Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Proposed decision

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration‎ | Fringe science

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 12 active Arbitrators (excluding 4 who are recused and one who is inactive), so 7 votes are a majority.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the

Clerks' noticeboard
. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

Proposed motions

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed temporary injunctions

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

1) Wikipedia has, as its primary objective, the documentation of human

existing, reliable sources
.

Support:
  1. Things that go without saying oft need to be said. — Coren (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. indeed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FT2 (Talk | email) 11:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Foundational.[reply]
  3. Wizardman 05:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Although linking "knowledge" to
    WP:NPOV as a fundamental foundation of the encyclopaedia demonstrates that we stand apart from Pilate's famous question "What is truth?". Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    —Note: the wikilink to epistemology was changed to directly link to knowledge at this point in time. — Coren (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  5. Rather than "neutrality", I would say "representing all significant viewpoints in an unbiased and appropriately weighted fashion". Neutrality can be seen as the canceling out of opposing views, when Wikipedia's "neutral point of view" stance is more nuanced than that (see the
    due weight provisions). And if we are going to link to knowledge, we might as well link encyclopedia as well. But support, of course, and a good starting point. Carcharoth (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  6. Risker (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. bainer (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This is not how I might open the decision as a matter of style, but I can't disagree with the sentiment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Can we link directly to knowledge instead of epistemology here? Risker (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I felt that the article on epistemology was far more on point, but I have no objection to pointing at the wider article. — Coren (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I have no objection, that the meaning of the principle is not altered in any significant way by the change, and that at least two arbitrators agree that a wikilink directly to knowledge is more felicitous, I have altered the proposed finding accordingly. — Coren (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

2) While currently accepted scientific paradigms may later be rejected, and hypotheses previously held to be controversial or incorrect sometimes become accepted by the scientific community, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture such projections.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. yes, this fits nicely with
    NOR Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    undue weight.[reply
    ]
  3. Wizardman 05:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. If I was inclined to quibble I would point out that we don't even endorse the Kuhnian theory of scientific progress, hence the use of 'paradigm' is perhaps inappropriate. But I am not inclined to quibble as this principle is quite clear. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Noting that during an actual major paradigm shift the uncertainty in the scientific community may be documented reliably for both sides for some time (and thus Wikipedia should document both sides), but for fringe views, where mainstream scientific views are clear, this is adequate, and addresses a common mistake made by the more extreme proponents of fringe views. Carcharoth (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. To the extent that Wikipedia does not endorse or disendorse any point of view, yes. --bainer (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. As I pointed out in my comments in the Cold fusion case, at any given time there may be a thousand novel theories propounded by scientists or would-be scientists, at various levels of plausibility, which have not yet attained mainstream scientific acceptance. Of these, one or two may ultimately come to be accepted as accurate. Wikipedia has no way of separating the one or two from the other 998 or 999. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Science is not a point of view

3) While scientists have points of view, scientific inquiry itself is a methodology, and cannot hold one. That coverage of a topic is primarily scientific does not prevent it from being (nor obviates the need to be) neutral.

Support:
  1. Let's slay that "SPOV" dragon once and for all. A method can no more hold a point of view than a pencil, or a protractor. — Coren (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FT2 (Talk | email) 11:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Scientists in this context may be individual or collective, collectives such as the scientific establishment or specific groups of scientists may well have a strong point of view in this context. [reply]
  3. Wizardman 05:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. bainer (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A bit too "philosphical" for an arbitration decision for my taste, and I share the reservations of FloNight and Carcharoth. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moving to oppose per Newyorkbrad. Too philosopical. Carcharoth (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Newyorkbrad. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
(While I vigorously embrace Scientific Inquiry as the primary way to acquire knowledge about the natural world, today, it would not be intellectually honest for me to support this proposal since I don't define Science in this limited way. As well, I do think that scientific inquiry is a pov, and has as it's alternative other methods of "knowing" such as religion or intuition. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Move to oppose. Not needed for the ruling to be complete. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:54, 30 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  1. Largely per FloNight. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not convinced that this is needed in this case. I would prefer to cast this in terms of science coverage of a topic only being part of the story, with the history of a topic being the prime example of a type of coverage (rather than a viewpoint) that is often lacking (sometimes due to systematic bias rather than lack of NPOV). In some cases, the historical, legal, political and cultural aspects of something can far outweigh the part of an article explaining the science or debunking the misleading "scientific" claims. Taking this "bigger picture" approach can sometimes put the science claims and counter-claims in their proper context. Additionally, the key here is not to promote science coverage over non-science coverage, but to make crystal-clear what is and isn't science, to avoid misleading claims that something is scientific when it isn't, and to get the balance right after that determination has been made. Carcharoth (talk) 03:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC) Indenting and moving to oppose on this one. Per FloNight, this principle is not vital for the decision as a whole. Carcharoth (talk) 01:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not convinced this is a useful way of wording the idea. Scientists as a group (i.e. the scientific establishment) can hold a particular point of view even if the scientific method itself does not; so the distinction may be too subtle for our purposes, since we are not engaging in scientific inquiry ourselves, but merely reporting the results of existing work. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prominence

4) Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science.

Support:
  1. From the Neutrality and Verifiability policies. — Coren (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FT2 (Talk | email) 11:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC) Two important aspects: peer-reviewed here implies publications that have some kind of recognition and high regard in the field, not just any "peers"; and the fact that these are usually the most reliable sources does not mean that sources deemed reliable but not so published should be arbitrarily struck out on that basis alone by advocates.[reply]
  3. Wizardman 05:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Particular emphasis should be applied to the terms significant viewpoints and reliable source. Risker (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Noting again my concerns stated above with the "neutrality" wording as opposed to "balance". And noting also that assessing the prominence of a viewpoint is not always as simple as it might seem. But, in general, a sound principle if applied with common sense. Carcharoth (talk) 02:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. bainer (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Civility

5) Even during heated debates, editors should behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant work environment.

Support:
  1. Foundational principle. — Coren (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FT2 (Talk | email) 11:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 05:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support with caveat, the emphasis here is (rightly) on should and this principle becomes tricky when civility and reliability pull in different directions. difficult. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Crucial. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Carcharoth (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. bainer (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Disruptive editing

6) Behavior can be disruptive even when not outright grossly violating civility expectations. In particular, tendentious editing or repeatedly failing to engage in consensus building or accepting community input can disrupt good-faith editor attempts to write or improve articles.

Support:
  1. Preventing consensus no less of a problem than outright acting against it. — Coren (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FT2 (Talk | email) 11:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 05:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Can, and does. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agreed. Would add in here that a failure to properly, or objectively, discuss the sources used in an article, is also extremely disruptive. Carcharoth (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support for now, subject to reviewing any alternative wording suggested by the abstainers. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. No doubt. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. I understand the point that you trying to make but this could be the description of Wikipedia editors that monitor
    copyright violations, and repeatedly remove content contributions of good faith editor over their objection on article talk pages. We need editors to keep articles on their watchlist, and remove problematic content promptly. Sometimes we want to stop an editors good faith attempt to add content. The issue in this case is that editors are repeatedly adding content the does not follow policy. This has been explained to them numerous times but they continue to do it. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Hence the wording that this can be disruptive, not that it is. Can you think of a wording that doesn't cause this concern? — Coren (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is clumsily worded; I may offer an alternative wording shortly. --bainer (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baiting

7) Raising the same issues over and over despite consensus (or lack thereof), persistent low-level attacks and other continuous goading of specific editors in order to exhaust their patience and induce them to lash out in an uncivil manner are disruptive.

Support:
  1. In an ideal world, editors would react with civility even when faced with bad faith attacks and obstructionism. In practice, baiting editors known to have less patience so that they are sanctioned away from a disputed area has become a favored tactic of POV pushers. — Coren (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FT2 (Talk | email) 11:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 05:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Baiting can also be demoralising to editors of saintly patience, and lead them to change editing patterns or to leave the encyclopedia entirely. Risker (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Key to emphasis this concept. The emphasis needs to be on one or editors attempt to control content through this type of disruptive conduct rather than focusing on the impolite language that may enter heated discussions. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. It is a form of
    WP:HARASSment. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  7. Endeavouring to control through psychological warfare saps the will and energy of other contributors. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Although there are obviously gray areas. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per Carcharoth, the first sentence is ambiguous. Actions described by it can be disruptive but not are necessarily so. --bainer (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Agree with most of the wording, but I don't think "raising the same issues over and over despite consensus" counts as baiting. That is more tendentious editing, and the two shouldn't be confused. Carcharoth (talk) 03:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Substantially per Carcharoth. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Carcharoth. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

8) Dispute resolution is not a weapon to be used in order to exhaust an editor's willingness or capacity to contribute. Frivolous reporting, raising the same issue despite it being dismissed repeatedly, forum shopping, and escalation disproportionate to the alleged misconduct are all abuses of the system that are disruptive in themselves and detrimental to the collegiate atmosphere required for building an encyclopedia.

Support:
  1. Our dispute resolution mechanisms have been designed to help good faith editors reach agreement when a dispute occurs; misusing those mechanism in order to "win" content disputes or to eliminate opponents is doubly destructive because it also deprives good faith editors of much needed help. — Coren (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FT2 (Talk | email) 11:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 05:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Risker (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This includes prolong discussion of an users conduct past the time of the event that may have drawn the warning or sanction. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Repeatedly asking the other parent is a form of psychological warfare that unfairly favours obsessives. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support subject to review of any alternative wordings that may be proposed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per Carcharoth, there needs to be differentiation between a situation where one editor is baiting another, and where legitimate criticism is being undeservingly rebuffed. I certainly agree with the essential premise. I will try to develop an alternative wording. --bainer (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Disagree with "raising the same issue despite it being dismissed repeatedly, forum shopping" - if someone dismisses something, then seeking a second opinion should be allowed, and should not be considered forum shopping. Equally, if a valid point is later accepted after an initial series of dismissals, the behaviour of those doing the initial dismissals would bear scrutiny. A clear distinction needs to be made between valid and independent presentation of arguments that are dismissed without proper rebuttal, and repeated presentation of the same arguments by the same person without addressing the previous rebuttals. Agree with rest of principle. Carcharoth (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Carcharoth. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant comparisons

9) The prominence of fringe views need to be put in perspective relative to the views of the entire encompassing field; limiting that relative perspective to a restricted subset of specialists or only amongst the proponents of that view is, necessarily, biased and unrepresentative.

Support:
  1. For instance, the relative prominence of the view that Earth is hollow is evaluated against that of the entire field of geology and (probably) astronomy; the fact that the view is essentially unanimously shared amongst all hollow earth theorists is immaterial. — Coren (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC) Edited to wording suggested on talk page — Coren (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FT2 (Talk | email) 11:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC) We may usefully and accurately describe the fringe view, e.g. to give users an understanding of the beliefs of its proponents and their rationale for those beliefs, and usually do so to some extent if the view is notable or significant. But if so, we should take care to note and evaluate its prominence and standing in the context of its wider general field (and scientific/academic views if applicable), and not imply it to be other than "fringe" if that is its actual position.[reply]
  3. Wizardman 05:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Part of the process of describing a subject is placing it in appropriate context. Risker (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The presentation of article content needs to consider the relative prominence of the material in relation to the mainstream scientific view. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This might do better placed next after principle 4 above, as it flows from that principle. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Sam. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Wording feels awkward, and I think the word "context" should be used here, but yes, context is a vital aspect of writing a balanced article. Lack of context is usually indicative of bad writing, lack of comprehensiveness, systematic bias and/or lack of NPOV. Carcharoth (talk) 12:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. bainer (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. NPOV, basically. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Advocacy

10) Wikipedia is not for

advocacy
. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to state neutrally the current knowledge in a field, not to put forward arguments to promote or deride any particular view. In particular, conjectures that hold significant prominence must no more be suppressed than be promoted as factual.

Support:
  1. The existence of marginal, or fringe views must not be described as more than they are, but it is not appropriate to reduce their relative importance either. — Coren (talk) 23:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:35, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FT2 (Talk | email) 11:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 05:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Key point. With the caveat that limited and civil advocacy on talk pages (not on articles themselves) can sometimes be appropriate to provide the context needed for a full discussion about how the article should be written, but such discussions should not be repeated ad nauseum. Carcharoth (talk) 12:21, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. bainer (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Citations

11) Citations should not be used disproportionately to the prominence of the view they are citing or in a manner that conveys undue weight. Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included.

Support:
  1. From
    WP:V. — Coren (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. self-explanatory really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FT2 (Talk | email) 11:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC) "Citation warring" has become commonplace. Also noting the distinction between exceptional claims ("Homeopathy can cure cancer") and statements about exceptional claims ("sources X and Y have opined that homeopathy can cure cancer" or "two studies by university Z suggest that..."); the issue is as often about not misrepresenting the fringy-ness of the source or implying it to be a stronger founded view than it is.[reply]
  3. Wizardman 05:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Making the sources key, and using the sources properly, can resolve many issues. Carcharoth (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes, a particular application of the general principles relating to undue weight. --bainer (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Especially the last part of it. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Fanning the flames

12) While wider community participation can be useful in face of divisive disputes, commenting editors are expected to help resolve the dispute, and carefully avoid disruptive behavior likely to escalate the dispute further.

Support:
  1. This is one of the aims of the civility policies; to ensure that what would have been a simple content disagreement does not escalates into an all-out conflict over multiple fora. — Coren (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice after 12.2 Wizardman 05:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FT2 (Talk | email) 06:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Added "disruptive"[reply]
  3. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. As written this could intimidate editors with a proposal they know will not be popular from suggesting it. Sometimes saying the right thing does cause trouble. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I am concerned that this could be used to conflate disagreement with disruption. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prefer 12.2. Carcharoth (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. They're expected to avoid any behaviour, not merely disruptive behaviour, likely to escalate rather than help resolve the dispute. Prefer 12.1. --bainer (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Prefer alternatives. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I'd prefer to keep the word "disruptive" out to make it clear that any behaviour that is likely to fan the flames, whether or not the person carrying it out intends it to be disruptive, is inappropriate. The example given by Bishonen of the excessive posting to Science Apologist's talk page is illustrative; individually, the posts may not have been disruptive, but as more and more editors piled on, the flames were fanned higher and higher. Risker (talk) 06:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. technically, any behavior likely to escalate the dispute further can and should be seen as disruptive; I fear by leaving it in, then comments masking as benign but inciteful when taken in context (i.e. subtle baiting) can be unequivocally included here. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12.1) While wider community participation can be useful in face of disputes, commenting editors are expected to help resolve the dispute, and carefully avoid behavior likely to escalate the dispute further.

Support:
  1. Alternate wording reduced to the essence. I fear it may case a slightly wider net than required, but support as second choice. — Coren (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. People's good faith effort to help resolve a conflict are welcome. But, attempts to end a dispute by piling on cautions about an user conduct rarely achieve the desire goal. Instead, refocusing the discussion away from editor conduct and back toward the article/policy content issue at hand is more effective. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Better. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice. Risker (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice. Wizardman 05:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I understand the concerns of the opposers, but the principle speaks to the expected attitude from participants in discussion (akin to expecting an attitude of good faith) and does not mean that well-intentioned actions nevertheless leading to bad consequences will be punished. --bainer (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice, prefer 12.2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. As in proposal 12. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per 12. I'm not convinced this will help. Even simple courteous disagreement may inflame a dispute. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer 12.2. Carcharoth (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Prefer 12 or 12.2. Wizardman 16:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

12.2) While wider community participation can help resolve disputes, participating editors are expected to remain civil and to assume good faith to avoid further inflaming the dispute.

Support:
  1. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. Wikipeia's policy about assuming good faith towards other users speaks to "our" actions based on "our" internal attitudes toward other users. Particularly in the preliminary states of dispute resolution, it is key to focus on the larger principles and not the specific user. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice. Wizardman 16:47, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is my preferred wording, though I'm uncertain what this applies to in this case. If it applies to people congregating on a dispute and inflaming it, agreed that this is bad, but then we already knew this and editors in general should already know this. Carcharoth (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Third choice; I think this has lost most of its force, but I have no compunction against restating the obvious: that a dispute reaches arbitration is often caused by the obvious having been forgotten. — Coren (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice, although 12.1 is also acceptable. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Second choice. Risker (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Too weak; this version omits the expectation relating to helping to resolve disputes. I prefer 12.1, which couches it as an obligation. --bainer (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. no great feeling on it. This is nothing above and beyond standard etiquette and guidelines anyway so redundant. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Casliber and don't believe it merits three alternatives. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific focus

13) Focusing the coverage of articles and topics pertaining to the natural sciences on the best available scientific knowledge is in line with the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia. This includes topics that declare themselves outside, or on the fringe, of scientific understanding but are not generally accepted as such by the scientific community.

Support:
  1. In line with our primary objective, and keeping in mind that our neutrality policy includes and depends on the concept of due weight. — Coren (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Wizardman 05:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FT2 (Talk | email) 06:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC) Articles whose content touches on science should carefully reflect scientific knowledge in that area (even if the topic does not call itself "scientific").[reply]
    Example: if
    Foo touches on planetary movements, then even if Foo is said to be "about spiritualism" (or other topic) and not a science, the parts of Foo that relate to gravity should note that the scientific view on gravity is the majority point of view. We can describe Foo practitioners' beliefs about planetary movement, we can note the rationale Foo practitioners hold for this, but even though Foo does not claim to be "about science", we cannot ignore that planetary movement has a scientific explanation that is the mainstream view on that subject, and the beliefs of Foo practitioners are "fringe". I.e., we explain, but we do not misinform. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  3. . second choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Now second choice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Awkward wording that does not make clear that Fringe Science articles need to be written in a manner that gives strong weight to the mainstream scientific understanding of the topic. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per FloNight. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is contrary to NPOV. We reflect current thought, we don't decide which of the current thought is the "best". --bainer (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree with Bainer and FloNight. Risker (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Stephen. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. This veers too close to ruling on content for my liking. Carcharoth (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not sure exactly what this would mean in practice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13.1) Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus.

Support:
  1. --ROGER DAVIES talk 07:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice; I fear that the undefined term "quasi-scientific", while clear here and in context, will make actual application of this principle difficult in the future. — Coren (talk) 14:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer this more straightforward wording. The application of terms Fringe science and Pseudoscience are at the core of this and other related disputes, so perhaps a less precisely defined but generally understood term "quasi-scientific" works better here. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. first choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 16:49, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice. Simpler and clearer. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. In line with core policies. Risker (talk) 03:12, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per my opposition to a similar principle in the cold fusion case. If this merely meant that such articles would, as a matter of weight, spend more time explaining the current mainstream scientific consensus (if any) with respect to that topic, then clearly I would support it, as a simple application of the neutral point of view. However, as with that previous principle, this proposal envisages treatment beyond mere explanation, and falls on the wrong side of the endorse/explain divide. --bainer (talk) 03:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. This veers too close to ruling on content for my liking. Having said that, in my view, if we are ruling on content, it should be a lot simpler than this and the wording here doesn't go far enough. Instead of saying "primarily reflect", the standard used should be that if a topic has proponents that claim it is scientific, but scientists do not in fact consider it scientific, then that should be stated clearly and prominently in the first few sentences.
    Weaselling words can mislead just as much as unbalanced weight. And one or two clear and forceful sentences can be worth as much as several paragraphs of bland and conciliatory wording attempting to form a compromise. Carcharoth (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. Concerns per Stephen Bain and Carcharoth; could support a rewording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mainly per Stephen but Carcharoth got a good point. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Fringe science

1) In this ruling, the term "fringe science" refers to matters which purport to be science, or use its trappings and terminology but are not usually regarded as such by the general scientific community; and to matters which do not claim to be scientific but nevertheless make claims that are normally considered within the purview of science.

Support:
  1. Definition of the area of dispute. — Coren (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. sounds about right. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 01:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Carcharoth (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

:# Is there a comma missing between "terminology" and "but"? --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:15, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed area

2) The dispute concerns articles whose primary topic is fringe science and coverage of fringe science as a secondary topic within other articles.

Support:
  1. Scope of the disputed areas. — Coren (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. sounds about right. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 01:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Carcharoth (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I don't know that "the dispute" is as broad as this, but I suppose it will do. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Advocacy

3) Advocacy of specific points of view has repeatedly taken place in the disputed area. Both promotion and suppression of fringe science have occurred.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. more or less, I note no quantifying in the statement (which may be a good thing). Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 01:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Would prefer to link this to evidence provided. Not endorsing all the evidence provided, but on the evidence page the following sections would seem to apply: 1, 2, 3. Also note extensive discussion of advocacy and promotion and debunking at the Workshop page. Carcharoth (talk) 18:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Carcharoth. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Bad faith disputes

4) Many of the disputes in the area do not appear to be good faith attempts to reach consensus on the proper neutral coverage, but attempts to promote or suppress points of view in articles. Accordingly, much of the discussion has been adversarial rather than collaborative and prevents reaching consensus rather than working towards it.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 01:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Will support this, with the caveat that some disputes are good faith attempts, and this finding of fact should not be used as a club to suppress dispute resolution, but rather to change the discussion from adversarial to collaborative. The evidence page in this case has several examples or statements about adversarial and bad faith disputes (on both sides): 1, 2, 3. Further evidence that informed my support of this finding of fact is from earlier arbitration cases: 1, 2. For a recent example of adversarial conduct, see the edit warring and edit summaries by both sides here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Tweaked wording here.[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Chilling effect

5) The vehemence, and far-ranging nature, of the disputes have had a strong negative effect on the ability of neutral editors to participate effectively in the editing process, and has driven away or pilloried editors who do not subscribe to either of the polarised points of view being warred over.

Support:
  1. It is to be noted that the stability of articles is also affected by this. — Coren (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree. Editors that are using the articles as a battleground want the fight. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Absolutely. Wizardman 18:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree. To answer Casliber, what I gleaned from the evidence page about editors being driven away was the following (not all specific claims stand up to scrutiny):
    battleground tactics. Carcharoth (talk) 20:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  6. . Yes, I do recall some of those now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Although I find the link to "pillory" a little distracting. In general, I think that if the draft decision had been workshopped before being brought to /proposed decision, we could have worked out some of the idiosyncrasies of the wordings, something that is very difficult to do on the proposed decision page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Very true. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
for the moment - is there evidence it has driven away neutral editors? I may change if some provided. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generalized problem

6) The warring over the disputed area of fringe science is endemic. A large number of editors have behaved inappropriately to various extent and to various degrees to support one of the two extreme positions.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Wizardman 01:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I believe so. To claraify, this finding highlights that it is a difficult area, which is an important background finding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As context. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Kirill. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per Carcharoth (below) FloNight♥♥♥ 22:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose for reasons given in initial abstention below. Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Would prefer a less generalized finding of fact. If we think a large number of editors have behaved inappropriately, we should say who those editors are, supply diffs to the inappropriate behaviour, and listen to what they have to say, and enact remedies if needed. As it is, this finding of fact doesn't help resolve the dispute, as it is vague to the point of uselessness. Carcharoth (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Switch to oppose. Carcharoth (talk) 01:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Per Carcharoth. Risker (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Also per Carcharoth. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Carcharoth, --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References beyond prominence

7) References from poor quality or less reliable sources have been used to buttress the fringe science point of view. In addition, there is a repeated pattern of using citations from marginal sources in a quantity and manner disproportionate to the relative prominence of that view.

Support:
  1. Part of a wide pattern. — Coren (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. yes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 01:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Switching to oppose since no diffs or evidence was provided in the wording. Carcharoth (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Carcharoth. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Carcharoth, --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. No evidence. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Require diffs before supporting this. Carcharoth (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Switching to oppose. Carcharoth (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Some example diffs will enable me to support. Risker (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Carcharoth and Risker. And the link to buttress is a little odd. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Carcharoth and Risker. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist

8)

talk · contribs) has acted against consensus ([1] [2]
), removed sourced statements appropriate to articles, and generally edited aggressively to obtain a rationalist point of view within Wikipedia articles, above and beyond what would be necessary and justified by a neutral point of view.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Prefer 8.1. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not comfortable with any wording that labels motivation behind an editor's actions or labels the philosophy of an editor while they are making a particular edit. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Proposed 8.1 below, removing the "rationalist point of view" bit. Carcharoth (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. 8.1 better. Too presumptive per FloNight. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prefer 8.1, --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Because of his role in the New York Chapter meetings, I think it is best that I recuse as to the items involving ScienceApologist. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prefer 8.1. Wizardman 16:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8.1)

talk · contribs) has acted against consensus ([3] [4]
), removed sourced statements appropriate to articles, and generally edited aggressively above and beyond what would be necessary and justified by a neutral point of view.

Support:
  1. Proposed instead of FoF 8. Carcharoth (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice; while ScienceApologist makes no secret of his intent, keeping the finding to the observable facts is also acceptable. — Coren (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:06, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:14, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Wizardman 16:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Recuse per above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

9)

talk · contribs) has often edited in a manner incompatible with the content and behavior rules of Wikipedia. In particular, he has engaged in personal attacks, intimidation ([5]), and has acted disruptively in order to make a point ([6] [7]
) or force issues.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Carcharoth (talk) 21:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 16:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. SA, being frustrated and angry, used overly heated language to express his displeasure with some specific editors. This was certainly not a good approach to use and he needs stop doing it. But I do not agree with any wording that describes this particular action as intimidation. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If those examples are the most extreme, then I oppose. The first was just too silly to be taken seriously, and (provisionally) the second and third were after provokation and and need to be taken in context (I will have to read more of the circumstances around the second two) Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not persuaded. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Recuse per above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


10) The Committee notes that

talk · contribs
) has been the repeated target of bad faith attacks, complaints and harassment because of his opposition to the fringe point of view; but that while such attacks might explain some aggressive behavior, they cannot justify or excuse it.

Support:
  1. Two wrongs cannot make a right. — Coren (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Although we naturally consider the provocation when deciding what restrictions to place on whom. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Lack of diffs. Wizardman 16:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Need to think about wording that better conveys the reason that SA conduct is not benefiting him or Wikipedia, but does not dismiss the natural reaction that commonly occurs when editors contribute in these controversial topics. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Need some diffs here. Carcharoth (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Recuse per above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree with the fact he has been a target, but it is a dirty area with alot of combative behaviour on all sides, and alot of POV pushing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. True, but this applies to a number of editors; I'm not convinced we need to call out one in particular. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Kirill, --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist (#2)

The section above is too full of concurrent proposals and alternate wordings to format multiple new proposals in any readable fashion, so I'm putting these in a different section. The numbering can be worked out later. --bainer (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X1) In the

talk · contribs) was cautioned "to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science". In the Martinphi-ScienceApologist case, ScienceApologist was made subject to an editing restriction, expiring November 2008, in relation to any edits adjudged to be uncivil, personal attacks or assumptions of bad faith; ScienceApologist has been blocked on a number of occasions in relation to that editing restriction (enforcement log
).

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Indisputable. Carcharoth (talk) 22:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 06:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Background. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. As above, recusing as to the items relating to ScienceApologist. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X2) ScienceApologist has often exhibited a combative approach to editing and to engaging with other editors (examples: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], example).

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Excessively combative. This disrupts article content and is unacceptable. Carcharoth (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Risker (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 06:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Recuse per above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X3) ScienceApologist has, from time to time, edited in such a way as to either promote or repudiate particular points of view, contrary to the

neutral point of view policy (examples: [14], [15], [16]
).

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. These particular edits are not indicative of a serious problem that would warrant a sanction. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per FloNight, but not endorsing any of the edits in question. Carcharoth (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per FloNight. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Not sure about all the examples given. Carcharoth (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Switch to oppose. Carcharoth (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Recuse per above. (Although while I'm here, I might point out that "disparage" might fit better than "repudiate".) Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Carcharoth. Risker (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Carcharoth. the redirects given in a previous section are marginally more supportive of the proposal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Unhelpful edits, to be sure, but not rising to the level of a distinct finding. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 16:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Kirill. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X4) ScienceApologist has been repeatedly warned and/or blocked in efforts to encourage him to reform his behaviour (block log; examples of discussions:

Jul 2008), yet he has often resisted such efforts and persisted in his combative approach (examples, example
).

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. True, despite the discussions being started by people he frequently opposes and who oppose him, he has gotten blocks and feedback about his contributions. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Switching to support following bainer's comment below, though examples could be better. Carcharoth (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 16:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Too many of these discussions (the first three at least) were started by his "opponents". Carcharoth (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Switching to support. Carcharoth (talk) 01:38, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And there are many more examples to be found in the noticeboard archives of discussions about ScienceApologist started by such users, many of which were dismissed by those commenting on them as frivolous or apparent mud-slinging. I've selected examples based on the other people who commented in the discussions; Nixeagle, Newyorkbrad and Rlevse are among the respected administrators to have so participated. --bainer (talk) 08:07, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Recuse per above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X5) In November 2008, ScienceApologist responded to a page ban imposed by administrator

disrupting Wikipedia to make a point (noticeboard discussion, talk page discussion
).

Support:
  1. bainer (talk) 16:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Carcharoth (talk) 23:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree that these edits were unwise and not helpful to dispute resolution. FloNight♥♥♥ 21:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 16:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Recuse per above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not sure about the "attempt at intimidation" portion. Risker (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Risker. Not even sure it was overly disruptive but was not a good idea granted. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. While that was true I don't believe it is directly related to this case in particular. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 17:47, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martinphi

11) Martinphi (talk · contribs) has engaged in advocacy of fringe views, and has repeatedly pushed towards promoting those views in Wikipedia articles above and beyond what can be justified by their relative prominence ([17] [18] [19] [20] [21]).

Support:
  1. In particular, tendentiously editing policy pages in order to alter their meaning towards being more supportive of his point of view is difficult to reconcile with collaborative editing. — Coren (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --ROGER DAVIES talk 11:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 16:52, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Switching to oppose unless more relevant diffs can be provided. Carcharoth (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Have reviewed the diffs and the deleted page again, and while I do see single-mindedness, tendentiousness, and advocacy, I don't see behaviour that quite tips into the "above and beyond" description above. And the second diff provided (this one) has "7 intermediate revisions" and it's not clear to me which of the edits by Martinphi are being referenced here. That is a technicality, but even if that was resolved, I am maintaining my opposition to this finding of fact. I would propose an alternative wording, but given that the editor in question has been community banned, that seems moot now. Carcharoth (talk) 23:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Not sure that labeling the motivation is best here, either. I do think that the conduct is not helping resolve the dispute. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Some of the diffs don't seem to work here. Would support if clearer evidence provided. Carcharoth (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Switching to oppose. Carcharoth (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per other abstainers. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per other abstainers. Risker (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per other abstainers. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    [Switch to support] Wizardman 17:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    [Switch to support] Per other abstainers. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Carcharoth's 23:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC) comment and FloNight. Supporting another alternative below. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11.1) Martinphi (talk · contribs) has engaged in advocacy of fringe views, and has repeatedly pushed those views in Wikipedia articles ([22] [23] [24][25][26]).

Support:
  1. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 19:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. (equal preference to above) Wizardman 22:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

12) Martinphi (talk · contribs) has repeatedly provoked reactions from editors he is in dispute with; the Committee consider that this conduct is not always accidental but taken with other behaviors, is at times used in order to procure reactions and their removal by sanction from areas of interest (i.e. the areas of dispute).

Support:
  1. This is a finding of a pattern, not of any single egregious incident (as illustrated during one major incident at least); Martinphi obviously feels strongly about his interpretation of NPOV and is willing to defend it against those he calls debunkers; in particular his "parting shot" on his user page (User:Martinphi) is illustrative. — Coren (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. User conduct FoFs need diffs. Wizardman 17:26, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Wizardman. Carcharoth (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Wizardman. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Needs diffs to support. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per FloNight. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per FloNight. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Need diffs. Also, link to user page is out-of-date. Is this the version you were referring to, Coren? Carcharoth (talk) 22:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Switching to oppose. Carcharoth (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per other abstainers. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per other abstainers. Risker (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per other abstainers. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per the above. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martinphi

11A) Martinphi (talk · contribs) was community banned in January 2009, in part for publishing personal information about another editor involved in this case, and also for his combative attitude in disputes the subject of this case (ban discussion. block log).

Support:
  1. It would be worth noting a community ban in this situation anyway, as it may well mean that it is not necessary to consider any other remedies, but it is particularly important to note the ban here, as the reasons for it go directly to the substance of the case. This could stand on its own or accompany the findings above if they are ultimately pursued. --bainer (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Factually correct as far as it goes. It was noted at the ban discussion and should be noted here, that the information on the particular "outing" that led to the block that started the ban discussion was initially openly displayed and is still not particularly well hidden, both in the case of the editor in question and another editor that was mentioned. It is my view that such information floating around does more harm than good. If the editors in question want to prevent such outings, or intend to cry foul when such outings occur or openly available information is linked to, there is an obligation on them to tidy things up as well and ask for revision deletion and oversights. Carcharoth (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 11:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Risker (talk) 03:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 17:27, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Pcarbonn

13) Pcarbonn (talk · contribs) has engaged, wittingly or unwittingly, in a pattern of incitement and escalation during the dispute by repeatedly raising the issue in multiple fora ([27] [28] [29] [30], edit warring over policy [31]) in a emotive and disruptive manner likely to inflame the dispute further.

Support:
  1. In particular, he uses every incident related to fringe science as a
    platform to expound on his philosophical disagreement with the coverage of scientific topics. — Coren (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice, prefer 13.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice, prefer 13.1. Risker (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Disagree with "edit warring over policy" diff. I see two reverts and no further reversions after that. Others at that policy page are equally guilty of behaviour like that. Also disagree that this diff is actionable. Agree with other points about forum shopping. Proposed 13.1 below. Carcharoth (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Carcharoth. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Prefer 13.1. Wizardman 23:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ditto. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

13.1) Pcarbonn (talk · contribs) has engaged, wittingly or unwittingly, in a pattern of incitement and escalation during the dispute by repeatedly raising the issue in multiple fora ([32] [33] [34]) in an emotive and disruptive manner likely to inflame the dispute further.

Support:
  1. Proposed as alternative to FoF 13. Carcharoth (talk) 22:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 23:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Risker (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed remedies

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

Supervised Editing

1) Where one or more editors persistently fail to engage other editors or the editorial process appropriately, they may be placed under supervised editing; during which a designated mentor may, at their discretion, revert or refactor any edit from that editor, direct the cessation of a line or theme of discussion by that editor, or ban the editor for increasing periods of time from any or all articles in the specified areas. The mentor may also direct that the editor propose any content concerns or substantive edits to the mentor, who will in turn agree with an edit or post conveying the legitimate material in an appropriate manner on his behalf. Complaints about a supervised editor's conduct or continuing problematic editing should be brought to the mentor's attention and not the editor's; if brought to the editor's then the mentor should be advised but the editor should not take further action. This does not affect routine orderly editorial discussion where such conduct issues are not involved, at the sole judgement of the mentor if there is disagreement. At the end of the original supervision period, the mentor will submit a review and recommendation to the Arbitration Committee who will in turn amend the remedy as they see fit.

Support:
  1. The objective is to allow the editors to continue their positive contribution while limiting the escalation of disputes. — Coren (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree in principle, but noting that this will only work if the right mentor is found, and if the supervised editors work in good faith to improve their editing and realise that they are being given a last chance to improve. Carcharoth (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Not sure that this is realistic in a volunteer organization. This seems to be too labor intensive even if several mentors are selected. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Flo. Even if sufficient mentors are available to make this practicable, I'm also wary about the level of direct involvement in the content work of subjects that this calls for. --bainer (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Stephen Bain. Risker (talk) 02:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per FloNight. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per FloNight, --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Not sure about this ... still thinking. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Mostly out of concern that there is already a dearth of administrators willing to mentor, and we have no evidence that there are administrators willing to act in this type of supervisory role. Risker (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per NYB, it's a nice idea but i don't know how we would execute it. Wizardman 02:34, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. A good idea, but I think we can leave it for now. If needed in the future, we may need to take this road in a motion; but let us hope the participants do not point us in that direction. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Too complicated as a process. If a mentor could handle such a hard job they could just become topic editors themselves. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Selection of mentors

2) Editors placed under supervised editing as defined in remedy 1 are placed under a topic ban on the specified area for the duration of the remedy until and unless a mentor is found that is agreeable to both the editor and the Committee.

Support:
  1. Supervised editing is, in effect, a topic ban unless the editor has a suitable mentor. — Coren (talk) 01:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree that if an editor does not have an active mentor means that a topic ban should kick-in until one is found. Communicating the lack of mentor should be both the mentor and the user's job if there is a change in status. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Absolutely. This is non-negotiable. Supervised editing is not meant to be a get-out-of-jail free card, but a chance to demonstrate the ability to work constructively with others under guidance. Carcharoth (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Conditional on remedy #1 passing; more specific remedies would be appropriate otherwise. --bainer (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. If remedy 1 passes, then yes this is good. Wizardman 17:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Conditional on remedy #1 passing. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Conditional on remedy 1 passing. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Conditional on Remedy #1 passing. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comments in 1 above. Risker (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mentorship is not appropriate for this particular case (per my stance above). -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist supervised

3)

talk · contribs
) is placed under supervised editing as described above in the entire dispute area, for a period of six months.

Support:
  1. As noted in 1 above, this remedy will be reexamined at the end of the initial period. — Coren (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Supporting this, but making clear that future transgressions by ScienceApologist or failure to work with others will lead to topic bans or more. There is more than enough room on Wikipedia for ScienceApologist and others to edit in a calm manner without
    battleground tactics. Carcharoth (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Oppose:
  1. Per my oppose vote for supervised editing. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Flo. --bainer (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per FloNight. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per FloNight, --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Recuse per above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my abstentions above. Risker (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per abstain in 1. Wizardman 17:23, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Not necessary at this time. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist topic banned

3.1)

talk · contribs
) is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months. ScienceApologist is free to edit the talk pages of such articles.

Support:
  1. Over a significant period of time, ScienceApologist has been subject to various editing restrictions and sanctions, which have been enforced against him on numerous occasions. He has been warned or advised about problems with his editing on numerous occasions also. Yet ScienceApologist persists in a combative approach to editing. If he refuses to edit collaboratively in this topic area, then he ought not edit at all. --bainer (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Changed header to make clear this is a topic ban, not a full ban. Am supporting this because the previous behaviour for which ScienceApologist was sanctioned persists. If ScienceApologist can follow these conditions, can edit 'fringe science' talk pages civilly and productively, and work productively on other articles for six months, then a return to editing fringe science articles would be possible. If the behaviour persists on other articles, I would support extending the topic ban to other areas. Carcharoth (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Updating to confirm that this is now my second choice, after 3.2. Carcharoth (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  3. Per Stephen Bain and Carcharoth. Risker (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Expanding on my opinion here. For the purposes of delineating the scope of this topic ban, article categorization will be helpful. Categories including the word "fringe" or "pseudo-" followed by a science category (physics, astronomy, chemistry, medicine, etc) would be included in this topic ban. ScienceApologist has shown some progress in improving his collaborative efforts, while remaining more civil, but needs to be able to demonstrate a sustained change in editing behaviour, including productive and civil exchange on talk pages and in edit summaries. Further comments are on the talk page, including a review of which articles in a list created by SA would fall within this topic ban. Risker (talk) 02:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per above, it's come to this. Wizardman 05:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. [Switch to oppose] --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Regretfully. I would have prefered a method which would have allowed ScienceApologist to retain the ability to edit the topic area, even if in a limited fashion, but given that no workable alternative has been found, this has become necessary. — Coren (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. oppose for now, After thinking about it - the breadth of the definition of "Fringe Science" and fluidity of definition in some areas bordering on science have me worried it could be gamed either way with ongoing headaches about violations - what is and what isn't fringe science. I am also balancing the effect WRT Civil POV pushing which is an ongoing problem. I am not convinced SA's removal from the area will be a net benefit towards a neutral encyclopedia. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Switch to oppose for same reasons stated below. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Switch to oppose. I prefer the formula at 3.2. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Switch to oppose. I prefer 3.2. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Recuse. As stated above, in view of his involvement in the New York Chapter meetings, I think it is best that I not vote on the proposed findings and remedies concerning this editor. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Still musing on this - the breadth of the definition of "Fringe Science" and fluidity of definition in some areas bordering on science have me worried it could be gamed either way with ongoing headaches about violations - what is and what isn't fringe science. I am also balancing the effect WRT Civil POV pushing which is an ongoing problem. I am not convinced SA's removal from the area will be a net benefit towards a neutral encyclopedia. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm reluctant to let the case close without a sanction because SA's contributions have been an ongoing problem when he loses his cool. But, I'm reluctant to give a sanction that removes him from editing Fringe Science articles if other options will work. I'm willing to let a short period of time elapse before I vote for a topic ban to see if the current arrangement will bring the desired results. I'll introduce a motion for a topic ban if there is another significant flair up. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)(change vote) FloNight♥♥♥ 13:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm concerned that this is going to be very difficult if not impossible to enforce. All 'fringe science' includes elements of orthodox science, and there is not a binary distinction between the fringe and the mainstream - it's more of a spectrum. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC) Update: Switch to oppose. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3.2)

talk · contribs
) is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months and this remedy is suspended for six months from the date this Request for Arbitration closes subject to the editor's continuing present improved behaviour. The topic ban may be imposed at any time during the six month suspension period by application to the Arbitration Committee for an appropriate motion by an uninvolved administrator.

Support:
  1. Support --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support iff 3.1 fails. — Coren (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice to 3.1, support if 3.1 fails. Risker (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support (weakly) in that something would need to happen enforcement-wise if there were further problems. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:49, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice over 3.1. Carcharoth (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Supports if 3.1 fails. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Prefer 3.1. Wizardman 14:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Prefer 3.1. Kirill [pf] 02:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Incongruous and inadequate. --bainer (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. For the same reason as in 3; I don't think a topic ban is going to start being workable by delaying it for up to six months, and the effect of an editor having a problematic sanction hanging over his head for this time may be deleterious. Sam Blacketer (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Recuse as to the items relating to ScienceApologist, per above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martinphi restricted

4) Martinphi (talk · contribs) is banned from editing policy and guideline pages (widely construed) for six months. He may still participate in discussion on the associated talk pages.

Support:
  1. — Coren (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Would this include editing pages that describe recognized Wikipedia processes, as well? If so, maybe add it while new. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not an onerous restriction. Should be suspended in lieu of the community ban discussion, pending any attempts to get the community ban reduced or changed: [35], [36]. This six-month restriction would start from the point of any return, as determined by the community, or dropped as moot, per Wizardman. Carcharoth (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Carcharoth. Risker (talk) 03:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Carcharoth. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Martinphi's indef-blocked, so this is essentially moot now. Wizardman 22:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Rethinking this. Wizardman 01:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Moot as long as the user is indefinitely blocked, and probably overbroad if he is not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per above, this is moot. --bainer (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ditto, moot. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. After rethinking, I've decided that should he be unblocked, I believe that we can trust the community to create appropriate editing restrictions and conditions on any unblock discussion. Wizardman 17:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Newyorkbrad. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Moot. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Moot now. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    [Switch to oppose] --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pcarbonn admonished

7) Pcarbonn (talk · contribs) is admonished for needlessly stoking the fires of disputes in the area of fringe science, and is encouraged to direct his efforts elsewhere.

Support:
  1. More light, less heat. — Coren (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, but note that this is an encouragement, not an outright topic ban. For me personally, sustained editing in non-fringe science areas in addition to reduced editing in fringe science areas would be sufficient to demonstrate a willingness to diversify.Carcharoth (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 23:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 03:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Editors warned

5) All editors in the disputed area are warned that further disruptive editing in the disputed area will be viewed dimly by the Committee, and may lead to further sanctions being imposed.

Support:
  1. Uninvolved editors may bring further disruption to the attention of the committee, with the understanding that frivolous or retributive complaints would also be viewed dimly. — Coren (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See also talk page for tentative thoughts on this. FT2 (Talk | email) 06:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Standard general warning. Carcharoth (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A general warning. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 18:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Please note that this is directed beyond the participants in this case, and indeed those in the other prior related cases. This topic area has produced a grossly disproportionate number of cases and disputes. --bainer (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Ok. Warned again. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Editors encouraged

6) Editors in the disputed area are encouraged to seek to engage in formal mediation to help establish consensus when coverage of fringe science in an article or group of articles is under dispute. While mediation is not binding, editors are further encouraged to abide by the results of mediation (and other dispute resolution).

Support:
  1. In particular, the dispute over the relative relevance of sources appears to be ripe for mediation. — Coren (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. For what it is worth. Personally, I'd like to see some evidence that editors in this area are making attempts to improve content in these articles, rather then being entrenched in a defensive
    battleground mentality over the same old issues. Working in good faith to bring one article a month in this area towards good article or featured article status would go a long way to demonstrating who is here to write an encyclopedia. Carcharoth (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. basic and pragmatic option. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Wizardman 18:47, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Risker (talk) 03:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. bainer (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  12. ... and encouraged again. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:38, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block

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/Fringe science#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Support:
  1. The usual enforcement provision. — Coren (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is adequate here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Equal preference with 1.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Either one. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Equal preference. Wizardman 23:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice. bit too prescriptive for mine. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Equal preference with 1.1. Risker (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Although I don't think there are any actionable restrictions passing. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Kirill, --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support either. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Violating ArbCom decisions up to 5 times is too much. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:

1.1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked. In the event of repeated violations, the maximum block may be increased gradually. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Support:
  1. More liberal than the traditional enforcement provision; suggested by Vassyana. Second choice. — Coren (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice. Carcharoth (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Equal preference with 1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Either one. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Equal preference. Wizardman 23:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. first choice. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Equal preference with 1. Risker (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Although I don't think there are any actionable restrictions passing. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Kirill, --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support either. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  11. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 18:43, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Supervised Editing

2) Article bans and other restrictions placed on a supervised editor by their mentor are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Support:
  1. Restrictions to be logged. — Coren (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If the other restrictions pass, then yes, standard provision. Carcharoth (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Subject to the "supervised editing" remedy passing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Newyorkbrad. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Wizardman 23:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per Newyorkbrad. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Newyorkbrad. Risker (talk) 03:32, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Conditional on remedy #1 passing. Kirill [pf] 14:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Kirill, --ROGER DAVIES talk 01:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Conditional per Newyorkbrad. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

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

Regarding passage:

  • Principles 1-11, 12.1 & 12.2 (although choice makes 12.2 more favored), 13.1 pass
  • Findings 1-5, 6 (due to abstentions), 8.1, X1, X2, X4, X5, 11 (due to abstentions), 11A, 13 & 13.1 (although choice makes 13.1 more favored) pass
  • Remedies 3.1 & 3.2 (although choice makes 3.1 more favored), 5-7 pass. 2 does NOT pass due to conditional votes.
  • All enforcement pass (although choice makes 1 more favored than 1.1). Gazimoff 15:54, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have a re-check on the implementation notes given that the majority just changed? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

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

The 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.

Support
  1. Move to close. It is two months since the case was opened and almost six weeks since a proposed decision was posted, so I think we need to finalize the case. Alternative proposals on a few items, as suggested above, might be desirable, but will not change the essence of the decision, and I am concerned about our replicating (in this and other matters) the error of past years' committees in taking too long to move cases through the decisional process. No objection, of course, to further votes, comments, ideas ... but hopefully soonishly. (Please note that there are items relating to User:ScienceApologist that many arbs have not yet voted on; since I have recused as to this editor, I do not mean to suggest that these do not deserve attention if my colleagues believe they do.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree that this case needs to be closed soon. FloNight♥♥♥ 22:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per preceding. This motion will only get a majority when arbs have voted above anyway so noting now. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Now that Roger's votes finalize most of the propositions on the pass/fail scale, I'm comfortable closing now. Wizardman 04:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Close. Risker (talk) 02:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Close. Kirill [pf] 02:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Close. --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coren (talk) 16:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Time to close. Sam Blacketer (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Nothing more to do here. Case can be closed. Carcharoth (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Not prepared to support a close while two arbitrators are marked as active for this case and have not yet voted. If said arbitrators move to inactive on this case, or voted, I would support a close. Carcharoth (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Awaiting updating of the implementation notes before supporting the motion to close. Carcharoth (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    [switch to support] Oppose remaining until voting on remedies 3.1 and 3.2 is cleared up. Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Partially per Carc, but also because we need to make sure that proposals are passing/failing due to consensus or lack thereof, not because of lack of voting. Wizardman 06:10, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, pending consideration of alt. remedy 3.2. --ROGER DAVIES talk 10:20, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose until 3.2 is decided either way. — Coren (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further proposed motions following Request for Clarification [37]

Motion to sanction ScienceApologist

Note: There are 11 active arbitrators (plus 4 abstentions/recusals and 1 inactive), so a majority is 6.

1)

wikilawyering
. The clock on his six-month topic ban restarts on his return and further instances of misbehaviour will be dealt with by longer bans. For the avoidance of any doubt, a topic ban means "entirely prohibited from editing articles within the topic". Requests by ScienceApologist for clarifications of whether articles are within scope are to be made by him to the Arbitration Committee by email.

Support:
  1. — Roger Davies talk 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support; sadly, ScienceApologist seems to have confused this Committee's attempt at giving him an opportunity to contribute constructively with a game to be "won" or "lost". — Coren (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Three months actually feels light to me, I'd prefer six. But throwing in another motion will delay us further, the sooner this is passed the better. Wizardman 17:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I regret that ScienceApologist's actions make this action necessary. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. As a direct consequence of the reaction to the topic ban. Would be prepared to review in one month's time. Carcharoth (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Unfortunately necessary, given the failure of the topic ban. Kirill [pf] 07:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. No sign of a behavior change. Yesterday, I gave ScienceApologist 24h to see if some light appears at the end of the tunnel but unfortunately nothing has changed. See at 'Comments' sections below. As an aside note regarding the typos, I'd say it is behavior that should be fixed rather than typos because this is a collaborative project and making it look like a bloody battleground is really more harmful than leaving 2 typos unfixed —someone may fix them but ScienceApologist still has to fix his behavior.-- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. pending alternate proposal. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Recuse per comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain — Rlevse • Talk • 20:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. For the moment.
    chat) 03:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. Recuse, as noted above. --Vassyana (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Comments:
  1. I wouldn't have chosen to comment if there has been no 1.1. So, I am giving it another 24h to see if there would be any good signs of a change in behavior. So far, nothing has changed judging by what I've just read at ScienceApologist's talk page; same usual attitude plus a kind of temptation to use anonymous accounts for editing and a clear unacceptance of "the authority of the administrator making the block [and] the arbcom's insistence that the topic ban is reasonable in any way." ScienceApologist has still to understand fully that it is all about the attitude that harms collaborative editing and that is irrespective of whether it concerns anonymous or registered accounts. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Just after coming back today ScienceApologist went to his talk page and started to alter Abd's posts by changing the whole content of the posts: 1) Here, ScienceApologist removed a whole post while keeping only one phrase which suits him. That is a violation of WP:TALK: "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning, even on your own talk page. Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so." ScienceApologist could just have removed all Abd's comments and that would be fine. 2) Then, ScienceApologist started to remove the posts and that is legitimate. However, he just replaced them with "'Comment by, Abd, cold fusion promoter removed." He then did it twice again before blanking his talk page. That's enough evidence that ScienceApologist believes he can still keep doing what he likes to do even under ArbCom lenses. I don't see a light at the end of the tunnel. I am therefore supporting a ban. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1.1)

wikilawyering
. He is not permitted to make any edit to any page in any namespace outside his own userspace, unless the page has been approved by the Arbitration Committee. Any instances of misbehaviour during this three month period will be dealt with by an indefinite ban at the discretion of an individual arbitrator.

The list of acceptable pages will be maintained on a protected page in his userspace. Requests to add pages to the list must be submitted to the Arbitration Committee by email, and two Committee members must approve of any addition to the list. Any committee member may remove a page from the list, at any time, with a notification to his user talk page.

The clock on his six-month topic ban restarts after the three months of restricted editing. For the avoidance of any doubt, a topic ban means "entirely prohibited from editing articles within the topic". Requests by ScienceApologist for clarifications of whether articles are within scope are to be made by him to the Arbitration Committee by email.

Support:
  1. chat) 03:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I do not see this as merely giving him another chance. It is an alternative approach to how he is restricted for the next three months. It is weaker than a full ban, but if he can endure editing only a limited number of articles, what do we have to lose? I doubt that it will take much time for us to approve a few articles for him to work on each week. If it is working well, but consuming too much of our time, we could ask another member of the community to do the approvals.
    This motion temporarily handles the ambiguity of the topic ban in an extreme way, and in a way that forces ScienceApologist to take a break from his typical editing pattern, and let others deal with the problems that he notices. If he doesnt, he is out. OTOH, I do appreciate that motion 1 will also give him time to clear his head, and will endorse that remedy if he does not like the look of motion 1.1, or if he rants and raves when he comes back from his block.
    chat) 12:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. in the interests of article building and neogtiating some form of consensus. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Excessively complex; given our workload, we shouldn't be inserting ourselves into approving day-to-day edits. Kirill [pf] 07:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Kirill. Also not happy at the indefinite ban clause. In principle, I think most ArbCom bans should be a maximum of one year, only rising to indefinite if the problems recur after that. Normal indefinite bans should be the purview of administrators and community ban discussions. Would be happy for some form of the above to take place after three months, or to be discussed during the suggested review after one month referred to in my comment above. Carcharoth (talk) 09:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Kirill, we gave him a chance with the topic ban, so we should he get another? Wizardman 10:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Kirill, plus (i) he's already had his chance with the topic ban and (ii) no indication whatsoever that he understands the problem with his behaviour. — Roger Davies talk 10:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No. I see no reason to expend so much effort to accommodate an editor that is not intent on being collaborative, as amply demonstrated. — Coren (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. See my rationale at the 'Comments' section above. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. Recuse per comments above. (I will allow myself to point out ministerially that there is an ambiguity in the motion: in the clause "unless it is approved by the Arbitration Committee", does the word "it" mean the page, or the specific edit? The next paragraph suggests the former, but this might well be clarified. This comment can be removed if the wording is adjusted.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Recuse, as noted above. --Vassyana (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Motion to clarify the interpretative role of administrators

Note: There are 12 active arbitrators (plus 3 abstentions/recusals and 1 inactive), so a majority is 7.

2) Administrators are given interpretive leeway when reasonably enforcing arbitration decisions and are expected to explain their rationale at their earliest opportunity in discussion or edit summary. Formal clarifications are best articulated by the Arbitration Committee and may be sought by a request for clarification.

Support:
  1. — Roger Davies talk 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Wizardman 17:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is to codify an understanding which has previously always been acknowledged in practice. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. chat) 03:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. Kirill [pf] 07:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per Sam. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Recuse per comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Recuse, as noted above. --Vassyana (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Motion regarding SirFozzie

Note: There are 12 active arbitrators (plus 3 abstentions/recusals and 1 inactive), so a majority is 7.

3) SirFozzie has acted appropriately and within administrator discretion by interpreting the remedy and by clearly explaining his interpretation despite misunderstandings about the best form and forum in which to clarify his reasoning. The Committee thanks and commends him for this, and his considerable past efforts in helping in the difficult area of arbitration enforcement.

Support:
  1. — Roger Davies talk 17:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Risker (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Arbitration enforcement is often too thankless of a job. — Coren (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Of course. Wizardman 17:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sam Blacketer (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Carcharoth (talk) 03:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  8. chat) 03:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. Kirill [pf] 07:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  10. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 08:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
  1. Recuse per comments above, but I certainly join in thanking SirFozzie for his record of contributions to the project. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Abstain, but I certainly join in thanking SirFozzie for his fine record of contributions to the project. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Recuse, as noted above. --Vassyana (talk) 07:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further proposed motion following Request for Amendment (May 2009)

The following proposal originally took place here (at
AGK 14:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Motion 1 of 1

1) Kaldari, Sceptre, and Durova are granted permission to act as proxies for ScienceApologist by making edits to the optics article, its talk page, and any process pages directly related to the optics featured article drive.

Support
  1. As proposed. Kirill [talk] [pf] 02:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Needs to include mention of the proposed brief unblock. Other than this, though, the rest of the ban needs to be served out. If it was a topic ban, it could be altered. But this was a site-wide ban for conduct problems. Suggest also that care is taken with the editing history here. Please make sure the edit history makes sense. Carcharoth (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3.  Roger Davies talk 04:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  4. In passing I want to note that I am favourably impressed by ScienceApologist's way of coping with his block. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  6. With the usual caveat that the editors that perform the actual proxy edit take responsibility for it. — Coren (talk) 01:40, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  7. chat) 05:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  8. Per Coren. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Wizardman 17:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
  1. (As recused) --Vassyana (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Also recused, due to ScienceApologist's role at the New York chapter meetings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:19, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science/Proposed_decision&oldid=1142507091"