Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Workshop

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 and clerks may edit, for voting, clarification as well as implementation purposes.

Motions and requests by the parties

Goal: Rules to establish the basis of NPOV

1) Among other things, this arbitration case should result in rule(s) describing "how to determine the preponderence of opinion that is the basis of NPOV for scientific matter".

Comment by Arbitrators:

No, we're not going to rule on content here. Kirill ^(prof) 00:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I suggest that we first come to an agreement on some of the goals that we want to reach in this arbitration. Hence this motion. I'll be happy to provide more goals if this approach is adequate. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Good God, please, no. These determinations have always been made through editorial discussion. The occasions when ArbCom has dipped their toes in this water have been largely disastrous. The issue here seems to be behavioral; that is, despite the existence of a plethora of good sources with which to determine appropriate weighting and context, discussion seems to have fossilized and degenerated, largely as a result of editorial intransigence and single-mindedness. MastCell ^Talk 18:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Not going to happen, as it is essentially a request for ArbCom to rule that being "right" is a defence in cases of advocacy and POV-pushing. Guy (Help!) 18:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Impossible not to analyze the content on some level. The main issue with this is that "fringe journals" and books are some of the main sources of information on cold fusion. Can these be cited in the article, and to what detail or prominence should they be accorded? Incidentally, my only real edits to the article involved removing the two reviews (by the same author) from so-called peer-reviewed journals (which are actually basically fringe; not in the Web of Science I believe) from the lead while retaining the fact that interest has increased. This expressed a bit more ambivalence[1][2]. I was promptly reverted by the purportedly anti-CF editor Olorinish[3]. The problem is not that there weren't enough people willing or capable of making this article neutral, but that the people who were willing were not really doing their work effectively. II | (t - c) 01:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Request to add Kirk shanahan as a party

2) Kirk shanahan (talk · contribs) is added to the case as a named party.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Ok, add him. Kirill ^(prof) 20:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

I've just come across evidence of COI editing on cold fusion by another account. This needs to be investigated and resolved. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion/Evidence#Kirk shanahan has engaged in COI editing. Jehochman ^Talk 20:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Notified. Jehochman ^Talk 20:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No contact on Wikipedia about this arbitration to User:ScienceApologist

3) By request of User:ScienceApologist, all further communication regarding this arbitration to User:ScienceApologist should be done over e-mail. This includes all notices of case closures, sanctions, conclusions, etc. Do not contact this user on his talk page about this arbitration.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Noted. Kirill ^(prof) 05:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Request by ScienceApologist (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This is yet another example of his arrogance and contempt for the WP communuity. I think you should completely disregard his request.MaxPont (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

One additional comment. Earlier in this ArbCom ScienceApologist requested that he would be given a back-channel[4] and the privilege of influencing the arbitors via phone calls and email. This is absolutely unacceptable. Would you ever consider giving one of the parties in a normal court of law exclusive access to the jurors and the judge in the back rooms? I would like the Arbcom clerk to state that this is not taking place.MaxPont (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Why? There's no privacy issues or off-wiki problems involved with this case. Why is an off-wiki line of communication necessary? --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As has come up else where, all users are able to submit evidence via E-mail if they wish: the use of other lines of communication is unclear mostly because the vast majority of us would never dream of giving our phone number, and it has not, in my knowledge, come up before. Why ScienceApologist wishes to communicate on this exclusively off-wiki, I don't truly know, but I do know its within the established procedures and "rights" of any community member to submit evidence on this wiki page, by e-mail, or not at all, as they choose.--Tznkai (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well Tznkai, maybe because in a private conversation you can misrepresent facts without the other party being able to refute that. The principle of open trials has been around for centuries.MaxPont (talk) 08:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

So do you want it to be a trial or not a trial? It seems that you arguing both ways one way here and another to refute Fyslee's arguement. Shot info (talk) 06:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute that it's within his right to do so, I just want to understand the reasoning why he's doing so. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 07:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed temporary injunctions

Mediation case

1) Case pages of the mediation (which were public at the time and continued to be so until deleted post-facto) should be undeleted for the duration of this case.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comments made as part of a formal mediation case are exempt from being considered as evidence in arbitration. Given that, I don't see any substantive reason for the case to be undeleted. Kirill ^(prof) 20:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Guy (Help!) 18:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, as Kirill has noted in other words, statements there are privileged - was there any other reasons for this proposal? Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban

2) User:Pcarbonn and User:Kevin Baas topic-banned from the article Cold fusion and related articles until such time as this arbitration case is resolved.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Has there been actual disruption since the case opened? Jehochman ^Talk 14:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Several editors in good standing have given credible evidence that Pcarbonn is here primarily to advocate a fringe view and distort Wikipedia to "fix" the real-world "problem" that the majority of scientists either ignore or ridicule cold fusion. Kevin Baas appears to be a supporter (check today's edits to the article). I believe both should be topic-banned during this arbitration. I do not mind if everybody who is party to the case is topic-banned, including me. This is for the prevention of disruption. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The offensiveness aside, seeing as I rarely edit the article anyways, I don't see why this would matter. And feel free to check "today's' (yesterday's) edits to the article. In fact, I'll give you the diff of the only edit i made that day: diff. It was a revert. Someone had moved a sentence to put it in chronological order like the rest of the intro. I prefer chronological order because i think order can be non-neutral and chronological order is one way to protect against that. They also added the sentence "The panel identified a number of basic science research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field." Which is true and pertinent and neutral and from the same report. One might argue that it's not as significant as the rest of the material in the intro. But in any case the guy wrote in his summary that he was putting it in chrono order and quoting the report more fully. Then some guy reverted it, saying that the edit summary was false. Now the edit summary was clearly accurate, and so that guy's edit summary was, ironically, false. Now if an edit summary being described as false when it's not actually false is reason enough to revert, and Guy certainly doesn't seems to have a problem with it, then reverting an edit summary that actually IS inaccurate AND puts material out of order is clearly acceptable -- by Guy's standards, at least.

Also, Guy seems to be suggesting that preferring something to be in chronological order and edit summaries to be accurate is disruptive and makes you a cold fusion supporter. And furthermore that being a supporter of cold fusion is grounds for banning. In the many encounters I've had with Guy on wikipedia, I've come to expect these sorts of arguments. I hope i'm not unintentionally building a straw man here. It's just that when i dissect the logic, that's how the argument reads to me. i don't see anything else there. I make one small edit for writting style, and all of the sudden i'm branded as a radical POV-pusher who should be banned for being so disruptive. I find that a little hard to fathom. Kevin Baas^talk 20:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Durga's Trident

3) Durga's Trident (talk · contribs) is an admitted alternate account.[5] Would the Committee please either 1/ grant explicit permission for this account to participate here with a clear rationale, or 2/ enforce WP:GHBH or WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY against it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

We should not allow use of an alternate account within dispute resolution. This gives the hidden party an advantage versus the parties that reveal their full histories. Jehochman ^Talk 16:40, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Considering the long track record of bullying and harassment by ScienceAplogist of other admins and editors that dare to cross him I think it is acceptable that a scared editor uses a sock puppet in this case.MaxPont (talk) 10:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Issue is now moot, Durga's Trident has been blocked by an arbiter--Tznkai (talk) 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering the long track record of bullying and harassment against ScienceApologist by various editors, I think it is unacceptable that a cowardly editor uses a sock puppet in this case. It's a good thing that brave admins have acted justly in this case. -- Fyslee / talk 03:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Why does Davkal spring to mind and the cavalcade of supporters who upheld his harrassment...none of them would now be daring to accuse SA of "harrassment" while being silent on Davkal? Tends to undermine their credibility. Shot info (talk) 08:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser needed

4) It looks like somebody is socking around: 69.228.201.246 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Check the IP's contributions. They have appeared at Talk:Cold fusion arguing to restore an irrelevant screed, and then edited {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}. I believe this is a familiar editor avoiding scrutiny. Jehochman ^Talk 14:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed final decision

Proposals by Kirill Lokshin

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^(prof) 21:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Agreed, as obvious, but this statement should not be considered a reference to this case, which would slant the case, but should be considered a reiteration of policy as a base line and reminder.(olive (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

Comment by others:

Conduct of Wikipedia editors

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^(prof) 21:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedia editorial process

3) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary – and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. Kirill ^(prof) 21:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Per my comments on a couple of arb talk pages, I'd like exceptions sentence reincluded. Will strike this comment prior to going to PD stage if there's a good reason to avoid them. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Template

4) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {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:

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:

Proposals by User:Jehochman

Proposed principles

Don't moon the jury

1) Parties should be on their best behavior while adding evidence or making comments on workshop and talk pages. Comments made by the parties during the Arbitration case may be taken into account by the Committee in setting any remedies, and continued evidence of disruptive behavior is often seen as evidence that milder remedies (warnings or probation) will not have the desired effect, leading to topical or general bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No, don't specify this - it's better left unsaid. Most people already instinctively grasp this principle as an extension of rudimentary common sense and tact. Editors who lack the basic level of self-awareness described in this principle are probably better identified as rapidly as possible. I'm 99% serious. MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but you do see what I am getting at. This case is not going well for one particular editor. They are really hurting themselves. Jehochman ^Talk 03:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

One particular editor? It looks like a frickin' moon-off to me. :) MastCell ^Talk 19:20, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Would recommend that we stay focused here and perhaps discuss what brought us here - which is should COI conflicted SPA's be allowed to created walled gardens? Shot info (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Cold fusion is covered by WP:FRINGE

1) For the purpose of applying Wikipedia policies, Cold fusion is a notable fringe theory.

Comment by Arbitrators:

This is per se a content ruling (even if not a particularly controversial one). Kirill ^(prof) 05:12, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I think this should not be controversial. Jehochman ^Talk 22:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

In order to apply policy, we need to classify the thing and say which policies apply. Decisions cannot be completely divorced from content. Saying what policies may be applied is different from saying what content goes in the article, which of course would be wrong. I have changed the wording in italics for clarity. Jehochman ^Talk 16:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment. While notable is a policy, WP:Fringe is only a guideline. Initially, WP:Fringe was only a guideline to say whether an article should exist on a given topic. It explicitly stated that "[This] guidelines do not speak to the content of the articles, which are still completely subject to WP:NPOV and other policies." Over time, and with ScienceApologist's extensive influence, it started to discuss how to present content, in the same line as his ill-conceived WP:MAINSTREAM guideline. However, WP:NPOV is very clear : "The principles upon which the [core] policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.". As a consequence, I hold the position that WP:Fringe is not relevant here, but WP:NPOV is. While I understand that cold fusion should not be given undue weight in the nuclear fusion article, I hold the view that the cold fusion article should be informative to our readers and present the scientific controversy as it is documented in reliable sources. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Doh... guidelines explain how to interpret policies on specific issues... Cold fusion can perfectly fall under WP:FRINGE without stopping to be under WP:NPOV. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Pcarbonn has engaged in advocacy

2) Pcarbonn has violated Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not by editing edited the article cold fusion for the purpose of advocacy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I think the evidence bears this out. Jehochman ^Talk 22:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. WP:ISNOT says that Wikipedia should not contain advocacy content, but can report objectively about such advocacy. I have stayed within that principle, and always sticked to reliable sources. WP:ISNOT does NOT say anything about whether users can be advocates or not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcarbonn (talk • contribs)

Show me even a single diff where you have written for the enemy. If your goal is to provide complete and accurate coverage of the topic, you would be covering all points of view, not just the one you favor. Jehochman ^Talk 17:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been writing for the enemy many times. (some examples: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]) When I have erred in my advocacy, I have always accepted feedback. However, I have always strongly resisted the extreme opinion supposedly supported by "the mainstream", but not by the reliable sources. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I see some gnome-like helpful edits. In their midst, I see this removal of a scientific explanation for the observation of so called excess heat in cold fusion experiments. Can you explain why you removed that chunk of sourced content? Jehochman ^Talk 14:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The content I removed in that diff was the result of Shkedi's push during mediation, a clear case of WP:COI that I did not raise at that time. It gave undue weight to one of the many criticisms of Fleischmann & Pons, a weight that is not supported by secondary sources. Still, because it is valuable content, I did add this text back when I created this subpage, (and that was unrequested by the way), and that subpage is still accessible from the current version of our article. I have thus no desire to remove it. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you be more collaborative and less adversarial in your dealings with other editors? I recognize you have edited in a very narrow area, one which is subject to much more adversarial action than normal. Diversifying your editing would probably help you gain perspective. If you have strong feelings about a topic, you need to recognize that and make extra efforts to adhere to WP:NPOV. I will be more impressed if you are able to critique your behavior than if you defend it as completely perfect. Self-criticism is a path towards improvement. None of us are perfect, eh. Jehochman ^Talk 16:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised by your comment. I have responded to your questions, and I don't see how I have been adversarial to you. I welcome your feedback on what I should do differently. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

(continued, following changes) : I have tried to make the cold fusion article comply with WP:reliable and WP:NPOV. Nobody is perfect, and I may have erred some times. However, I have resisted those who violated these guidelines, such as ScienceApologist, in their defense of the view of "most scientists". So I have edited Wikipedia for making it better, as any editor should. It so happens that I hold a favorable opinion of cold fusion, and that I wish others to be better informed of the ongoing controversy : that goal is the same as Wikipedia's goal. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment This might be more likely to fly if you removed the "violated WP:NOT" part and left it as a straightforward finding of fact about Pcarbonn's edits. Leave it to the arbitrators to decide what violates what. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Clearly true, and by his own admission. It is perfectly possible that this is a misunderstanding by Pcarbonn of the purpose and policies of Wikipedia, but that does not change the facts as presented in evidence. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this has been well established. Pcarbonn clearly believes he is doing the “right” thing in this advocacy of cold fusion and is not in the least apologetic for for edits (and certainly not for his views). It is wholly unrealistic to believe that a temporary ban of even six months will cause him to change his ways. The bottom line is he is a single-purpose account dedicated to promoting a fringe-science discipline through his edits on Wikipedia. I think a precedence should be set here that there will be simple and decisive remedies to deal with this chronic problem. Many of our fringe-science articles (such as Homeopathy have {neutrality} tags due to rampant and unrepentant advocacy. This is sad state of affairs that should be quickly fixed, starting with Cold Fusion. Greg L (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

2) ScienceApologist, while upholding Wikipedia's goals on many occasions, has also engaged in problematic behaviors, including such as violations of decorum, personal attacks, disruption and or gaming the rules.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I think the evidence bears this out also. Jehochman ^Talk 22:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not sure about gaming, but certainly SA shows many signs of burnout. We must find a better way of supporting those who patrol articles for fringe and pseudoscience advocacy. Guy (Help!) 20:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

My proposed remedy below would aim to do that. I am now going to add a specific remedy for ScienceApologist. Jehochman ^Talk 21:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Guy on SA burnout, I also agree with jehochman's evaluation of SA's overall behavior (including gaming of the system for his own pov benifit). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There are more evidence presented on Nov 29th[15] that makes the assertion that ScienceApologist is "upholding Wikipedia's goal" false.MaxPont (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Guy: “SA shows many signs of burnout. We must find a better way of supporting those who patrol articles for fringe and pseudoscience advocacy.” I would suggest quick, 12-hour blocks for SA when he violates 3RR to serve as a cooling off period. I suspect he feels like he is the front-line defense against improper advocacy of fringe science and sometimes feels like the little Dutch Boy with every finger and toe plugging ten holes in the dike (and another leak has developed between his legs). I don’t see more Draconian remedies as being necessary, warranted, or desirable for the good of Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You could call this[16] problematic, if you wanted to be extremely diplomatic. Dlabtot (talk) 04:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

In my mind, the threat he makes in this edit is somewhat more credible. He seems to be spelling out his game plan. Ronnotel (talk) 04:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• He sure did. And what is that game plan? He promised to use every permissible tool at his disposal to fight the fringe-science proponents and keep Wikipedia presenting only a mainstream view of the facts. I see no problem here. That he had to get so frustrated that he nearly quit Wikipedia speaks volumes to the shortcomings in our ability to deal effectively with the unrepentant, pro-fringe editors like Pcarbonn. Greg L (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is that his editing style turned many articles into battlezones, and he scared off nearly all the good editors from those articles, leaving him fighting alone against the tendentious editors. This dynamic is very bad for the encyclopedia and must be changed somehow. It takes two to battle. It is better to withdraw leaving an article in the wrong version, and use established processes to politely resolve such disputes. Jehochman ^Talk 05:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• These are the problems. Even though ScienceApologist nominally defends the official and stated goals of Wikipedia he makes an extreme interpretation of our policies and guidelines. He acts as a zealot and he does NOT have the support from WP policies and guidelines in his actions. His breach of every behaviour rule there is would have banned any other editor a long time ago. I am appalled by the fact that there are other editors (and administrators) who are still willing to whitewash and excuse his behaviour. My questions to these editors are: Do you really view Wikipedia editing as an all out war fought with no holds barred? Do you really condone massive breach of every WP rule imagined as long as it is done by editors that share your own POV?MaxPont (talk) 06:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The actual problem with articles that are battlezones is that they are long term walled gardens created by SPAs long before SA chances on them. And why are they walled gardens? They develop because civil POV pushers (sometimes singular, sometimes in groups, but all SPAs and most with COIs) actually make life difficult for normal editors (ie/ people with no beef for a prolonged argument - ie/ most of us, although that probably disqualifies those who post here <irony), so they find other places to edit leaving behind only the (future) battleground which editors like SA (he isn't the only one) to stumble across. And we all know what happens next. The answer is not santioning SA - it's stopping the creation of the walled garden in the first place. If that cannot be avoided, then bringing down the walls (cue Pink Floyd album) is the answer. And we as an encyclopedia need to ensure that those walls are torn down - dispite the wailing and gnashing of those who see their pet project(s) under threat (including those who defend the walls of others such that their own walls remain). Admins need to provide support for those editors doing editing which is something they are failing to do as here we are because if the civil pov pushers where stopped, we all wouldn't be here. Shot info (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

So your answer to the question Do you really condone massive breach of every WP rule imagined as long as it is done by editors that share your own POV? seems to be Yes. Or did I misinterpret you? Is your answer No? Dlabtot (talk) 04:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to imagine whatever answer you wish to have to your own questions. Perhaps you should let us know if you have stopped beating your wife?. Mind you, thanks for supplying an example of what SA has to deal with - a discussion point answered with a false dilemma. Typical really... Shot info (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The closest I've come to dealing with this is a long, nearly unendurably painful stint at What the Bleep Do We Know!?. Many of the editors there talked about WP:NPOV, but their goal was much the same as Pcarbonn's is with cold fusion: making sure that the hogwash presented in the movie was presented in the most positive possible light that they could manage. People were arguing that people with Engineering Science degrees could be called "Research Physicists" because they had padded their resume once at a conference, and that the Institute of Noetic Sciences could be viewed as a reliable source on quantum mechanics. It took constantly watching and working on that article to keep it from getting turned into a PR piece, and was home to some of the nastiest edit-warring I've dealt with. When it finally went protected, I got people to compromise and use the edit-protected macro to beat the last final details out, and was thrilled to see it stay full-protected for six months. It was emotionally draining, and had less stimulating conversation than talking to brick walls: at least brick walls don't whine. I came to the conclusion that we need to escalate WP:Competence is required to policy status, and make it explicit that believing in homeopathy, EVP, acupuncture, or cold fusion renders you incompetent. Those articles could be pleasant things to work on, but they attract editors that believe in them, which means that attract people with good motives, but poor judgment and limited critical reasoning skills. They also attract people that profit from positive presentations of the material, who may well have good enough reasoning skills to know that the material they are placing in the article is false, but strong motive to conceal that fact. Neither class of editor is good to work with.

Dlabtot presents a false dilemma. It isn't a case of justifying throwing out the rules because you agree with someone. It's a case of recognizing that our rules are designed to work with people that are competent to edit the articles they are working on. Throwing out the rules is not the answer, but throwing out the editors probably is.—Kww(talk) 05:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree that editors who are not competent to edit the articles they are working on, shouldn't be editing Wikipedia, but of course, since the Wikipedia editing model is based on consensus, the most important skill an editor can have, to be considered competent, it the ability to work towards consensus. Dlabtot (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Suffering fools gladly" is an important skill, and one that I agree that SA is deficient in. It always helps to see a clear path towards being rid of the fools, and that's the most important thing we lack. Being in the position of knowing that there's absolutely nothing one can do, that no matter how hard you work on things, Hans Adler, Tom Butler, and Levine2112 are always going to be there certainly adds to the stress. Why not a compromise: ban Adler, Butler, ImperfectlyInformed and Levine2112 for life, and block SA for 90 days or so.—Kww(talk) 13:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It is much easier to ban tendentious editors if they are dealt with politely. The main defense they use to avoid being banned is that they are being abusing by zealots. Take away that excuse, and they have no defense. Jehochman ^Talk 14:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia suffers from a surfeit of overly passionate editing. This is an encyclopedia, not a debate society. If I were the God of Wikipedia, it would be very, very much easier for edit warriors and such to be permanently banned - no matter what side of their particular dispute they happened to be on. Those who don't believe in the consensus model of collaborative editing, and our other core policies, shouldn't be editing here. No one is indispensable, and Wikipedia would be much better off without all of them. Dlabtot (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(this refers back to kww's earlier comments): What the Bleep Do We Know was the first and last Wikipedia article I worked on, and I agree with just about everything kww says about the experience. That was where I first met many of the advocates of fringe theories that I have encountered again and again when watching other articles that attract fringe advocates, as well as on policy pages. One thing they seem to have in common is a mistaken idea of core policies. Rather than understanding that the article should reflect the best knowledge in the field, as represented by reliable third party sources, they seem to believe that NPOV means that all points of view should be weighted equally, and that all sources count equally, and that something nice about one "side" balanced by something nice about the other "side," and something bad about one "side" balanced by something bad about the other "side" constitutes NPOV. They claimed that was their honest understanding of what NPOV means, but the fact that they later converged on the NPOV policy page to try to change policy to fit their idea of what they wanted it to be, suggests that they knew all along that they were editing against policy. I found it very difficult to work with these people, although as far as I know I was never uncivil. Even though the discussions went around and around and around the same circles, as the same editors kept insisting on advancing the same arguments against consensus, no administrators during the time I was there ever said boo about all this tendentious editing to advance an agenda. That experience soured me so much on editing Wikipedia that I decided that I wouldn't edit any more until/unless I saw some commitment on the part of the community to actively deal with fringe advocates.

