This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision.. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Edit warring considered harmful

1) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Basic and applicable. --FloNight 17:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy

2) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other. This becomes even more important when disputes arise. See Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Wikiquette.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Essential to avoid adding heat instead of light to discussions. --FloNight 17:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of policy

3) When Wikipedia policies conflict they should be interpreted in the light of the purpose of the project, creating a useful, up-to-date, and accurate reference work.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Each Wikipedia science article and biography needs to be an useful, up-to-date, accurate reference work. --FloNight 17:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ban for disruption

4) Users who disrupt editing by aggressive biased (tendentious) editing or other disruptive behavior may be banned from affected articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Chronic biased editing in the form of repeatedly introducing fringe science/psuedoscience into articles and claiming it is science is disruptive and causes articles to remain in an unstable form and not be an useful, up-to-date accurate reference work. FloNight 18:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view

5) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant point of view regarding a topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard for all articles. --FloNight 20:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability and reliable sources

6) Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard for all articles. --FloNight 20:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator conduct

7) Administrators are held to high standards of conduct, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Wikipedia. Administrators must be courteous, patience in dealing with others, and exercise good judgment in following official policy such as the blocking policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Offered due to Shell's controversial unilateral block of an editor on one side of a content dispute (ScienceApologist) without prior broad community input and followed by a questionable explanation after a query was raised on AN/I by another admin. This block complicated the dispute resolution process. FloNight 22:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Wikipedia articles must adhere to the same standards, including verifiability and no original research

8) Articles about non-mainstream scientific topics must adhere to the basic Wikipedia policies of verifiability and no original research. "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed." If the only writings about a topic are non-peer-reviewed articles by its main proponents, it fails the verifiability and original research principles and should not be included in Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 16:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about non-mainstream scientific topics

9) Non-mainstream topics which have attracted significant published criticism (multiple articles in peer-reviewed journals or other reliable sources) may be included in Wikipedia even if the topic would ordinarily fail the verifiability and original research policies by itself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher131 16:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No fringe theories unless they have significant independent support

9a) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight quotes Jimbo Wales, stating "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Following this principle, scientific theories which have not attracted significant support (in the form of peer-reviewed articles by authors other than the original proponents) should not have their own articles or be mentioned in related articles. It is true that this standard would have excluded many scientific theories that were considered "fringe" when they were first advanced, such as the theory of continental drift. However, Wikipedia is a recorder of things as they are, not a predictor of the way things will be or an advocate for the way things should be.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is the hard-line counterpoint to proposal 9. There is an argument to made that for any scientific theory to be included in Wikipedia, at least one reputable scientist outside the sphere of influence of the original proponents should be willing to advance and defend it in the scienfitic literature or other reliable sources. Thatcher131 17:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content of articles on non-mainstream scientific topics

10) Neutral point of view requires that conflicting views be represented fairly. It will not be uncommon for the only sources regarding a non-mainstream scientific topic to be either (a) published by its proponents, or (b) criticisms published by mainstream scientists. It is acceptable following Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources in articles about themselves to use proponents' self-published statements about their theories as sources to accurately describe the theories. Articles should also fairly describe mainstream scientific criticism. Note that in many cases, excluding criticism will remove the only non-self-published, non-original research, reliable sources. Proponents of a non-mainstream theory may be faced with the choice between an article that describes the theory and all significant criticisms, or no article at all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It is not appropriate to use self-published sources to describe theories - the theory is not the one doing the publishing. While self-published documents can be used to describe the publisher, and their views on the theory, they cannot be used to describe the theory. JBKramer 16:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher131 16:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean to say is that, for example, if one was writing an article in 1859 on Darwin's ideas about natural selection, it would be acceptable to quote Darwin's self-published book On the origin of species in order to be able to accurately describe Darwin's theories. In the case of intrinsic redshift, for example, which appears to be the work of a small number of contributors, it is necessary to use those contributors as a source in order to accurately describe the theory. Whether or not to have an article at all about a topic is dealt with separately. If there is going to be an article, it would violate NPOV if the only people who could describe the topic were its opponents. Thatcher131 17:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin's book was not self-published. Self published sources are not WP:RS in the vast majority of cases. JBKramer 17:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of non-mainstream scientific theories in articles about mainstream topics

11) Scientific theories which fail the principle of verifiability (i.e. no peer-reviewed publications by proponents and no significant independent criticism) and which therefore should not have their own articles should not be mentioned in other, related articles. Non-mainstream theories that meet the standard of verifiability through reliable sources may be mentioned in related articles, provided the "undue weight" clause is followed. In most cases, this will entail a brief description of the topic (and its relation to the main article), a brief description of criticisms of the topic, and a link to the main article on the topic. For example, Intrinsic redshift may be mentioned as a possible mechanism for the redshift effect in the article Redshift, with a brief description of the concept, a brief consideration of criticism, and a link to the main article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher131 16:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision.. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Edit warring considered harmful

1) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Basic and applicable. --FloNight 17:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy

2) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other. This becomes even more important when disputes arise. See Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Wikiquette.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Essential to avoid adding heat instead of light to discussions. --FloNight 17:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interpretation of policy

3) When Wikipedia policies conflict they should be interpreted in the light of the purpose of the project, creating a useful, up-to-date, and accurate reference work.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Each Wikipedia science article and biography needs to be an useful, up-to-date, accurate reference work. --FloNight 17:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ban for disruption

4) Users who disrupt editing by aggressive biased (tendentious) editing or other disruptive behavior may be banned from affected articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Chronic biased editing in the form of repeatedly introducing fringe science/psuedoscience into articles and claiming it is science is disruptive and causes articles to remain in an unstable form and not be an useful, up-to-date accurate reference work. FloNight 18:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral point of view

5) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant point of view regarding a topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard for all articles. --FloNight 20:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability and reliable sources

6) Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Standard for all articles. --FloNight 20:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator conduct

7) Administrators are held to high standards of conduct, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Wikipedia. Administrators must be courteous, patience in dealing with others, and exercise good judgment in following official policy such as the blocking policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Offered due to Shell's controversial unilateral block of an editor on one side of a content dispute (ScienceApologist) without prior broad community input and followed by a questionable explanation after a query was raised on AN/I by another admin. This block complicated the dispute resolution process. FloNight 22:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All Wikipedia articles must adhere to the same standards, including verifiability and no original research

1) Articles about non-mainstream scientific topics must adhere to the basic Wikipedia policies of verifiability and no original research. "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed." If the only writings about a topic are non-peer-reviewed articles by its main proponents, it fails the verifiability and original research principles and should not be included in Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 16:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about non-mainstream scientific topics

1) Non-mainstream topics which have attracted significant published criticism (multiple articles in peer-reviewed journals or other reliable sources) may be included in Wikipedia even if the topic would ordinarily fail the verifiability and original research policies by itself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher131 16:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content of articles on non-mainstream scientific topics

1) Neutral point of view requires that conflicting views be represented fairly. It will not be uncommon for the only sources regarding a non-mainstream scientific topic to be either (a) published by its proponents, or (b) criticisms published by mainstream scientists. It is acceptable following Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources in articles about themselves to use proponents' self-published statements about their theories as sources to accurately describe the theories. Articles should also fairly describe mainstream scientific criticism. Note that in many cases, excluding criticism will remove the only non-self-published, non-original research, reliable sources. Proponents of a non-mainstream theory may be faced with the choice between an article that describes the theory and all significant criticisms, or no article at all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It is not appropriate to use self-published sources to describe theories - the theory is not the one doing the publishing. While self-published documents can be used to describe the publisher, and their views on the theory, they cannot be used to describe the theory. JBKramer 16:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher131 16:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of non-mainstream scientific theories in articles about mainstream topics

1) Scientific theories which fail the principle of verifiability (i.e. no peer-reviewed publications by proponents and no significant independent criticism) and which therefore should not have their own articles should not be mentioned in other, related articles. Non-mainstream theories that meet the standard of verifiability through reliable sources may be mentioned in related articles, provided the "undue weight" clause is followed. In most cases, this will entail a brief description of the topic (and its relation to the main article), a brief description of criticisms of the topic, and a link to the main article on the topic. For example, Intrinsic redshift may be mentioned as a possible mechanism for the redshift effect in the article Redshift, with a brief description of the concept, a brief consideration of criticism, and a link to the main article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher131 16:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus about administrative actions

12) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation. Controversial actions like blocking a logged in user with many good edits should not usually be done without prior discussion and consensus among the community. See WP:CON and WP:BLOCK.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

On wiki discussion to building consensus prior to blocking an important concept. --FloNight 17:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus about articles

13) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation. Discussions about articles primarily occur on the talk page of articles. Some ways to build consensus through consensus include consulting a third party, filing a request for comment (on the article in question), and requesting mediation. See WP:CON

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Discussion is key to building consensus. FloNight 17:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: