Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion

Information and statements as of case acceptance

Please do not modify this section.--Tznkai (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Listed prior dispute resolution as of case acceptance

Prior threads:

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed topic ban: User:Pcarbonn from Cold fusion and related articles
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive490#Please_review_this_case
  • Recent diffs cited as troublesome: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive490#diffs_just_from_November
• Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_27#Request for injunction against Cold Fusion investor
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive157#Cold_fusion
• 2 prior cases had been rejected by ArbComm ([1] and [2])

Mediation:

• The dispute has been the subject of formal mediation
• A prior mediation case had been rejected by one party.

Original statements as of case acceptance

Statement by Jehochman

I bring you a case about Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and an alleged Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. User:Pcarbonn has been involved in a long running content dispute at Cold fusion. We know you don't resolve content disputes, but this one seems to have resisted all forms of dispute resolution because of underlying behavioral issues.

The heart of the problem is that Pcarbonn has made statements on and off wiki that suggest he is using Wikipedia for promotion or ideological struggle, and other editors have latched on to these statements and are using them to assert COI. This has resulted in a persistent disruption to the editing environment and consequential deterioration in the quality of the article as good faith contributors are driven away from editing.

Prior attempts at dispute resolution are numerous, yet the problems continue. I had suggested to ScienceApologist that the matter could be resolved at arbitration enforcement, but a prior straw poll suggested that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience might not be applicable. Therefore User:SheffieldSteel commenced a thread at Administrators' noticeboard requesting a community topic ban. That thread has regrettably deteriorated into the usual bickering that surrounds this topic. A recent thread on ANI was disrupted by User:IwRnHaA a sock puppet of a banned user. I believe the entire situation bears close scrutiny, including the behavior of all editors.

I do not see a consensus forming within the Community, yet something needs to be done. Here we are, asking for your enlightened guidance. Jehochman ^Talk 19:33, 12 November 2008 (UTC) (alleged at Jehochman ^Talk 04:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)) (formatting and minor additions at 15:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC))

To Kww, we have at least one administrator as well as a number of good faith editors opposing the topic ban. I do not think it will be helpful to implement a controversial ban via WP:AN. If the Committee wants to pass a motion implementing the topic ban based on their reading of the WP:AN thread, they are welcome to do so. Jehochman ^Talk 22:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

There may be something to what User:Eluchil404 says below. Excessive rhetoric on either side can cloud the picture, making things more difficult for the Community to resolve. In the best case all parties will remain calm and engage in rational discussions. Jehochman ^Talk 23:46, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Durova, once certain additional information was pointed out to me, I changed my mind. It is good to change one's position when others present convincing arguments or additional facts. There is a serious problem with this article that needs attention from the Committee. In fact, I did link to the Mediation case, but WJBscribe asked me to remove that link in order to help preserve the privileged nature of mediation. I was busy with other things at the time and asked him to perform the removal for me, which he did. I didn't attempt to "rein in" the sockpuppet because I assumed they were a good faith editor until checkuser proved otherwise. Please reconsider your post. Jehochman ^Talk 03:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by SheffieldSteel

There comes a point in any dispute, perhaps somewhere after three months, but surely after a couple of years, beyond which it is no longer reasonable to say "this is a content dispute" and we must instead presume that the reason the dispute hasn't yet been resolved is the conduct of the participants. It is on this basis - and the apparent inability of the community to resolve this issue at any forum up to and including WP:AN - that I urge ArbCom to accept this case and consider the conduct of the users involved. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Kww

I'm surprised that this had to come here. The discussion on WP:AN seemed to be forming a consensus to topic ban, with only a few users in opposition. Many of those editors also have a suspiciously strong fondness for cold fusion.

I think the diffs cited by Jehochman are sufficient to justify a topic ban: it shows that Pcarbonn's motivation is not the improvement of Wikipedia, but improvements in the public's perception of cold fusion, using Wikipedia as a means to that end.—Kww(talk) 22:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Pcarbonn's statement outlines the problem with his editing. For any fringe topic, the bulk of material published supports it, because the bulk of material is written by people that support it. Obvious hokum like Electronic voice phenomena and homeopathy would get massively positive coverage if his approach to determining the "neutral" point of view were accepted.—Kww(talk) 16:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Eluchil404

I would echo most of what Jehochman says above and urge acceptance of this case. There is enough division in the community that ArbCom is needed to reach a clear outcome. I also note that the behaviour of the other parties in this case should also be examined. Even if Pcarbonn is to be banned some of the invective used against him has been excessive, in my opinion. Despite the problems in herent in arbitration, I think that this route is preferable than trying to hash out a solution at WP:AN with the associated high drama. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved Durova

Jehochman’s representations are contradictory. On 19 October 2008 he closed the COIN thread, explicitly stating “Not a COI issue.” Yet the opening sentence of his request for arbitration he asserts relevance to the conflict of interest policy. Jehochman claims IwRnHaA disrupted the ANI thread that ran November 8-11, yet that account made only four posts to the thread to Jehochman’s twelve, where Jehochman did not attempt to rein in IwRnHaA. The reason so many noticeboard threads exist is principally in response to Jehochman's repeated objections regarding venue. Of the “prior attempts at dispute resolution”, only one is actual dispute resolution and he fails to link to the case. Here is that link: it was closed over half a year ago with the note “The underlying issues have been marked as resolved.”

This request is a bid for a topic ban upon an editor with a clean block log[3] who has been actively editing a good article for a long time. It is not surprising that in such a situation, one set of editors sees civil POV pushing and another set sees a bid to silence dissent. The normal recourse in such situations is conduct RFC. The community has not determined a sufficient basis for banning and it is unlikely that the Committee would conclude differently at this time.

As Jehochman advised ScienceApologist in one of the linked noticeboard threads, the lack of proactive disclosure does make a negative impression. If Jehochman has changed his mind about COI, why not reopen the COIN thread? One of the core assumptions of our community is that most people will reform if their conduct has been out of hand, and the problem is brought to their attention in a suitable manner. Can we fairly say that this editor has gotten that feedback? Whether or not a ban is actually merited, it is likely that the Committee will decline the proposed ban due to that doubt, and due to the editor's good standing. Durova^Charge! 04:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Striking the full statement in light of Pcarbonn's post, which reads like a veiled threat. Durova^Charge! 02:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by VasileGaburici

Note: Although I have commented on the last AN thread (and only there) that I find the evidence against User:Pcarbonn insufficient for a ban, I'm not endorsing anyone's version of the events, I'm simply pointing out that in my view a serious and complex conflict exits.

I urge the committee to accept this case, and to extend it to consider all parties involved, including User:JzG and User:Seicer. I'm suggesting that JzG be included because he also asked for User:Pcarbonn to be topic banned on the basis of the same alleged COI, triumphalism, and POV pushing [4]. Furthermore JzG was officially a party in the (failed) mediation. Both JzG [5] and ScienceApologist have denounced the outcome of the mediation, and SA has made direct accusations of behavioral misconduct against mediator Seicer (I received the rudest e-mail of my life from that "mediator" who then essentially told me he would ignore me for the rest of the mediation.) Furthermore SA has declared that mediator Seicer "has continued a low-level campaign of harassing editors with science background", and he has stated that he won't accept another mediation. [6] While I cannot ask this committee to second-guess Seicer in his mediator role, I urge the committee to investigate these allegations of improper conduct. The (im?)propriety of the mediation is germane here because User:Pcarbonn has repeatedly used it as an argument supporting his POV.

I think that there is a lot of bad blood and an erosion of trust on the Wiki due this simmering, months-old conflict. For this reason, I do not think that one or more RfCs filed against any party would produce any practical results at this point. The only alternative to arbitration by this committee would be more divisive AN(I) threads.

I agree that mediator Seicer should not be publicly disclosing privileged communication. But the Mediation committee policy also details that Protecting the integrity of mediation does not extend to protecting users who deliberately disrupt and subvert official dispute resolution, and the Mediation Committee will not allow its policies to be abused to protect bad-faith actions. SA alleged that mediator Seicer engaged in harassment, and as the recent SlimVirgin/Lar case has established, the committee may evaluate such evidence privately, and this venue is superior to "public invective".

In response to Verbal: here's a tally (this may be biased, as I've only counted clear !votes in the last AN thread):

• For ban (18): Verbal, SheffieldSteel, Kww, Eldereft, SA, Shell_Kinney, Aunt_Entropy, Jehochman (maked as comment, but supporting ban), OMCV, JoshuaZ, Skinwalker, Alex_Bakharev, Fyslee, Shot_info, Cool_Hand_Luke, Hut_8.5, Sadalmelik, Shoemaker's_Holiday.
• Against (7): ImperfectlyInformed, Kevin Baas, DGG, jossi, Littleolive_oil, Levine2112, and myself.

Statement by Verbal

I full endorse KWWs statement. There was a clear consensus being formed on AN for the topic ban, and the diffs brought up there and above give more than enough evidence to support a topic ban from cold fusion and related pages for 6 months. Verbal chat 09:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

After reading PCarbonn's reply below, and seeing his overly dramatic and self-martyring comparison of wikipedia due-process to the French reign of terror(!), I am further in favour of the block. User Enric Naval sums up the problems with allowing PC to continue editing cold fusion in the style he has declared, and I am fully in agreement with his view. Verbal chat 16:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Pcarbonn

We have indeed a conflict of interest, but it's not what some people think. As his user pages says, ScienceApologist is interested in promoting the status quo, while I'm interested in defending progress, and thus changes. As a consequence, he favors evidence that Cold fusion was seen as pathological science in the 1990's, while I favor well-sourced evidence that it is an ongoing scientific controversy to this day. We have both doggedly defended our opinion.

It is common sense that man have interests, and that they take pride in achieveing their goal. If Wikipedia were to exclude such men, who would be left to write it ? How many would be left to pay for it ? If I get banned from Wikipedia, many others would later be. I believe that the ArbComm should avoid that route. What would we gain from it ?

So, how should we go about resolving such conflicts ? Wikipedia offers plenty of dispute resolution mechanisms, and I have accepted them all. Apparently, they are not enough. I therefore support the ArbComm's involvement.

In particular, I would appreciate that the ArbComm address the following issue: How to determine the preponderence of opinion that is the basis of NPOV ? ScienceApologist defends the view that it should be based on the opinion of "most scientists" : it is indeed a good way to maintain the status quo that he wants. I say that it should be based on the preponderence of opinion in the most reliable sources published on the subject. Cold fusion is a case where these 2 principles give a different answer, and give thus a different basis for NPOV. (See here)

I believe that there are many other valid scientific controversies where the opinion of "most scientists" and of the "experts in the field" differ. Some like to discard them as Fringe science, while others, like me, see them as interesting science practiced by a minority of good scientists. So, this case is about the status of good science practiced by a minority of scientists, with a different view from the (silent) majority.

Here is my take on that issue. "Most scientists" cannot be a reliable source on all topics, because they cannot be expected to be knowledgeable in all subjects. Furthemore, they cannot be a reliable source on cold fusion because they don't publish about it. Statements that start with "most scientists" are WP:Weaseled words that are not truly verifiable. All scientific revolutions have started when a few scientists have scientifically analysed an anomaly. I don't see why Wikipedia would not want to echo what they say, while saying at the same time that the view of "most scientists" is different. I totally disagree with ScienceApologist censorship of their work, on the basis that NPOV tell us to represent the view of "most scientists". He is forced to use censorship because, since "most scientists" don't publish their view, he has no basis for adding verifiable material to preserve the balance. He has thus frequently removed extremely well-source statement, such as statements from peer-reviewed journals in the top third of ISI ranking. These statements would be accepted in any other non-controversial article. I'd argue that it may be a pity that critics of a theory do not publish their opinion, such as the professor who is JzG's friend, but it's not wikipedia's place to right that wrong and to give a non-verifiable say to the silent majority. The parity of source should work both ways: if proponent write in the top third of journals, critics should do it too.

One may say that I choose that view because it favors progress. He would be right. What would be the value of knowledge, and of Wikipedia, if it is not to enable progress ?

Pcarbonn (talk) 12:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Nota bene: this dispute has a long history. This timeline describes how I see it. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• In response to Enric Naval, I deny that I want to downgrade the conclusion of the DOE report. On the contrary, as my timeline shows, I have always considered the DOE report as very important, and said that it strongly supports the view that the scientific controversy is ongoing. I have consistently insisted that it be quoted properly. ScienceApologist has constantly tried to censor it, or to have it say what "most scientists" think, although it is clearly very different. For example, he has repeatedly resisted the inclusion of the following statements in our article: "the panel was evenly split on whether the evidence of anomalous heat was convincing", "1/3 of the panel was somewhat convinced by the evidence of low energy nuclear reactions". I'll be happy to provide plenty of evidence for that, if asked.

I do give weight to secondary sources, such as review articles published in peer reviewed journals or books published by reputable academic presses, as evidenced here. However, the definition of secondary sources for Cold fusion is also disputed (e.g. here), and I suggest that ArbComm clarifies it. Some editors say that field reviews published by cold fusion experts are not secondary sources, even if published in reputable peer-reviewed journals out of their field, or by academic publisher. Many disagree, as I do.

I'm convinced that what I said above does not violate our 3 core policies, nor this ArbComm's decision. ScienceApologist has contributed significantly to the WP:Fringe guideline. If what I said above is in contradiction with WP:Fringe, I'll wait for ArbComm's decision before deciding whether WP:Fringe needs an update or I need to change my editing. Pcarbonn (talk) 18:23, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• Another note on WP:Fringe: my real life does not give me time to be knowledgeable on other fringe topics. (It does not allow me to be a multi-purpose account either, and I wonder how some others contribute so much, while being consistent with the COI guideline). So, it's hard for me to elaborate on WP:Fringe policies. However, I would think that it should be easy to distinguish fringe theories that don't get published in reputable peer-reviewed journals out of their fields, from those that do. Cold fusion is clearly in the latter category. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

• In my recent defense on WP:AN (see the end of this section), I asked which real-world Justice would punish me in this case. Let me add one point: which real-world justice would punish me, in a case where many jury members cast their vote before hearing the defense, thus compromising their impartiality. Again, such summary style judgement are indicative of an ochlocracy. May I suggest that the ArbComm issue a ruling to mitigate such behavior in a case involving an individual editor ? Pcarbonn (talk) 05:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• In response to Greg L, I don't have any first hand expertise in cold fusion (CF), in the sense that I have not conducted nor participated in any cold fusion experiment. My interest in it, as I explained in a previous post on the CF talk page, is that I see CF as a way to provide a better world for my children. This interest led me to study the field, and, over time, to have conversations with researchers. When editing wikipedia, I try to keep wikipedia's goals in mind first, and my desire for a better world second. I do see Wikipedia as a way to achieve that secondary goal while fully respecting wikipedia's spirit and policies. Other editors have reminded me when I occasionally strayed away from the wikipedia spirit, and I have always accepted their feedback. Pcarbonn (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Vesal says that the preponderence of CF in reputable sources should be measured within the realm of the 50,000 papers on condensed matter nuclear science. This point should also be addressed by ArbComm : what scope should be considered when evaluating the preponderence of a view. My view is that WP:V and WP:OR are clear. Vesal's statement is a new synthesis ("cold fusion is not preponderent") based on a non-verifiable claim ("50,000 papers don't talk of CF"). WP:V and WP:OR require "sources that directly support the information as it is presented". Field reviews published in reputable sources do meet this requirement, and cold fusion does have such field reviews." Pcarbonn (talk) 08:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• Do you know what SA's proposed WP:MAINSTREAM guideline reminds me ? Of Nineteen Eighty-Four. "Mainstream" is a fuzzy word that does not refer to any verifiable source, i.e. a WP:Weasel word. In newspeak, it refers to the Ministry of Truth. Wikipedia is a powerful telescreen, let's use it wisely. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Seicer

After being requested to compile a statement regarding this case, I am declining as I was the mediator for the Cold Fusion through the Mediation Committee, and wish to remain neutral and impartial during the outcome of any events that may transpire from the Requests for Arbitration case. As a reminder, statements made during the Mediation case are privileged and I am not at liberty to disclose any statements or events that occurred during Mediation. seicer | talk | contribs 12:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by sort-of-involved Enric Naval

Regretfully, after reading Pcarbonn's statement, I have to endorse a topic ban for him. This is because:

a) he intends to insert cutting-edge research on the article, in violation of WP:FRINGE.

b) he has been insisting for a long time. Repeating the same argumentation for the Nth time is going beyond reasonable limits

c) he still seems to insist on downgrading the conclusions of governamental DOE review (secondary source) in favor of his interpretation of the results of individual studies (primary source). And seems to continue doing so even after being explained several times that DOE is a more reliable source, (including 3 days ago a TL;DR post that I made explaining the reasoning behind WP:MEDRS[7])

d) every once in a while, socks and SPAs appear on the talk page and disrupt it with similar argumentations about giving more weight to individual studies. Those arguments are rebuffed again and again. It's time to put a stop at this and make clear that WP:OR is not welcome here.

Other venues appear to have failed, and issue has gone from "content dispute" with reasoned new arguments to "omg again the same thing" with the same beating-the-dead-horse arguments from different angles. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

response to olive

Everyone has a POV, but, anways, we have to make an effort to use Wikipedias's POV (NPOV). If I make a biased edit, someone can correct it to make it NPOV. The problem with Pcarbonn is that he is not making that effort and that he is not allowing others to correct his POV. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by almost uninvolved DGG

I think this has reched an impasse, and there is no other practical resolution but ArbCom. At the AN some people were very definite about a topic ban being necessary, and other equally strongly objecting; various resolution procedures have been tried to no avail. This is essentially a case of what has sometimes been called polite POV pushing, of trying through proper editing to ensure that a POV is overemphasized (as viewed from one side) or adequately represented (as viewed by the other side). I've commented at various proposals by some of the people involved in this, my concern that charges of this nature can be used to limit not just small fringe views, but legitimate minority views, and is destructive to NPOV. In fact, some have stated their objections to NPOV in favor of what they call SPOV (Scientific Point of View) in cases where there is a scientific consensus. DGG (talk) 15:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by User:JzG

This is a textbook case of civil POV-pushing, as evidence Pcarbonn's own words cited elsewhere. To come to Wikipedia to win the battle to rewrite an article in terms which better reflects a minority view, in order to correct a "problem" with the real world's perception of a subject, is wrong on several levels. Pcarbonn has admitted that this is what he did, in fact seems proud of it.

My interest in the subject stems from the fact that a good friend of mine was working in one of Fleischmann's labs at the time of the original experiments, took some part in the experiments, and is now a full professor at an English university. His view was that the FA version was an accurate reflection of the state of the field. He expressed some disbelief at the cold fusion activists and their walled garden of journal articles written by them, reviewed by them and published by them in their pet journal. We've had a lot of POV-pushing on this article, from the lenr-canr webmaster and others, but the most successful POV-pusher by far is Pcarbonn because he is polite and patient. And very, very insistent.

Take for example the resistance shown by the cold fusion advocates to the citing of a piece in Physics Today which noted that the field of cold fusion is derided. That is a great source for Wikipedia, being a reflection of the mainstream view on the subject in question - exactly what we are supposed to reflect in the overall tone of the article. Instead we saw advocacy of synthetic counts of the number of peer reviewed articles, with no mention that the vast majority of them were in journals with negligible impact. You cannot draw any conclusion from such counts, because you will not get papers in the major journals along the lines of "Cold fusion still twaddle". On the other hand, the fact that the CF advocates' work appears almost exclusively in their own house journal, and not in the high impact mainstream journals that would undoubtedly show an interest if a completely new nuclear process was demonstrated, well, that speaks volumes.

Fact: cold fusion is regarded by the mainstream as a pariah field, but our article has been rewritten, mainly by Pcarbonn, to represent it as if it is a significant and emergent field. It is not. The major flaw with CF is that there is no accepted mechanism by which it can work; you can duplicate the experiment with varying degrees of success until you are blue in the face, but until you have the basic science which explains how the purported effect works, you will get nowhere. The world of science is like that.

So much for the content background. Now the core problem.

Wikipedia is absolutely at the mercy of missionaries, they have everything to gain from persistence while those who defend the mainstream view generally are not even a fraction as obsessed with any individual subject so are much less likely to spend the hundreds and hundreds of hours necessary to continually rebut fringe advocacy. This article is just one of a very large number which suffer the same issues, often with the same editors - another example would be Remote viewing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

Here we have a missionary who has openly declared that he is here to fight for the balance of an article to be skewed away from the mainstream view because, in his opinion, the mainstream is wrong. And that's all we need to know. Verifiability, not truth and no undue weight. If the worlds of physics and chemistry deride cold fusion, then we should not be leading the crusade to get them to change their minds.

I would welcome suggestions from the committee as to how the widespread, growing and serious problem of relentless civil advocacy of fringe POV might be fixed. Guy (Help!) 17:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Stephan Schulz

What JzG said. And how he said it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by olive

I reiterate this is a dispute based on content with attempts to attach blame for the content to an editor. Delineation of the issues mentioned is important here; content is disputed, whose fault is that, and how does this connect to NPOV, SPOV, and the Fringe articles. Problems with editing on the Fringe articles is ongoing and a solution to that situation shouldn't be considered here since this Rfarb refers to Pcarbonn, Cold Fusion and not the other fringe articles.

The Cold Fusion article has apparently had GA and FA status while Pcarbonn was editing there. This indicates a level of community acceptance of material in the article. Whether this article jives with the current thought of so-called "mainstream science" is another issue. If the "community" accepted this article by assigning it GA or FA status then the editors, notice I didn't say editor, are not to "blame" for the content. Editors may be responsible for content but acceptance by the community in a sense signs off on the article, and "blame" cannot be assigned.

There seems to be a lot of discussion of Pcarbonn's intentions. We assume a lot of responsibility in assigning intention to someone else. Are there any editors here who have not looked at an article they worked on an felt that the article was well balanced and neutral from his or her own view point, the only true viewpoint any of us have. There is comment about someone editing while being civil, as if this is a crime of some sort rather than adherence to a Wikipedia policy. Was Pcarbonn blocked for edit warring, incivility or other mistakes editors can make in content disputes. Apparently not.

At the most basic level this discussion comes out of differences in ideologies, mainstream science and what that is, and the new frontiers "science" is exploring, and those supporting either view. It would be easy to assign blame here and designate a scapegoat for the ways in which editors attempt to edit in the ways they think are right. There's lots of POV on the Wikipedia articles because everyone has a POV. What does fix the problems in collaboration is tolerance, civility and ongoing patient discussion while respecting other editors. I can't see why an editor should be restricted for working within those guidelines. Is a solution needed for these problem articles? Yes. Will banning an editor for editing within policy create a solution? No. Is this the place to drag in this ongoing discussion on Science/fringe and confusing that with this case on an individual editor? No. My opinion anyway.(olive (talk) 21:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC))

Further comment as response to Enric: Is he edit warring, reverting others' edits to the blocking point, uncivil. There is no record of that. How can he prevent other editors from making those edits,then. Mainstream science editors assume his editing is not neutral. Is it possible he considers the same of them? The editor is acting in compliance. Are all the editors there doing the same? Is it possible that by working within the boundaries of Wikipedia one progresses, and by not doing so one cannot, and so must go to other avenues to get what one thinks is necessary in an article? Is that possible? Most of the discussions here dispute content. Deal with that, and the deep underlying problems that ensue from that dispute. Another thought or two.(olive (talk) 00:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC))

Statement by Vesal

First, I want to just retract some of my harsh words towards Pcarbonn. I still believe he is wrong, but I think it is a Good Thing it was taken up here, because banning him is a band-aid solution to a deeper problem. He is after all sticking to the letter of the policy, and has good backing in the guidelines on the reliability of sources. Now, if what he is doing doesn't conform to the general vision most people here have of what a reputable encyclopedia should be like, then the underlying problem should be addressed.

Second, I do admit that Pcarbonn makes some valid points, especially that "most scientists" are often wrong; and physics textbooks may be far too conservative for Wikipedia's needs. However, if we roughly categorize sources from well-established to cutting-edge knowledge:

1. Textbooks
2. Reference work
3. Review articles in high-impact journals
4. Review articles in topic-specific journals
5. Novel results in high-impact journals <--- I count Die Wissenschaftler here!
6. Novel results in topic-specific journals <--- Surface and Coating Technology, etc.

What should Wikipedia ideally aim for?

Third, from what I understand, this entire dispute depends on the interpretation of the following line from WP:DUE: "Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." Here is why:

• The reliable sources explicitly about Cold Fusion are mostly by proponents, so if we judge reliable sources strictly on cold fusion, then PCarbonn is right. He explicitly uses this interpretation of policy.
• However, the reliable sources on fusion and condense matter physics mostly ignore cold fusion altogether. There are 50,000 papers indexed each year by ISI in the category Applied Physics / Condensed Matter Physics. (Recall that Cold fusion is also known as "condensed matter nuclear science"). Therefore, it seems fair to conclude that cold fusion is little represented in reliable sources on the topic.

So, which interpretation is correct?

This is really all I have to say, so I will not contribute more to this arbitration; but I certainly believe that this dispute raises some interesting fundamental question, and is worth the committees' time.

Statement from Greg L

A few thoughts from the fuel cell world

I’ve skimmed through some of the complaints about Pcarbonn and his perceived conflict of interest. I’d like to pass along some observations here for others to consider. I’ve got a pile of experience in the design of PEM fuel cells. I was employee #2 at a fuel cell startup. I came up with a completely new approach to fuel cell construction that managed the 150-psi forces on the membranes and did so with flimsy plastic (read: low cost) structures. Most of my sixteen patents relate to fuel cells. I’ve since left the fuel cell world and am working on medical technology (something that holds the promise of preventing diabetes). As far as I know though, the fuel cell company I worked for is the only one with a truly successful, commercial product. Now that you know where I’m coming from…

Note that I haven’t ever contributed one iota to any of our fuel cell-related articles. Why? Two reasons: 1) I tend to focus on articles on which I want to learn more (where I haven’t mastered the subject going into it), but (mainly), 2) I utterly dread the notion of being reverted by some I.P. editor who got everything he knows about fuel cells from Popular Mechanics. Why put up with such aggravation? I don’t need it. I just know that if I started doing anything on Fuel cell, I’d find myself continually being challenged over how something I wrote wasn’t cited or constituted WP:OR even though it is silly common knowledge in the fuel cell engineering world. In many cases, the basics of an engineering discipline aren’t written down and are damn hard to cite. Much of what you can cite is horsecrap like “fuel cells will power 25% of our cars by the year 2015” (no they won’t). While working on Kilogram, I contacted a number of Ph.D.s while researching background information (I do my homework). One of them copped a huge WTF to the notion of being expert in something and writing about it on Wikipedia where one doesn’t get credit and could get reverted by imbeciles. That is a common sentiment amongst Ph.D.s.; ergo, Wikipedia doesn’t often get the benefit of those who know the most about many subjects.

I’m sure you can see where I’m going here. I have barely even looked at Fuel cell and don’t ever intend to do so. I have no idea if it’s screwed up or has major gaps or is good or bad. I know next to nothing about Pcarbonn, but it appears he has some expertise in the subject of cold fusion. My suggestion is to cut the guy some slack and fix the most egregious violations of self-promotion. I’d still be tempted to overlook mild self-promotion; it could be that is what is motivating him to put up with so much flack. We really should try to do a better job of dealing with true experts. My only caution in all of this is to try to do a good job too of vetting any supposed “experts”. Greg L (talk) 00:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

• P.S. Note my last sentence, above. I started thinking of my assumptions going into that post. Pretty much my entire above post was predicated on the presumption that “self promotion” and “conflict of interest” somehow equated with “Pierre is some sort of CF expert who is trumping up his own work.” Perhaps, that might have been too much of a leap of logic. Can anyone fill me in?

  I can see from articles like New Energy Times that Pierre clearly is smack dab in the middle of things in the CF world at some level. But in what capacity? As president of the local chapter of the cold fusion fan club(?), or as a researcher who has had palladium electrodes made for him and has seen 30 extra watts mysteriously cook out of his devices for a couple of days and witnessed queer neutron flux readings that make no sense? Trying to determine what his first-hand technical knowledge is in CF has so far proven elusive for me. I’ve asked him here on his talk page about this very issue. I know that the purpose of this venue is not to settle content disputes. But at this point, I’m trying to get to the bottom of why there is such a divergence between Pierre’s editorial tone (rah rah cold fusion) and that of the others who feel his edits lack a neutral point of view.

  As I stated above, I think we need to afford experts, especially in technical matters, some extra latitude. If Pierre is not a first-hand experimenter in CF, my entire above post is irrelevant and the complexion of this dispute will have changed a great deal from my point of view. Greg L (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

P.P.S Pierre responded that he has no personal expertise in cold fusion. It appears he is, perhaps, and advanced fan of CF and reads what he can of the available literature. It strikes me that Pierre should abide by the consensus view of what the most reliable sources are saying on the technical issues. I’ve essentially advised him (here) as much. Please consider my initial post, above, when a more appropriate situation arrises. Greg L (talk) 06:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

I do not recall having edited cold fusion or having any prior interaction with User:Pcarbonn. In that narrow sense I am uninvolved. But I do have a broader feeling of involvement in that I am deeply concerned about the scientific credibility of Wikipedia. In that regard I would like to point to a principle that appeared in a previous Arbitration Committee decision:

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.

The most important question here is, Will that principle continue to apply to Wikipedia, or will we take an approach that is more sympathetic toward views that are most definitely not in line with respected scientific thought out of a concern for "fairness" toward individual editors? The narrower questions of the behavior of User:Pcarbonn or other specific editors are secondary. Editors come and go.

Statement by ScienceApologist

I hate arbitration. The last case in which I was involved was so opaque in its process as to resemble something between a witch-hunt and a parlor game. The resolutions were either vague, uninspired, or so lacking in edification as to exacerbate the problem rather than resolve it. Yet the cases in which I have been involved have nevertheless been quoted and dissected over years as though the conclusions were some sort of sacred text sent from on-high to say exactly how Wikipedia should run. Laughable, considering the utter incompetence of many of the people responsible for the "decisions". I admit up front that some arbitrators are intelligent, thoughtful, and decent, but I find the court of arbiters to be stacked with quite a few hacks. The arbitration process itself is unweildy and has no basis in rational thought (does Workshop ever really accomplish anything?). There is no consistent procedural law, no due process, no real standard of evidence (beyond the peurile "diff" request), no consistency in the evaluation of testimony, no accountability, no recourse to appeal, etc, etc, etc. I don't trust arbitration.

Nevertheless, I am a named party in this case, and so should at least try to explain where I'm coming from.

Perhaps most succinctly, interested parties can look at a new proposal I started: WP:MAINSTREAM. This explains my motivations almost in their entirety.

There exist Wikipedians who vehemently disagree with my aims. I can provide a list, but shall refrain in the interests of deferring to community tradition. I come into conflict with the users on this list on a fairly regular basis. I am often mystified as to what justification there is to keep such users on board. I'm all in favor of having people at Wikipedia who have a difference of opinion. Some of them learn to deal well with the fact that their opinions are only of marginal status and do not protest when other editors work to appropriately frame their opinions in such a way... but such users are coming harder and harder to find.

Instead, at Wikipedia, most minority-opinion holders exploit the fact that Wikipedia has never forcefully endorsed any content standards, even its own. Should we let people with minority opinions actively disrupt the articles to the point of driving away good contributors who are not passionately aligned to a minority opinion? Should we encourage them to create an environment so caustic that getting outside expert help is nearly impossible? Since I first became involved with Wikipedia, the answer has gone from being a de facto "yes" to almost a de jure "yes". More than that, the community has become downright toxic for editors dedicated to the standards of high-quality research -- generally to the point of driving away editors who are passionately devoted to the principles and practices that our content guideline and policy pages say are most in-line with best editorial practices.

Instead of fostering an environment where good research is rewarded and poor scholarship is punished, Wikipedia relies on a set of vague, messageboard-centric "behavioral" guidelines to police. Concepts like civility are upheld as "policy" in the spite of the known fact that the civility-standards are culturally relative. More than this, the monolithic behavioral structure contradicts the pluralism that Wikipedia claims to endorse. Why is that the Wikipedia community lack diversity? In part it is because Wikipedia is tolerant of behaviors that traditional internet users endorse while being intolerant of behavior standards that are different.

This situation is exacerbated by the fact that Wikipedia has become a community not of expert researchers or at least people dedicated to the principle of WP:MAINSTREAM, but rather a community of anti-social internet denizens who alternatively enjoy the mind trip that is "an encyclopedia anyone -- even I -- can edit" or are hoping to play games to achieve fake positions of power like "administrator" or "bureaucrat" or "arbitrator". It's petty, silly, and I hate it.

The ONLY reason I continue is because Wikipedia is the best thing going at the moment which is seen by the fact that students use it. I feel it important that students are not turning to a resource that skews presentation of facts, opinions, etc in a way that defies WP:MAINSTREAM. I don't care if Wikipedia survives or not, and usually hope that it fails a miserable death and gets buried in the sands of time because of the problems I outline above.

I will be on wikibreak for much of this arbitration because these things are such time sinks. I would prefer to talk directly to arbitrators about my position through e-mails, phone calls, etc. and would not mind if we published some of these conversations in the evidence pages. I don't have time to deal with all the potential drama that will accompany this case. There are enough people who take delight in stalking me from place to place that I think it better to not be directly involved in the evidence, workshop, or discussion pages of this arbitration.

ScienceApologist (talk) 12:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by uninvolved JodyB

I am pleased to see that the committee will accept this case. However I encourage you to look far beyond the present players here and help the community develop a coherent, workable manner to deal with scientific topics. As we all know, science is a dynamic field in which change is the only true constant. Theories arise, are inspected and then accepted or rejected only to be re-considered a few months or years later. The difficulty is how to treat those theories as they wax and wane. Today's fringe theory may be tomorrow's accepted fact. It is simply impossible to know what is really junk and what is true beyond an immediate snapshot of the current thinking. The committee needs to gives us some guidance on how to thread the needle so these user conflicts no longer boil over. We cannot become a repository of "what-if's" and "maybe's" nor can we ignore the advance of science which can be so rapid. JodyB _talk 14:09, 14

Further comments

New Statement by ScienceApologist

Pulling out of arbitration...

There exists "evidence" presented by Jehochman that flagrantly mischaracterizes me. If we cannot come to an agreement on how to present it, I will leave Wikipedia for good.

ScienceApologist (talk) 09:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Question

Anyone know where my statement wnet to? And why it was deleted? Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind I found it. Kirk shanahan (talk) 16:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Farcical exercise

I regard this whole exercise as quite farcical. Surely if Pcarbonn has been sanctioned for edit warring then so should ScienceApologist. I cannot see any major distinction between their behaviours as depicted in these pages. On balance I would say the evidence against SA is probably more damning, but it takes two to tango, as the saying goes, and I therefore feel that sanctioning just one of the two parties is a grossly unfair outcome and shows an inherent and insidious bias in this whole exercise. Which is why it has been a complete farce. Peter morrell 12:47, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree. Kevin Baas^talk 16:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I also completely agree. Yet, nothing will be done to SA. No one is willing to sanction SA and because of this he knows he can get away with whatever he wants. Brothejr (talk) 17:14, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It would be different if some rationale had been put forth - even WP:IAR. But simply ignoring overwhelming evidence without comment does lend the whole exercise the appearance of a farce. Dlabtot (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I also find this puzzling: I believe Jehochman asked for a six month ban, and that is now a one year ban. That's a long time relative to the age of Wikipedia itself. Links used as proof of Pcarbonn's problems link to Guy's statement, an opinion, and even using a media statement as proof that Pcarbonn has motives not in line with Wikipedia seems a synthesized logic. Finally we are dealing with an editor who whatever his mistakes were, if there were any, was always civil and had no blocks or bans. The judgment handed down might have taken that into consideration possibly discussing the situation with him personally , suggesting a short ban to watch the page, but not edit and then seeing if he can come into line with the majority of editors on the page. He, if I remember was instrumental in bringing the article to GA and FA status, and all that means in terms of consensus and collaborative skills and agreement on content. Shouldn't that count for something? When did problems start to come up on that article, and can the other editor in this case also be implicated and dealt with in a manner that is equal to how Pcarbonn is being dealt with. An editor emailed and said he found the judgment cold. I'm sorry to say I do as well. Pretty confusing.(olive (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

Encyclopedias do have an "inherent" bias towards accurate representations of material. I don't think that "insidious" is a fair adjective to use to describe that bias.—Kww(talk) 20:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

We are not talking about content or representations of material, we are talking about user behavior. i thought that was clear by the simple fact that this is arbcom. And even more so by the fact that no one has even mentioned any content or representations of material. Kevin Baas^talk 20:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I take it that this is you volunteering to take on the work of editing the cruff of Wikipedia? As for "insidious" bias - well, the fact that the cruff warriors don't like WP:NPOV says a lot. And those editors who forget that we are here to edit an encyclopedia rather than engage in a social civility experiment probably should get out and edit a couple more articles. Shot info (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Of course we all note again that this case was about behaviour, not content, eh?(olive (talk) 23:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

Feel free to look up the word behaviour in a dictionary, eh? Shot info (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. Thanks.(olive (talk) 23:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

Well, that's just what makes this a farce; although it is ostensibly 'about behavior', the reality is otherwise. This decision was based on content. I don't necessarily see anything wrong with that - if it were acknowledged. I'm sorry but I'm not going to pretend that the Emperor is wearing clothes. Dlabtot (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but don't think it's as bad as you say. The key finding of fact was Pcarbonn's intent, although it was called an "agenda". Frequently, the same behaviours performed with different intentions will receive different punishments. The presence or absence of bad intent is a substantial factor in the common law system, and it isn't surprising that it shows in Wikipedia arbitration.—Kww(talk) 02:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what your response has to do with my comment. I didn't say, I didn't mean to imply, and I don't believe that Pcarbonn's topic ban wasn't fully justified. Dlabtot (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you consider a decision based on intent to be about content or behaviour? I put it firmly under "behaviour", so I'm happy with the decision. I suspect that many that object view "intent" as being in the "content" category, and that's why they consider the decision to be a farce. I thought that was your objection as well.—Kww(talk) 02:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how I could have been more explicit in saying that my comments were not about Pcarbonn's block. --ps... by which I mean that that is just one narrow element of the case. Anyway the finding of fact doesn't talk about some perceived intent. It talks about actions - behavior: Pcarbonn edits articles with a stated agenda against Wikipedia policy.. And the embedded link certainly supports this statement. But the policy that is being enforced is about content, not behavior. The 'misbehavior' was the repeated addition and promotion of content that violated our policy against soapboxing. And I do believe the Committee as well as administrators should be generous with topic bans for those who are here pushing a viewpoint. So again, I think it was fully justified. Dlabtot (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

My comments were probably not understood. To delineate: This case itself was clearly defined as that which could only deal with behaviour not content. I would suggest the two were, and are too interconnected to be truly separate, although artificial separations are constantly and necessarily being employed on Wikipedia My comment above mentions aspects of the case that were concerns, and as such that were also the underpinnings for banning an editor for a year-a long time. I'm very clear about the definition of behaviour, Shot. Your comment struck me as funny. "We stand on guard for thee..." Wikipedia is not punitive. None of us has a mandate to punish. I respect the Arbs just don't always agree, but thank them for their work. Its a dirty job but someone has to do it, and related aphorisms.(olive (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC))

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Cold fusion topic bans (Clarification)

Statement by JzG

This concerns the topic ban of Pcarbonn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion.

Note, current dispute is here. Thatcher 14:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

As the evidence page makes clear, Pcarbonn's agenda was supported by Jed Rothwell of lenr-canr.org - in fact, it was rather the other way round. For many months, Rothwell has promoted his site on Wikipedia through talk page postings solely related to cold fusion. He and Pcarbonn also collaborated on a knol which seeks to "balance" the newly NPOV'd article on cold fusion, see [8]. I believe it was Rothwell who published Pcarbonn's self-congratulatory article on how he had "won the battle" on Wikipedia. Rothwell's relentless promotion of his website was a factor in it being blacklisted ([9]) and since Pcarbonn's topic ban Rothwell has resurfaced several times at different IPs (he has been IP-hopping for a long time, his account JedRothwell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is essentially abandoned). I have extended the topic ban to cover Rothwell on the grounds that:

• He is furthering the same WP:BATTLE that got Pcarbonn sanctioned
• He is effectively editing on behalf of a banned user
• He is a disruptive single-purpose account
• He assiduously promotes his own website

It would seem to me to be utterly perverse to fail to do this. A restriction would be in order anyway due to trolling, WP:SPA concerns, WP:FRINGE violations, questions over linking to copyright material hosted in violation of copyright and so on; as it happens the behaviour of Jed Rothwell is also precisely analogous to that which got Pcarbonn topic-banned only less civil.

I thought this was simple and obvious, but there is some kickback. I'm somewhat puzzled as to why, but I think it's probably worth requesting clarification that, in cases where someone exhibits similar behaviour and supports the same agenda as a topic-banned user, and that person is known to be a close collaorator of the restricted user in an area where the restriction applies, and the individual is a single-purpose account, then the same restriction may be applied. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

@ Dan: A "tight clique"? Of "well-connected Wikipedians?" I don't know whether to chide you for WP:ABF or to laugh out loud at the hilariously inaccurate idea that I am part of a clique of well-connected anything! I have been an outsider pretty much all my life, and that's pushing towards the half century mark now. Where does this clique supposedly communicate? I cannot even begin to take your comment seriously - the whole problem with Pcarbonn is precisely that he does not fit your characterisation, he was the very archetype of a civil POV-pusher, which is why it took such an unconscionably long time to get him dealt with properly. Rothwell is more uncivil, I will grant you, but even then he scarcely fits the model you describe and I absolutely cannot see how your characterisation of a clique fits in any meaningful way with this case. I think you are seeing cabals under the bed to mix a metaphor. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• Addendum: Gen ato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be another WP:SPA who has piled right in with POV edits like [10] and argumentation. Guy (Help!) 00:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

View by Thatcher

This is obvious. The principle you want has been made explicit in many cases and I see no reason to force a long process and vote here. Apply the topic ban. Thatcher 23:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

• Dan, we're not talking about getting rid of all proponents of cold fusion, and we're not even talking about the applications of discretionary sanctions. We're talking about an editor whose edits and agenda are substantially the same as an editor who was topic banned by a 7-1 vote of Arbcom in the actual arbitration case. Having a friend, colleague or business associate make edits on your behalf after you have been banned from making them is certainly grounds for extension of the topic ban to the second editor. Thatcher 14:01, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Enric Naval

Two editors are defending that the ban does not exist because:

1. there was not enough discussion at the AN thread discussing the ban
2. the ban is not listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions
3. none of his previous IPs were blocked
4. his abandoned account User:JedRothwell is not blocked
5. the banning admin is involved

It should be made clear that none of the above are requirements for a WP:BAN. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A few days before his ban, I had already reported Jed to WP:AE here with a lot of diffs showing OR, COI, wikilawyering to ignore reliable sources, etc.

Reply to Tobias: Jed doesn't need to be goaded, he can be as unreasonable as necessary all by himself --Enric Naval (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Abd: Uh, arbcom already ratified "an exclusion of COI and SPA editors from Talk, based on POV" when it banned User:Pcarbonn for his edits on the talk page. And they did the same with User:DanaUllman. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Carcharot: I totally agree that these problems come from using WP:MEAT as one of the reasons for the topic ban. As you say, he simply should have been topic banned for the same reasons as Pcarbonn. There were enough other reasons to topic ban Jed without invoking WP:MEAT. Ídem for Gen Ato, any ban should be under its own reasons and under under WP:MEAT.

To clarify, there are two different solutions that are getting confused:

• formally extend Pcarbonn's arbcom ban so that it also covers Jed (this needs a motion)
• topic ban Jed for the same reasons that Pcarbonn was banned, with no relationship to Pcarbonn's ban other than using the same reasons (this doesn't need a motion)

--Enric Naval (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Jed's attitude

Jed:

• is decided to violate his ban because he has nothing to lose [11].
• has zero repentance and/or acceptance of any fault of his own: he believes that he was not banned because of his behaviour or attitude, but because of "ignorant bullies who shred [his] reputation in public", "extremists", replacement of expert works with nonsense, etc [12]. (and this is just his latest comment)
• self-explanatory: "apparently you people are trying to ban me by banning the IP. Good luck! You will have to ban all of BellSouth. (...)I did not realize what "IP hopper" meant, but I am glad to see that I have stumbled upon a method of defeating you, and annoying you."[13] --Enric Naval (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Gen Ato

This guy was making a school project to see if wikipedia had a "firewall" to prevent the insertion on articles of "other scientifically credited and published points of view", and then make his pupils discuss our reactions, see User_talk:Gen_ato#Thank_You.2C_My_experiment_was_successful.21. Totally unrelated to Jed, Pcarbonn and any of their goals. The experiment is now finished, so it's not worth doing bannign anything as the disruption has stopped. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

The relevant policy is WP:MEAT. A meatpuppet account may not be used to circumvent a topic ban. Any such accounts may be blocked to enforce the ban. Jehochman ^Talk 13:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Dtobias

Banning people because they have a strong opinion on one side of a contentious issue, while leaving those with similarly strong opinions on the other side with free rein, seems hardly like a good way to ensure balanced NPOV on that topic. A famous case in the past history of Wikipedia of that vein was the Naked short selling, Mantanmoreland (et al) vs. Wordbomb (et al) case, where some of the same people arguing for a tough line against Rothwell (et al) were supporters of the "Zero tolerance, shoot on sight" slanted policy in that earlier case... see where it ended up. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I've seen similar sequences of events in lots of cases. When a tight clique of well-connected Wikipedians wants to marginalize some viewpoint as "fringe", the thing to do is first get a leading advocate of that position banned (or at least topic-banned). Perhaps he even deserves it; it's advantageous to pick the most uncivil, unreasonable, COI, obsessive-compulsive person as the designated target. However, it might still be necessary to goad him a little; be uncivil to him in the hopes he retaliates in kind to give an excuse to ban him; quote heaps of acronym-soup Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and essays at him and then accuse him of wikilawyering if he actually tries to rigorously comply with them; and keep moving the goalposts around until he gets frustrated and lashes back. Then, get him banned, preferably with a minimum of actual community discussion. If discussion is needed, present a slanted, biased account of how pernicious he is; don't worry about getting facts straight because it's your word against his, and you're the respected Wikipedian. Then, once the ban is solid, apply the "If a banned user says 2+2=4, everybody else had better say it's 3 or 5, or else they're acting in concert with a banned user to promote his agenda!" rule to suppress all other viewpoints of a similar nature, even if expressed civilly. If you can blacklist all outside sites that have such opinions in them, all the better. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by TS

I think we're going to have to go to a motion. The contrarian tendency has the bit between its teeth, so it's best to go by the book in such cases. I'm sorry, I'm a great fan of "Ignore all rules", but that doesn't work in cases like this. --TS 14:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

For evidence, all that is needed is this edit on User talk:Phil153 in which Jed Rothwell completely misses the point made by Phil153 in the comment to which he is replying, refers to Phil153 and others as "you skeptics", and promotes an extremely partisan position (his own). This is not the purpose of Wikipedia, and comments of that sort should not be made on Wikipedia. A topic ban would be appropriate, if only to spare the valuable time those who have already done excellent work in salvaging the cold fusion article. Wikipedia is not a battleground. --TS 17:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Please do your homework, Carcharoth. He was topic banned some time ago but there are some people wikilawyering over it. Do not falsely accuse Guy of acting pre-emptively. --TS 08:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Fully agree with Carcharoth that the grounds need to be clarified. Jed Rothwell's conduct and stated purpose in editing are incompatible with Wikipedia. Whether he is or is not a meatpuppet, or sharing opinions with somebody else who has also been been banned (because of that person's conduct, not his opinions), or has or has not got a professional relationship with the other person, is not material here. The issue is that a pattern of disruption has re-emerged in the wake of an arbitration case that was supposed to address that disruption. --TS 15:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd take Gen.ato's claim that he was performing a "test" with a pinch of salt. It's a fairly well known face-saving device in online communities to say "I was testing you." I don't think there are any serious conduct issues with Gen.ato; he has probably simply not yet had time to adjust to the difference between Italian and English Wikipedia. --TS 19:22, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Abd

There is no apparent meat puppetry, no evidence has been presented of that. Rothwell and Pcarbonn are unrelated, as far as anything I've seen. JzG is an involved editor and, if needed, evidence can be provided (it's blatant from Cold fusion article history). JzG is bringing this here prematurely; only the first step of WP:DR had been applied. There are many examples of abuse of admin tools in the record, in my opinion, but attempts to resolve this at a low level were far from complete. ArbComm should not decide on a ban of an editor without the necessary process protections. JzG has asserted block violation by Rothwell, but the record shows the opposite, apparently. Rothwell apparently complied with JzG's involved (and therefore improper) block on December 18, and did not return to editing except after a month. JzG appears to have blocked a different IP editor based on presumed similarity of position, when the behavior of that other editor was clearly different and there is no sign that Rothwell would partition his behavior in that way; then JzG asserted block violation as a reason for his new block. The problem is that an involved administrator has become prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner, pursuing his own clearly expressed bias and POV, which apparently warps his administrative judgment. All of this could be established with clarity from the record. I was hoping to avoid that, but JzG has pushed the issue here. There are many other related issues, as well, of major import. The blacklist is being used to assert a content position, not merely to prevent linkspam; it's been applied, by JzG, to back up his edits removing sources that were considered acceptable by editorial consensus. Talk page edits by Rothwell, not containing a link but merely the name of his domain -- his title -- are the only evidence presented for linkspam, and another simultaneous blacklisting, of newenergytimes.com, was also accomplished by him -- not following the blacklist procedure -- without any evidence of linkspam, not even weak. This is a personal agenda and content position being implemented with admin tools, without consensus, and it is damaging the project.

I had been considering whether or not to take the issue of the block of Rothwell IP to AN, given that a request to JzG didn't accomplish reversal, but had not concluded that it would be worthy of the possible disruption. I was considering finding another editor to mediate the dispute, then possible formal mediation, and only if these failed would I have considered escalating. But JzG apparently considers this worthy of immediate ArbComm attention. I would strongly object to a premature decision here. --Abd (talk) 14:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• The suggestion "Apply the topic ban" implies a judgment on the merits of the claim made by JzG that alleged similarity of POV is sufficient to establish meat puppetry, a very dangerous judgment in a field where there are many with the POV, including authors being published in peer-reviewed journals. I see only two reasonable courses for ArbComm: decline the case as premature, given that all that existed is that two editors requested an unblock from JzG, no wider review had been undertaken except a little discussion on Talk:Cold fusion, and the protesting editors had not escalated; or take the case and examine it in detail, based on issues of possible administrative abuse, or, on the other hand, the possibility that JzG's allegations are true and his behavior appropriate even if outside of normal process. --Abd (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• The suggestion that Rothwell published Pcarbonn's article is false. The article was published on newenergytimes.com, an on-line magazine, and the editor of that is certainly not a friend of Rothwell. --Abd (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• The WP:SPA argument is irrelevant and specious in context. Rothwell is an expert in the field, published, and the "librarian" of the most complete bibliography and repository of permitted copies for free access of published papers on the internet, on the topic (positive and negative or neutral). As someone with a COI, he's expected not to contentiously edit the article, and he doesn't. He only comments in Talk. So, ArbComm is being asked to ratify an exclusion of COI and SPA editors from Talk, based on POV, which would seal and enshrine a general exclusion of minority opinion, no matter how notable. Rothwell is sometimes uncivil, but that's common with experts. It should be addressed directly, not complicated with matters of "fringe" and the rest. He's been treated uncivilly with, for example, false or unsupported allegations of copyright violation; if we could stop and prevent that, we might be able to engage with him more positively. Or not, and then he'd be properly blocked for that, not for merely expressing his allegedly fringe opinion. --Abd (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• No claim is made by me that Rothwell should not be banned, though it would set a bad precedent. It's moot at the moment, he's blocked, properly or not. However, a topic ban would deserve careful consideration, and the situation is complicated by long-term incivility against him, prior action against him by an involved admin that wasn't questioned and was thus assumed to represent the whole community (which appears to have not noticed it), false allegations of copyright violation (this is actually libel in context), and other issues that could easily explain incivility or rash comments in response. Normally, we wouldn't ban from an RfAr request like JzG's, without prior community process, and without opportunity for full presentation of evidence, etc. The only prior process that I can find is an inconclusive AN report, low participation, there was no neutral closing admin, no binding warning to the editor, and only an involved admin who argued for a ban, decided it, and acted on it. --Abd (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• As I have been asked to provide evidence regarding the involvement of JzG in Cold fusion and his administrative actions taken in neglect of his involvement, I have created an evidence page at User:Abd/JzG with a record of his edits to Cold fusion and his related administrative actions (involving the use of admin tools). I conclude that JzG was an involved editor, and used his tools to further his position in disputes. He deleted a relevant Talk page, recently active; he edited a page to his preferred version and then protected it; he edited articles with links accepted by consensus to remove the links and then blacklisted the web sites to prevent reversion; and he blocked editors based on POV. And this is just with respect to Cold fusion, he's very active elsewhere. I had no prior dispute with JzG, indeed, I respected him and had been supported by him. It's puzzling and sad. --Abd (talk) 04:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• In the middle of this, JzG archived his Talk page with the discussion about his block of Rothwell, which is elsewhere cited here. This is a permanent link to the discussion as it sat when archived (three relevant sections). --Abd (talk) 06:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• Roger Davies wrote, This can be (and should be) dealt with by the community first. Absolutely. What I've presented here was simply to point out the danger of jumping to conclusions, I was concerned that ArbComm might, as hinted by some, issue a motion without going through the process of allowing presentation of evidence and adequate discussion, etc., and based on a radical bypass of normal community process by a premature direct appeal to ArbComm. --Abd (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:GoRight

I came into this as a completely uninvolved editor. I only became aware of the controversy surrounding the Cold Fusion case through User:Abd. I have not made any content contributions to the page because I am familiarizing myself with the topic. As part of that effort I was reading the talk page for Cold Fusion where I came upon the "reminder" that Rothwell is topic banned. As someone who is currently under an editing restriction I am familiar with the normal process for instituting such a thing. As a point of interest I decided to look into the specifics of this ban. What I found was disturbing, IMHO.

The first thing I did was check Wikipedia:Editing restrictions to verify that the ban was recorded. This seems a simple thing. As one would expect we find User:Pcarbonn listed there, but not a word about Rothwell. Thinking this might have been an oversight I went back and reviewed the community discussion where the topic ban had supposedly taken place here and here. What I found was a small handful of mostly involved editors expressing general support for a topic ban but no particular declaration thereof as one would expect. I assume that a community ban requires more than just a handful of editors complaining on WP:AN. In response to queries for additional evidence of a ban I was directed to this. This is the only place where I have found a direct assertion of a ban having been imposed. On it's face this appears to be User:JzG simply making a unilateral declaration of a topic ban. Again, I assume that a community ban requires more than just one administrator, no matter how well meaning, to institute a ban.

Even so, I did not want to assume anything so I sought direct confirmation of the ban from User:JzG who was the administrator making the assertion, and asked him to clarify whether he believed that an enforcible topic ban was in place for Rothwell and, if so, to please record that fact at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions so that uninvolved administrators would have the benefit of this clear identification of such and thereby facilitate the enforcement of the ban, if it existed. This too seemed straight forward if such a ban actually existed. Failing to record a topic ban will only aid the banned user, no?

Well no such clear recording of the ban has been forthcoming, which leads me to the conclusion that the ban does not actually exist despite the best intentions of those making the claim. I have taken no particular action based on this conclusion other than to assert it and to repeat my request that, if a ban actually exists, that it be properly recorded. I have reverted nothing of Rothwell's.

I claim that there is no policy that directly makes a topic ban transitive from one use to another. The action taken against User:Pcarbonn does not mention any other users, so to assert that User:Pcarbonn's ban is actually also a topic ban for some other editor seems ludicrous. What is the basis for deciding which other users should formally have a ban on them as well? There is none. It is completely arbitrary. Therefore in my view it should be obvious that the action taken against User:Pcarbonn in no way restricts the ability of other users to express their own independent opinions. There is no disagreement that User:Pcarbonn and Rothwell are separate individuals. Rothwell is thus free to express his own opinions.

Now, WP:MEAT certainly could apply IF there is clear evidence that Rothwell is merely editing on User:Pcarbonn's behalf (as opposed to expressing his own personal views). I have requested that such evidence be put forth, but to the best of my knowledge no direct evidence of this has been provided. The fact that Rothwell and User:Pcarbonn share similar views and may even have interacted off-wiki is certainly not clear evidence that Rothwell's actions are being directed by User:Pcarbonn as WP:MEAT would require. We can't just take a ban on one user and use that as a mechanism to silence other users who happen to share similar views.

In the end, my only purpose in all of this was to get a clear and unambiguous statement as to whether Rothwell actually does have a topic ban, or not, and if so to have that recorded at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions so that all of this senseless and time consuming bickering over the point can be put to rest.

While I accept that User:JzG has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart and is acting in good faith, I also believe that he is clearly involved in the dispute and has been using his administrative tools against a user who, as far as I can see, does not have a topic ban against him. In that sense this is merely a content dispute between User:JzG and Rothwell. I am not seeking any actions be taken against User:JzG in this case, but I would certainly think that all of the following principles which were expressed in prior arbcom rulings are applicable in this case:

• Compliance
• Use of administrative tools in a dispute
• Bad Blood
• Good intentions
• Harassment is disruptive

I offer these merely for your review and consideration. --GoRight (talk) 19:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• I would also say that I agree with the observation below that the existing policies are sufficient to deal with this editor if his behavior continues unabated. Specifically WP:CIVIL and WP:DISRUPT and, if proven, WP:MEAT are more than sufficient to address the concerns here. I, personally, would not favor the introduction of a topic ban on this editor since such action is, again in my view, unnecessary. --GoRight (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• To Thatcher and other proponents of the WP:MEAT view of the situation, where is the evidence that Rothwell is acting on User:Pcarbonn's behalf or direction? Are we able to apply WP:MEAT to anyone with no evidence? --GoRight (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• To the arbitors, please answer the fundamental question. Does Rothwell have a topic ban imposed specifically on him? If so, should this not be recorded at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions? If not, should all of his edits be removed on sight or is he free to make constructive, on-topic, and civil edits or comments on Cold Fusion (yes, I know that this is rare, apparently)? Can (and/or should) the WP:MEAT argument be applied to any and all editors who may be sympathetic to User:Pcarbonn's position (even without evidence of collaboration)? --GoRight (talk) 02:19, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• As an example, User:JzG is now trying to expand the ban to include User:Gen ato simply because he appears to share some of User:Pcarbonn's viewpoint. Do we have evidence of WP:MEAT in this case as well or are we simply going to blindly label people in this manner? --GoRight (talk) 02:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• I just want to be sure that I understand the facts and intentions expressed in the arbitrator votes/discussion below and that I come away from this proceeding with the right message in mind. It would appear to be in the best interests of the project over-all for everyone to do so. I think that I am hearing the following:

1. They are collectively and EXPLICITLY deciding to NOT endorse a topic ban against Rothwell, although some have expressed a willingness to do so if that became necessary.
2. They are collectively agreeing that the existing policies already in place are sufficient to deal with Rothwell and, therefore, no such endorsement of a topic ban against him is required at this time.
3. They are collectively asserting that the entire issue can and should be dealt with by the community before bringing it to this forum.

I don't presume to speak for the arbitrators so if any of this is incorrect, please by all means correct me on these points. --GoRight (talk) 02:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

statement by DGG

There is a secondary issue here which is I think of the utmost importance. JzG is not an uninvolved editor on this subject and has no business making blocks or bans in this area. This is blatant abused of admin privileges, slightly ameliorated by his voluntarily bringing it here. I have no view on the underlying issue of what to do about Rothwell, but I think a topic ban against JzG is called for--and least an injunction of any further actions in this area that do are appear to make use of the admin bit. DGG (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by User:Objectivist

There is no doubt that Pcarbonn and Jed Rothwell have a particular POV. There is also no doubt that other editors have a conflicting POV. But there is a lot of doubt regarding the phrase "meat puppet". To support a particular POV, there is usually a particular set of data available. Two people sharing the same POV are naturally going to reference the same data, in stating their views. To truly qualify as a "meat puppet", one would have to exhibit the same style of phrasing as another --and even then there can be doubt. How many twins or long-married couples are able to finish each other's sentences, after all? I therefore submit that the claim of meat-puppetry is a baseless trumped-up charge.

Next, regarding "link spamming", what about the classic quote: "There is no accounting for taste."? Different people have different notions about what they consider to be spam. Let us pretend for the moment that the ancient Library of Alexandria still existed in full glory, and had full access via a Web address. Most of its works would be copyright-free. How much of Wikipedia would contain links to that site, because that is where the source-data is located? If the Head Librarian posted to Wikipedia, and always included in message-signing the phrase "Head Librarian, library-of-alexandria.org", how is that a "link spam"? It is not a whole Web address! Are you going to ban that person simply because of being proud to hold that position? And will you also treat that Library the way various religions did in History? "If it holds writings disagreeing with the Holy Book, they are heretical. If it holds writing agreeing with the Holy Book, they are superfluous. Burn them all." (In modern terms, ban references to it-that-holds-the-source-data.)

Next, has anyone considered the possibility that there simply might not be an acceptable way to state certain things about "Cold Fusion" without injecting one POV or the other? Even the very definition of that name has been edited multiple times. Perhaps a phrase like "cold fusion proponents claim" could be used extensively, in order to present relevant information in a neutral way, and a similar phrase could be used with regard to claims made by opponents of cold fusion. However, those phrases would likely have to be used in so many places as to be literally (literarily?) cumbersome --yet without such qualifiers, we are left with specific-POV statements only, which leads to an edit war, and bannings, and proposed bannings.

Isn't there a famous quote to the effect that "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch?" All it takes to institute a ban here, apparently, is enough users of one POV clique or the other. The "losing" POV can be decimated that way, one banned user at a time. My Statement here is: "This is what seems to be happening now."

Would it not be better simply to divide a controversial article into an introductory section (neutral POV should be relatively easy there), followed by POV-pro and POV-con sections? If clearly marked as such, why would any Wikipedia reader complain about it? So, to the extent that true neutrality may not be possible to achieve, it nevertheless remains possible to achieve balance . Then Wikipedia can ban users who mess up the "other side's" POV, when doing so is simply senseless --it could only be vandalism. V (talk) 17:58, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by MastCell

This seems like a pretty basic, if important question. Can we take staightforward actions to protect the encyclopedia's goals and standards? Or have we reached the point where such action, as often as not, bogs down in [REDACTED - I can't think of a charitable way to characterize it]? Do we have to flog all the old warhorses every single time? I'm actually about to lose a $5 bet with another admin because no one has mentioned BADSITES yet - I should have bet on Mantanmoreland instead. :P

We're talking about a clear case of WP:ADVOCACY, and violations of this site's standards and purpose over more than 2 years. Blocking IPs used by this editor to commit further violations should be an uncontroversial call. If the concern is that Guy, an involved editor, made the blocks, then I propose that he contact me the next time one of this editor's IP's pops up. To argue that blocks are inappropriate because the editor's abandoned account has never been indef-blocked seems - again, I can't think of a charitable term, but I have rectified that concern ex post facto. MastCell ^Talk 20:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Phil153

I realize the arbs have already voted but I want to provide evidence to preempt this needless drama in future, and counter claims of suppression within Wikipedia. I think the following are clear cut:

• The ban of Rothwell is completely uncontroversial per our policies on talk page etiquette and behavior.

In addition to the points by others above:

• Rothwell does not seek to improve the article despite repeated requests and continues to post only off topic content and OR. Requests:[14][15][16][17]
• Rothwell spams text links to his site in nearly all his signatures, and elsewhere, even after being asked to stop [18][19][20](self promotion - today)
• Rothwell is unusually uncivil and disruptive, even stating that this is his intention. See contrib history, diffs above, plus intention: [21][22]
• This behavior has gone unchecked for long periods, even while JzG was aware of it. No one was trying to suppress Jed's comments. He was asked nicely to be constructive and was told he would be welcome to discuss suggestions to improve the article. He declined , both explicitly [23] and by later actions.

Given the above, the claims of some systemic suppression of particular POVs surrounding this ban appear to be nothing but dramamongering. Jed has been given free reign on the CF talk page for months, and has chosen not to change his behavior.

• JzG acted with established consensus, and not unilaterally regarding JedRothwell.

• Jed's disruptive, entirely off topic editing was noted by many editors, and the need for a ban was mentioned by other editors: Talk:Cold_fusion#Topic_ban_reminding, Talk:Cold_fusion#Jed_Rothwell, Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_20#Formal_warning (there are other examples)
• Previous accounts by Jed have a history of disruption and blocks, as noted by others. See, for example:

64.247.224.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and the corresponding block discussion

• JzG is an involved administrator with something of a POV on cold fusion.

Several edits point to this, although I believe them to be good faith if very poorly executed. [24][25]

• JzG is acting in good faith with ample clue as an administrator and despite the point above, it's obvious that nothing about this block is improper.

For quick reference, here are JedRothwell's IP contributions since Nov 2008: 68.219.153.157,208.89.102.50
208.65.88.140, 68.219.198.240, 208.65.88.200, 68.158.255.197, 208.89.102.114, 68.217.47.115, 68.219.153.139, 69.228.201.246, 68.219.153.139, 68.219.54.221, 68.19.97.69 (the above was added at 23:33, 29 January 2009 by Phil153)

• Comment on why JzG's request for clarification is important.

Arbcom previously ruled in the cold fusion case that a particular civil POV pusher who editing with a stated agenda against Wikipedia policy, and caused significant disruption, should be topic banned. But what are we to do if another editor comes along who obviously and beyond all doubt fits the same profile, and is not an obvious sockpuppet or meatpuppet? Is another 20 day formal arbitration process needed? Or can clue can be reasonably applied and the other user blocked under the same general sanctions? That was JzG's reasoning, but it was pushed back hard by user Abd (who also (partly?) disagreed with Pcarbonn's banning). So he brought it here for clarification on the general scope of an Arbcom sanction, which has not been forthcoming by most of the committee. In this particular case, the issue was moot, since the user could be banned under other policies. But the general question still remains. It would be nice to see the committee either shoot down the idea and limit the scope of sanctions and clue as relates to Arbcom decisions, so we clearly know what is and isn't appropriate. Or make clear that it is sufficient to follow the spirit of a ruling in obvious cases and in good faith without needing further procedure (i.e. not a bureaucracy). It is precisely this lack of clarity which has led to this long request for clarification. Phil153 (talk) 19:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Durova

Echoing the concerns of ABD and DGG above: JzG has edited the subject extensively and ought to recuse from administrative intervention there. It's easy enough to post a review request to one of the admin boards when necessary. Appropriate recusal is especially important at high tension subjects that have been through arbitration. Durova^Charge! 08:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment by User:Rocksanddirt re: admin recusal

While I agree with ABD and DGG above that JzG seems to be an 'involved' user within this subject matter, the filing of this topic ban clarification/application here would (imo) cover the idea that 'review and/or action by others should happen' when someone is involved. Perhaps, this is not the correct venue, but seems well enough and has generated appropriate discussion of the issues and editors for any 'uninvolved admin' to act in a manner the protects the encyclopedia. As such, while I would like to see less admin action from JzG in these situations, I don't think he's been inappropriate with his actions. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrator views and discussion

• I agree with Thatcher. It is quite clear that Jed Rothwell, editing through various IP addresses, has been responsible for all the above. In the event that it is not generally accepted to be an application of ignoring rules then I would propose a motion to give the topic ban the formal endorsement of the committee but at the moment I see no reason to engage in pointless procedure on an obvious decision. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • To clarify something raised by Dan T., it does not matter which side editors are on; if we have a dispute where those on one side remain reasonable while those on the other side push their POV and edit-war, then the sanctions are not going to be balanced among the sides. All editors, regardless of their own POV, are supposed to write neutrally. Sam Blacketer (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• I too concur with Thatcher and Sam Blacketer here. This is an excellent example of a situation where sensible application of our policies and procedures covers the issue, and a special sanction is probably not required; I'm not even sure one would have to resort to ignoring rules to do the job. Having said that, if necessary, I would support the formal endorsement of a topic ban. Risker (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Additional comment: There seems to be two thrusts to this request. The first is whether or not these apparently disruptive accounts should be blocked; there is fairly strong consensus amongst the committee that this is a pretty straightforward administrative/community decision that does not need to be escalated to this level, and several members of the committee have explicitly supported such blocks. The second is whether or not JzG should be the admin to effectuate the blocks. I will point out that with 900+ active admins, this question could be made moot by any one of them. Risker (talk) 15:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• Where is the "kickback" that JzG mentions? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• John, I think Guy means "pushback". See Talk:Cold_fusion#Topic_ban_reminding. Thatcher 14:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• At the risk of being redundant, I'll also concur with Thatcher; this is a reasonable action that lies well within community norms. No further action appears to be needed from the Committee at this time. — Coren ^(talk) 20:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Apply the ban to the second editor, per all of the above. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Per Thatcher and Sam Blacketer, no action needed by ArbCom. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• As noted above, no action is needed on our part. Vassyana (talk) 06:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Just noting that I have followed further replies. There is still nothing that convinces me this is beyond the remit of the community to handle. Vassyana (talk) 04:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• This can be (and should be) dealt with by the community first. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 11:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed per all preceding. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
• Agree with Vassyana that the community can handle this for now. Guy bringing this to arbitration for clarification was, in my opinion, premature and pre-emptive. Agree also with GoRight's summary, as it matches my views as well. i.e. I'm not going to endorse the ban, as that would set a precedent of coming to ArbCom to endorse such things (if you are not sure, don't ban). Existing policies should be sufficient to deal with cases like this. And yes, the community should try and deal with this before we do. In addition, the correct route is for Guy to issue a topic ban (if he thinks that is the right route to go), and then for the person who was topic banned to appeal. Not for Guy to come here first and try and pre-empt such an appeal. Carcharoth (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Some additional points on terminology used by Guy and others: care should be taken not to confuse SOCKPUPPET, MEATPUPPET, CANVASSING, SPAMMING and ADVOCACY. In my view, sustained advocacy is not the same as spamming, and a group of activists should not all be considered meatpuppets of each other (more than just holding the same views is needed). Sockpuppet should only be used in a narrow term here, to refer to the same person editing under different accounts. In addition, if two accounts exhibit the same bannable behaviour, don't ban one as a meatpuppet of the other, just follow the simpler option of banning both for the same reasons. No need to make any connection between them at all. Finally, the term "single-purpose account" (SPA) should not be used pejoratively. The qualifier "disruptive" should be used where needed (and mostly has, with a few slips above), as constructive SPAs do exist and are welcomed, though diversity in editing is also welcomed. Carcharoth (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
    • To TS: my point is that Guy did not need to escalate this to RFAR clarification stage. If people are wikilawyering over it, why does Guy need the backing of the Arbitration Committee? In my opinion, there was no need to make this about any connection or not between two people. If the account is disruptive, address that first. Sometimes trying to list all possible concerns is saying too much and just makes things complicated, and opens the door to the wikilawyering you mention (which may be justified if the additional concerns are tenuous). Just stick to the clear and unambiguous stuff and deal with that first. Trying to make connections with other accounts and agendas is unnecessary distraction. Carcharoth (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
• I pile-on concur with the above. Wizardman 06:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.