I also met Science Apologist, working on that article. I can't say I enjoyed working with him; I found him abrasive and sometimes unreasonable. But at all times it was evident that his objective was to improve and maintain the quality of the encyclopedia, and that his edits in the main did serve that goal. At any rate, it wasn't Science Apologist who created the problems with that article. I think SA has been burning out for quite a long time, as others have said here. I didn't know him before, so I can't judge whether he is collateral damage of the real problem or whether he constitutes a separate problem, but either way, he is not the crucial problem with these kinds of articles, and getting rid of him will not fix the problem that threatens the encyclopedia; in fact I suspect it will further compromise the quality of the content. I appreciate Jehochman's promise that once SA is gone, something will be done about the POV pushers. I've been watching the encyclopedia closely for nearly a year and in that time I've seen a lot of unfulfilled promises along those lines, so I have to say, I'll believe it if and when it actually happens.Woonpton (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, multiple accounts

3) ScienceApologist has edited while logged out, including reverts made in the midst of editing conflicts with other editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. The evidence for this is at this page version. Jehochman ^Talk 21:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with Noren below. Arbitration is not restricted to look at a single issue. An editor's contributions can be considered in total when considering what sort of remedies may be appropriate. Jehochman ^Talk 15:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

This appears completely unrelated to the case at hand. None of the edits made by the ISPs that you cite were made to the Cold fusion page, which is the topic of this arbitration. Dragging unrelated baggage into this discussion of the Cold fusion page is not productive. There are (and have been) plenty of other places to discuss SA, there's no need to try to turn this into yet another of those. --Noren (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious to which how the evidence provided matches the accusation. There seems to be a lot of "unlikely"s in the diff provided. Shot info (talk) 07:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that the latest CheckUser may provide evidence of meatpuppets. seicer | talk | contribs 15:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I gather the "Unlikely" finding means nothing? Shot info (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

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.

Discretionary sanctions: fringe theories

1) Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to fringe theories, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.

Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision by an uninvolved administrator; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.

In determining whether to impose sanctions on a given user and which sanctions to impose, administrators should use their judgment and balance the need to assume good faith and avoid biting genuinely inexperienced editors, and the desire to allow responsible contributors maximum freedom to edit, with the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground, so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles. Editors wishing to edit in these areas are advised to edit carefully, to adopt Wikipedia's communal approaches (including appropriate conduct, dispute resolution, neutral point of view, no original research and verifiability) in their editing, and to amend behaviors that are deemed to be of concern by administrators. An editor unable or unwilling to do so may wish to restrict their editing to other topics, in order to avoid sanctions.

Appeals

Sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement), or the Committee. Administrators are cautioned not to reverse such sanctions without familiarizing themselves with the full facts of the matter and engaging in extensive discussion and consensus-building at the administrators' noticeboard or another suitable on-wiki venue. The Committee will consider appropriate remedies including suspension or revocation of adminship in the event of violations.

Uninvolved administrators

For the purpose of imposing sanctions under this provision, an administrator will be considered "uninvolved" if he or she is not engaged in a current, direct, personal conflict on the topic with the user receiving sanctions. Enforcing the provisions of this decision will not be considered to be participation in a dispute. Any doubt regarding whether an administrator qualifies under this definition is to be treated as any other appeal of sanctions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is big, but we have seen problems over and over and over again in the fringe theory articles. I believe this would resolve the matter with cold fusion and all similarly positioned articles. This remedy was not my own brilliant work. I have copied it from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. Jehochman ^Talk 21:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully this remedy will save good faith editors in these areas from getting burned out. Jehochman ^Talk 21:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Upon reflection, I am retracting this proposal. It seems like we can solve problems through existing policies. Jehochman ^Talk 16:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I do not think that giving special admin powers is a good for Wikipedia in general. Instead it should be made clear that POV-pushing is not acceptable, even when done politely. Admins can then block the offending editor as for other kinds of disruptive editing. A special admin power with unique rules for application and appeal would only be used in high-profile cases. It is better to empower the ordinary editors who fight daily to keep articles about fringe theories neutral by giving them backup in policy and ArbCom precedent. --Apoc2400 (talk) 01:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, but... in an ideal world, I'd like to see some formal notation of the fact that this project's goal is to create a serious, respected reference work. I appreciate egalitarianism and civility as much as the next person, but those are means to an end, not an end in themselves. If this project is to be taken seriously, then its coverage of fringe issues needs to mirror that seen in serious, respected reference works. Editing which moves us closer to that goal benefits the encyclopedia, whereas editing that moves us away from that goal is just as harmful as vandalism or cussing (if not more so). This is not a license to be uncivil or to edit-war, but I think that admins enforcing such a sanction need to start with the idea that we're trying to create a serious reference work, rather than trying to create a Utopian online community. But now I'm the one on a soapbox... MastCell ^Talk 18:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

2) For a period of three months ScienceApologist is restricted from making accusations, complaints, or derogatory comments about other editors' behavior on article talk pages, those editors' own talk pages, or Wikipedia noticeboards. Should ScienceApologist feel the need to comment on another editor's behavior, they may contact any administrator via email or use the administrator's talk to express concerns. ScienceApologist is additionally restricted to using one and only one account to edit. They should exercise great care not to edit while logged out.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. SA is too prone to losing his cool. The purpose of this restriction is to prevent disruption caused by incivility, assumptions of bad faith, forum shopping or gaming the rules that tends to occur when SA engages in policing activities. Good intentions do not excuse poor judgment. Jehochman ^Talk 21:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I am striking this proposal in light of the Committee's decision to suspend enforcement of Giano's civility probation. Hopefully all such remedies will be lifted, because they invariably have failed to achieve good results. Seeing how ScienceApologist has been subject to such a restriction, which seems to have made things worse rather than better, I feel that we need to give him a fresh start. Jehochman ^Talk 16:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I have never understood the logic behind the idea that the remedy for an editor who shows a pattern of consistently violating a particular policy is simply to admonish the editor to follow the policy in the future. The lack of efficacy of this approach is amply illustrated in this particular instance. To take it further and declare that repeated, unrepentant violations of policy and ArbCom restrictions are a reason for a 'fresh start' stretches the argument beyond the breaking point. Dlabtot (talk) 17:12, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with Dlabtot and have little to add. I think a precedence should be set here that there will be simple and decisive remedies to deal with this chronic problem. Many of our fringe-science articles (such as Homeopathy have {neutrality} tags due to rampant and unrepentant advocacy. This is sad state of affairs that should be quickly fixed, starting with Cold Fusion. Greg L (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Greg L (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I too agree. The situation that causes a need to use so much time in fighting fringe fires needs to be dealt with effectively. We need more firemen with better tools to put out the fires. It isn't right that so few editors have to do all the work, and SA has been burned out for a long time, with some pretty negative consequences for himself and the project. His excesses have also given the advocates of fringe theories and nonsense ample opportunity to complain and count this as a victory for their cause. His excesses have also paralyzed those who would like to aid him in his just defense of keeping this a serious encyclopedia, but who could not do so for fear of encouraging both him and his foes. Something needs to be done about the root problem here. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Poor responses to problematic editing have spoiled the atmosphere to such an extent that other editors have been driven off. Poor editing followed by poor responses becomes an evil circle. We see the problem, but what to do about it? Do we really have to ban SA from the entire area of conflict? Is there any lesser sanction that would work? Jehochman ^Talk 06:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Is there some lesser sanction that has not already been tried? In the spirit of constructive criticism, perhaps the term remedy would be more appropriate here. (OT - I find it ironic that I pretty much agree with him about everything, content-wise, but find his discourse to be so completely counter productive that the content becomes obscured.) If there is an approach that has not been tried that might be helpful towards correcting the problematic behavior, that would seem to be a good place to start. SA has no shortage of advocates - please weigh in. Dlabtot (talk) 06:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist civility

3) ScienceApologist is reminded to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I believe SA has been subject to an unfair restriction that has made them a target, and increased the amount of abuse targeted at them. However, such a situation does not excuse SA's own behavior. They need to be reminded to behave well. The same standards that apply to everyone else also apply to them, and they may be sanctioned under policy for any violations. Jehochman ^Talk 16:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The major problem here is our continued inability to come up with a credible mechanism for supporting those who work at the coal face against determined POV-pushing. SA is not the first to be sanctioned for upholding policy on content while failing to abide by behavioural guidelines. Without SA, many articles would rapidly descend into fringe advocacy, and his numerous opponents have acted as a tag-team in burning him out in place after place. It is a testament to his dedication to the project that he has not simply washed his hands of it. He does not need this crap, and we do not need the POV-pushers. So we really do need some proper way of getting rid of the civil POV-pushers, or at least reining them in; most of them are like Pcarbonn in that if they don't get the answer they want, they keep asking until everyone else loses interest or dies of old age, and then they get their way - or they continually redraw a new "consensus" between the current content and where they want to go, a kind of ratchet effect. They care about advancing their POV vastly more than most people care about maintaining neutrality, and on the rare occasions when decisive aciton is taken they are now extremely adept at gaming the system. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Guy, you make a valid point. The polite advocacy of fringe views, and the polite use of personal attacks are two problems that seem to be enabled by a minority of our admin corps who treat Wikipedia as if it were a social networking site. It is not. Editors who promote good content need to be supported, while editors who promote bad content need to be discouraged. Jehochman ^Talk 00:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Support : I'm not gaming the system, but defending the core policy of WP:NPOV against SA, his friends and his ill-conceived WP:Mainstream policy. SA is gaming the system by proposing guidelines contrary to our core policies, and misleading other users to follow him. The ArbComm should defend the core policies defined by the community, and not be mislead by the WP:Mainstream minority view, even if several editors seem to like it here. ArbComm is the keeper of the rules, not a pet court following the opinion of a few vocal editors here. Besides, there is plenty of evidence of SA's unseemly conduct, whatever his motives. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

• Overtaken by events, therefore striking. Jehochman ^Talk 05:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The restriction that SA was placed under by the previous ArbCom ruling was to refrain from be[ing] uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. Since those are all behaviors that already are prohibited by Wikipedia policy for ALL editors, I don't see in what way this was 'unfair', nor do I see how being admonished to follow the same policy and behavior guidelines as every other editor made him into a 'target'. As I said in my prior comments on this page which you have now deleted, I would suggest simply applying policy evenly to all editors. Redundant warnings and second chances ad infinitum don't seem likely to achieve the desired result. I believe it was Einstein who defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Dlabtot (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Editing to advance a particular POV, whether done politely or rudely, is clearly disruptive and contrary to Wikipedia's core policies. The unwillingness of administrators and the Arbitration Committee to deal decisively with such disruptions is a major problem with an obvious solution. Dlabtot (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. We don't need more sanctions or policies. We just need to enforce the ones we already have. It is so easy to block people for vandalism, but to place a disruptive editing block, one needs to do a lot of research and compile detailed evidence. There are relatively few admins willing to do that work. I've been trying to train and encourage more. Jehochman ^Talk 00:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

This discussion took place before new evidence was presented on Dec 1st[17]. These new evidence make most of the arguments above invalid.MaxPont (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist banned

n) ScienceApologist is banned from Wikipedia for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Due to recent events,[18] I believe this is strictly necessary. Too many chances have been given, and the behavior has only gotten worse over time. Those who have hounded SA should not gloat over this proposal, because after he is removed, our attentions will focus on any editors who continue damaging the quality of these articles. Jehochman ^Talk 05:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Lets face it Jehochman, the only reason why he battles is that he isn't getting the support from admins when he is continuously baited...over and over and over again. How long did the baiting go on with Davkal before he was finally blocked? Yet SA was rapped on the knuckles time and time again for rising to his particular baiting. Then there was the meatpuppets who kept enabling Davkal with posting for him after he was blocked. So where is the admin defense against that. In fact we see MaxPont doing the same for Davkal in the evidence page in this ArbCom. Jeeze, no wonder SA snaps. What you propose is glee for the civil POV pushers, only as they have gotten rid of a succession of editors and now it's SA's turn. Anybody would think that admins would actually wake up to this tactic...but no, here we are... Shot info (talk) 06:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I do everything I can to stop POV pushing on Wikipedia. I've also done whatever I could to help SA: provided encouragement, recruited mentors, asked him to stop battling. He's repaid not cooperated with me very poorly at all. Do you have any idea how much time I've spent trying to control these disruptions, or how many featured articles I could have written in that time? When I suggested the WP:AN thread to topic ban Pcarbonn, it was sailing smoothly towards a ban until SA got involved and turned the thread into a battlezone. All the uninvolved editors walked away in disgust, or turned against the ban. So I've had to waste a ton of time bringing this arbitration case. That's a typical result. As soon as SA is banned, my work policing these articles will be much more effective, and many more editors will get involved. Nobody likes to work in a battlezone. It takes two to have a fight. Editors who've been battling will face strong consequences if they engage in any further baiting, POV pushing or disruption. If you want to help, try WP:RFA. Jehochman ^Talk 13:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC) and 04:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Jehochman, this shouldn't be about you and any debt owed to you. Shot info (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not about me at all. I am explaining the dynamic and the reason for my opinion. First hand knowledge can be relevant. Jehochman ^Talk 04:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

