all proposed

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.
Items that receive a majority "oppose" vote will be formally rejected.
Items that do not receive a majority "support" or "oppose" vote will be open to possible amendment by any Arbitrator if they so chooses. After the amendment process is complete, the item will be voted on one last time.

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.

On this case, no Arbitrators are recused and 5 are inactive, so 5 votes are a majority (9 active arbitrators).

For all items

Proposed wording to be modified by Arbitrators and then voted on. Non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

Motions and requests by the parties

Place those on /Workshop.

Proposed temporary injunctions

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

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Neutral point of view

1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of all significant points of view regarding the subject of an article, see comment by Jimbo.

Support:

Fred Bauder 16:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 21:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With significant being the key word in this instance. - SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I don't necessarily disagree, but in this particular case, I think 3A is probably a better choice. Raul654 18:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As Raul654, prefer 3A, less ambiguity. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3A is better. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Neutral point of view as applied to science

1a) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.

Support:

Fred Bauder 14:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like my objection was pretty much the same as Charles Matthews' objection. Fred was operating under the assumption that "significant alternatives" mentioned in this principle is equivalent to "legitimate scientific disagreement". However, as previously written, I believe it included a whole lot more than that, including, as I said, a ton of pseudoscience. I have added a second sentence to make this distinction clear, and I now support. Raul654 15:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 16:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

~~No no no. This swings the door wide open for pseudoscience. Raul654 02:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

You are conflating legitimate scientific disagreement with pseudoscience. Fred Bauder 20:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

:# I'm sure NPOV means that alternative scientific theories should be mentioned (e.g. steady-state universe versus Big Bang); what is not clear to me whether 'alternatives to scientific orthodoxy' as said here includes astrology as opposed to astronomy, rather than just alternate equally scientific theories within astronomy. Charles Matthews 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reference is to alternative scientific viewpoints, not to astrology. Fred Bauder 13:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

2) There must be sufficient verifiable information from reliable sources regarding a subject for there to be an article about it, Wikipedia:Notability. Guidelines regarding notability have been developed for a number of areas, but not for scientific theories (The proposal Wikipedia:Notability (science) is based on principles elucidated in this case).

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

No original research

3) Wikipedia:No original research forbids information which has not been published in a reliable source from being included in an article. This policy was originally developed as a response to attempts to include novel scientific theories, see Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_is_excluded.3F and the following mailing list post by Jimbo: [1]

Support:

Fred Bauder 17:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

See 3A. Raul654 18:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Current understanding of the position seems to admit some loopholes in 'reliable'; not that these are particularly relevant here. Charles Matthews 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No original research

3a) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight quotes Jimbo Wales, stating "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Following this principle, theories which have not been published in reputable sources should not be included in articles on mainstream scientific topics.

Support

Raul654 18:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC) - Note: for a defition of reliable sources, see 4A.[reply]
Fred Bauder 14:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Flexibility in appropriate circumstances

4), In appropriate circumstances, there are exceptions made to the requirement that information must have been published in a conventional reliable source, see this post by Jimbo [2].

Support:

Fred Bauder 17:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Raul654 18:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC) - see 4A - What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article[reply]
What is a reliable source may vary, but the need for such sources does not. - SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Appropriate sources

4a) Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. What constitutes a reliable source varies with the topic of the article, but in the case of a scientific theory, there is a clear expectation that the sources for the theory itself are reputable textbooks or peer-reviewed journals. Scientific theories promulgated outside these media are not properly verifiable as scientific theories and should not be represented as such.

Support

Oppose:

Abstain:

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

5) While it may be that paradigm shifts occur from time to time, it is not the place of Wikipedia to venture projections regarding them, Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Wiki process

6) As practiced on Wikipedia, the wiki process contemplates that any editor may edit any article provided they do not disrupt it.

Support:

Oppose:

Principle bloat. What's the point? Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just touching base. Fred Bauder 14:28, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Experts

7) Historically, although a perennial subject of discussion, see, for example, the rejected proposal Wikipedia:Expert editors and the brainstorming essay, Wikipedia:Expert retention, experts were accorded no special role or status on Wikipedia.

Support:

Fred Bauder 20:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 18:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But have in many cases been treated with deserved respect. Charles Matthews 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask the reason for yor objection? Raul654 15:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

While there is no written policy of deference to experts, such deference has always been a fact on Wikipedia. Many of the rules the Wikipedia community operates under are unwritten, this does not mean they can be considered nonexistent. - SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Per SimonP. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quality

8) As Wikipedia has matured, becoming one of the leading internet reference sites, being relied on by hundreds of thousands of people daily around the world for reliable information, our responsibility has increased and the emphasis of our activity has shifted from quantity to quality, see Opening Plenary (transcript) Wikimania.

Support:

Oppose:

Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wishful thinking. Too early to assess whether the culture has really changed. Charles Matthews 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure this is actually the case, and don't see that we need to find this anyway Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If only. Not relevant anyway. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Straying a bit to far into meta issues. - SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes

9) Restrictions are placed on users only in cases where their behavior seriously disrupts the wiki process or fulfillment of Wikipedia's mission to produce an accurate and useful reference work.

Support:

Oppose:

Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Academically demanding subjects

10) In the case of subjects which require considerable academic or experiential expertise, some deference to experts is appropriate.

Support:

Fred Bauder 22:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though deference isn't really the correct word, experts are to be welcomed. Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Civility should be further underpinned, in topics where not everyone can have an informed opinion. Charles Matthews 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Per comments here, I'm hesitant about this particular proposal. Perhaps it could be better worded. Raul654 19:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like what this is trying to say, but not in these words. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also not happy with wording. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Experts are required to cite sources

11) Experts are presumed to have an adequate command of appropriate sources for information they add or positions they take. Bare assertions of expertise without supporting sources are unacceptable, especially if there is conflict with other users.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Real expertise (mastery) cuts deeper, in fact. Someone who has studied an area for 20 years knows many things, the provenance of which cannot instantly be retrieved. Charles Matthews 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Experts are subject to the no original research rule

12) Wikipedia:No original research applies to users who are experts in a field and who may be engaged in original research. The latest insights resulting from current research are often not acceptable for inclusion as established information as they have not yet been published.

Support:

Fred Bauder 14:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is wise, even if we have to await the preprint. Breaking scientific news can be hard to handle. Charles Matthews 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred's changes make this acceptable to me. Raul654 15:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Conflicts with 4A - Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader. The bar for inclusion is publication in a reliable source. Raul654 18:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a recurring problem with experts feeling they are an exception. Added publication requirement. Fred Bauder 14:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Conflict of interest

13) Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Self-promotion, a guideline, strongly discourages editing which promotes the editor's projects.

Support:

Fred Bauder 15:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 18:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is something said in WP:NOT that might be taken the other way, but affirming this principle is important.Charles Matthews 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Serious encyclopedias

14) Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.

Support:

Oppose:

Bloat. Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I think - especially in this particular case - that it very much warrants stating that we expect our scientific articles to be in line with mainstream scientific thoughts. Raul654 15:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Our goal is not to be respected, it is to be accurate and NPOV. Respect will hopefully be a byproduct of those aims but it should not be seen as an aim in itself. - SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In agreement with SimonP. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious pseudoscience

15) Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 21:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Quibble ye not. Charles Matthews 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though I agree that care must be taken to determine who decides what is "obviously bogus". - SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only when there is good consensus as to the obvious bogosity in the mainstream scientific community - not just in one or two editors' minds. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Theories that are "obviously bogus," or ones for which considerable mainstream consensus exists that they are bogus? The former is nothing more than personal opinion, and invites fighting over what is obvious. Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Generally considered pseudoscience

16) Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

Support:

Fred Bauder 14:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 21:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: "may properly contain that information" meaning they should properly contain the info that they are "considered pseudoscience by the scientific community," not that they are pseudoscience. Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With Dmcdevit's proviso. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Questionable science

17) Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 21:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As with 16. Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of therapeutic medicine has had a scientific basis. Charles Matthews 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Alternative theoretical formulations

18) Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Support:

Fred Bauder 19:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 21:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is some slippage from brainstorming into crankiness, but generally science polices gaming of that line quite well. So the literature is a guide good enough for WP, to answer Dom's point. Charles Matthews 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per Charles Matthews, scientific consensus is a good guide to this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Content. I'm only concerned with whether sources consider them pseudoscience or not, and this principle doesn't mention that. Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Notability

1) Notability of scientific theories, thus eligibility to be the subject of an article, may arise in a number of ways: the theory may be part of the corpus of generally accepted scientific knowledge; it may be considered a possible explanation by part of the scientific community; it may be of historical interest; it may be advocated by a prominent persons or for political or religious reasons; it may be well known due to extensive press coverage; or simply because there is strong criticism from the scientific community.

Support:

Fred Bauder 18:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 18:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC) - Note - I have removed the 'or absurd' clause because it seems dangerously nebulous[reply]
Charles Matthews 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

This reads like a principle, not a finding. In any case, I don't think there is any such agreement. Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Established Wikipedia customs and common practices, see Wikipedia:Arbitration_policy#Rules. Fred Bauder 15:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this, but it reads like the ArbCom is dictating new policies. - SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to get into this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Notability

1a) The notability of a scientific theory may arise in ways that are not determined by its contemporary validity.

Support:

Fred Bauder 18:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 18:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Phlogiston. Charles Matthews 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stating the obvious Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Per 1. Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Locus of dispute

2) The locus of this dispute in this case is the editing to a group of articles loosely connected to cosmology and related topics, including Big bang, Plasma cosmology, Intrinsic redshift and others. One involved party is also a leading developer and proponent of one of the topics in question, and has a biography on Wikipedia (Eric Lerner), which is also involved.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Disputes over expertise

3) Absent considerable expertise and experience in the field, especially when neither position cites a source, it is impossible to evaluate edits such as this, see Talk:Aneutronic_fusion#Radiation_dose. This has also proved difficult for the editors themselves who have quarreled and edit warred with respect to their relative expertise, Talk:Aneutronic_fusion#End_of_the_road and Talk:Aneutronic_fusion#SOS, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Eric_Lerner_has_pushed_his_POV_on_Aneutronic_fusion. See also User:Sdedeo and [3].

Support:

Fred Bauder 18:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I'm not convinced this is so true. All one would need is to cite a source rather than personal expertise, as no expert's claim should be accepted either without a source. Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a convincing example, to me, though I'm sure it occurs elsewhere. Charles Matthews 22:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 15:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Some experts have been unable to edit on Wikipedia

4) In a number of instances expert users have become frustrated and left Wikipedia, see User:Sdedeo and (Hillman)

Support:

Fred Bauder 22:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, if anecdotal evidence. Charles Matthews 22:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Not terribly relevant. Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True but irrelevant ➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Subjects which require academic expertise

5) Considerable academic expertise is required in order to adequately evaluate the quality of edits to a small number of articles in highly technical fields such as physics.

Support:

Fred Bauder 21:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you make that all edits, quite true. But not every edit. Charles Matthews 22:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Not convinced. Why is this a finding and not a principle? Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell the difference between an appropriate edit and someone adding nonsense to a theoretical physics article? Fred Bauder 00:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure I can tell the differnce between truth and political party talking points, but neither is what we're aiming at. However unlikely, if "nonsense" is a significant point of view in a theoretical physics article, it needs to be represented, and if the opposite of nonsens is not a significant point of view, it shouldn't be represented. These are the only considerations, not how nonsensical they are, and for that reason, I'm not certain how demanding reliable sourcing can't solve the problem. Dmcdevit·t 01:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done my share of debating with people adding pseudoscience, and I certainly do not have a physics background. - SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the edits. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption of academically demanding subject

6) Articles concerning a few academically demanding subjects have been disrupted by the editing of users who lack expertise in the relevant subject matter.

Support:

Fred Bauder 21:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

This is a bit vague and unsatisfactory. We should make findings related to actual individual behavior. Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
true but irrelevant ➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
unnecessary. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, but not required. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Lerner

7) Elerner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is Eric Lerner, an advocate of the plasma cosmology theory. He is engaged in promotion of a "plasma focus device," utilizing a hydrogen-boron nuclear reaction [4] [5].

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Self promotion by Elerner

8) Aneutronic fusion, which Elerner has edited extensively is, in part, an treatment of the "plasma focus device" which he is engaged in supporting and raising money for [6] as the director [7] of the Focus Fusion Society.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Pseudoscience

9) Wikipedia contains articles such as Time Cube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a theory of time, which, while notable, have little or no following in the scientific community, often being so little regarded that there is no serious criticism of them by scientific critics. In the case of Time Cube, an anonymous editor, "Time Cube Guy," frequently reverts to his favored version.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

The notability of the time cube article is, at best, borderline. It *might* be notable as an internet phenomenon or as a hoax, but not much beyond that. Raul654 15:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure this is a ncessary finding. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tommysun

10) Tommysun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) shows a pattern of aggressive biased editing combined with eccentric interpretation with respect to information concerning theoretical astrophysics, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Evidence_of_misrepresentation_by_ScienceApologist, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Evidence_that_there_is_no_big_bang_theory, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Tommy_Mandel_has_pushed_his_POV_on_Big_Bang_and_Plasma_cosmology, and Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Big_Bang_is_the_real_pseudoscience.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

ScienceApologist is uncivil

11) ScienceApologist has strongly and repeated criticized Iantresman with ad hominem attacks: "incompetent" "close-minded ignorance" advised him not to "be a dick" characterized him as an "avowed Velikovskian" [8] "inordinate ignorance" of a "nonscientist layman" "pet ideas" "Basic ignorance" Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Regarding_Ian_Tresman_in_particular.

Support:

Dmcdevit·t 00:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 14:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Civility is required even if the insult is true. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Looks like a case of calling a spade a spade. Raul654 15:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Deprecation by ScienceApologist

11a) Using strong negative language, ScienceApologist has deprecated a number of persons and their theories "well-known woo-woos", The Electric Universe "discredited" "Completely unauthorative, argumentative"

Support:

Oppose:

As above. Raul654 15:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not as serious an issue. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Iantresman is uncivil

12) Iantresman has also been uncivil regarding ScienceApologist, accusing him of bad faith or vandalism. [9] [10]

Support:

Oppose:

Fred Bauder 17:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Iantresman's editing style

13) Iantresman's editing to pseudoscience and science-related articles are characterized by low level edit warring and frequent edits against consensus. See Special:Contributions/Iantresman.

Support:

It's hard for me to find any good diffs to point to with this, but it is clear to me from his edit history and the response by others. Dmcdevit·t 00:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 15:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but noting that as Fred Bauder says, editing against consensus is not in itself a policy violation. Edit warring, however, is more serious. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. OK to boldly edit an article into non-consensus territory, not OK to edit war on that same basis. Charles Matthews 20:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Edits against "consensus" is seldom a policy violation. Fred Bauder 01:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

ScienceApologist has edit warred

14) ScienceApologist has occasionally engaged in edit warring, for example at Plasma cosmology and Eric Lerner (see Special:Contributions/ScienceApologist)

Support:

Oppose:

True, but not significant Fred Bauder 17:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Iantresman's orientation

15) Iantresman, in his editing philosophy, favors challenges to standard knowledge, which he sometimes terms "dogma" [11], his personal website, a site devoted to scientific anomalies User:Iantresman, see also many of the other links at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Regarding_Ian_Tresman_in_particular

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

ScienceApologist failure to extend good faith

16) ScienceApologist has habitually failed to extend good faith to Iantresman, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Regarding_Ian_Tresman_in_particular.

Support:

Fred Bauder 17:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but only insofar as I do not believe Ian Tresman's deserve good faith. This policy does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. -- Wikipedia:Assume good faith Raul654 15:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if he violated policy, though. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation

17) ScienceApologist has recently created Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation and placed articles at contention in this proceeding into it [12].

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Designation of subjects requiring academic expertise

1) If, in the opinion of a user who possesses significant academic expertise or equivalent experience, evaluation of substantive edits to an article requires such expertise, they may place a tag on the page which so designates the article.

Support:

Fred Bauder 21:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Unworkable solution, and an inappropriate major policy and practice creation. Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A tag too far. Charles Matthews 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Self designation of academic experts

2) At the top of the talk pages of articles which have been designated as requiring academic expertise for adequate evaluation of substantive edits, any user who feels he has such expertise shall designate himself an expert and state the basis of his expertise. If their expertise is challenged, they may be required to demonstrate such expertise to an administrator, upon pain of being removed from such lists.

Support:

Fred Bauder 21:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Per 1. Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Put credentials on a user page, if you must. Charles Matthews 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Editing of articles designated as requiring academic expertise

3) Articles which have been tagged as requiring academic expertise may be edited by any user; however reasonable deference shall be made to users who have designated themselves experts with respect to the subject. Such experts shall limit their special role with respect to such articles to those aspects of the subject which present substantial technical difficulties.

Support:

Fred Bauder 21:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template:Academic

4) The content of Template:Academic shall be created by those who contemplate using it. It shall briefly explain, in terms understandable to the general user, its purpose and effect.

Support:

Fred Bauder 21:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Tommysun banned

5) Tommysun is banned from editing articles which relate to astrophysics.

Support:

Fred Bauder 14:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 5.1. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Prefer 5.1. Dmcdevit·t 23:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 20:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tommysun banned

5a) Tommysun is banned from editing articles which relate to science and pseudoscience. The term "pseudoscience" shall be interpreted broadly; it is intended to include but not be limited to all article in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories.

Support:

Note also his similar editing to crop circle. I don't see any reason to make this so restrictive as astrophysics. Dmcdevit·t 23:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 17:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

~~:# What "articles which relate to pseudoscience" means is uncertain. Fred Bauder 01:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

We have Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories, which is what I considered when writing this. It appears al the articles in question are contained under that category. Dmcdevit·t 19:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Tommysun placed on probation

6) Tommysun is placed on probation. He may be banned from any article or subject area which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing. All bans to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Elerner banned

7) Elerner is banned from editing Eric Lerner, Plasma cosmology, Aneutronic fusion, and any pages, excepting talk pages, related to his real-life work for one year.

Support:

Dmcdevit·t 00:03, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Fred Bauder 01:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice Raul654 15:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Elerner banned

7a) Elerner is banned from editing Eric Lerner, Plasma cosmology, Aneutronic fusion, and any pages, excepting talk pages, related to his real-life work.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Prefer 7 SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 20:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iantresman banned

8) Iantresman is banned from editing articles which relate to science and pseudoscience for one year. The term "pseudoscience" shall be interpreted broadly; it is intended to include but not be limited to all article in Category:Pseudoscience and its subcategories.

Support:

Dmcdevit·t 00:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly interpreted. Charles Matthews 22:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raul654 15:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oppose:

Which articles "relate to pseudoscience" is uncertain. Fred Bauder 01:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC) - I've also proposed co-remedy 8B. Raul654 04:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC) I have decided this is just too sweeping Fred Bauder 17:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8b is better. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer 8b. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Iantresman cautioned

8a) Iantresman is cautioned to be less aggressive about inserting extensive treatment of alternative viewpoints into articles regarding mainstream science.

Support:

Oppose:

Too weak. Raul654 14:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
wimpy wimpy wimpy ➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Charles Matthews 20:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iantresman placed on Probation

8b) Iantresman is placed on probation for a year. He may be banned from any article or subject area which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Iantresman banned from policy pages

8c) Iantresman is banned from editing pages related to Wikipedia policy or proposed policies.

Support:

Raul654 04:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

I might have missed it, but I don't see any evidence of gross disruption in these areas. - SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fred Bauder 04:14, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
whaffo? ➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 20:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist placed on probation

9) ScienceApologist is placed on probation for six months. He may be banned from any article or subject area which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

Dmcdevit·t 00:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~:# Fred Bauder 09:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Oppose:

Fred Bauder 01:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Patently unacceptable. I think he's done a commendable job keeping our science articles in respectable condition. Raul654 15:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SimonP 16:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
➥the Epopt 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 19:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Charles Matthews 20:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

ScienceApologist cautioned

10) ScienceApologist is cautioned to use more diplomatic language when discussing other users behavior and orientation and when characterizing living persons and their work.

Support:

Fred Bauder 14:53, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

~~:#Aggressive behavior continues on talk page of this proposed decision Fred Bauder 09:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Abstain:

ScienceApologist cautioned

11) ScienceApologist is cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science. This applies in particular to matters of good faith and civility.

Support:

Oppose:

~~:#Aggressive behavior continues on talk page of this proposed decision. Fred Bauder 09:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Inappropriate use of Template:Academic

1) Template:Academic may only be used on an article by a user who also designates themselves as an expert in the subject at the top of the talk page of the article together with a summary of their qualifications. If challenged, they must be willing to confidentially demonstrate to an administrator their qualifications. Any other use of the template may be summarily removed by any user.

Support:

Fred Bauder 22:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Use of Template:Academic on inappropriate articles

2) Template:Academic is intended to be used only on technically difficult articles such as advanced theoretical physics. If the template is used on articles which do not require extraordinary technical expertise, it may be removed by any registered user and may not be replaced by any user holding themselves out as an expert regardless of whether they can demonstrate expertise or not.

Support:

Fred Bauder 14:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Enforcement by block

3) Should a user violate an ban imposed by this decision they may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

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.

as of 21:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Principles

All principles pass except:

3) No original research—3a passes

4) Flexibility in appropriate circumstances—4a passes

8) Quality (3-4-1)

Note, 7) Experts now passes (4-1-3)

14) Serious encyclopedia passes (5-1-2)

Findings of fact

Listed findings pass:

1a) Notability

2) Locus of dispute.

5) Subjects which require academic expertise (3-0-4) passes (new)

7) Eric Lerner.

8) Self promotion by Elerner.

9) Pseudoscience

10) Tommysun shows a pattern of aggressive biased editing...

11) ScienceApologist is uncivil

11a) Deprecation by ScienceApologist

12) Iantresman is uncivil

13) Iantresman's editing style

14) ScienceApologist has edit warred

15) Iantresman's orientation

16) ScienceApologist failure to extend good faith

17) Category:Fringe subjects without critical scientific evaluation

Remedies

Listed remedies pass:

5a) Tommysun banned from editing articles which relate to science and pseudoscience (7-0)

6) Tommysun placed on probation (7-0)

7a) Elerner is banned from editing Eric Lerner, Plasma cosmology, Aneutronic fusion, and any pages, excepting talk pages, related to his real-life work;

note given the breakdown of conditional votes, the indefinite ban 7a passes (5-0-2) while the one year ban fails (4-0)

8b) Iantresman placed on Probation (8-0)

11) ScienceApologist cautioned (5-0)

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.

Move to close. Charles Matthews 13:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close. - SimonP 14:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close Fred Bauder 14:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close ➥the Epopt 14:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Close. Raul654 18:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]