After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
For this case, there are 11 active Arbitrators, so 6 votes are a majority.
If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerks' noticeboard. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the
/Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.
1) {text of proposed motion}
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
2) 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.
3) The requirement of the neutral point of view 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.
4) 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.
5) 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.
6) Weasel words (words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources) should be avoided.
7) 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.
8) 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.
9) All communications during mediation are privileged. In the interests of facilitating open communication between parties, communications made during mediation may not be used as evidence in other dispute resolution or similar discussions, including (but not limited to) Arbitration and user conduct requests for comment.
10) Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought.
11) {text of proposed principle}
1) The locus of this dispute is the Cold fusion ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 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 successful resolution of the discussion had been disrupted by several uncivil interjections by ScienceApologist ( talk · contribs).
2) Some evidence has been presented of problematic editing by users including Pcarbonn ( talk · contribs) and ScienceApologist ( talk · contribs) on the Cold fusion ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article and related pages, including some edit warring and minor instances of incivility. However, the vast majority of the evidence presented related to questions (and disputes as to those questions) about the reliability of particular sources and the relative weight to be associated with various points of view, content questions which cannot be resolved by the Committee.
3) Pcarbonn edits articles with a stated agenda against Wikipedia policy. [1] [2], [3] Additionally, Pcarbonn has treated Wikipedia as a battleground; his actions to that effect include assumptions of bad faith [4], and edit warring. [5] [6]. For more complete evidence see [7], [8], [9].
4) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
1.1) After the closure of this case, any user may reinitiate the topic ban discussion referred to above, and invite the users who participated in the original discussion to participate again. ScienceApologist ( talk · contribs) is banned from participating in the restarted discussion, or any similar discussion.
1.2) At the closure of this case, a clerk will reinitiate the topic ban discussion referred to above, and invite the users who participated in the original discussion to participate again. ScienceApologist ( talk · contribs) is banned from participating in the restarted discussion, or any similar discussion.
2) The Committee notes the evidence presented as to problematic editing on the Cold fusion ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article and related pages, and also evidence that has been submitted to it and that it has noted elsewhere of related problematic editing, but will take no further action at this time.
3) Pcarbonn ( talk · contribs) is banned from editing Cold fusion and related articles and pages for one year.
3.1) Pcarbonn ( talk · contribs) is banned from editing Cold fusion and related articles for a period of six months. He is permitted to make suggestions related to such articles and propose references on talkpages. Pcarbonn also is instructed to abide by the relevant policies discussed in this decision and not to misuse Wikipedia for purposes of advocacy.
4) {text of proposed remedy}
1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion#Log of blocks and bans.
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
Implementation summary: The Arbitration Committee affirms Wikipedia's goal to provide neutral, well sourced encyclopedic content (specifically, scientific topics are expected to be in line with mainstream scientific thought) and likewise affirms the consensus based editorial process that creates Wikipedia's content. The Arbitration Committee affirms that it is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors, but does affirm that Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously. Evidence and allegations against ScienceApologist are noted.
The dispute centered around the cold fusion article and a related administrators' noticeboard discussion. Pcarbonn edits with a stated objective against Wikipedia policy, has treated Wikipedia as a battleground, assumed bad faith, and edit warred.
Pcarbonn is banned from editing Cold fusion and related articles and pages for one year --
Tznkai (
talk) 14:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Updated: 19:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Updated: 00:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.
The
Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast,
depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.
After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.
For this case, there are 11 active Arbitrators, so 6 votes are a majority.
If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the Clerks' noticeboard. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.
Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the
/Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.
1) {text of proposed motion}
A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.
Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.
1) {text of proposed orders}
1) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
2) 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.
3) The requirement of the neutral point of view 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.
4) 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.
5) 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.
6) Weasel words (words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources) should be avoided.
7) 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.
8) 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.
9) All communications during mediation are privileged. In the interests of facilitating open communication between parties, communications made during mediation may not be used as evidence in other dispute resolution or similar discussions, including (but not limited to) Arbitration and user conduct requests for comment.
10) Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought.
11) {text of proposed principle}
1) The locus of this dispute is the Cold fusion ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) 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 successful resolution of the discussion had been disrupted by several uncivil interjections by ScienceApologist ( talk · contribs).
2) Some evidence has been presented of problematic editing by users including Pcarbonn ( talk · contribs) and ScienceApologist ( talk · contribs) on the Cold fusion ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article and related pages, including some edit warring and minor instances of incivility. However, the vast majority of the evidence presented related to questions (and disputes as to those questions) about the reliability of particular sources and the relative weight to be associated with various points of view, content questions which cannot be resolved by the Committee.
3) Pcarbonn edits articles with a stated agenda against Wikipedia policy. [1] [2], [3] Additionally, Pcarbonn has treated Wikipedia as a battleground; his actions to that effect include assumptions of bad faith [4], and edit warring. [5] [6]. For more complete evidence see [7], [8], [9].
4) {text of proposed finding of fact}
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.
1.1) After the closure of this case, any user may reinitiate the topic ban discussion referred to above, and invite the users who participated in the original discussion to participate again. ScienceApologist ( talk · contribs) is banned from participating in the restarted discussion, or any similar discussion.
1.2) At the closure of this case, a clerk will reinitiate the topic ban discussion referred to above, and invite the users who participated in the original discussion to participate again. ScienceApologist ( talk · contribs) is banned from participating in the restarted discussion, or any similar discussion.
2) The Committee notes the evidence presented as to problematic editing on the Cold fusion ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article and related pages, and also evidence that has been submitted to it and that it has noted elsewhere of related problematic editing, but will take no further action at this time.
3) Pcarbonn ( talk · contribs) is banned from editing Cold fusion and related articles and pages for one year.
3.1) Pcarbonn ( talk · contribs) is banned from editing Cold fusion and related articles for a period of six months. He is permitted to make suggestions related to such articles and propose references on talkpages. Pcarbonn also is instructed to abide by the relevant policies discussed in this decision and not to misuse Wikipedia for purposes of advocacy.
4) {text of proposed remedy}
1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion#Log of blocks and bans.
2) {text of proposed enforcement}
Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision--at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.
Implementation summary: The Arbitration Committee affirms Wikipedia's goal to provide neutral, well sourced encyclopedic content (specifically, scientific topics are expected to be in line with mainstream scientific thought) and likewise affirms the consensus based editorial process that creates Wikipedia's content. The Arbitration Committee affirms that it is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors, but does affirm that Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously. Evidence and allegations against ScienceApologist are noted.
The dispute centered around the cold fusion article and a related administrators' noticeboard discussion. Pcarbonn edits with a stated objective against Wikipedia policy, has treated Wikipedia as a battleground, assumed bad faith, and edit warred.
Pcarbonn is banned from editing Cold fusion and related articles and pages for one year --
Tznkai (
talk) 14:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Updated: 19:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Updated: 00:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.
The
Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast,
depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.