So after Science Apologist is banned, then you're saying someone will actually start doing something about the people who have relentlessly compromised the quality of the encyclopedia and relentlessly hounded Science Apologist til he threatened to put fluoride in Max Pont's drinking water? All along they've been given everything they want, and now you're handing them SA's head on a platter as a special bonus prize; after all that, now you think you're going to try to bring them to heel? How exactly are you going to do that, after they've been enabled and empowered for all this time? The time to deal with the fringe element was back a ways; once you've let them drive away the content editors who have tried to improve and maintain the quality of the content, the game is over, the encyclopedia is lost. I don't see other content editors coming in to fill the void. In fact I have seen a steady erosion in the pool of active content editors in areas that attract fringe advocates, along with a steady parade of people like myself who have come, looked at the situation, said "no thanks, I don't need the aggravation." I haven't seen anyone willing to step in and take SA's place.Woonpton (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that the task SA has taken upon himself, namely to defend all Wikipedia articles from pseudoscience, is not something a single person can hope sustain for long. Continuously editing in an adversarial environment appears to lead to severe emotional burnout for some. SA gets into a hyper-vigilant state in which he attacks anyone disagreeing with him. He attacked me on the AN thread that Jehochman mentioned. Unfortunatelly, SA now professes [19] to use exactly the tactics I found deplorable in that thread. He sometimes paints his opponents with a broad brush. For instance, User:Hans_Adler had to defend himself on the talk page of a new editor here. Frankly, SA should not be allowed to enter so many frays for his own good. I suggest that the committee pass a remedy that would allow SA to be temporarily banned from some or all pseudoscience articles as the need arises. Since arbitration enforcement has been gamed in the past, I suggest that these topic bans be imposed only with committee's explicit approval. Pcap ping 15:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

For reference, link to AN thread --Enric Naval (talk) 16:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll add this diff to the diff given above in support of a ban. Science Apologist accused me of using a protection racket, a method of extorting money, in connection with Profg and then ignored my reply, rather than retracting his libel. I have never taken money, profited in any way, or anything remotely resembling what he is suggesting in connection with my Wikipedia editing. It is gravely offensive that he would suggest such a thing. --B (talk) 21:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support this proposed ban. This edit is completely unacceptable conduct for any editor under any circumstances whatsoever, and is not excused by claims that the threat was made "in jest". Permanently banning ScienceApologist is the most effective means by which to prevent him from issuing any further threats. John254 21:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I oppose this ban. The obvious solution of blocking the hordes of editors that create trouble in the pro-bunkum direction has not been tried, and is a more positive solution for Wikipedia than banning SA. Start with a firm and clear notice that promoting crap in an encyclopedia will lead to being blocked, and the intensity of this battle and the frustration level of the participants will drop to a point that the problem is manageable. Was his joke in good taste? No. Acceptable? No. But watching a guy be assaulted for years and doing nothing to disarm his assailants makes us all responsible for the result.—Kww(talk) 21:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Any administrator uninvolved in content disputes with the relevant editors or concerning the relevant subject matter is welcome to "[block] the hordes of editors that create trouble in the pro-bunkum direction" for WP:NPOV, WP:V, or WP:NOR violations, provided that there is a consensus among uninvolved editors for this action. Of course, if the community does not support such blocks, we really cannot establish that the accused editors are actually "[creating] trouble in the pro-bunkum direction", except by findings of the Arbitration Committee as to individual editors. In no way, however, could any perceived inadequacy of policy enforcement possibly excuse a comment such as this. John254 21:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Catch-22 you pointed out should be obvious. An admin can block for behaviour pretty much unilaterally, and as long as the block has any foundation, it's unlikely to be reversed. Even if it is reversed, the block stays on the editor's log forever (SA's block log would look a lot different if every reversed block was erased). To understand that an editor is repetitively inserting bunkum into an article requires involvement with the content, after which it becomes difficult for the admin to use blocks to protect the article.—Kww(talk) 22:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"To understand that an editor is repetitively inserting bunkum into an article" does require some familiarity with the subject matter of an article, but does not require any editorial involvement, and should not require expert credentials. Wikipedia's model of an encyclopedia written largely by amateur editors necessitates our reliance upon reliable sources to determine article content, giving space to the description of competing views in accordance with their prevalence in such sources. To claim that uninvolved administrators cannot determine whether an editor is misrepresenting sources, using unreliable sources, making claims on the basis of novel interpretations of sources, or giving weight to views far beyond the extent to which they are represented in reliable sources is essentially to claim that Wikipedia's editorial model is inherently broken. Even if our editorial model were broken, we should fix it, rather than giving editors a free license to exchange threats and counter-threats, which would only make the situation much worse, as discussions would devolve into the sort of nastiness and trolling seen on Encyclopedia Dramatica. John254 22:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose ban. SA's threat to put fluoride in the water to poison somebody is about as frightening as User:Bishzilla threatening to eat people. Requesting a ban over that so-called threat is just silly. See the word "seriously" in there? That, John and others, is the signal that hyperbole and sarcasm ends, and the real message begins (namely "get the fuck off my talkpage": a richly deserved f-word from a baited editor). Bishonen | talk 23:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC).

Well, that may be, but there's still a difference. Nobody sane seriously believes that SA is actually devising a murder plot. But that doesn't make it ok. I really think that Wikipedia needs to find some alternative for dealing with bad behavior from productive editors other than just ignoring it. He falsely accused me of extortion and frankly, ignoring the problem isn't the solution. --B (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that's why the word "seriously" is there. But if "I'm going to kill Levine2112 by breaking his back with vertebral subluxation unrelated to chiropractic" wasn't expected to have any intimidating effect at all, we would have to imagine that ScienceApologist has never heard criminals on TV make veiled threats like "We wouldn't want any accidents to happen to you, would we?" Art LaPella (talk) 23:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Huh? Sarcastic mock frankness ("I'm going to kill X") is the opposite of a veiled threat ("We wouldn't want any accidents to happen to X"). They don't bear the slightest resemblance. So, no, you don't have to imagine anything outlandish. Bishonen | talk 01:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC).

My point was, "I'm going to kill X (just kidding)" doesn't sound nearly so opposite to me. Art LaPella (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

In a post-9/11 world, mock threats are not acceptable. Those of us living in or close to New York City are especially mindful of this. Say something like that at an airport, or in the lobby of a NYC office tower, and you'll get arrested. It is also a personal attack to use mock threats to suggest that the fringe advocates are killing people. See hyperbole. Sure, they are damaging Wikipedia, but the over-reaction is also damaging Wikipedia. Both need to stop. Jehochman ^Talk 17:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Replying to John254: I'm not saying that SA's behaviour is acceptable, but that a ban is an overreaction to what seems to be a joke in poor taste.—Kww(talk) 00:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I, too, support the ban. I could care less if he was baited or not, but the circumstances leading up to the recent incident did not warrant this. Had it been any other editor, I would have blocked the user indefinitely. Posting items that (are) more relevant on a SSP page is partially baiting, partially a mistake, but in no way did it deserve the comments that SA made in return. This is also unacceptable. I could cite nearly 100 other diffs in support of the gross incivility and threats, but that's already been beaten with a stick one too many times. I am reminded of this quote:

"I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind." (Quote from Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:51 5 February 2008)

seicer | talk | contribs 00:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear that the SSP found that it was not SA:Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ScienceApologist (4th).—Kww(talk) 00:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed my comment as it is now in error. I didn't check the SSP page since earlier today at work. seicer | talk | contribs 01:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

an odd conclusion to the SSP case: " The Cingular IPs are user:DepartedUser by self-admission, who is in good standing. Anonymous editing is not verboten, - while anonymous editing is not verboten, disruption is, and many of those edits were clearly disruptive. However, disruption by user:DepartedUser is not really germane to this case. Dlabtot (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(Note: I changed the quote citation above so that it is clear that Jimbo did not edit this page or endorse any particular action in this case.) --B (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(Uninvolved Editor) I think that quote from Jimbo Wales is very relevant to this argument. No one can deny that SA's purpose of keeping the fringe POV pushers from taking over articles to make them seem more important then they are is a very serious task. Yet, the way he goes about that mission leaves very little to be desired. In any other circumstance, if an editor acted the way SA did, they would have either been blocked or banned for some time. Yet, the main problem here is that a good portion of editors (including admins) agreed with SA in his battle against the fringe POV pushers and looked the other way in regards to his conduct. This then enabled SA to continue on disregarding just about every dispute resolution process out there. Heck, he has said in his opening remarks to this arbcom case that he thinks very little of arbcom and has not once presented evidence in his defense or against Pcarbon. I would not be at all surprised if he simply disregardfs whatever ruling arbcom comes up with and continues on the way he always has. This attitude does become the problem. I have seen many editors who deal with the fringe POV pushers act way better then SA towards these people and while there might be an AN/I case brought up against them by a POV pusher, it won't stick. I think it is about time to face reality that SA has been enabled way to long enough and its about time that he is brought back into the fold and shown the proper way to courteously work against the fringe POV pushers. (Trust me, while it may seem frustrating, there is a way better way to work against the POV pushers and everyone here has been practicing it. Be civil, don't blow your top, and calmly deal with each one courteously and you will not have any problems. If an AN/I case is brought against you by a POV pusher, then you won't have to worry. Look at SA's behavior as the way not to act towards the POV pushers.) I feel a strong block or a strong ban would help bring this home to SA. Then maybe he will edit far better in the future. Brothejr (talk) 11:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a very bad idea. It amounts to treating a symptom (burnout) by killing the patient. Wikipedia is currently extremely bad at resisting long-term, determined civil POV-pushing, and removing one of the people who is at least trying to keep the kooks at bay without first coming up with a better solution is unlikely to have any good result. Guy (Help!) 23:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. Or maybe Wikipedia has currently become better at censoring those POV's than at balancing them. What I'm surer of, is that we can't rationally discuss that balance, while simultaneously supporting the pretense that ScienceApologist is cooperating with the consensus. If ScienceApologist's my-way-or-the-highway is the only solution, then we should give him a royal title and be honest about it. At least that wouldn't set such a bad example for conflicts elsewhere. Art LaPella (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, JzG's argument implicitly permits any misconduct by ScienceApologist, no matter how severe. If this edit does not justify blocking ScienceApologist's account for so much as a single minute, we can probably expect even worse behavior when he returns. Though ScienceApologist boasts that "I wrote a satire piece on my talk page that someone decided was a criminal threat. Now the police have called me... laughing."[20], I don't believe that most editors would regard "If the police won't arrest me for an edit, then my account can't be blocked for it" as an acceptable for user conduct. John254 00:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Guy, Wikipedia's mission is to promote knowledge by providing free information. We can promote knowledge in more ways than one. People can learn by reading articles, and others can learn by writing. It is important to treat the "kooks" nicely because one way to "win" is to help them understand things better. I think SA would get much more help from other editors if their demeanor was not so caustic. We have here an evil circle where burnout causes incivility, incivility scares away non-"kook"y editors, and that causes the burnout to worsen. We need to break this cycle somehow. I propose to restrict SA from editing until he is ready to play nice, and to restrict whatever tendentious editors as we can identify. Hopefully those steps will encourage more productive editors will join the scene. Jehochman ^Talk 21:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

We are now dealing with the situation caused by not restricting whatever tendentious editors as we can identify. Do you seriously think that admins are going to change what they have been failing to do for years? Perhaps if admins engaged in stopping the civil POV pushers instead of handing out the pitchforks...then perhaps we would be in a better encyclopedia. But yet...many words later...here we are. Given how ArbCom has performed with desyopping admins in recent times, I'm not surprised that admins spend their time here helping light the torches enforcing CIV rather then leading the charge enforcing NPOV. Shot info (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree with Shot info here ... this is proposing implementation of the last ditch solution first. Ban the editors that cause the content problem, short term pause (30 days, more or less) for SA. If he can't manage to play nice when the source of the problem is removed, then we can think about banning him. There're too many other editors to get rid of before you get rid of SA.—Kww(talk) 00:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the proposed ban is not in the best interest of the project. The real problem is that battling tenacious POV pushers with the currently available mechanisms is just too hard if not enough editors committed to neutrality enter the fray. I've tried to fight some such battles and eventually given up because I was burning out, thereby relinquishing the article to an egregiously non-neutral POV. SA is to be commended for his continuing defence of the encyclopedic character of articles involving fringe science or pseudoscience. It is regrettable but entirely understandable that in performing this Sisyphean labour of love he every now and then loses his cool.  --Lambiam 04:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Pcarbonn topic ban

n+1) Pcarbonn is banned from editing all pages related to Cold fusion broadly construed for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This mimics Guy's proposal below. I am adding it here for the sake of offering a complete set of proposals. Jehochman ^Talk 14:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I think this is more reasonable than a blanket ban. A topic ban allows him to contribute productively to other portions of the encyclopedia. Perhaps Pcarbonn could eventually earn a chance for his topic ban to be lifted if he presents enough substantiative contributions to re-establish good faith. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with the one year time limit. How about Pcarbonn is banned from editing all pages related to Cold fusion broadly construed for a minimum of one year. After that time, Pcarbonn may apply to have the topic ban lifted. As written, there is no incentive for Pcarbonn to learn to edit properly, and all that will happen is the problem will repeat itself in 365 days.—Kww(talk) 18:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Kww. Pcarbonn is unrepentant and is absolutely convinced that mainstream science is all wrong. Such a mindset is quite unlikely to have an epiphany that the “world was right all along” between now and a year from now. Lifetime is the right thing here. He wouldn’t be banned from the rest of Wikipedia at all; just from Cold fusion for life. Otherwise, we’ll just be leaving him to a new generation of editors to deal with him again one year from now. That’s not right. Greg L (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom does one year sanctions at most. At the end of the year the editor would get a second chance if they have not violated their ban, perhaps even sooner. Jehochman ^Talk 21:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposals by User:JzG

Proposed principles

Representation of sources

1) WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR are core policies. Where a source is discussed it should be discussed, for preference, by reference to correctly attributed discussion in reliable independent secondary sources. Where a primary source is discussed directly, any summary should accurately and completely reflect the summaries within the source itself (e.g. the conclusion of a scientific report, the lead of a journalistic article). To represent a source by synthesis of material from within the article is editorialising and is not acceptable.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Per my evidence section Original research, undue weight, management of same Guy (Help!) 22:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

As I edit articles, I try to write for a "reasonable person" [21], which means I imagine what a typical wikipedia reader will absorb from an article. In the cold fusion case, that means that they should not leave the article with the idea that mainstream scientists have "turned a corner" on accepting the validity of cold fusion. I looked through WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and WP:WEIGHT, but did find any discussion of a "reasonable reader." Perhaps wikipedia guidelines should incorporate that as a guiding principle. Olorinish (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not know what you mean by turned a corner. The mainstream view of this subject is one of extreme scepticism, and it is unlikely that this will change in the absence of some fundamentally new science proposing a credible mechanism by which the supposed effect can happen. Thus far the CF guys seem to have focused on reproducing the experiment, which has been spectacularly unpersuasive. DoE supports the view that without the basic science, they are wasting their time. The article as it stands really does not reflect anything like the current weight of opinion on this. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

2) The lead of an article should reflect the mainstream view of the subject. Minority points of view may be discussed within the body of an article, and the article may indeed document a significant or well-documented fringe or minority view, but the lead must reflect the field as viewed "from the outside".

Comment by Arbitrators:

We don't set policy, certainly not content policy. In any event, the lede exists to give a summary of the article, whatever it contains. Excising certain parts of the article from potential summary in the lede would likely lead to an incomplete summary. --bainer (talk) 13:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose: WP:LEAD says : "The lead should [...] summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." ? By definition, 2 opposite views in a controversy cannot have both the majority, so, one of them is a minority view. It still needs to be presented in the lead if significant. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Guy (Help!) 22:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I support this in principle. Add "science" before "article" above since "mainstream" may not be possible to establish for political topics etc. Replace "from the outside" with "by the most reputable sources and scientific bodies". This is standard practice in articles like intelligent design, where the opinion of NAS is mentioned in the lead. Even if the majority of American citizens (an outside view) decided that ID is true, we shouldn't be changing that article. Another caveat is that a minority view may be necessary to state what the article is about, so I'd say something like "Qualitative judgments in the lead of a science article should reflect the mainstream view of the subject. Minority points of view may be discussed within the body of an article, and the article may indeed document a significant or well-documented fringe or minority view, but the lead must reflect the field as viewed by the most reputable sources and scientific bodies." But is ArbCom the right place to discuss policy changes like this? Pcap ping 07:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is a change at all. I think it is merely a statement of how WP:NPOV should be applied when writing the lead of an article on a fringe topic. We should avoid in-universe leads on all topics, science or otherwise, the job of the lead is to stand back and describe the topic at a high level for the benefit of those who know little or nothing about it, and to set the context for the article. The comment above about intelligent design is well made, this is exactly how we approach that thorny subject, and it's an approach which is entirely in line with the core policy and principles of Wikipedia. In the CF article we have instead strayed into arguing the case for cold fusion, right from the lead. It's a fundamental flaw in the many processes the article has been through, including mediation. The whole article, including the lead, reads as an extended attempt to persuade the reader that the mainstream view is wrong - which it may well be, but even if it is, that is not the job of Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 12:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose this fundamental change to WP:LEAD which right now states the exact opposite: " The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. " Dlabtot (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not a proposal to change anything, it's a proposal to point out that WP:NPOV and WP:NOR require that the lead reflect how the subject is viewed by the mainstream. The context here is that it is an idea currently viewed with scepticism bordering on derision by the scientific community. That context, demanded by WP:LEAD, is not accurately given. Instead, the lead begins the job of arguing the case for a fringe view. That is a violation of policy and core principles, and also of the guidelines on article leads. Guy (Help!) 12:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't really think this is the place for us to argue about policy; I'll just note that I don't agree that WP:NPOV says what you assert it says, and leave it at that, as I'm confident that the Committee will do the right thing regarding this proposal. Dlabtot (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Disagree. The proposal should stop after the first sentence: “The lead of an article should reflect the mainstream view of the subject.” Period. Only legitimate alternative theories held by well-respected mainstream critics should get “air time” on Wikipedia. Someone with better guideline-writing experience than I will have to tackle this nuance in a guideline. I will remind all here that there are about twelve-million adult Americans who feel the Apollo moon landings were faked. Our Apollo 11 article states “The Apollo 11 mission was the first manned mission to land on the Moon.” It does not say “Most Americans believe the Apollo 11 mission was the first manned mission to land on the Moon.” Once we open the door even a little to letting views into Wikipedia’s articles that have been completely discredited by virtually all mainstream experts, we will see our AIDS article giving air time to how AIDS was invented by U.S. Government scientists to kill off African-Americans (this is a widely held opinion by very, very many Americans). Just because there are widely held minority viewpoints, we must adhere—closely—to “mainstream” views. Greg L (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {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.

Pcarbonn

1) Pcarbonn is banned for one year from editing any article related to cold fusion, broadly construed.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Thus far Pcarbonn has demonstrate an attitude that they have done nothing wrong. Therefore, external controls are needed. Jehochman ^Talk 21:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

If Pcarbonn demonstrates awareness of concerns and addresses them, this could be relaxed or eliminated. Jehochman ^Talk 16:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: no evidence presented of disruptive behavior. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. You might not like the evidence, but it is there for all to see. Guy (Help!) 20:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Someone has to say it. Guy (Help!) 20:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Overt abuse of process. Banning should be done for consistent disruptive policy violations, not on account of differences of opinion. Kevin Baas^talk 19:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Persistent stonewalling, frustration of consensus, or argumentum ad nauseum are all good reasons for a topic ban. Jehochman ^Talk 19:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

That would possibly be consistent disruptive policy violations. And ScienceApologist would be more guilty of that than Pcarbonn, IMO. And in any case, something like that would go to mediation first, because it may be simply that one party isn't listening or something; it may be a problem with communication that can be resolved constructively. Kevin Baas^talk 20:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

SA's editing is a separate matter that also needs to be dealt with. Feel free to propose findings or sanctions relevant to that situation, or to present evidence that you may find. Jehochman ^Talk 21:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

So, you'll be agreeing with a topic ban, then, since the problematic behaviours you describe (and more) are unquestionably attributable to Pcarbonn. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

after my quick review of this case so far, I'm ok with a TOPIC ban on Pcarbon from Cold fusion.--Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Support Olorinish (talk) 02:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Support. After Olorinish discovered how Pcarbonn has misrepresented the results of an RfC at Talk:Pathological science, I can no longer assume good faith on Pcarbonn's behalf. Pcap ping 03:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oppose on principle. This began with a suggested 6th month topic ban on Cold Fusion, and now in the process of the Arbcomm review been escalated to a year ban. Why? Has the situation worsened? These numbers seem pretty random and there is nothing fair in that.(olive (talk) 15:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

Yes, he made some more troubling edits to articles during these proceedings. Also, more evidence about his pre-ArbCom behavior has been uncovered by multiple editors. I considered the evidence presented at WP:AN marginal, so I opposed the ban there. Now I support it given the additional evidence. Pcap ping 15:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

My point is that 6th month ban was a realtivley random time period. That ban was not suported by a community consensus and now another 6 months has been added to that. The baseline ban has no basis except in opinion, but as we add time to it starts to become a reality in people's minds. More thought needed in my case.(olive (talk) 18:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC))

Maybe all that is needed is to ask Pcarbonn to limit his contributions to at most a few posts per day, just so the rest of Wikipedia, who are not obsessed with this single topic, could catch up with him. His contribution and involvement is not bad in itself, but the GA review shows that when you let someone, who has more time and interest in a fringe topic than all the rest of us put together, the result is that the article quality deteriorates. But then, you would probably again say that this is merely about content, and unless he violates something important, like WP:CIVIL or WP:SOCK, these concerns have no objective basis? Vesal (talk) 22:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Tsk. No need to put words in my mouth... very unhygienic.:o) This case has its basis in content, but includes other issues. My point is that those other issues must be identified and delineated from content issues. As an example, a topic ban whose numbers seem to have been pulled out of thin air is now being voted on before the editor has been determined by the community to be in the wrong. Not only that, but in a short period of time - days ... the ban has jumped from six months to a year. Within that discussion are extensive discussions on content.

To my knowledge there is no policy that restricts the amount of time and editor may edit or that he slow down so other editors can "catch up". Single topic editing is also not restricted by policy, nor does it indicate COI editing. Single topic editing may point to a COI but is not in itself a definitive indicator. To make fair judgment in this case, these issues cannnot be conflated. That's my concern and my point, or points(olive (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC))

olive, it's not about "fairness", it's about protecting the articles from disruption, which is happening here. There is nothing wrong or strange with the ban being proposed on one place at six months and then later on a different place of one year, specially if people have been presenting evidence of disruption on the meanwhile. And we are not talking of someone making good edits and then others having problems to catch up, we are talking of someone making POV edits and other editors not being able to keep NPOV on the article. And, of course, it's arbitrators that have to vote on the proposals and not us, we are just commenting our opposition or support, and explaining why, so arbitrators can take our arguments into account. If you search for "Comment by Arbitrators" on this page, arbitrators have only made scattered comments, since arbitrator voting only happens on the Proposed decision page. Arbitrators will pick statements from here and place them there. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

A year from now, we’ll have the same problem if he starts editing again. Make it permanent and get it over with. Pcarbonn is absolutely unrepentant. You dish out temporary punishment bans to those who know they did wrong but have a difficult time complying with society’s expectations. If the offender does not see the error of his ways and thinks everyone else is deluded, then, IMO, a permanent ban is in order. Greg L (talk) 04:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC) {strike on 23:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)}

Wikipedia is not punitive.(olive (talk) 06:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC))

Yet it must protect itself from unrepentant pushers of fringe POV. If Pcarbonn were repentant, it would be another matter entirely. An indef ban is fully justified and necessary here. -- Fyslee (talk) 06:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Since Pcarbonn's tendentious editing revolves around the cold fusion article, a topic ban such as the one proposed by Jehochman is more reasonable. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Template

2) {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:

Proposals by User:Pohta ce-am pohtit

Proposed principles

Reliability of scientific sources

1) The reliability of a scientific source should take into account the authors and venue. Classifying one source as more reliable than another based solely on the format of the two is against the spirit of WP:SOURCES. For instance, a peer-reviewed paper in an obscure journal should not be necessarily considered more reliable than a government report or more reliable than a news report in a flagship journal.

Comment by Arbitrators:

I can't see us getting into this level of detail on what is essentially a matter of content. Kirill ^(prof) 05:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Rationale: Pcarbonn has played a shell game with the source categories from WP:SOURCES to advance dubious sources as more reliable than mainstream ones (see my evidence section). Some editors where lulled into this game, and too few objected to this superficial method of classifying sources. Pcap ping 08:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree with this, but I'm not sure if ArbCom will allow it as a ruling. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {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:

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:

Proposals by User:Thebainer

Proposed principles

Neutral point of view

1) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view; that is, they must fairly portray all significant points of view on a subject in accordance with their prevalence. Wikipedia is a mirror for human knowledge: it seeks to reflect, and not distort, the current state of thought on a subject.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. The last sentence may be a bit much, but I think it explains it well. --bainer (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view and sourcing

2) The neutral point of view's requirement that points of view be represented fairly and accurately, and Wikipedia's nature as an encyclopaedia, demand that articles should always use the best and most reputable sources. A neutral point of view cannot be synthesised merely by presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarised source.

Comment by Arbitrators:

From Prem Rawat. Apposite here, I think, because of the way that sources have been deployed in some contexts. --bainer (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support: we should indeed agree on what are the best and most reputable sources on cold fusion. I have started this process here, and I wish critical editors contribute to this discussion. I resist efforts by some to apply double standard on the best sources, in their defense of "the mainstream view". I'll readily accept mediation if it becomes necessary to resolve this issue. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Comment: Neutrality and balance are predicated on the assumption that the midpoint can be identified. While one editor might strike a balance between "CF is proven" and "CF needs further research", another might strike it between "CF is the result of well intended but incompetent research" and "CF is the result of fraudulent research" with both editors thinking they are being unstintingly fair and objective. WP cannot be an effective arbiter of such matters in these major controversies. We must seek published high quality sources peer reviewed by authorities both sides would accept as credible a priori. You get that in high-impact journals that are relevant to the topic. For this topic Journal of Physics G, Nature Physics or Phys Rev, not Naturwissenschaften or New Energy Times.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

THat sounds to me like the fallacy of the false middle. In this case the issue is very clear-cut: Pcarbonn is representing a number of publicaitons in fringe and low-impact journals (often form specialisations which have no obvious basis for being able to properly peer-review this subject) and asserting that these minor sources, by their number, outweigh the mainstream sources. In science, though, you do not get papers along the lines of "cold fusion still bunk". A lack of publication in the high impact journals tells you all you need to know. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Some pubs such as Naturwissenschaften are mainstream, but for different topics. The use of biomedical or chemistry centered pubs for a nuclear physics topic is the telltale.LeadSongDog (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

So, you are now suggesting that Wikipedia should present the views that have NOT been published in reliable sources ? This is an interesting twist of WP:V.

LeadSongDog said : "Neutrality and balance are predicated on the assumption that the midpoint can be identified." That is not my understanding of WP:NPOV at all. (see Wikipedia:NPOV#Neutral_point_of_view). Instead, we should present all significant point of views fairly. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The lack of mainstream scientific papers debunking fringe opinions or even obvious nonsense, leading to the claim that the fringe opinions/nonsense must go unchallenged, is an oft-lamented gap in the rules. Perhaps there should be a new template saying "No mainstream scientific documents have been produced to support the opinion in this article." Art LaPella (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not with wikipedia's core policies, which are unforgoable. The problem is with physicists who don't go on the record in scientific journals with their criticism, for whatever reason. Wikipedia is not the place to right that wrong. Please note that we should use the parity of source principle : a criticism should be published in a source as reliable as the disputed theory, but not more. We should not ask Nature to dispel Timecube, because that theory is published on a website, not in a scientific journal. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The rules forbid saying "This is pseudoscience" without a citation, but which rule forbids a template saying "This article doesn't cite supporting papers from mainstream science"? We already have templates saying things like "This article lacks a spell check". Art LaPella (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the "interesting twist" is PC's. It would seem obvious that Guy's intent with "A lack of publication in the high impact journals tells you all you need to know" was that high impact journals are more credible than low impact journals. The decision of those credible journals to decline publishing an article germane to those journals should diminish the credibility we give to that article. Getting a paper in a first-rate refereed journal requires better work. LeadSongDog (talk) 19:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What do you make of this editorial in Nature India ? Pcarbonn (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I have now found this paper in Phys Rev C. Does that solve this question satisfactorily ? Pcarbonn (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight

3) In describing points of view on a subject, articles should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not accord them undue weight. Thus, views held by a relatively small proportion of commentators or scholars should not be overstated, but similarly views held by a relatively large proportion thereof should not be understated.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. Undue weight goes both ways. According majority views too little weight can result in, for example, an exaggeration of the amount of controversy or lack of consensus in an area. --bainer (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support, obviously. To do this, according to WP:NPOV, we need to look at published secondary sources which reviewed the field. The 2004 DOE is the most notable, independent review : the panel was evenly split on the evidence of excess heat, and one third of panelists found the evidence somewhat convincing. Our article should reflect that balance. Other scholarly field reviews published in reliable media provide additional secondary sources. On the other hand, "most scientists" do not have authority on this subject, and they are not reliable sources per WP:Reliable. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, you've succeeded in convincing me that you should be topic-banned with that latest misrepresentation of the USDOE report. You actually illustrated thebainer's point very nicely, by mining the elements of the report that agree with your POV while minimizing or ignoring the more central and relevant points. It's textbook abuse of a source to further an agenda.

For example, you say "the panel was evenly split on the evidence of excess heat." You did not mention the concluding sentence of that paragraph: Most reviewers, including those who accepted the evidence and those who did not, stated that the effects are not repeatable, the magnitude of the effect has not increased in over a decade of work, and that many of the reported experiments were not well documented.

You mention that "one third of the panelists found the evidence somewhat convincing" (though a more appropriate way to phrase this would be that most or a majority found the evidence unconvincing). In any case, you omit the following sentence: Many reviewers noted that poor experiment design, documentation, background control and other similar issues hampered the understanding and interpretation of the results presented.

If you cannot be trusted to appropriately use available sources at this late date, then I think it best that you don't edit our article on cold fusion. There are plenty of venues for advocacy; Wikipedia isn't one of them. MastCell ^Talk 21:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I have quoted these sentences here to show the prominence of the favorable and unfavorable points of view. The additional sentences you quote do not help understand this prominence, nor do they invalidate the statements I quoted. In any case, your statements are quoted in our article, and I have no intention to remove them. Actually, I have added the second sentence to our article ([22]) and a sentence similar to the first one (diff). So, I see no basis for saying that I mischaracterized the 2004 DOE report: I only reported what they said.

On the other hand, many editors, like you and ScienceApologist, have resisted the inclusion in our article of the sentences I quoted above (see below). Somehow, they can't believe that the experts convened by the DOE said that, because it contradicts the view that they say "most scientists" hold. In my view, censoring these statements from a highly notable secondary source writing on the cold fusion subject is a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see: "editors like me" are the problem. How many edits have I made to cold fusion or its talk page, out of curiosity? Where have I advocated "censoring" the positive statements from the DOE report, as opposed to presenting in context? Even the diff you provided shows you using the 2004 DOE report as part of a narrative on the increasing acceptance of cold fusion (despite a few sticks in the mud at Scientific American and Nature) - when in fact, the report concluded that nothing much had changed since 1989. MastCell ^Talk 22:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for jumping too quickly to conclusion about your edit behavior. About the diff you dispute, please note the quantity of comments favorable to CF that I have removed, and the number of unfavorable comments that I have added. I hope that you now agree that the topic-ban you proposed is not justified. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The theoretical intent of the statement is in the right place. The practical application of the statement on Cold fusion is much more problematic. The reason is that Cold fusion currently is viewed by a majority of mainstream scientists as pathological science, but this majority does not count, under the current rules, because they are a silent majority. And they are silent because they think that the Cold fusion matter has been settled and they don't feel compelled to express their collective negative opinion in published papers. So, currently, there are no citable Cold fusion rebuttals reflecting the view of the majority because the majority simply does not care to publish papers on a subject they think is dead. Dr. Shanahan has remarked about this phenomenon in the past. On the other hand proponents of Cold fusion are a very active minority publishing papers all the time. So there is a built-in advantage on the minority side concerning their disproportionate technical paper footprint compared to the (silent) majority's. To make matters even worse the minority publishes papers where the results cannot be interpreted with any currently available theory. Therefore apart from the fact that we are using the results of higly technical papers (primary sources) in the article, these results are a subject of dispute among scientists, (even among Cold fusion proponents), as to their exact nature. The hallmarks for an information debacle are all there. By suppressing the views of the (unmotivated) silent majority based on its lack of published papers and by minutely presenting details of technical papers which have no widely accepted theoretical basis to back them up we can make the article an information warehouse resembling the Pillsbury dough boy in its malleability. The average reader of the encyclopedia, in the meantime, will have lots of fun trying to find their way out from the warehouse. --Dr.K. (logos) 17:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, we should not give a voice to those who keep to remain silent: wikipedia requires reliable, published sources. However, contrary to what you say, the 2004 DOE gives us a highly notable, independent review of the field : we should base our article on the best sources available, and this is one of them. Let's present it properly. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this debate turns largely on whether you are willing or able to present available sources properly; see immediately above. MastCell ^Talk 21:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I was not referring to the 2004 DOE report which is a reliable source and I agree it should be used, and presented properly, in the article. What I wanted to caution about was the tendency to use a multitude of primary sources with highly technical details as a kind of continuous stream of up to the minute news and possible breakthroughs in the Cold fusion field. This is neither advisable nor sustainable. The article should be impervious to these minute by minute accounts of real or imagined progress in the CF field until such time as CF gains more widespread acceptance in wider scientific circles and secondary sources pick up on this progress and report on it. We then can incorporate the secondary sources in the article. That would be a more serious and sober approach. Dr.K. (logos) 22:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No original research

4) Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. --bainer (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Weasel words

5) Weasel words (words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources) should be avoided.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed. --bainer (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Support, obviously. Weasel words include "most scientists", who don't publish. It would be acceptable to say "The American Physical Society (or the US Department of Energy) considers cold fusion as pathological science", if it could be sourced. However, they have enough sense to avoid falling in the trap of pseudoskepticism, so such source will not be found. Wikipedia should also avoid falling into that trap. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Could someone please clarify what is being proposed? Is the proposer targeting certain sentences in the cold fusion article? If this proposal is "ratified," what impact will that have for editors? Will this produce an advisory message or a mandatory message? Thanks. Olorinish (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

SA worded the two-thirds (from the 2004 DOE report) as majority a few times. I suspect that's why this principle is invoked here. This statement isn't new policy, see WP:WEASEL. Pcap ping 15:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Editorial process

6) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few exceptions. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. --bainer (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Decorum

7) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, trolling, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Standard. --bainer (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

8) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

9) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

10) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of this dispute is the cold fusion article and disputes as to its contents. This arbitration originated following an administrators' noticeboard discussion proposing a topic ban for Pcarbonn (talk · contribs), which failed to reach a resolution, amidst suggestions that the discussion was being disrupted.

Comment by Arbitrators:

The first part is obvious. The second part is necessary, in my view, to indicate how we got here and to suggest where to go afterwards. --bainer (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment: Jehochman said that he started this ArbComm case because of : ScienceApologist postings in the WP:AN on Pcarbonn's topic ban (see the subsection titled: "Disruption of ban discussion, which lead to this request for arbitration"). He does not cite me as a disrupting editor. Instead, he says : "Had SA stayed away from that thread, I believe it would have come to a proper resolution one way or the other." Pcarbonn (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Pcarbonn

2) Pcarbonn (talk · contribs):

a) has, at times, removed material from articles that he considers problematic rather than attempting to remedy or discuss the problem (examples: [23], [24], [25]);

b) has edit warred on cold fusion (examples: [26], [27]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed initially with two elements, may well be more to come. --bainer (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose: these are normal edits in the course of improving the article.

• I removed the news section after asking for comment here.
• I provided my reasoning for the second edit here, and after discussion, agreed to keep the sentence in the article.
• in example 3, the policy at the time was to not include references in the lead. I removed Hutchinson because the news article is about Pyroelectric_fusion, and has just one sentence about cold fusion. Furthermore, it does not directly support the sentence that "most scientist remain skeptical".
• I don't see the evidence of edit warring relevant, as there are only 2 edits, and both edits are different.

Pcarbonn (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Last diff from part a above is actually a housekeeping move with proper justification. He simply erased a citation from the lead due to its presence in the main body. He also removed a citation as not relevant to the information claimed. This edit is legit. Second example of edit warring is an improvement over previous edit because he replaces a weasel word (most) by a specific number (two thirds). This edit is also legit. Dr.K. (logos) 00:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Hum, about diff 17, he removed the Browne source from a statement that disparaged cold fusion, and left it alone at a statement that endorsed it. The removal of the Hutchinson source is done on spurious reasons (I won't restore it because of different valid reasons, it talks about expected receivement and not about how it was actually received). About second example, I disagree that "majority" and "two thirds" are not synonimous. It doesn't help that PCarbonn has been pushing that 1/3 of reviewers found evidence convincing in order to claim that there is a controversy, it looks to me like just one more tactical move on the strategic context of that particular pushing.... --Enric Naval (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I checked the Browne citation. Citation "Browne_1989_para29" still existed in the main body of the article version as citation in a similar sentence about pathological science which was located further down. So removing it from the lead was legitimate since the pathology point was made again in the main body. Is the Hutchinson citation critical about cold fusion and taken out on false pretenses? Finally, technically speaking, replacing "majority" with "2/3" is an edit that can't be faulted. If there is an agenda, fine, but this edit does not make a case for it. Dr.K. (logos) 03:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

If this was an isolated edit, I would agree that he is making reasonable changes that don't warrant any ban at all. The problem is him making edits like this all the time, with different reasonings each time, always on the same direction. I recommend to look at the other two diffs, specially #15 [28] where he makes a similar edit (removing "meeting reports with skepticism") with a different spurious argument, that the statement was unsourced (it wasn't). It was finally solved by replacing it with "having a skeptical opinion", and I'll be damned if I can find on the talk page's archives where this change was discussed, with all the chaff caused by Pcarbonn's insistance on interpreting DOE 2004 in a certain way through analysis of primary sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the 2004 DOE is a primary source ? This would be a strange interpretation of WP:PSTS. The DOE is an independent review of the field, and I have rightly insisted that his view be represented fairly in the article. Also, unlike ScienceApologist, I have written for the enemy several times, as stated in my evidence, but for some reason this is not controversial, so nobody notices. So, you cannot say : "The problem is him making edits like this all the time [..] always on the same direction." Pcarbonn (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Reply to Enric Naval: I see. I was commenting on the specific edits and I have not looked at the edits over time. I have not checked the history of these or similar edits. You seem to have an understanding of the history of this conflict. In this case the presentation of information could be molded by reliance on primary sources and by semantics. Maybe a few diffs demonstrating this could help. Dr.K. (logos) 18:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

3) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs):

a) has edit warred on cold fusion (examples: [29], [30], [31]);

b) made several uncivil remarks during the topic ban discussion (examples: [32], [33], [34]).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed initially with two elements, may well be more to come. --bainer (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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:

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:

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:

Proposals by User:Pcarbonn

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is not a democracy

1) Wikipedia's primary method of determining WP:consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. In determining proper weight for neutral point of view, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Copied from standard policies of WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Neutral point of view and sourcing

1) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view; that is, they must fairly portray all significant points of view on a subject in accordance with their prevalence in published, reliable sources on the subject. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is unforgoable..

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

• Proposed. Copied, with adaptation, from Prem Rawat. The extension seems logical to me in view of our core policies of WP:V and WP:OR/WP:SYN. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The point of this addition is to distinguish the prevalence among scientists and the prevalence in published, reliable sources on the subject. A good example of the principle I propose is Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_(medicine-related_articles) : it does not look at the prevalence "among physicians", but at the prevalence among primary or secondary sources on the subject, as established by a secondary source such as a literature review. That is the principle I propose here. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's make no mistake. The view that "most scientists considers cold fusion researchers as pathological scientists" is not supported by any survey or polls that I know of. It is a gossip. Wikipedia is not the place to propagate such gossips. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Yes, this is indeed the key principle you have violated. Specifically, you have falsely accorded equal weight to mainstream and fringe sources, per WP:UNDUE and drawn novel syntheses therefrom in violation of WP:NOR Guy (Help!) 22:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. Could you provide examples of "mainstream sources", of "fringe sources", and of "novel syntheses" ? Pcarbonn (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed findings of fact

ScienceApologist has repeatedly violated NPOV

1) ScienceApologist has repeatedly suppressed or mischaracterized reliable secondary sources, for the purpose of presenting the so-called "mainstream view" as the only valid one, and in violation of WP:NPOV which says : "None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.". (some examples, just in November 2008: [35][36][37][38], [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] , his edit summaries are also indicative)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

In that lengthy exchange of edits, I intervened in a peacemaking attempt with this as discussed on the article's talk page. The two subsequent edits are reflective. SA tweaked my wording to make the context clear. Then PC changed a direct quote. Things went downhill from there.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

For clarity, I change a direct quote into another direct quote from the same document, to say the same thing while avoiding WP:Weasel words, such as "the preponderence". My edit was thus legimitate. Pcarbonn (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

What the evidence shows is SA arguing for an application of NPOV - specificially the provisions of WP:WEIGHT. Pcarbonn seems to be arguing that "Neutral" = "All views given equal weight" - which we know isn't the point of WP:NPOV nor is it encyclopedic. Shot info (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Pcarbonn has been advocating that the "cold fusion is not pathological science" viewpoint is the MOST accurate viewpoint. [44] Olorinish (talk) 02:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Um, no, SA went against your POV, but you have failed to understand the crucial difference between MPOV and NPOV. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Duh. The view that SA disputes is the view of the DOE panel, and that's what matters. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely disagree I fully support Guy’s summary. Is SA to be faulted for vigorously holding the line against editors who write that those who see pretty colorful lights in the night sky is proof there are alien UFOs visiting Earth? Pcarbonn’s proposal is founded on the premiss of “SA opposes my edits; ergo, SA opposes truth.” One doesn’t necessarily follow the other. Greg L (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposals by User:MaxPont

Proposed principles

Only enacted Wikipedia policies and guidelines are valid

Users are not allowed to make extreme reinterpretations of the existing Wikipedia policies and guidelines framework that contradict the spirit and intention of the community rules. Neither are users allowed to misrepresent their own texts, essays, draft policy proposals, rejected policy proposals, etc. as a valid Wikipedia policy, guideline or “principle”.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Wikipedia strongly objects to users refusing the WP conflict resolution process

Refusal to accept mediation and other conflict resolution methods should be weighed heavily against users who are involved in conflicts.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

"Refusal to accept mediation" should not be weighed against anyone. Mediation is a completely voluntary and non-binding process. Furthermore, mediation is only useful as a means of finding common ground between editors who value and accept this project's core principles. Mediation is useless and even actively counterproductive when dealing with a motivated single-purpose agenda editor. MastCell ^Talk 00:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Representatives of the majority POV should show maturity and self-restraint in dealing with proponents of minority and fringe POVs

Wikipedia policies and guidelines give proponents of the establishment, majority mainstream view the upper hand in disputes with minority and fringe POVs. Editors with such an advantage should remember that they carry the responsibility to act in a balanced, diplomatic and mature way. When these establishment editors have to deal with editors pushing various fringe and minority POVs (often inexperienced) they should show self-restraint and try to settle conflicts. Time and superior sources are on the side of the majority view. (In an ideal world, the same principles should also apply to fringe POV pushers. However, as they are Fringe pushers, by definition, they are probably not mature and balanced in their editing. This is something the WP community has to live with.)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact; will be added later

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

ScienceApologist should be indefinitely banned

Let me first say that ScienceApologist has made productive contributions to Wikipedia. Few people understand the ins and outs of the WP regulatory framework better than ScienceApologist and he has contributed to amending several WP Policies and Guidelines. At best he makes knowledgeable improvements to Science articles.

But that is not the issue here. The problem is his confrontational style. Considering the endless controversies that can’t be kept in check due to his editing style, I think it is time for the WP community to think hard about – on balance – if his positive contributions really can make up for and excuse his disruptive behaviour and constant breach of community rules. To make a few analogies. Would the police commissioner accept if one of the best detectives in the force was a zealot who won his investigations by beating suspects to confess and tampering with evidence? Would a hospital accept if one of their best surgeons bullied the nurses and sometimes showed up drunk for duty? No, brilliance and fanatical commitment does not excuse blatant breach of core values and rules for an organisation. His My-way-or-the-highway attitude is impossible in a collaborative environment.

There are no signs that ScienceApologist could be reformed or made to comply with community rules. He is an incredibly smart editor and there are no valid excuses left. He has himself expressed that his tactic is to provoke other editors. IMO his recent editing “freak-out” is not in any way a sign that he is “under terrible stress”. My best guess is that he is simulating a mental breakdown to avoid being banned, yet another way to game the system.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support, obviously. Plenty of evidence of repeated policy violations, despite many warnings and escalated remedies. Pcarbonn (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

"My best guess is that he is simulating a mental breakdown to avoid being banned." Fascinating. Now please resume your lecture on the importance of civility, maturity, and restraint. MastCell ^Talk 00:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

So we take “incredibly smart” editors who are valiantly trying to ensure our fringe-science articles exhibit a mainstream tone, and we banish them from Wikipedia for life. By what stretch of the imagination is this considered good for Wikipedia? If he flies off at the handle and gets uncivil with editors he thinks are improperly pushing a fringe agenda, we need admins who are willing to dish out frequent, 12-hour blocks to serve as cooling-off timeouts. Greg L (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Each such block has been a Wikidrama that often gets unblocked, and if they "serve as cooling-off timeouts" then ScienceApologist should be as cool as Pluto by now. He has been given more last chances to cooperate than Saddam Hussein. If we want anybody to respect sanctions against them, we should either A) ban ScienceApologist long enough to solve the problem (and expect more sockpuppets) or B) tell him his list of problem behaviors (not just incivility) are OK because pseudoscientists are so awful, it makes them a special case. Art LaPella (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

He should get at least a six-month topic-ban from all Rational Skepticism articles. If he can handle less heated articles without disruption, then lift the topic ban. If he's that interested in these skepticism articles, then he'll shape up and act polite and reasonable. But really, banning ScienceApologist for a year would not necessarily be such a bad thing for the guy. He seems extremely upset nearly all of the time, and I'm worried about his psychological and professional health. ScienceApologist seems incapable of overcoming the flight or fight reflex. Being addicted to a place that puts you in constant fight mode is not healthy (take it from someone who knows). He assumes bad faith of most editors, raises blood pressure, and wastes a lot of his and others' time with wikilawyering (for a recent example, see this NOR/N thread) and petty edit-wars (for example, edit-warring with Pcarbonn over "majority vrs two-thirds"). If he was banned for a year, he could take some time to cool off, focus on his studies and teaching, maybe spend some time with a significant other, or perhaps publish some scholarly research on pseudoscience so that these things can be refuted with sources. It could be a great thing for him. Alternatively, he could let the hate for Wikipedia fester inside and create an attack site, but I expect more of him. II | (t - c) 06:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• With regard to Art LaPella’s above post and with specific regard to his last comment where he rhetorically suggests that perhaps SA’s behavior should be forgiven because “[Option] B) tell [SA] his list of problem behaviors (not just incivility) are OK because pseudoscientists are so awful, it makes them a special case”; I think I basically agree with this latter option and think it hits the nail right on the head.

  I’ve dealt with Pcarbonn here on his talk page. Frankly, I find that his grasp of basic science has *shortcomings*; and his arguing style is inane, circuitous, and exceedingly frustrating. SA clearly cares enough about Wikipedia to be willing to fight the good fight. Trying to do the right thing on our fringe-science articles (trying to revert a seemingly limitless ocean of editors who are conspiracy theorists that think fluoridation of municipal water is a government conspiracy, unexplained lights in the sky must be aliens from another star system, cold fusion, Apollo 11 was faked on a sound stage, HIV was invented by government scientists in an effort to disproportionately kill blacks, etc., etc. etc. ad nauseam), would drive any good scientist/Wikipedian out of his damned mind. Does this double standard seem fair on the surface? Perhaps not to the exceedingly politically correct nor to left-field proponents of the fringe science articles.

  But just because some editor like Pcarbonn A) has a well-founded belief that extraordinary claims are true, and B) can’t cite the extraordinary evidence to back it up, and C) is profoundly persistent about it, and D) raises points on talk pages that others soundly refute and he then declares the point that was just refuted is all beside the point anyway; doesn’t mean that such editors should be treated with all the patience afforded reasonable editors. If, in 1999, I had met some guy with a long beard on the street corner shouting about how the world will end January 1st, 2000, I might not give him the courtesy that I afford other, more (uhm)… *sensible* types. I might grab the preacher by the shoulders and say “My God man! Do you know what this means!? It means that God A) uses the base-ten numbering system, B) uses the Gregorian calendar system, and C) likes round numbers too!” Is such a reaction *nice*? Perhaps not. Is such a reaction forgivable? I certainly hope so. Do we block editors such as SA for six months for standing alone against all this inane behavior? Certainly not.

  My dealings with Pcarbonn were brief. And from those few dealings, I can only imagine that there have been days when SA felt like banging his head against a cinderblock wall… poor bastard.

  And, by the way, when Art LaPella wrote above that “Each such block [of SA] has been a Wikidrama that often gets unblocked”, that pretty much points to the fact that after admins get past their initial reaction to Pcarbonn’s complaints and check into the facts some more, they find that SA was rather justified in doing what he had done. The simple solution to improving Wikipedia is to simply find an efficient way to banish the unabashed, unrepentant fringe proponents from our fringe science articles. Once that much is done, I think we will find that SA’s behavior will suddenly become perfectly angelic overnight; that too, will be good for Wikipedia. Greg L (talk) 07:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposals by User:FloNight

Proposed principles

Encyclopedias coverage of science

1) Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed on PD page. Added here for comments. To be an useful reference tool Wikipedia needs present information on science topics as presented in the current prevailing textbooks and review journals, as these best represent current thinking. Cutting edge research needs to have "significant" coverage in the mainstream media to be given space in science articles. Otherwise, the articles are overrun with fad theories, preliminary research, outlaying opinions; making it difficult to understand the core ideas about the topic. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, I changed the wording since several arbitrators opposed based on that sentence. It was close to not passing last time and I did not want to have that happen this time as it would be confusing to users. I felt this did the job, and had a better chance of passing. FloNight♥♥♥ 09:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Oppose as potentially contrary to NPOV if I understood it well. First, how do you define "mainstream" ? Our policies talks of notability and reliability. Where does "mainstream" fit ? Second, presumably, there is only one "mainstream view", and you propose to report only that one; however NPOV requires us to report all significant points of view as documented in sources. Finally, your statement is about expectations from our readers: what are your sources ? It would be interesting to check in the 2008 survey of wikipedia users, or to ask our readers otherwise. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It might be worth rewording "Encyclopedias are" to Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia is.... ArbCom is generally concerned with Wikipedia and its policies, not what other encyclopedias do or do not do.--Tznkai (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I like the old wording from the Pseudoscience case: "Serious and respected reference works are generally expected... Wikipedia aspires to be such a serious reference work." MastCell ^Talk 00:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I would suggest that, the generalized nature of this proposal could allow under its umbrella multiple interpretations, may be based on over arching, possibly inaccurate, but generally accepted assumptions, and possibly in practice could be applied mistakenly to over-ride policies now in place on Wikipedia.

• The proposal suggests there is something definitively definable as mainstream science rather than as pointed out above, that “mainstream” is a point of view, an idea, defined on Wikipedia by self- defined experts.

• Who decides where mainstream stops and non- mainstream begins, the point of liminality where one gives rise to the other. This again, is an idea, rather than an practical actuality. There is no such point. If such a point is defined on an article, it is being defined by the editor, and that may be a POV, and may contribute to OR.

• The wording of the principle must be considered problematic. If “Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought,” then all so -called fringe topics are immediately non-notable by this standard. (I think I can hear cheers in the background)

• Fringe topics refer not only to science but to multiple other fields as well. Can a precedent be set for science unless it is applied to other fields. Are we willing to set this kind pf precedent for all so-called fringe topics on the entire encyclopedia.

• We have a way of dealing with science articles now on Wikipedia: WP:Reliability , WP:Verifiability (peer review), WP: Weight, (that would help to take care of: “ articles … overrun with fad theories, preliminary research, outlaying opinions”), and a fringe theories policy, that is in a constant state of being hammered out to deal with the complexity of sources and articles that are more difficult to define. Another editor reminded me that science is a methodology not an ideology. As such on Wikipedia arguments seem to align themselves around what is science rather than on the article itself. We, it seems to me, at least need to apply our Policies more stringently, rather than create a proposal that potentially opens the door for worse than we have now because of its generalized nature, and “as a bottom line” we need to require peaceful, tolerant, respectful collaboration as defined by our civility standards.(olive (talk) 19:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC))

When you talk of the "the point of liminality", I believe you are referring to the demarcation problem. In my evidence section, I have added arguments that cold fusion is not pseudoscience, and consequently that it deserves a fair representation on WP per a previous ArbComm ruling. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia calls things like cold fusion fringe science, not pseudoscience. Wikipedia can and does solve the demarcation problem without being completely arbitrary, at least in extreme cases (2+2=5 is not science), as Olive's last bullet point affirms and her first and second bullets deny. Art LaPella (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I would guess that I am being interpreted in multiple ways despite my efforts to be clear. I am not attempting to describe what goes on now on Wikipedia but rather to comment on concerns. I apologize for the difficulty in understanding. Its about theory, I guess, that underlies what we do. If those underlying principles aren't discussed and understood we are in danger of creating proposals policies based on mistaken assumptions . This is not a comment on Flo's proposal, although I began there, but a general comment to all of us.

Well, in actual fact I was referring to references rather than the topic or subject area, but the concern is the same, and this is in no way directed at the Arbs. There are demarcation points in all subject areas and the issue here is who decides where those points are. If one party decides the point is in one place and another decides it is in another, who is right? If one party works from a demarcation point he honestly believes is in one place, is it right to penalize that editor in some way because the other party disagrees fundamentally with that demarcation point. Our experts here are self proclaimed. Assuming Mainstream is some kind of agreed upon standard in general seems a concern. Verifiability, reliability are the standards.The only thing that makes it possible to deal with this kind of situation/environment on any article is civil collaboration so that standards can be set by the group per each article.

I was not referring to CF as pseudoscience or not. Its not my business to decide that since I am not knowledgeable in that area. My interest here has been with more fundamental concerns, that may impact Wikipedia. I support the fundamental policies including NPOV (but not the idea of a SPOV).I have grave concerns about our ability to deal with incivility. And I've gone on too long for this page for which I apologize.(olive (talk) 19:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC))

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Pcarbonn

1) Pcarbonn edits articles with a stated agenda against Wikipedia policy. [45] [46], [47] Additionally, Pcarbonn has treated Wikipedia as a battleground; his actions to that effect include assumptions of bad faith [48], and edit warring. [49] [50]. For more complete evidence see [51], [52], [53].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed on PD page. Added here for comments. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

The concern is that you contribute to Wikipedia in order to change the way the mainstream media reports on Cold fusion. This is backwards to how you should be using Wikipedia. The articles should reflect the way that the mainstream media writes about cold fusion. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

In the article you quote, "media outlet" means "newspapers". The article I wrote in NET is clear about this, e.g. : "Wikipedia is used increasingly for background research by journalists." So, my stated intent is not to influence scholarly journals. It is our duty to report what scholarly journals say, from a neutral point of view, and that's what I have : such journals do say that there is a scientific controversy, contrary to what "most scientists" think (see the evidence I presented). So, there is no evidence that my agenda is against wikipedia policy. Besides, one should be judged on behavior, not on intent. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

• Oppose My agenda is not against Wikipedia policy, as explained here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcarbonn (talk • contribs)

Also, could you clarify the logic that lead you to consider New Energy Times as not reliable enough for mention in our cold fusion article, but reliable enough to provide evidence in this case ? Pcarbonn (talk) 18:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have now explained the diffs here. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

My reading of this FoF suggests that the finding is of Pcarbonn's (expressed) intent as counter to the purpose of Wikipedia, while remaining silent as to the core content question.--Tznkai (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Template

2) {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.

Pcarbonn topic ban

1) Pcarbonn (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Cold fusion related articles related for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Proposed on PD page. Added here for comments. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai, there is an enforcement proposal already for the case. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This needs to be attached to an enforcement provision.--Tznkai (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Template

2) {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:

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: