and B = (C + D).

A = name B = psychic C = powers D = controversy

Get it? –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 22:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually that's very unclear. What you wrote would say, if translated, "Psychic equals Psychic and Psychic equals powers plus controversy". That doesn't really make any sense at all. "A" is defined as "name", but name of what? The term? The term is "Psychic" so "A=B" is redundant. "B=C+D" would mean that a Psychic is someone who HAS powers but controversy exists about such powers. Still, This is affirming that the individual in question (B) necessarily has the powers. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A = B

B = (C + D).

A = Sylvia Browne (example) B = psychic C = powers D = controversy

"B=C+D" would mean that a Psychic is someone who HAS powers but controversy exists about such powers." Correct.

Still, This is affirming that the individual in question (B) necessarily has the powers. Incorrect.

We qualify if we say someone has psychic powers. We don't qualify if we say someone is a psychic, because we're linking to the "psychic" article, and that includes the controversy over whether there are any real psychics.

Thus as I said before,

If I say I'm a little green man from Mars, then Wikipedia calls me a "green Martian." In the "Green Martian" article, it explains that while a little green man from Mars is just that, in reality they may not exist.

We call people "psychics," and a psychic is someone with powers, but a full understanding of the word contains the controversy.

Whether my interpretation is correct or not doesn't really matter. What matters is that we don't have to use qualifiers as long as the articles which define our terms include the controversy. That's what the ArbCom said.

Here's what the Arbs said, and there really isn't any getting around it:

"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."

and

""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."

Which I interpret to mean that a cultural artifact such as "psychic" contains within it the controversy and thus does not need to be qualified. This works so long as the Psychic article contains a description of the controversy. It does not require, however, that we define the meaning of the word "psychic" equivocally- it only means we should inform the reader about the controversy. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 00:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say A = Sylvia Browne and B = psychic and then say "A = B" and then you say we're not affirming that the individual in question has psychic powers, when you clearly state that "A=B" and "B=psychic" and Psychic=someone with powers? You're contradicting yourself. You're saying that both "Psychic" is someone with powers and isn't someone with powers. The Arbitrators have said ""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." This would mean that the Psychic article should NOT say that a psychic is someone who has definite psychic abilities but someone who claims to have such abilities. If that's the definition we're going with. We wouldn't call a crazy guy who claimed he was from mars a "Green Martian" anymore than we would claim some crazy guy who thinks he is Jesus "God" or "Messiah". We would refer to them as their names, whatever they may be. Wikidudeman (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Psychic article is framed with words like paranormal and ESP, such that people know that the existence of psychic powers is controversial. If you don't accept anything else I've said, then that should be enough. No one is going to get the impression that everyone believes that the powers really exist. Calling a person a "psychic" will never tell anyone that the powers indicated by the word are necessarily real. –––Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 01:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't making it clear that controversy exists, it's obvious that controversy exists. The point is that wikipedia should make it clear that Psychic powers themselves might not exist. The only way to do this was outlined by me above. Stating that "Psychic=Psychic powers" and simply stating that controversy exists and people doubt psychics doesn't take away the problem of calling someone a psychic when we're using that definition. You seem to be saying that defining a Psychic as someone who definitely has psychic powers and labeling various people psychic is acceptable as long as we state that controversy exists about psychics. This doesn't solve the problem. Simply stating that a controversy exists doesn't take away from the problem that you're claiming so and so is a psychic and that a psychic is someone with powers. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A unicorn is a "legendary creature" (i.e. mythological). Bigfoot is a figure in "North American folklore". A ufo is "any real of apparently flying object which cannot be identified by the observer". These have straightforward introductions which frame their articles. Martinphi, you have said, both, "a psychic is someone with powers" but that this is controversial, and "we can call a person "psychic" without implying that the powers necessarily exist". How do you expect us to understand what you are thinking when you don't even offer us a coherent view of the topic in question? I and others have offered opinions, which you have struck down without offering a straightforward alternative. In your view, and in simple, encyclopedic, affirmative terms (i.e., "a psychic is X" instead of "a psychic is not Y") what is a psychic? Antelan talk 02:17, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I ask is that someone please inform me if a request for review is granted so I can comment. I think the Randi reference says it all, but I can provide other references as well. Otherwise this is talk page stuff to be worked out sans- arbitration. --Nealparr (talk to me) 02:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instantnood3

The arbitration committee has closed the above case.

Restrictions applying to Huaiwei:

The above is the shorthand restrictions placed on Huaiwei after an ArbCom case more than a year ago. Several months ago, it was found that Instantnood was not only being generally disruptive but also running farms of sockpuppets to disrupt votes/discussions and Instantnood is now permanently banned. Huaiwei hasn't been in any other kind of dispute resolution before or since the Instantnood issues.

It's clear to me that while Huaiwei was wrapped up in Instantnood's belligerence (as were a half dozen others on the periphery) it was Instantnood's wiki-stalking of Huaiwei (which continues with sockpuppets even now) that caused the problem, and not a general problem with Huaiwei as an editor. Without the instigation of a bad actor, Huaiwei is an excellent and dedicated Wikipedian who has been with the project for several years. These restrictions and potential punishments hang on him like an albatross.

I'd like ArbCom to review Huaiwei's contributions since the permanent banning of Instantnood and remove the previous restrictions.

SchmuckyTheCat
  • You mean, like, the six blocks for edit warring he's received since then, most recently a month ago? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Instantnood was banned on 16 April. Huaiwei was blocked only one time after Instantnood was banned. --Kaypoh 09:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, Huaiwei has one 3rr with one user that is not Instantnood. I think the sequence of that one was, slow revert, Huaiwei realized he went over and reported it, both got blocked. He was also using the talk page to try and work out what was going on with someone belligerent.
One instance does not justify such harsh restrictions. SchmuckyTheCat
Well, that one instance is not the justification, the entire history is. I'd like to see three clean months before I support lifting the restrictions, though. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I believe that in a similar situation recently, the committee voted that someone's probation from a prior case would be ended if he remained out of trouble for a specific period of time. That might work here. Newyorkbrad 16:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See motion in arbitrator voting section, below. Newyorkbrad 05:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Motions in prior cases

(Only Arbitrators may make and vote on such motions. Other editors may comment on the talk page)

Huaiwei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note: See also the discussion in Section 2 above.

I move that the restrictions, now over a year old, from the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Instantnood 3 case on editor Huaiwei be lifted. While Huaiwei appears to have been involved in some edit wars and has received a number of 3RR blocks, I do not believe that the probation and limits on participation remain relevant at this point.

As there are presently 12 active arbitrators, of whom one is abstaining, a majority is 6.
Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 05:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. James F. (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Paul August ☎ 13:31, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. First, I would like to see a clean block record for at least 3 months and no evidence of edit warring. FloNight 11:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. As I suggested above, I'd like to see a bit more time. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand

With the passage of time and Betacommand's continued contributions to Wikipedia, the Committee hereby restores Betacommand's administrative privileges under these stipulations:

  • Betacommand may not operate any bot that utilizes administrative privilege without prior approval. For the avoidance of doubt, the term "bot" is to be construed broadly to include any full or partial automation of the administrative functions not already in widespread use by other administrators. Prior approval may come from the Bot Approvals Group (BAG), or for bots that provide partial automation that would not ordinarily require BAG apprval, this committee.
  • Betacommand must observe the notification requirements and delay periods specified in policy prior to deleting images.
Support:
  1. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:


Abstain:

Archives

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=150970098"