After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other Arbitrators, parties and others at /Workshop, Arbitrators may place proposals which are ready for voting here. Arbitrators should vote for or against each point or abstain. Only items that receive a majority "support" vote will be passed. Conditional votes for or against and abstentions should be explained by the Arbitrator before or after his/her time-stamped signature. For example, an Arbitrator can state that she/he would only favor a particular remedy based on whether or not another remedy/remedies were passed. Only Arbitrators or Clerks should edit this page; non-Arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case, there are 11 active Arbitrators, so 6 votes are a majority.

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should to the Clerks' noticeboard. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method.

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given), or to add an additional party (although this can also be done without a formal motion as long as the new party is on notice of the case). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.
Motions have the same majority for passage as the final decision.

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed.

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree, the Committee is not the final decision maker about content. We do have a role in assisting to frame the content discussion so that the consensus will be based on our core content policies. Many of the the following principles highlight the core content policies. As well, the Committee does place editing restrictions on users who persistently do not follow our core content and conduct rules. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. As a matter of style, I wouldn't have put this first, but that's a detail. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^(prof) 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Deskana (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. James F. (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Support:

1. Proposed. To repeat my comment on the workshop, the last sentence may be a bit much, but I think it explains it well. --bainer (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. From the start of Wikipedia, the policy has been for articles to reflect the mainstream point of view with novel or experimental ideas not given undue weight. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^(prof) 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Deskana (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. James F. (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Support:

1. From Prem Rawat. Apposite here, I think, because of the way that sources have been deployed in some contexts. --bainer (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Absolutely. Articles need to be sourced from the "best" available published texts and journals on the topic. Loading up articles with references from polarized sources does not make the articles reflect the most accurate mainstream view of the topic. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Although citing the polarized sources may be appropriate in addressing the range of views that exist, so long as minority or fringe views are not portrayed as mainstream or majority ones. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^(prof) 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Deskana (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per Newyorkbrad. Polarised sources are worth citing as examples but ought to be signposted as such. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. Agree with Brad and Sam almost enough to move an amended version. James F. (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Support:

1. Proposed. Undue weight goes both ways. According majority views too little weight can result in, for example, an exaggeration of the amount of controversy or lack of consensus in an area. --bainer (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yes. If the overwhelming majority of reliable sources give a consistent opinion of a topic, then the person reading the articles needs to understand it by the presentation of the content. Loading up the article with a wordy passage(s) discussing minor alternative opinion(s) can overwhelm the mainstream point of view and make the article not reflect the majority opinion. To be a useful reference tool, we need to guard against confusing readers by including obscure or very minor opinions that need to be couched with lengthy passages to explain the reason the opinion is faulty in the eyes of most commentators or scholars. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. In the context of disputes in scientific fields, the arguments tend to become stereotyped. There are plenty of examples of "fringe" or widely derided scientific theories or conjectures that were later recognized as substantially correct science by later generations. (The canonical example is Wegener's theory of continental drift, generally considered nonsense until 50 years later when the discovery of plate tectonics supplied a mechanism for moving the continents. A more recent example although the period of disbelief was shorter was the conjecture that infection with H. pylori bacteria caused a majority of cases of stomach ulcer.) It is therefore predictable that when a new discovery is reported only to be rejected by much of the scientific community, its proponents point out that mainstream science has been wrong before. But, in modern times, the mainstream view has been right much more often than it has been wrong; I forget whether Isaac Asimov was speaking on his own or quoting another historian of science when he wrote (paraphrased) that "for every crank who turns out to have been right all along, there are 100 who will forever remain cranks." In the case of cold fusion, we can take notice that the current mainstream or standard view is that there is no authentic physical phenomenon associated with the experimental "cold fusion" results and that no sufficient mechanism has been posited that could explain such results. There are sufficient reports of "cold fusion" success that the phenomenon can reasonably be discussed within Wikipedia as the view of a minority of scientists rather than a plain experimental error or a hoax, but we cannot be in the position of reporting that the existence of cold fusion is generally credited by physicists where the fact is that it is not. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^(prof) 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Deskana (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Some detailed comments here. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. James F. (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Support:

1. Standard. It is the analysis and/or synthesis part that is relevant to this case. --bainer (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. See my comments on principle 4. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^(prof) 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Deskana (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. James F. (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^(prof) 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Deskana (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. James F. (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Support:

1. Standard wording. --bainer (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. On controversial articles topics where many users have expressed polarized points of view for many years, doing bold reverting is not a viable method of settling content disputes and should be avoided. For these article topics, the best approach is to bring in more editors with impartial views to assist in settling the dispute. Impartial users who engage in discussion to find agreed upon wording is the approach that will achieve a better outcome. Discussions can occur on the article talk page, an content RFC, or during other informal or formal methods of mediation. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^(prof) 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Deskana (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. James F. (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Support:

1. Standard wording. --bainer (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^(prof) 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Deskana (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. James F. (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

9) All communications during mediation are privileged. In the interests of facilitating open communication between parties, communications made during mediation may not be used as evidence in other dispute resolution or similar discussions, including (but not limited to) Arbitration and user conduct requests for comment.

Support:

1. This was noted on one of the talk pages already, but it bears reiterating. --bainer (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. But as always, users need to be aware that information exchanged during these sessions may be spread through informal discussion between editors. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. The term "privileged" is a legal term with a technical meaning, and I would probably use a different term here, but it is in current use and I won't make a big deal of it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^(prof) 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Critical to the mediation process. Deskana (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. James F. (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

Support:

1. To be an useful reference tool Wikipedia needs present information on science topics as presented in the current prevailing textbooks and review journals. Cutting edge research needs to have "significant" coverage in the mainstream media to be given space in science articles. Otherwise, the articles are overrun with fad theories, preliminary research, outlaying opinions; making it difficult to understand the core ideas about the topic. FloNight♥♥♥ 20:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. See my comments on principle 4. Might make sense to rearrange the paragraphs. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Although this is really a special case of a general principle; the treatments of many disciplines other than science can be equally expected to reflect mainstream scholarship. Kirill ^(prof) 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Deskana (talk) 18:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Yes, in the sense that electromagnetism should be about the mainstream, X's ideas on electromagnetism may be notable (X = Faraday), or not (X = Joe Doakes), and per topic, absent mention of X, the unqualified title should lead to a treatment of current orthodoxy. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. The nature of scientific discovery means that mainstream views may well change as new theories are proposed and new phenomena observed. Challenging established consensus is therefore fundamentally part of the process, but it is done through peer-reviewed articles in journals and repeatable experiments. (The announcement of cold fusion in 1989 was neither, which is why it failed to make good its challenge the consensus) The role of an encyclopaedia is to principally represent the mainstream view, and then to describe the challenges as such, and not as 'alternatives'. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. James F. (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Well, Wikipedia is expected to provide a neutral point of view treatment of the subject, and that may or may not mean the same thing as this wording, depending on the context. Note that the neutral point of view approach not only allows but demands that where a point of view on some science topic is the current consensus view among scientists, it be identified as such in the article. It just also means that that viewpoint shouldn't be adopted. This proposal falls on the wrong side of the endorse/explain divide, to my mind; see also useful discussion here (and on the talk page). --bainer (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

11) {text of proposed principle}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) The locus of this dispute is the Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article and disputes as to its contents. This Arbitration originated following an administrators' noticeboard discussion proposing a topic ban for Pcarbonn (talk · contribs), which failed to reach a resolution, amidst suggestions that the successful resolution of the discussion had been disrupted by several uncivil interjections by ScienceApologist (talk · contribs).

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Kirill ^(prof) 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Deskana (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. James F. (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) Some evidence has been presented of problematic editing by users including Pcarbonn (talk · contribs) and ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) on the Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article and related pages, including some edit warring and minor instances of incivility. However, the vast majority of the evidence presented related to questions (and disputes as to those questions) about the reliability of particular sources and the relative weight to be associated with various points of view, content questions which cannot be resolved by the Committee.

Support:

1. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oops, missed signing this when I first posted it. --bainer (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Although I would delete the word "vast." (I have made a couple of inconsequential copyedits.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Really, if the community wants to have a binding method for resolving disputes on sourcing, NPOV, etc., it ought to set up a dedicated process for it, or else explicitly task the Committee with doing so. Kirill ^(prof) 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Deskana (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. James F. (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

3) Pcarbonn edits articles with a stated agenda against Wikipedia policy. [1] [2], [3] Additionally, Pcarbonn has treated Wikipedia as a battleground; his actions to that effect include assumptions of bad faith [4], and edit warring. [5] [6]. For more complete evidence see [7], [8], [9].

Support:

1. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Kirill ^(prof) 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Deskana (talk) 02:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. James F. (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

4) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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

1.1) After the closure of this case, any user may reinitiate the topic ban discussion referred to above, and invite the users who participated in the original discussion to participate again. ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) is banned from participating in the restarted discussion, or any similar discussion.

Support:

1. First choice. We cannot address the content question, so let us let the community do so. This alternative merely allows the discussion to be restarted and does not mandate it, which would be my preference. If we are handballing it to the community then it should be able to manage the question how it wishes. --bainer (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. We have ample evidence of a problem and it needs to addressed. I see no reason to re-open the Community discussion since the Arbitration process allows for a more thorough way for the Community to provide evidence and offer comments then discussions as AN. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per FloNight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per FloNight. Kirill ^(prof) 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Deskana (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. My vote should not be taken to say that I ban such discussion, though. James F. (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1.2) At the closure of this case, a clerk will reinitiate the topic ban discussion referred to above, and invite the users who participated in the original discussion to participate again. ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) is banned from participating in the restarted discussion, or any similar discussion.

Support:

1. Second choice. We cannot address the content question, so let us let the community do so. --bainer (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. For the same reason as stated in 1.1 FloNight♥♥♥ 19:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per FloNight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per FloNight. Kirill ^(prof) 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Deskana (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. As in 1.1. James F. (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

2) The Committee notes the evidence presented as to problematic editing on the Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article and related pages, and also evidence that has been submitted to it and that it has noted elsewhere of related problematic editing, but will take no further action at this time.

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. We shouldn't decide content, but persistent editing in violation of content policies needs to be addressed as a conduct issue. Just as we would ban an editor that persistently added copy right violations, we need to topic ban a user that persistently contributes content to change the article to match his stated agenda when it is done in violation of Wikipedia core content policies. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per FloNight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Deskana (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. James F. (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

1. I don't really see the value in a proposal of this form, as it's implicit if no other remedies are passed, and contradictory if any are. Kirill ^(prof) 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   If nothing else were passing, it would serve as a placeholder, in lieu of our issuing a decision with a blank section in it. But here, it appears that other items are going to pass. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   It was intended to note the evidence presented against ScienceApologist, particularly, and other contemporary issues regarding his behaviour that we were aware of, and note their mootness for the time being (since that user has left the project for the time being). Perhaps it was too obscurely worded. --bainer (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support:

1. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice, prefer 3.1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   I changed the wording to better reflect my intent per the recommendation on the workshop page. I want the topic ban to include the talk pages. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3. Kirill ^(prof) 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Deskana (talk) 18:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. James F. (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Per votes on remedy 1 above; content questions are inevitably a part of any decision to take this action, and as such it's not a decision we should be making. --bainer (talk) 00:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

3.1) Pcarbonn (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Cold fusion and related articles for a period of six months. He is permitted to make suggestions related to such articles and propose references on talkpages. Pcarbonn also is instructed to abide by the relevant policies discussed in this decision and not to misuse Wikipedia for purposes of advocacy.

Support:

1. First choice. Three basic changes from the original proposal: (1) shorter topic-ban, giving Pcarbonn another chance to resume proper editing (but he should know that whether the ban is ultimately 6 months or one year, he is likely to be topic-banned permanently in short order should he resume inappropriate editing following the ban); (2) clarification that Pcarbonn may post suggestions on talk pages (this is often a point of dispute when a decision is ambiguous); and (3) addition of the third sentence to cover talkpage editing or editing following the ban. These three elements can be separated for voting, if necessary. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

1. Unfortunately, Pcarbonn talk page comments are part of the problem. I intended a complete topic ban. His comments on talk pages need to be explored and rebutted, over and over. This wears on the users that are acting as mediators. Additionally, I want our experienced users with expertise in science to keep our science articles on their watchlist and not give up in frustration. I would been more open to this idea if Pcarbonn acknowledged that his contributions were outside of content policies. FloNight♥♥♥ 12:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per FloNight. Kirill ^(prof) 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Disruption to articles can be caused without editing the articles themselves (see this). Deskana (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. James F. (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain:

4) {text of proposed remedy}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion#Log of blocks and bans.

Support:

1. bainer (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Deskana (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. James F. (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Support:

Oppose:

Abstain:

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.

• Principles currently passing: 1-10 (All)
• Principles currently not passing: none
• Findings of fact passing: 1-3 (All)
• Findings of fact currently not passing: none
• Remedies currently passing: 3
• Remedies currently not passing: 1.1, 1.2, 2, 3.1
• Enforcement currently passing: 1
• Enforcement currently not passing: none

Implementation summary: The Arbitration Committee affirms Wikipedia's goal to provide neutral, well sourced encyclopedic content (specifically, scientific topics are expected to be in line with mainstream scientific thought) and likewise affirms the consensus based editorial process that creates Wikipedia's content. The Arbitration Committee affirms that it is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors, but does affirm that Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously. Evidence and allegations against ScienceApologist are noted.

The dispute centered around the cold fusion article and a related administrators' noticeboard discussion. Pcarbonn edits with a stated objective against Wikipedia policy, has treated Wikipedia as a battleground, assumed bad faith, and edit warred.

Pcarbonn is banned from editing Cold fusion and related articles and pages for one year --Tznkai (talk) 14:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)Updated: 19:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Updated: 00:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think you miscounted. Principle 10, Remedy 3, and Enforcement 1 do not pass, only 5 by my count. We don't have any passing remedies yet. FloNight♥♥♥ 15:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are, forgot we were at 11 Arbs on this case, fixed.--Tznkai (talk) 19:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. James F. (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and again.--00:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

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

The Clerks will close the case either immediately, or 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast,
depending on whether the arbitrators have voted unanimously on the entirety of the case's proposed decision or not.

1. Move to close; I think we're done here. Kirill ^(prof) 17:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Close, yes. James F. (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Close. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Close. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Close. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. Close. --bainer (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]