Revision as of 12:28, 22 April 2007

This is a page for working on arbitration decisions. The arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Coverage of fringe views

1) Misplaced Pages is not an appropriate venue for advocacy. Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view provides for all significant views to be documented, but does not require that they be accepted. Per previous consensus at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, minority and fringe views should be explicitly identified as such.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

proposedGuy (Help!) 10:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Scientific point of view vs. neutral point of view

2) While the scientific point of view and the neutral point of view are not synonymous, they may be considered equivalent, or at least very closely aligned, in the case of subjects portrayed as scientific. In matters of science, the neutral point of view is best represented by consensus among the mainstream scientific community, as judged by publication and debate in the scientific journals. Due consideration should be given to the reputation of and community served by the journals. Papers in Nature are given substantially more weight by the scientific community than are papers in minority journals focusing on the fringes of various disciplines.

This does not prevent the coverage of minority or fringe views, provided that it is made clear that they are not generally accepted within the scientific community. Previous discussion of this issue may be found at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 11:46, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Template

3) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of the dispute is a series of articles centring on Parapsychology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and in particular Electronic voice phenomenon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and its talk page, where the dispute which precipitated this arbitration has its roots.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 11:32, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Parapsychology as a science

2) The definition of parapsychology as scientific, asserted by those editors supporting parapsychology, is problematic. The mainstream largely ignores parapsychology, which has little representational in the popular and influential scientific journals. Because it is largely ignored, it is reasonable to state that parapsychology it is not generally considered a true scientific displine, and including it in category:science is likely to give undue weight. Two other categories exist which may be appropriate: category:fringe science and category:pseudoscience.

Regardless, the decision as to which category an article should be laced in should be taken on a case-by-case basis and should be subject to discussion and consensus, if necessary throguh article request for comment, rather than being the subject of edit warring.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Status of paranormal research

3) "The status of paranormal research in the United States is now at an all-time low, after a relative surge of interest in the 1970s. Money continues to pour from philanthropic sources to private institutions, but any chance of credibility depends on ties with universities, and only a trickle of research now persists in university labs." (Nature, Feb 2007).

In some cases there may be a lack of coverage of a subject in the journals because it is an emergent field, or because thought leaders have yet to address a subject. This is not the case with parapsychology, which has been subject to a steadily decreasing level of scientific inquiry since the earliest days of science. Paranormal phenomena have gone from being a focus of metaphysical debate among thought leaders, through a period of investigation by parts of the scientific community in the 1960s and 1970s, to a position now where explanations for esoteric phenomena are sought in emergent mathematical and physical fields rather than through parapsychology. Understanding of what can be explained by natural law has moved forward through developments in technologies for measurement and analysis, as well as advances in mathematical and physical modelling techniques, and these advances have made the scientific community less likely to seek answers outside of natural law.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. May be irreelvant as strictly a content issue, but proposed to address the claim made in some other areas that emergent disciplines will be documented Real Soon Now. Here, we have had around four decades of investigation by small groups here and there, and the trend appears to be to shut that down, not to build it up. Now we have string theory and chaos theory we no longer seem to have the same perceived need for an explanation outside of the laws of nature. Guy (Help!) 11:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Davkal

4) Per as a representative edit, User:Davkal appears to equate his own biases with neutrality, ascribing base motives to those who disagree with him and failing to acknowledge any validity in opposing viewpoints. Admins who support other editors do so becasue they are "biased" and because edits support their own POV. This is uncivil, a failure to assume good faith, and may indicate a level of emotional investment in the subject which is not conducive to neutrality. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 12:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Template

5) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

6) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

7) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

5) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Place here items of evidence (with diffs) and detailed analysis

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: