Active:

1. Charles Matthews
2. Deskana
3. FloNight
4. Jdforrester (James F.)
5. Jpgordon
6. Kirill Lokshin
7. Matthew Brown (Morven)
8. Newyorkbrad
9. Sam Blacketer
10. Stephen Bain (bainer)
11. YellowMonkey

Away or inactive:

1. FayssalF
2. FT2

To update this listing, edit this template and scroll down until you find the right list of arbitrators.

The proposed decision as it currently stands will not resolve this dispute. Though the decision purports to direct/allow a community topic ban discussion concerning User:Pcarbonn, it simultaneously renders it highly unlikely that User:Pcarbonn could actually be banned, by declaring the crux of the matter to pertain to "the reliability of particular sources and the relative weight to be associated with various points of view, content questions which can not be answered by the Committee". Since administrators surely exercise no greater authority in sanctioning users than the Arbitration Committee, it necessarily follows that "content questions which can not be answered by the Committee" also cannot be answered administratively on the basis of a discussion on WP:AN -- rather, the dispute over cold fusion would effectively be declared a "pure" content dispute, a matter of editorial discretion as to which Wikipedia's administration must remain neutral. If the Committee cannot determine "the reliability of particular sources and the relative weight to be associated with various points of view", then how can we possibly expect administrators with no editorial involvement in the cold fusion article to do so, and to topic-ban User:Pcarbonn if necessary? This unwholesome result derives naturally from the abdication of the Committee's duty to resolve what is essentially an administrative dispute, fully within the Committee's remit: whether users should be topic-banned, or, for that matter, banned altogether, is quintessentially an administrative, not an editorial question. If we are to declare that ascertaining whether a user has violated core policies such as WP:NPOV, WP:V, or WP:NOR involves a purely editorial judgment merely because it involves the substantive examination of content contributed by editors, then we thereby immunize editors against administrative sanction for fundamental content policy violations. What's left? Editors can be sanctioned for incivility, or edit warring/editing against consensus -- but if large numbers of "POV-pushing" editors can be attracted to a topic such as cold fusion, they can create a "consensus" to write the article in a manner which violates our fundamental policies. This proposed decision essentially declares an open season for the use of Wikipedia to promote and advocate fringe theories and beliefs, provided that a sufficient number of adherents can be mustered in talk page discussions. Previous decisions by the Arbitration Committee have not shirked the Committee's responsibility to determine whether a user's content edits have violated our fundamental policies, and, if necessary, to do something about it: see, for example, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy#DanaUllman, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy#DanaUllman_banned, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Franco-Mongol_alliance#Misrepresentation_of_sources, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Franco-Mongol_alliance#PHG_restricted, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RPJ#RPJ, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RPJ#RPJ_banned_from_Wikipedia. John254 07:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I agree that this decision will not resolve the dispute. We need the committee to take a stand on how to apply NPOV in this case. Otherwise, ScienceApologist will continue to recruit editors to push the view of "most scientists" with a total disrepect for reliable sources. Actually, I can't believe he is not banned for a year in view of the reported behavior. I wish the committee could explain this. Pcarbonn ( talk) 08:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I have to say I'm at least confused by the stark difference between this case and the recently closed Homeopathy case, where the committee did not shy from banning editors that were promoting views based on obscure journals. Granted, the comittee is not bound by precendent set in previous cases, but sending mixed signals like this (without further explanation) does little to advance the community's trust in the committee. A number of editors on the WP:AN thread that preceded this case expressed their view that the committee should look into this case precisely because it is complex so it cannot reasonably be settled with "drive by" !votes on WP:AN. Furthermore, if ScienceApologist's most recent outbursts do not fall under the committee's behavioral mandate, I don't know what does. Pcap ping 11:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I don't know the homeopathy case, but I suspect that the quality of sources for cold fusion is much better (e.g. Nature (India)). Pcarbonn ( talk) 19:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply

yes, there were a number of sources in the homeopathy case that were esentially manufacturer handouts. And the long term nature and broader participation from editors made for a situation that encouraged banning specific SPA's. This case is different, it's really a question of the proper weight of Pcarbon's POV v. mainstream published science POV, and PC's inability to work with the system to get it right. -- Rocksanddirt ( talk) 21:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

May I ask the Arbitration Committee to appraise the behaviors of all parties against the same set of standard ? More particularly, can it appraise the evidence presented against me and against ScienceApologist with the same level of scrutiny ? Significant evidence of uncivility and violation of other rules have been presented against ScienceApologist : could we have the ArbComm's view on these ?

Also, since a proposed decision is motivated on intent ("Pcarbonn edits articles with a stated agenda against Wikipedia policy.") rather than behavior, could we have ArbComm's opinion of ScienceApologist's stated intent to kill other editors ? Pcarbonn ( talk) 16:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

It seems like ArbCom is going to let the Community deal with SA's behavior. There is near unanimity that SA has behaved very poorly and cannot be allowed to continue. ArbCom seems to prefer the community deal with matters whenever possible. Jehochman ^Talk 16:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Could you point me to the discussions where this is happening ? Thanks. Pcarbonn ( talk) 16:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

He agreed to take a wikibreak until after the New Year. User:FT2 and User:Newyorkbrad are monitoring the situation carefully. I very much doubt that SA will get away with anything while they are watching. See User talk:ScienceApologist. Jehochman ^Talk 16:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

The talk page has a thread about his sock- or mockpuppetry, not about his threats. I still don't see any action taken about his threats and other rule violations. Pcarbonn ( talk) 16:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Also, Jehochman, you first talked about the "community" getting involved, and then you listed the action of 2 arbiters, FT2 and Newyorkbrad. Where is the community discussion you mentionned ? Pcarbonn ( talk) 17:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I "might" add a proposal about SA. I'm undecided at the moment exactly what it would say. The situation is stable since he is not editing so no absolute necessity for now. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I'd suggest you do add a proposal. Otherwise I suspect that many people will rightly question the partiality of the Arbitration Committee. Pcarbonn ( talk) 17:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

SA can be handled by the community. If not, we will be back here quickly. The evidence compiled in this case can be copied and pasted into a new one. Please, let's not have any wishy washy half measures such as civility patrols. SA's behavior was quite poor, but he was baited, and he has shown the good sense to back down. Jehochman ^Talk 21:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Again, let's apply the same rules to all parties : if SA's behavior can be excused by baiting, why not mine too ? Many of the poor edits I made can be explained by SA baiting me, and I have been much less virulent than he has. Pcarbonn ( talk) 15:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Taken in isolation you can equate the two editors - taken at the fact that one editor is a SPA and the other isn't gives more credit to the editor who isn't the SPA. This is why you probably will be topic banned. Don't want to be topic banned, learn not to be a SPA. Only then will the Community start to recognise you as a contributor worth having around. Shot info ( talk) 01:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Proposed remedy 3 currently reads Pcarbonn (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Cold fusion related articles related for one year. but Flonights comments on 3.1 is intended to apply to talk pages as well as articles strictu sensu. I would urge that the wording be changed to cold fusion related pages to make that intent clear. Eluchil404 ( talk) 13:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC

I changed the wording. FloNight ♥♥♥ 16:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply

The link given for the finding that Pcarbonn has a stated agenda is [1]. What agenda did Pcarbonn state? Is he being accused of having an agenda simply for opposing the obliteration of all non-mainstream views from Cold fusion? If the article were apportioned based on the number of publications of experimental reports in all peer-reviewed journals, more than half of the article would need to be non-mainstream, and the introduction commensurate. 69.228.201.246 ( talk) 08:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Please login and edit with your main account if you have one. Your contributions seem to indicate that you are much more familiar with events at Cold fusion than could be expected of any new user. Jehochman ^Talk 08:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply

How can logging in help improve the quality of the encyclopedia when arbitrators are apparently saying that WP:MAINSTREAM is the new NPOV and anyone saying differently needs to be challenged "over and over"? Trying to save the project from being critisized by those unfamiliar with the controversies in the most reliable sources is a less than adequate reason to dispose of one of the five pillars. 208.54.14.89 ( talk) 03:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply

It's not enough to know that NPOV is one of the five pillars; you also have to understand the concept of due weight, which is the reason why the proposal in the first IP post above is never going to be acepted. SHEFFIELDSTEEL ^TALK 03:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply

The issue here is how to determine due weight : is the 2004 DOE a good proxy for it, or the preponderence in the scientific literature, or the preponderence among "most scientists". That's where the disagreement is, and that's what needs to be resolved. Pcarbonn ( talk) 16:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Could someone clarify the status of FT2 ? While he is said to be inactive, he has accepted this case. If so, there are 12 arbitrators, and a majority would require 7 votes. Pcarbonn ( talk) 15:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply

See here. Jehochman ^Talk 14:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply

3.1.3, 3.1.4, and 3.1.10 don't go far enough to settle the dispute. I think the core reason we haven't been able to move forward is the fuzziness surrounding the mainstream view, how much it matters, and how to determine what it is.

At the core of the CF controversy is a strong expert rejection of CF, and little to no publishing activity in the best and most reliable sources, such as Nature, Physical Review, and the top nuclear science journals. This creates a situation where many fringe sources and an occassional somewhat reliable source form the bulk of available primary and secondary sources. This is common with fringe phenomenon, and has allowed plausible use of Wikipedia policies by determined POV advocates to advance their cause.

The committee needs to make some determination of the meaning of mainstream in 3.1.10 and the relative weight of the "best and most reliable" sources. Is the mainstream view determined by "the publishings of scientists and reviewers in peer reviewed journals and scientific books" or does it mean "the consensus view of respected experts and highly regarded journals in the general field of study"? In respect to CF, the first presents a picture of some controversy, while the second presents a picture of a highly discredited field not taken seriously by experts in nuclear physics.

I would argue that the second option should be our standard. If a reporter wanted an impartial view of CF, they'd contact the most reputable nuclear physicists. Similarly, if Brittanica was writing an article on CF, they would seek the opinions of well respected, uninvolved physicists and use it to set the tone. A Wikipedia article should use similar weighting. Phil153 ( talk) 05:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for raising the level of debate with this question. Such debate will help bring long term solutions much better than banning this or that user.

It is probably true (but hard to verify) that no favorable scientific papers have been recently published in Nature or Physical review. I don't think that you can use this argument on wikipedia though: WP:V require verifiable sources (not the absence of such sources), and WP:OR excludes inferring anything from the absence of papers, unless that reasoning is used in a reliable source on the subject.

Moreover, I challenge your statement that "At the core of the CF controversy is a strong expert rejection of CF". This is your (unsourced) interpretation of the absence of papers. Another interpretation is that they'll wait for the controversy to be conclusively settled before publishing : in the meantime, they choose to ignore it, but not to reject it as resolved. There is strong evidence that the controversy is still alive with experts : the 2004 DOE is one, this news article in Nature India another. And if the controversy is alive, we should present it as such. Pcarbonn ( talk) 10:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply

The mention of lack of papers is merely to highlight a problem that develops in sourcing and weighing perspective in fringe phenomenon articles, especially with regards to claims of progress made after a field has been rejected and ignored by the mainstream. I do not mean anything beyond that.

The sources for my claim of CF rejection are NYT and WP articles, editorials from when the most prestigious journals first rejected CF, plus articles from cold fusion advocates themselves that talk (scroll down through the headings) of persecution and being outcast by the establishment.

The Nature India article you linked comes back to my question of how much we should weigh the consensus of leading experts and journals vs lesser experts and journals when dealing with fringe controversies. It seems current policy and consensus seeking can't solve this problem adequately. Phil153 ( talk) 11:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Phil, striking that balance is a difficult editorial judgment. The service of ArbCom here has been to confirm that we actually do strive to create a reference work in line with mainstream scholarship, and to remove editors from the discussion that refuse to accept any other viewpoint than their own. I believe this will make progress possible. Hopefully, in one year, cold fusion will gain mainstream acceptance, and we can happily welcome Pcarbonn back to rewrite the article. Vesal ( talk) 18:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I haven't read your entire decision but after skimming it I think it looks fair. I didn't participate in the process, mostly because I thought it would be as pointless as all the other arguments launched against Pcarbonn. As a professional scientist I thank you for the outcome. I think it strengthens Wikipedia, I'm impressed.-- OMCV ( talk) 05:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I appreciate you taking the time to leave your comment. Our science articles need to have knowledgeable users keeping them on their watch list to make sure that they stay in good shape. FloNight ♥♥♥ 12:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply

I had thought of leaving a similar comment but assumed no ArbCom member would come back to look at a comment on a case that's already closed. Now that I see that's not necessarily true, I'll comment as well. I did follow this case closely and like OMCV am impressed and pleased by the final decision. I'll just add that you can hardly expect knowledgeable users to keep watch over articles and keep them in good shape, when the articles have been hijacked, or at least made extremely unpleasant to edit, by dedicated advocates of fringe theories. So every move on the part of the governing bodies of Wikipedia to deal with those fringe advocates is a move toward encouraging participation of knowledgeable users and improving the quality of the encyclopedia. Thank you. Woonpton ( talk) 16:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply

• I'll just leave a note that anyone who feels discouraged by fringe hijackings of science articles can bring them to my attention. Most editors are a bit scared of starting an arbitration case. I am happy to help with these difficult situations. To the Committee, thank you for handling this case expediently and fairly. Jehochman ^Talk 19:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Jehochman, I'm sure that you think you mean this, right at this particular moment. But the fact that when the fringe hijacking of cold fusion by PCarbon was brought to your attention, rather than dealing with that problem, you used it as an excuse to go after Science Apologist and try to get him banned from the project once and for all, makes the offer ring a bit hollow. Actions speak louder than words. At any rate, I'm glad the ArbCom this time was able to see and deal with the real problem, in spite of efforts to make it about something else. Woonpton ( talk) 21:16, 16 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Fact check. We were well on the way to placing a topic ban at this thread until SA intervened with provocative comments. SA's habitual opponents followed him to the thread and immediately opposed the ban. Jehochman ^Talk 22:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Point taken. Woonpton ( talk) 23:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC) reply