Edit this section for new requests
Goodcallclear (talk · contribs) is repeatedly adding untrue statements to the Letterkenny article. He has broken the three-revert rule. See here, here, here, here, here and here. --Balloholic (talk) 19:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Keverich1 (talk · contribs) is repeatedly edit-warring on Israel–United States military relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article currently under arbitration sanctions, to remove a sourced statement that he doesn't like. [1] The statement is a line which I contributed over a year ago, sourced to Jane's Sentinel, an impeccable source of military information. The editor has asserted that the line is original research, even though it directly reflects the wording of the original source, as I've explained on the article's talk page. He is clearly unwilling to assume good faith or to accept sourced statements that conflict with his personal views. [2][3] This is a pretty-clear cut violation of the arbitration sanctions, given the violation of the expected standards of behavior (WP:AGF) and the normal editorial process (WP:DR). Given the edit-warring in particular, I recommend a block. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- If I'm allowed to speak in my defence, I do assume good faith, but I also assume a Wikipedia rule, which requires that statements should be properly sourced. The statement in question was not sourced when introduced to the article, and has never been properly sourced ever since. The statement is this
Check this link see that the statement about the lobby was not referenced whatsoever [4]. Take a look at this version from mid 2007. [5]. Clearly the claim in question has remained unreferenced for over a year. The user ChrisO (talk · contribs) now asserts the claim "directly reflects the wording of the original source", altough he failed to provide the source when he introduced the statement more than a year ago.[6] The user ChrisO (talk · contribs) also refused to provide the exact quote from Jane's Sentinel, which would support the statement in question. Lastly, I do not think my edits in Israel–United States military relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) are disruptive. I belive my edits in this article help to ensure all the statements are properly sourcedKeverich1 (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)Israel-United States military relations have been extremely close,[1] reflecting both shared security interests in the unstable Middle East and the influence of a strong pro-Israel lobby in the United States.
- As I've said on the talk page, the copy of Jane's Sentinel that I used is not currently accessible to me (it may have escaped your notice that it's Christmas). I've said that I will check it after Christmas. You plainly don't have a copy of the publication, so you have no reasonable grounds to assume bad faith. You've falsely described it as "original research" when it's sourced, it's been sourced for a long time and the source is impeccable. You've effectively accused me of lying, and rather than assuming good faith and pursuing proper dispute resolution, you've edit-warred to repeatedly remove a sourced statement that you don't like. That isn't acceptable behaviour and it's a blatant violation of the arbitration sanctions. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest you check the history of the article to see that the claim was unreferenced when I described it as original research. Futhermore, this is the version of the page as it existed since mid 2007 to december 2008[7]
Israel-United States military relations have been extremely close,[1] reflecting both shared security interests in the unstable Middle East and the influence of a strong pro-Israel lobby in the United States.
Israel has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance from the United States since 1976, and the largest total recipient since World War II. [2] A major purchaser and user of US military equipment, Israel is also involved in the joint development of military technology and regularly engages in joint military exercises involving United States and other friendly forces.[3][4]
as you see the claim is unsourced whatsoever. Let me make this clear, I'm not deleting this statement for the sake of POV-push. I do think this statement can be present in the article, provided it is sourced properly. Currently, it is not.Keverich1 (talk) 22:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- I suggest you check the history of the article to see that the claim was unreferenced when I described it as original research. Futhermore, this is the version of the page as it existed since mid 2007 to december 2008[7]
- As I've said on the talk page, the copy of Jane's Sentinel that I used is not currently accessible to me (it may have escaped your notice that it's Christmas). I've said that I will check it after Christmas. You plainly don't have a copy of the publication, so you have no reasonable grounds to assume bad faith. You've falsely described it as "original research" when it's sourced, it's been sourced for a long time and the source is impeccable. You've effectively accused me of lying, and rather than assuming good faith and pursuing proper dispute resolution, you've edit-warred to repeatedly remove a sourced statement that you don't like. That isn't acceptable behaviour and it's a blatant violation of the arbitration sanctions. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- I've rolled back the edit in question. I'll leave it to someone else to determine the sanction. Frankly, removing this statement strikes me as denying the bleeding obvious for no very good reason, which can really only be done out of a desire to POV-push. Ergo, I recommend either a block or a page-ban: the choice is in the hands of whoever turns up next to this thread...Moreschi (talk) 22:40, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Sanctions should be imposed; it is your job, do it. Personally, I did not appreciate getting unjustly shouted at concerning his first revert-type edit, discussed here starting Dec9. I maintained wiki-etiquette and feel no collaboration was intended from the start. My comments in that section state my case. It is already Christmas here, peace. Regards, CasualObserver'48 (talk) 02:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure CasualObserver'48 is entitled to comment in this section. For the record, please note he is an activist, who has personal interst in the Palestine-Israeli conflict as explained on his page. on talk page numerous users (but not me) have consistently accused him of trying to promote anti-Israel bias by his editsKeverich1 (talk) 07:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Without wanting to address the merits of the edit in question, I see no possibility of arbitration enforcement here: Keverich1 does not appear to have had specific sanctions imposed on him (as per Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary_sanctions). Accordingly, there is nothing to enforce here. Of course, such sanctions may now be imposed, or he may be blocked normally for editwarring if he continues in the same vein. Sandstein 12:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Complaint against User:Domer48 for disruptive editing, etc.
I wish to make a complaint about User:Domer48 as a disruptive editor , based on varied evidence. Each piece of evidence in its own right may perhaps be within the letter of Wikipedia guidelines but – taken together – I believe they can be construed as a pattern of disruptive editing. The various elements include – edit-warring, breach of NPOV, tag-teaming, bullying.
I admit that I have personally been in edit wars and personal conflict with this editor on many occasions on many articles over many months, and have been sanctioned for this (as has Domer48, although he has removed the notices from his talk page). I have also been the subject of complaints by Domer48, who has also left messages on my talk page, e.g. here, here, here and here, which generally I choose to ignore. I consider these to be a form of harassment. I have not posted such "warnings" on his user page, despite having equally valid reasons so to do. On 24th December he followed me to various pages to make complaints about me here, here and here.
The cumulation of these edit-wars, personal conflict and reporting has, on some occasions, caused me great frustration and I have considered leaving Wikipedia as a result. Up until now, I have not had the patience to attempt to put together a case against this user, which is a dfficult task, given his adeptness at staying within (just about) the letter, if not the spirit, of the law.
- I don’t have the time to provide evidence of all the edit wars which Domer48 has been involved in, but rather I will draw attention to one particular article – Sinn Féin – in respect of which I was banned for edit-warring, yet Domer48 was not. This article is a good example, as I think it encapsulates many of the disruptive characteristics of this editor:
- POV – as you will see from this editor’s user page and political slogan on his talk page, he has strong political views in support of Irish republicanism. You can see from his edit history that much of his time is spent editing articles which are relevant to Irish republicanism. One of these articles is Sinn Féin, in which his behaviour indicates that he feels he has ownership of the article.
- A content dispute arose in this article – before my involvement, and including several editors – in which many editors believed that the content of the article was skewed towards a “Provisional” SF (i.e. that part of SF which split in 1970 and which is now known simply as “Sinn Féin”) POV, by including pre-1970 history of SF, thus giving the impression that the current SF party was the sole legitimate inheritor of the pre-1970 history of the party: something which is disputed and which most of the editors believed should be rectified by removing the pre-1970 material to History of Sinn Fein.
- Domer48 was opposed to the proposed changes.
- Thus far, there has been failure to make any changes due to the persistent opposition of Domer48. Most other editors have given up attempting to change it, presumably through frustration or boredom.
- This wider dispute also included a dispute about the actual term “Provisional”, which Domer48 resisted being included in the article. You can see the discussion about this particular dispute, which began on 29 September 2008 – here, and you will note that – true to the spirit of Wikipedia – consensus was achieved on 7 October 2008.
- However, at 21:21 on 7 December, User:Gailimh reverted the consensus text, which was then restored at 21:32 by User:Valenciano.
- At 21:47 on the same day, Domer48 – having previously agreed to the consensus text – now reverted it. This appears to demonstrate that Domer48’s commitment to consensus was merely expedient, and that once he detected an allied editor, he preferred instead to edit-war in order to restore the previously-disputed text.
- There followed an edit-war, including myself, User:Gailimh and User:Big Dunc (a regular ally of Domer48) on 8 and 9 December, when each of my two attempts to restore the consensus text were reverted.
- At 20:06 on 11 December, I restored the consensus text again, and a one-on-one edit-war resulted with Domer48, who “won” the war after three reverts at 10:37 on 16 December, after which I gave up.
- During this time – Domer48 refused to engage properly in discussion – he simply accepted and then defended the Gailimh without acknowledging that the previous text was the result of consensus-building – see here.
- This appears to me to be a case of edit-warring in order to impose a particular POV on the article. I was punished for my part in the edit-war, but Domer48 was not.
- You will note that Domer48 has most recently been involved in an edit war in relation to the translation of Sinn Féin.
- I see from here that “disruptive editing is a pattern of edits, which may extend over a considerable period of time or number of articles, that has the effect of disrupting progress towards improving an article, or effects that are contrary to the fundamental project of building an encyclopedia” – I also think Domer48’s behaviour on Sinn Féin is caught by this definition.
- Other articles/tag-teaming/other editors/bullying
- I have come across Domer48’s edit wars on other articles, but, not being able to muster the patience, have not become involved in particularly nasty ones at Ulster Special Constabulary and Ulster Defence Regiment – note that these are articles relevant to the POV noted on his user page, and have also involved User:BigDunc. He engaged – along with erstwhile ally User:BigDunc in a long series of edit wars with User:The Thunderer, which frustrated the latter user so much that he was eventually driven off Wikipedia – see here. The Thunderer had put in a lot of work and made significant contributions to these articles – and is a major loss. You will see from the edit histories that, having driven the Thunderer away, Domer48 has proceeded to set about editing the article freely, with no other editors having the patience to intervene. A mediation case was also closed when the Thunderer left. I don’t have the time to go into the actual content disputes on these article, but you can see from the edit history that, now that the Thunderer has left, Domer48 has been free to edit the article as he pleases, with no opposition from other editors. Personally, I lack the patience even to get involved in either of those articles.
- Behaviour with Big Dunc on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Olympic_Council_of_Ireland#RfC:_Olympic_Council_of_Ireland looks a bit like tag-teaming. Also here.
- User:The Thunderer felt that he was the subject of bullying on these articles.
Some of this editor's behaviour appears to fit in with the descriptions on the Wikipedia guidelines about disruptive editing:
- tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
- Does not engage in consensus building (As can be seen from Sinn Féin, once an allied editor appears on the scene, he is quick to ditch previous consensus
- Campaign to drive away productive contributors: act in spite of policies and guidelines such as Wikipedia:Civility,Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, engage in sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry, etc. on a low level that might not exhaust the general community's patience, but that operates toward an end of exhausting the patience of productive rules-abiding editors on certain articles.
Signs that may point to tag-teaming include:
- Working together to circumvent the three revert rule
- Consensus-blocking, continually challenging outside opinions, and acting as if they own an article.
Mooretwin (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Discussion
This is arbitration enforcement, not a general complaints noticeboard. Please specify which arbitration sanctions were violated by which edits, or this thread may be closed without action. Sandstein 12:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- He's referring to The Troubles ArbCom general Sanctions, but generally I think Domer's in the right here. SirFozzie (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Resolved
Molobo
Molobo (talk · contribs) is under an editing restriction that requires him to act with civility and good faith. On my talkpage, he posted a comment which I felt was a violation of this restriction. It assumed bad faith on my part, and said something which I feel is offensive and demonstrably untrue,[8] "Elonka is not a neutral party regarding the opinion, her personal bias and conflicts towards Polish editors and topics is well known." This statement is a ridiculous personal attack, as I am Polish, and have created articles on multiple Polish topics. This is not the first time that Molobo has been uncivil towards me, but it is the most recent. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2#Molobo, which reinforces to Molobo that he is under a restriction where "if you make any comment deemed by an administrator to have been incivil, a personal attack, or an assumption of bad faith, you may be blocked for any time limit up to a week." Considering Molobo's lengthy block log,[9] I would recommend a block of at least 24 hours, though since I have been involved in prior editing disputes with Molobo a couple years ago, I am probably not the correct administrator to implement this block, so I am posting a request here. --Elonka 19:03, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Query.- I am not aware of any past chronic incivility by Molobo towards you, Elonka; could you provide evidence substantiating that claim? It would be of assistance to me in coming to a decision as to what action to take here.
Thanks, AGK 20:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)Moot; Moreschi has blocked. AGK 20:56, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Question: when are assumptions of bad faith justified? Elonka claims that Molobo's claim is ridiculous. This 2006 mediation case is a reminder that relations between her and the WikiProject Poland community were at one point in the past not so stellar as some would like to claim, and it is not surprising some users from that time who might not have interacted with Elonka since then (unlike myself) may look at her from the prism of 2006 accusations of "Polish cabal" and such. Molobo should be certainly asked to refactor and apologize for his comment, but a claim that Elonka is 100% neutral when it comes to Polish issues is not an unfounded observation (I'd like to commend Elonka here for clearly recognizing this in her reply to Deacon's attempt to involve her, and I'd also like to state that my past ~2 years of interactions with Elonka have been quite positive).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure Molobo should have been blocked here. Yes, it wasn't professional of him to comment so brutally on another editor's standing on the project; but his comments were pertinent to the discussion in which they were made—specifically, they he was opining on a request for Elonka to offer "neutral comments", to the effect of he doesn't believe Elonka is neutral. Whilst I offer no comment as to the merits of that claim, I don't think pertinent comments not offered with the intention to disrupt the project [there seems to be no evidence to suggest they were] are blockable. A caution to tone down his wording and keep comments on other editors brief and to offer them only where necessary is in order here, but a block—especially one which would effect an indefinite one, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Piotrus 2#Molobo—is not. I welcome comments from Elonka and Moreschi on this. AGK 18:25, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- I very much agree with AGK, but I am also afraid that some otherwise respectable users may have an unshakable belief (based on hearsay and on 2005/2006 evidence) that "Molobo should be blocked", and this their sound judgment is clouded when it comes to him. I am also certain that as things stand now he WILL be blocked, no matter what he does (since nobody is perfect, he will make a few mistakes in the coming months, reach the limit of four, and become permblocked). After all, it doesn't matter than he was put on the restriction half a year ago and has observed it carefully for 6 months (from June till December), as some gleefully chalk "one up" as he finally slipped after those six months, and keep hoping for three more and the final indef :( Not the best example of a Christmas spirit out there, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- My request for Arbitration Enforcement on Molobo was a simple matter. He's under ArbCom restrictions, he violated those restrictions, he should be blocked, it's as simple as that. Normally I would have done the block, but exactly because of past history, I chose to allow another admin to make the call, as Moreschi correctly did, and I support his action. The block's already expired at this point, why make any further fuss about it? --Elonka 21:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, my point was that I'm not of the opinion that his comment was an unwarranted assumption of bad faith. AGK 22:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- My request for Arbitration Enforcement on Molobo was a simple matter. He's under ArbCom restrictions, he violated those restrictions, he should be blocked, it's as simple as that. Normally I would have done the block, but exactly because of past history, I chose to allow another admin to make the call, as Moreschi correctly did, and I support his action. The block's already expired at this point, why make any further fuss about it? --Elonka 21:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- I very much agree with AGK, but I am also afraid that some otherwise respectable users may have an unshakable belief (based on hearsay and on 2005/2006 evidence) that "Molobo should be blocked", and this their sound judgment is clouded when it comes to him. I am also certain that as things stand now he WILL be blocked, no matter what he does (since nobody is perfect, he will make a few mistakes in the coming months, reach the limit of four, and become permblocked). After all, it doesn't matter than he was put on the restriction half a year ago and has observed it carefully for 6 months (from June till December), as some gleefully chalk "one up" as he finally slipped after those six months, and keep hoping for three more and the final indef :( Not the best example of a Christmas spirit out there, I am afraid. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, he's under my restrictions. This was a violation of them: for that, he gets blocked. He won't do it again, I'm sure. Moreschi (talk) 22:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Claiming that personal bias and conflicts towards Polish editors and topics is well known is a libelous accusation of racism. I was a victim of something similar with the banned sock-account Koretek, who people presume was Molobo's (independent of whether or not he was smart enough to hide this to CUs). This is worse though. Given that Elonka herself is of Polish origin and an editor who edits with her own name, it is both potentially hurtful and potentially a damaging violation of our BLP policies. Moreschi was apparently feeling merciful or something, as 24 hours is pretty light here. It is frankly incomprehensible that although Gregparkavenue, Boodlesthecat and Kuban kazak, users whose sins pale in comparison with Molobo's, have all recently got one year bans while this editor is still around doing stuff like this. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Elonka is not neutral in Poland-related topics, Molobo has just told the truth. Being of Polish origin apparently means nothing here. Tymek (talk) 06:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- [Wow ... I actually caught that at top on recent changes!] Tymek, no-one is genuinely neutral on anything, but Molobo's allegation was that Elonka has problems with Polish editors' (implicitly because of something to do with being Polish). Big big difference. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you yourself admit that she is not neutral, why then you turned to her for help? Strange. Elonka for some reasons decided herself to edit with her own name, it is her choice, and this has nothing to do with the subject (using your logic - those who use their own name are immune from criticism? How about Piotrus, you do not apply the rule to him?) Racism? Deacon, let us be serious here. It is obvious that you want Molobo banned permanently, but please... Tymek (talk) 14:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, Molobo has already been blocked indefinitely, twice,[11] but we keep giving him additional chances. I think that Moreschi's last reprieve was a reasonable one, where Moreschi unblocked Molobo but told him that it was his last chance, and "four blocks and you're out."[12] Molobo acknowledged the rules,[13] and it is now his responsibility to abide by them. --Elonka 18:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you yourself admit that she is not neutral, why then you turned to her for help? Strange. Elonka for some reasons decided herself to edit with her own name, it is her choice, and this has nothing to do with the subject (using your logic - those who use their own name are immune from criticism? How about Piotrus, you do not apply the rule to him?) Racism? Deacon, let us be serious here. It is obvious that you want Molobo banned permanently, but please... Tymek (talk) 14:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
- [Wow ... I actually caught that at top on recent changes!] Tymek, no-one is genuinely neutral on anything, but Molobo's allegation was that Elonka has problems with Polish editors' (implicitly because of something to do with being Polish). Big big difference. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Fadix
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Fadix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Armenia-Azerbaijan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Please see [14], this John Vandenberg (chat) 02:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Also tackled at Wikipedia:ANI#User:Sockofadix_is_User:Fadix_evading_one_year_block. and User_talk:Jpgordon#Sockofadix. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The editor apparently wants to get an indefinite block on the Fadix account. At this point I think we might as well do that and maybe run a checkuser to make sure no more socks are lurking around. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ban was extended by one year, so I do not think there is anything else to be done here. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Need a formal warning for an IP editor
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Note: Cold fusion is under WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE because it's a pathological science or fringe science that has been given as an example of pseudoscience, (although it was rejected to label it as pseudoscience on this RFC.)
This should be quite uncontroversial. An editor with a big WP:COI comes to the talk page of an article, claims that there is a skeptic conspiracy to make up nonsense and put it in the article to replace real sources, engages into lenghthy OR discussions, claims that all papers showing negative results are faked by their authors, that sources can be falsified by examining leaked raw data, shows his self-published papers that he co-authored as proof against prestigious journals, forces other editors to engage into more OR to disproof his misrepresentations, calls wikipedia editors "a bunch of ignorant crackpots"[15], insists that wikipedia sucks (but keeps commenting on the talk page with no intention of improving the articles, a violation of WP:TALK), promotes his own website as the alpha an omega of cold fusion sourcing, uses the page as a WP:SOAPBOX, claims that "[not treating his sources seriously] is mainly a display of ignorance, not bias."[16], clutters the talk page history with useless OR (42 of last 100 edits as of 01:52, 10 December 2008[17], counting also Sinebot because he doesn't see the point of signing[18] even after being asked nicely by several editors[19]), when menaced with arbitration discrectionary sanctions[20] he replies "Go ahead! Do your worst!" and claims that he is "not planning to edit this or any other article. I wouldn't touch a Wikipedia article with the fag end of a barge poll, nor would any scientist I know"[21] and has continued his behaviour since then (6 days ago).
Pvkeller explains the problem perfectly:
:Putting Wiki policy to one side, it is not so much citing sources of dubious probity that seems a problem to me. It is more a combination of tactics:
- 1) Insisting that anyone who has not read all your source must accept that your sources demonstrate whatever you say they do;
- 2) Claiming your sources say or prove more than they do. On several occassion I have spent hours investigating your citations only to find they proved far less than you claimed;
- 3) Dismissing all sources that do not support your POV, and attacking those who cite those sources;
- 4) Arguing that every instance of treating your sources seriously is an avowal of those source or an agreement with their conclusions, even if the instance does not result in publication or funding; and
- 5) Arguing that every instance of not treating your sources seriously is a display of unfair bias.
- I would like to see you try harder to be pursuasive without browbeating.[22]
Since wikipedia is not he place for massive COI'd OR, I would thank an uninvolved admin to give him a formal warning ({{Pseudoscience_enforcement}} will do) so he can be sanctioned if he keeps on with his behaviour. (since it's a dynamic IP, it should be given on Talk:Cold fusion?
Lists of diffs (collapsed to avoid cluttering this page):
warning about arbitration, his replies
|
---|
On 4 December 2008 I warned Jed about using unreliable sources to falsify reliable sources, and engagin on OR the talk page, finishing with this: "Jed, either you stop filling the page with WP:OR or I'll start asking admins to bring the arbitration stick of WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE down on you." [23]
Jed's answer was yet more OR and promotion of his own site " I have 3,500 papers. These papers and books constitute 99% of everything published on the subject, in English", insisting that NPOV is imposible because science is based on facts ""POV" means point of view, or opinion. Science is based on facts and laws, not points of view.", and insisting that he has the WP:TRUTH "There are no other sources. (...) [not treating his sources seriously] is mainly a display of ignorance, not bias."[26] |
Examples of OR
|
---|
using a list of 200 papers (primary sources) as proof that fusion happened, and saying that a laboratory is not prestigious or journal is not high-profile are "judgement calls" [27]. This simply denies the capability of editors to reject fringe sources. Lots of OR about how a certain experiment demonstrated something or not, and suggesting that a paper on a low-impact journal and a video of a working motor are a reliable source [28] In reply to "[you are using] unreliable sources [to say that] reliable sources should not be taken into account or had fake data"[29] he cites a paper on a fringe journal to say "You can see at glance that the data is fake! Part of the graph is replaced with crudely fabricated, hand-drawn data." and continues "You can tell even more clearly because one of the researchers accidentally leaked the original data, which shows excess heat in the part that was replaced with hand-drawn dots" and suggests to read the "official MIT hearing" (again, reliance on primary sources) [30] "I find it very persuasive when a cell with ~20 ml of water and a few grams of palladium produces megajoules of energy with no input power and no chemical changes, and it produces helium. I think that is proof that a nuclear reaction is occurring. However, you may not find that persuasive, so perhaps you should look at some other aspect of cold fusion, such as tritium production or host-metal transmutations."[31] "Such claims cannot be put to the test by examining colorimetric data, whereas anyone who knows a little chemistry will find glaring errors in papers by Morrison or Hoffman.)" [32] |
failures to replicate don't count as negatives, all failures to replicate were due to errors that are now understood, all negative results were either faked or had failures for "obvious reasons not worth discussing in detail unless you are an expert", there is only a dozen negative papers on reliable sources, (since failures to replicate don't count as negatives), all positive results are correct and can't be disproved in any way (and finding errors on them would "overthrow the laws of thermodynamics and a large part of chemistry and physics going back to 1860"), all arguments against cold fusion are "not valid", only "six actual, professional scientists" have ever published papers showing errors but "their work has no merit" and they are "first-class crackpots"
|
---|
"We know why the null experiments produced no heat; we can see that the false negatives are actually positive (just do the arithmetic right and you will see this) and anyone who looks at the fake data in the peer-reviewed paper will see that it is fake. You do not need to take my word for any of this -- the data speaks for itself."[33] "There are no peer-reviewed papers from top journals that call cold fusion into question. Not one study and not one paper has ever demonstrated an error in a positive cold fusion paper If anyone ever did find an error, it would not only disprove cold fusion, it would overthrow the laws of thermodynamics and a large part of chemistry and physics going back to 1860. That isn't going to happen."[34] "There are no negative papers in APS journals, or anywhere else. Only about a dozen negative papers have been published in history of cold fusion (...) There were several early papers describing experiments that did not work. That's a null, not a negative. The authors did not discover any fault in the positive experiments, or any other reason to doubt them. The reasons these early experiments failed is new well understood and has been described in detail. (...) Actually, the three most famous negative papers, at Cal Tech, Harwell and MIT were false negatives. (Actually positive.) They all got excess heat at the same rate as others did in 1989, but they did not realize it, or they erased it and published fake results. (...) There are no experimental counter-claims. No one has ever done an experiment that calls into question cold fusion, or an experiment with a prosaic explanation that exhibits the same behavior (i.e., one that produces tritium or megajoules of heat per mole of reactant.) (...) The failures were all for obvious reasons not worth discussing in detail unless you are an expert." [35] "There are, in fact, six actual, professional scientists who have published papers and books that purport to find errors in cold fusion experiments. I have uploaded as much of their work as they have given me permission to upload. I encourage everyone to read them, especially Huizenga, Hoffman and Morrison, because I think their work has no merit. It will convince readers that there are no valid arguments against cold fusion, which is correct. If you want to add their arguments to this article, I encourage you to do so. They are first-class crackpots, but unlike the anonymous crackpot opinions now littering the article these are from real professors with names from legitimate institutions who have actually published papers with falsifiable technical claims -- papers you can read at a library, or at LENR-CANR.org. (A few others have written books attacking cold fusion that have no technical content; that is, no falsifiable technical arguments that can be resolved with reference to data. For example, Park claims that all cold fusion scientists are liars, lunatics or criminals. Such claims cannot be put to the test by examining colorimetric data, whereas anyone who knows a little chemistry will find glaring errors in papers by Morrison or Hoffman.)" [36] "Shanahan's hypotheses, if true, would disprove most electrochemistry and calorimetry going back to Lavoisier's 1781 ice calorimeter (which is used in some cold fusion experiments), and J. P. Joules's calorimeter circa 1845 (which is used in many others). There is no chance Shanahan is correct." (follows rant about why skeptics believe him)[37] |
citing a paper that in which he participated and which has been published only on his website, in order to disproof 174 early failures to replicate the original experiment of Pons and Fleischmann
|
---|
"As it happens, we just today uploaded a review paper discussing some of early failures, and the reasons for them: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/CravensDtheenablin.pdf The authors examined 174 papers, in detail. They did a lot of analysis not shown in the paper. (I assisted so I know about it.)"[38] |
skeptic conspiracy to put nonsense on the cold fusion article, which prevents cold fusion from getting funds
|
---|
"On the other hand, the article is full of irrelevant and unimportant stuff, not to mention imaginary nonsense cooked up by 'skeptics.' Replacing some of that garbage with Arata might not be a bad idea. But anyway, Wikipedia belongs to the 'skeptics' and know-nothings. They should do whatever they please with the article. No legitimate scientist will contribute."[39] "[skeptics] point to an archived version of [my] site for some reason. I suppose this is some crazy scheme by the skeptics to stop people from reading LENR-CANR [my website], but it will not work for anyone who has half a brain (...) [skeptics] make things up and stuff them into the article. At least I have sources other than my own imagination! (...) You skeptics have done that to me before".[40] "You and the other so-called skeptics have repeatedly erased peer-reviewed information about cold fusion and substituted your own unfounded opinions. You pay lip service to the peer-review, but you have no respect for the system or its results" [41] "There is no chance Shanahan is correct. The fact that skeptics such Paul V. Keller are so quick to believe him, and add his theories to this article, shows that they are grasping at straws, and they will believe anything that comes along without a critical examination, even if it means they must throw away the whole basis of chemistry and physics"[42] "That's the difference between me and anti-cold fusion people (...) My opponents, on the other hand, want you to ignore me -- just as they want you to ignore the scientific literature, and the laws of physics and chemistry (...) They want to squelch the debate and keep everyone ignorant, and Beware! Beware! of actual data and peer-reviewed papers!" [43] "The field is not funded because there is enormous academic opposition to it, which comes mainly from people like Keller who do not read the literature and thus know nothing about the research, and yet who feel free to fabricate claims about it such as the notion that gamma rays have not been detected by other means! And also to free associate and invent new definitions for 'pathological science' such as: 'returning to the original theory.' Despite the opposition, a great deal of progress has been made (...)"[44] |
wikipedia editors on cold fusion are "a bunch of ignorant crackpots who do not understand the laws of thermodynamics"
|
---|
"[Many distinguished experimentalists and theorists, including Nobel laureates , etc] They do not make stupid mistakes. They have repeated the experiment thousands of times. They seldom read the kind of comments you skeptics make here, but when they do they instantly dismiss you people as a bunch of ignorant crackpots who do not understand the laws of thermodynamics, who have no clue how a calorimeter works, and who criticize papers they have never read. Naturally, I agree with them. You people imagine you are qualified to write an article about cold fusion. I doubt that you would casually edit some similar article about some other scientific research that you know nothing about, but for some inexplicable reason you imagine that you are experts on this subject, and that you can casually contradict the likes of Iyengar, Miles or Fleischmann. You imagine that their work is "discredited." This is unbelievable chutzpah. It is egomania. This is why Wikipedia will never become a viable source of information about this research."[45] "Wikipedia articles about biology are not overrun by Creationist crackpots, so why are the 'skeptics' who know nothing about cold fusion allowed to overwrite this one?"[46] |
COI, promotion of himself and his website
|
---|
sings every single post with his name and website "Jed Rothwell, Librarian, LENR-CANR.org". "I have put years of effort into making both pro- and anti-cold papers available to the public at LENR-CANR.org (...) I want everyone to know as much as possible. I have made hundreds of papers available, and people have downloaded 1.1 million copies of them. And by the way, if you want to know who I am, I suggest you read some of my papers at LENR-CANR.org." "Of course you read about them at LENR-CANR.org to your heart's delight. I have compiled a list of null and false negative experiments; contact me via the front page."[47] |
As a quiet witness, I'd just like to point out that this request is littered with false accusations. If I were to give a diagnosis, I would say this is largely the result of black-and-white thinking - a lot of the false accusations seem to stem from that.
- "claims that there is a skeptic conspiracy to make up nonsense and put it in the article to replace real sources"
- false on its face
- "engages into lenghthy OR discussions"
- i.e. corrects misinformation / fallacy (before it finds its way into the article)
- "claims that all papers showing negative results are faked by their authors"
- providing a few (two, i think) concrete examples of faked negative results is not the same as claiming all results are negative. but apparently the acccuser has confused the two. this seems to be a case of the fallacy of the excluded middle.
- "...that sources can be falsified by examining leaked raw data"
- not sources, but to show that published results are fradulant. this is a perfectly legitimate and widely accepted way to demonstrate fraud. i don't understand what your problem with it is, and am forced to conclude that it's simply a matter of prejudice.
- "shows his self-published papers that he co-authored as proof against prestigious journals"
- I don't know what you're talking about here. Clearly, the article is to present all notable POVs.
- "forces other editors to engage into more OR to disproof his misrepresentations"
- I have yet to see any editor "disprove" his "misrepresentations".
- "promotes his own website as the alpha an omega of cold fusion sourcing"
- false on its face
- uses the page as a WP:SOAPBOX
- As far as I'm aware, he hasn't made any edits to the article whatsoever.
- "claims that "[not treating his sources seriously] is mainly a display of ignorance, not bias.""
- I think you misunderstand. The point is that not treating something seriously is, by definition, ignoring it. And although ignoring evidence that disagrees with one's convictions may be an unfortunate result of bias, people who are willing and able to think critically about a problem are able to suspend this unfortunate human trait in spite of any bias they may have. So ignorance does not always follow from bias. (And conversely, ignorance can be caused by things other than bias.) Thus, bias cannot be directly concluded, just a choice -- conscious or unconscious -- to ignore certain evidence.
- clutters the talk page history
- Oh no!!
- (counting also Sinebot because he refuses to sign)
- etiquette. but i do agree it's getting kind of old.
- "when menaced with arbitration discrectionary sanction..."
- "menaced" - interesting word choice. anycase, yeah, that's a matter of record. i think the point is pretty clear: he doesn't feel like he's done anything wrong and thinks you're being frivolous. frankly, i agree.
Kevin Baastalk 15:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- I find your statement inaccurate and diffless. I have added more diffs to address your points and expanded my comment, I urge uninvolved admins to check the diffs themselves to see if I'm making false accusations or not, and if this editor deserves a formal warning. Finally, WP:SOAPBOX also applies to talk pages. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, you can't prove a negative. That's why I have no diffs. I would expect someone who would like to be thought of as scientifically-minded to not fall prey to that fallacy, above all.
- But let's just say that your diffs are mine. My proof is in what they DON'T show. (hence "negative" in negative proof) That is, my claim is that, through exaggeration, black-and-white thinking, etc., you made for yourself a burden of evidence that cannot be fulfilled. In any case, I'll be waiting with bated breath for your diff showing him claim that "all papers showing negative results are faked by their authors". That one I've got to see to believe. Kevin Baastalk 18:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hum, just pick the third collapsable box, click on "show", and examine the four diffs there (he didn't make all the claims in one single diff). They are quite self-explanatory, and I think that my proof is on what they do show. If you think I'm exaggerating a claim, it should be easy to pick one of the boxes and show how the diffs don't support the corresponding statement, people at ANI do it every day despite your claim that it's a logical fallacy. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- They are. The one where he states "There were several early papers describing experiments that did not work. That's a null, not a negative. The authors did not discover any fault in the positive experiments, or any other reason to doubt them." clearly acknowledges the existence of "several" "negative" results that were not faked. When he says "that's a null, not a negative", he means -- and I thought this was pretty obvious -- that an experiment that fails to produce a result, even thought it's called "negative", does not disprove. For example, I could try to setup an experiment to do hot fusion, and I can tell you right now with almost absolute certainty that it will fail miserably. That would be a "negative result" if there ever was one, but by no stretch of the imagination would that prove that thermodynamic fusion is a bunch of B.S.
- To do that, I'd have to take a "successful" thermodynamic experiment and show how the result is caused by something else. (and this doesn't mean making a fake positive result to show that all positive results are fake, or showing how positive results could be faked. i could do that for hot fusion, too. (just give me some cardboard, some crayons, some construction paper, and a scissors) but no self-respecting journal would publish it. (and i'd lose a lot of respect for myself.))
- In fact, there is a positive that I can prove - you implied that he never acknolwedged the existence of any non-faked negative results. If I were to go and find a diff for you showing such acknowledgement, that would be it - the one you provided! [48] You just have to read it for meaning, not semantics. (And rest assured, I show you the same respect.) Like I said, your diffs are mine. And that is SO my diff. Kevin Baastalk 19:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- And I've read more of the other diffs you provided and it's all the same. Misrepresentation up the wazoo. If you were to show him the respect of a fair and accurate reading - if you were to honestly try to understand what he is trying to communicate - well, I think that would accomplished a lot more. Kevin Baastalk 19:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- well, I'll just wait for admins to look for themselves to the diffs and decide. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- And I've read more of the other diffs you provided and it's all the same. Misrepresentation up the wazoo. If you were to show him the respect of a fair and accurate reading - if you were to honestly try to understand what he is trying to communicate - well, I think that would accomplished a lot more. Kevin Baastalk 19:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- I fixed my statements on that box, so it's more accurate (and long and unwieldly *sigh*).
- You are right that he doesn't consider all of them fakes, he says that the most famous three "did not realize [the evidence of excess heat], or they erased it and published fake results"[49] He still considers that there are no negative results at all, as he continues "There are no experimental counter-claims. No one has ever done an experiment that calls into question cold fusion, or an experiment with a prosaic explanation that exhibits the same behavior (...) The failures were all for obvious reasons (...)". I changed my statement to " all negative results were either faked or had failures for 'obvious reasons not worth discussing in detail unless you are an expert'"
- I don't think that there is any special meaning to read, he plainly says that the failures to replicate are are "null, not negative", and later says that "Only about a dozen negative papers have been published in history of cold fusion"(same diff as above)
- On the positive diff: yeah, that's the one I found too, I used it just above :D . I like how he didn't compile any actually negative experiment (because he doesn't believe that there is any at all, just "false negatives"!, lol). --Enric Naval (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any "actually negative experiment" either (in the manner described above: "To do that, I'd have to take a "successful" thermodynamic experiment..."), and you can laugh at me all you like for that. If there had been one, I would expect to see it at least mentioned in the cold fusion article, and surely the matter would be settled. For example, in the polywater article, the "other cause" was found: "Chemical analysis invariably found that samples of polywater were contaminated with other substances (explaining the changes in melting and boiling points), and examination of polywater via electron microscopy showed that it also contained small particles of various solids from silicon to phospholipids, explaining its greater viscosity. ... When the experiments that had produced polywater were repeated with thoroughly cleaned glassware, the anomalous properties of the resulting water vanished." As I understand it, this is not the case for C.F. And thus, Jed is correct in his assertion, however funny you think that might be. Kevin Baastalk 21:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- There are experiments that are clearly negative on its conclusions about cold fusion, even if none of them is conclusive enough to close the dispute forever like polywater, so that's not the issue here.
- I'm not aware of any "actually negative experiment" either (in the manner described above: "To do that, I'd have to take a "successful" thermodynamic experiment..."), and you can laugh at me all you like for that. If there had been one, I would expect to see it at least mentioned in the cold fusion article, and surely the matter would be settled. For example, in the polywater article, the "other cause" was found: "Chemical analysis invariably found that samples of polywater were contaminated with other substances (explaining the changes in melting and boiling points), and examination of polywater via electron microscopy showed that it also contained small particles of various solids from silicon to phospholipids, explaining its greater viscosity. ... When the experiments that had produced polywater were repeated with thoroughly cleaned glassware, the anomalous properties of the resulting water vanished." As I understand it, this is not the case for C.F. And thus, Jed is correct in his assertion, however funny you think that might be. Kevin Baastalk 21:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- The issue here is that he has disqualified not just all negative experiments, but also every experiment that casted a bad light on cold fusion, and he has done it by way of his unpublished personal OR, ignoring completely the reliability of the sources. Indeed, not only he has dismissed all reliable sources, but he has also questioned the reliability of the authors of papers that found errors in cold fusion experiments calling "the only six actual, professional scientists" doing them as "first-class crackpots"[50], independently of the prestige or reliability of the authors, and independently of the reliability of the journals that published their findings.
- That is a behaviour issue, concretely one of disrespect for wikipedia's policies and guidelines, one of completely dissing the WP:RS guideline in favor of his own personal OR and opinions, and then insisting once and again on the talk page despite explicitally saying that he has no intention at all to help improve the article (a violation of WP:TALK guideline), and then dissing the warnings to stop. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sure he's been dimunitive of some scientists but so have skeptics on the talk page, and he's just as entitled to his own opinion as they are to theirs. I don't see any OR he's put in the article, or anything for that matter. I think he's been rather helpful and informative, and i can provide plenty of diffs to back that up if you like.
- As to the polywater example, it is quite pertinent to the issue, as the issue that we are(were) discussing is the interpretation of what was written. I'm sure you can see the prudence of getting all the facts straight before making a judgement. I provided the example to help clarify what Jed was saying. To my knowledge, no experiments have been done that are logically capable of "disproving C.F.". It helps to clarify the logical relationship of experiments, and that's what was being done. You somehow interpreted that as disqualifying experiments. And you said he hasn't compiled any negative results when in fact he said himself in a diff you provided that he has a pretty big list of them. And he never said he didn't believe there were any negative experiments. (how could he have a list of them then?) That's your own misinterpretation of what he wrote. Kevin Baastalk 18:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- And might I add, you still have quite a bit of B.S. in your diff title. For instance "all positive results are correct and can't be disproved in any way" is clearly an inaccurate characterization as he never said all positive results are correct and he in fact explained how one could go about disproving them. (Besides, to say that something can't be disproved is to discredit it, as that which is not falsifiable is not scientific.) Kevin Baastalk 18:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, seriously, that cold fusion can be disproved or not is not a content issue, it's a discussion on philosophy of science, and it has nothing to do with the exaggerated assertions that Jed does about how finding any error on positive experiments would overthrow the laws of thermodynamics among other things
[51][52]. If he ever said how you can disprove cold fusion experiments, then please provide the diff, because I wasn't able to find it. (I added a pair of diffs, btw)
- No, seriously, that cold fusion can be disproved or not is not a content issue, it's a discussion on philosophy of science, and it has nothing to do with the exaggerated assertions that Jed does about how finding any error on positive experiments would overthrow the laws of thermodynamics among other things
- And, for the last time, WP:SOAPBOX also applies to talk pages, so don't say that he didn't edit the article as if this somehow exculpated him of using the talk page for advocacy. It won't be the first time that someone gets warned for disrupting talk pages. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Whether cold fusion can be disproved or not isn't even being debated anywhere and never has been. (Clearly if it couldn't be disproved it wouldn't even be remotely scientific.) I've gone over this already. Philosophy of science is quite pertinent as the article is about a scientific topic and it the content should be presented as accurately as possible, esp. from the standpoint of science. It is esp. pertinent to the C.F. article because some consider C.F. to be pseudoscience. And Jed had never said or implied that "finding any error on positive experiments would overthrow the laws of thermodynamics". The diff you provide as evidence ([53]) doesn't even come close to saying that. You really need to stop putting words in his mouth. It's dishonest.
- As to your comment: "And, for the last time, WP:SOAPBOX also applies to talk pages," I haven't disputed this in any way, so I don't know why you're saying "for the last time...". It seems to me like you're arguing against an imaginary enemy here. Kevin Baastalk 20:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, my bad, the correct diff is [54]. It's a literal quote from him. Well, dunno, maybe I'm really arguing against an imaginary enemy. I already exposed my statements and I accompanied them with the compulsory diffs, so I'll just STFU and let people read the diffs and decide by themselves just like I should have done a dozen comments ago. *surrepticiously goes to check the diffs one by one in case there are more mistakes* --Enric Naval (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- That just happens to be the diff for my quote below! I think by "If anyone ever did find an error, it would not only disprove cold fusion, it would overthrow the laws of thermodynamics and a large part of chemistry and physics going back to 1860." he's referring to the fact that there isn't enough potential energy in the cell to produce the amount of heat observed. So without e=mc, the cell violates the law of conservation of energy. Kind of analogous to what's been said about polywater: "It has been suggested that polywater should have been dismissed on theorical grounds. The laws of thermodynamics, which were already known at that time, predicted that, since polywater had a higher boiling point than ordinary water, it meant that it was more stable, and the whole column of ordinary water should have turned spontaneously into polywater, instead of just part of it." However, the C.F. argument assumes that the potential energy and excess heat measurements are fairly accurate. If you can find errors in the calculations sufficient to account for the discrepancy, or find a new (non-nuclear) source of energy in the cell, then you could potentially show that the phenomena is not nuclear, without violating the law of conservation of energy. Kevin Baastalk 21:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Okay, I haven't gone through the trouble of collecting diffs, but here are some quotations from a brief perusal of the page: "Cold fusion is purely experimental. It is not based on theory, or guided by theory, and at present no theory can explain it. The notion that there is an "original theory" to "go back to" is nonsense. Szpak and others are trying to determine the nature of the reaction using different techniques. They are not trying to prove or disprove any particular theory, but rather to find out what nature has to teach us." Translation: there is no acting theory to "prove" or "disprove". There is a cause to be discovered. (Perhaps the term "cold fusion" is misleading in that respect, because no one really knows what it is.)
- "No one has ever done ... an experiment with a prosaic explanation that exhibits the same behavior (i.e., one that produces tritium or megajoules of heat per mole of reactant.)" - there you go, "an experiment with a prosaic explanation that exhibits the same behavior", like i said above. I remember reading something a little more elaborate than that, but that does just fine. Again, the way to show that C.F. is not the cause of the phenomena is to find out exactly what is. And this can't just be for one experiment. If there are other experiments in which said cause does not explain the results, then something different is going on there. A good theory should explain all of the experimental results (including the negative ones). This is hard to do of course, but it's been done numerous times before -- it's how we got the scientific theories we have in the first place. Kevin Baastalk 21:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- *sigh* This is the same OR that I am complaining about. There are secondary reliable sources saying that it's not been proved and that the evidence is not convincing. Period. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- What research? I just gave you the talk page diffs you asked for and elaborated a little on them. How is that OR? Kevin Baastalk 21:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- If you're calling my definition of a scientific theory ("A good theory should explain all of the experimental results...") "original research", then you are mistaken. I learned this definition back in grade school. When they first taught the scientific method in my school, they defined "hypothesis", "experiment", "theory", etc., and I remember them saying that a theory ties the results of many experiments together. Perhaps that wasn't part of your curriculum. But whatever the case, you need only look up the word theory in wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia, I imagine). Quoting the wikipedia article on theory (science section): "It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.", and "Good theories consist of just one problem-solving strategy, or a small family of problem-solving strategies, that can be applied to a wide range of problems". Alternatively, I suppose, I could have just referred you to the wikipedia article on theory. But I wasn't expecting to be accused of "Original Research" for simply reiterating what should be common knowledge to any scientist. Kevin Baastalk 18:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
(unindent) Kevin, see, wikipedia is based on sources, not on wikipedian's personal opinion of what is a valid demostration of a scientific theory. The available secondary reliable sources have been already beaten to death several times on Talk:Cold fusion, there's no sense on rehashing them here again and making this page a sequel of the talk page. What I brought here is not a content dispute about an article, but a clear violation of WP:OR and WP:SOAPBOX (with WP:COI sprinkled on top).
And, Kevin, seriously, I have to say that, if Jed's comments had resulted on improvements on the article, even if it wasn't his intention, I wouldn't have been so quick to complain. And if he was more responsive to warnings about disruption, and if he was actually open to concede when clearly reliable sources are presented to him, then I would have been way way waaaay more tolerant of his OR and I wouldn't even have complained about him, I would have instead engaged on conversation with him (and, if you ask me by email, I can actually point you to a user on cawiki where this is happening actually, and a user on eswiki that I didn't complain about until it was made clear by one of his edits that he had no intention to respect a consensus we had just built, which meant that I had just wasted many many hours of my time addressing his arguments in good faith). --Enric Naval (talk) 19:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I believe the wikipedia article that i just cited is based on sources. And I didn't say anything about demonstration of scientific theories, so i don't know how that comparison came up. Point is -- as i have already stated -- i'm not giving you my personal opinion, i'm giving you the academic definition that you can verify all you want.
- Where you see disruption, I see a person trying to clarify some misconceptions that some editors have, and them showing a lot of resistance to that. Clearly when editors have misconceptions about the subject they're writing about, that can have a detrimental effect on the article. And after you just called what I wrote above "the same OR that I am complaining about.", I'm a little skeptical about what you call "OR". As to good faith, I can assure you that I have wasted many, many hours addressing arguments in good faith, and I don't regret it. It's an essential part of good communication. Kevin Baastalk 20:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Clearing misconceptions" is not done by promoting your own unpublished research over the best published RS on the subject, like Jed is doing. That's called POV pushing. (answering on your talk page about wether citing Theory to disprove RS is OR)
- That being said, Jed seems to be starting to recognize that "there are discussions" that some positive experiments could have errors and that some measurements are not yet satisfactorily replicated[55]. I was going to consider retracting my petition until I noticed his next message, saying that Phil's POV is worse than creationist's POV [56]. Oooops. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please stop arguing here. The IP made a few edits on December 4 to Talk:Cold fusion and has been inactive since. Most likely we should move on to better things than worry over this minor incident. Jehochman Talk 12:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
AndroidCat (talk · contribs) readding inappropriate external links in John Carmichael (Scientologist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
[57] Scientology articles are under article probation as per last year's arbcom, requiring editors to be especially mindful of content policies. The videos re-added by AndroidCat are only marginally related to the article subject and moreover profoundly offensive. For example, the 2nd part of the video begins with "Robert Minton, recently profiled on [inaudible] will talk about shooting Scientologists, getting arrested, right ... no [laughs, laughter from others in the room] sorry, sorry [laughter from all]." Jayen466 13:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Scientology is at arbitration, as you well know. Please add evidence or parties to that case. This board is not for retaliation against content opponents. Jehochman Talk 14:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Arbitration or not, if there are editors violating existing remedies, they need to be addressed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am not an editor of these articles. It is my opinion that there has been no violation of the ArbCom ruling. There seems to be a minor content dispute about an external link that could be settled with WP:3O or perhaps reference to WP:BLPN. WP:AE is overkill for this minor dispute. Jehochman Talk 15:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Jehochman, have you viewed the videos? Jayen466 15:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I looked at the introduction to one of them, and rapidly got bored. It looks like something that might not be an appropriate external link. If you folks want to push the matter, add it to the arbitration case; otherwise, this should be handled through dispute resolution. You'll note that this page is not part of DR. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 16:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Bah, they look like links to be avoided. I've taken them out. Jehochman Talk 16:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with removing the links. Obviously, in addition to the Scientology ArbCom restrictions, there also the BLP restrictions, which could be more pertinent here. PhilKnight (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I wouldn't have brought it here if it hadn't been an outrageous violation of WP:BLP and WP:EL. Articles are either under probation or not. If article probation cannot stem the flow of such material being added, then I don't know what will. I have no wish to edit-war over such material, or to explain to half a dozen editors who find this video fantastic just why it should be inappropriate. Jayen466 17:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Bah, they look like links to be avoided. I've taken them out. Jehochman Talk 16:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I looked at the introduction to one of them, and rapidly got bored. It looks like something that might not be an appropriate external link. If you folks want to push the matter, add it to the arbitration case; otherwise, this should be handled through dispute resolution. You'll note that this page is not part of DR. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 16:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Jehochman, have you viewed the videos? Jayen466 15:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am not an editor of these articles. It is my opinion that there has been no violation of the ArbCom ruling. There seems to be a minor content dispute about an external link that could be settled with WP:3O or perhaps reference to WP:BLPN. WP:AE is overkill for this minor dispute. Jehochman Talk 15:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Arbitration or not, if there are editors violating existing remedies, they need to be addressed. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Just to be clear, this video contains a string of derogatory comments about a religious minority, and one of the speakers shown in it makes a well-received joke about shooting them. The video was added as an EL to the BLP of a member of said minority. It is inexcusable. Jayen466 17:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Every religion is a minority in some respect, so that's irrelevant. I agree with Jehochman that this would be better handled in the current ArbCom case. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Every race, too, is a minority in some respect. So how about videos of neo-Nazi rallies, with speeches featuring put-downs of Jews or black people, and jokes about shooting a few, added to BLPs of Jews or African Americans? It's not any better just because it's Scientologists here, is it? Or do you think we should make an exception for Scientologists? But by all means, I mentioned this thread in the arbcom evidence earlier today, so feel free to add AndroidCat as a party and invite him. And it is of course possible that AndroidCat never viewed the video and had no idea what exactly it contained. Still, I confess I was rather miffed. Cheers, Jayen466 19:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that makes special notice of minority religious issues. It's a red herring and irrelevant to this discussion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Don't you think policies on the use of fringe and extremist sources would apply to videos making such jokes as the ones described above? Jayen466 19:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's a different matter. It's hard to say definitively that the critics of Scientology are a fringe or extremist element. I'm no expert, but just based on what I see in popular culture I'd say that the majority viewpoint of Scientology is critical. If you have evidence that this particular source is fringe then please present it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- How often do you read jokes about shooting Scientologists in mainstream sources, presented simply for reader amusement? The evidence is in the video (part 2) itself. Have you viewed it? Jayen466 19:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's a different matter. It's hard to say definitively that the critics of Scientology are a fringe or extremist element. I'm no expert, but just based on what I see in popular culture I'd say that the majority viewpoint of Scientology is critical. If you have evidence that this particular source is fringe then please present it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Don't you think policies on the use of fringe and extremist sources would apply to videos making such jokes as the ones described above? Jayen466 19:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not aware of any Wikipedia policy that makes special notice of minority religious issues. It's a red herring and irrelevant to this discussion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- The video itself is probably authentic, and Mr. Carmichael did attend that meeting, so I'm not sure how this could be a violation of WP:BLP, but to me this is a simple matter of WP:WEIGHT and WP:EL. I doubt an argument could be made that this one meeting carries sufficient weight for inclusion in Carmichael's BLP, and the link is definitely one to avoid. I don't think here or the current ArbCom are the correct venues for dealing with it, though. A simple explanation of weighting and the reliability of google videos as a source are probably sufficient. AndroidCat has not tried to add them back again, and I left a note on his talk page. If it must be included in the ArbCom, it should go into a section about sourcing problems in general. --GoodDamon 19:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Goodness, GoodDamon. In these videos, Carmichael is shown a couple of times sitting on a chair, for a second or two, and is shown saying something right at the end of the second part, while the camera goes up his nostril. The rest of the 30 minutes, it is these guys mouthing off about what crap Scientology is. If you can't think what parts of WP:BLP that might violate, check through Wikipedia:BLP#External_links, Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise and Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources with a fine-toothed comb, and then look at Wikipedia:External_links#In_biographies_of_living_people, which is referenced from WP:BLP. Do you see what I mean? Jayen466 19:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm very familiar with BLP, thank you. I already said the links violate WP:EL (which you, uhmm, helpfully re-linked for me; thanks), but as for BLP... As you said, most of the video doesn't even include Mr. Carmichael, and features other people talking about Scientology... not about Carmichael. Hence to me, in addition to it being a link to avoid, it is also a link about something other than the subject of the article. It's a classic WP:COATRACK issue actually, using Carmichael's article to attack Scientology itself, with the excuse that he appears (very, very briefly) in the video. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the link. Deleting it was the right thing to do, and AndroidCat needs to know that. BLP was definitely violated too, but indirectly, not through disparagement of Carmichael himself, unless I missed that in the video... Have to admit, I tuned it out a little. Tres boring. --GoodDamon 19:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Goodness, GoodDamon. In these videos, Carmichael is shown a couple of times sitting on a chair, for a second or two, and is shown saying something right at the end of the second part, while the camera goes up his nostril. The rest of the 30 minutes, it is these guys mouthing off about what crap Scientology is. If you can't think what parts of WP:BLP that might violate, check through Wikipedia:BLP#External_links, Wikipedia:BLP#Criticism_and_praise and Wikipedia:BLP#Reliable_sources with a fine-toothed comb, and then look at Wikipedia:External_links#In_biographies_of_living_people, which is referenced from WP:BLP. Do you see what I mean? Jayen466 19:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Every race, too, is a minority in some respect. So how about videos of neo-Nazi rallies, with speeches featuring put-downs of Jews or black people, and jokes about shooting a few, added to BLPs of Jews or African Americans? It's not any better just because it's Scientologists here, is it? Or do you think we should make an exception for Scientologists? But by all means, I mentioned this thread in the arbcom evidence earlier today, so feel free to add AndroidCat as a party and invite him. And it is of course possible that AndroidCat never viewed the video and had no idea what exactly it contained. Still, I confess I was rather miffed. Cheers, Jayen466 19:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Further use of this board for drama mongering, soap boxing or attacking opponents may be met with warnings or sanctions. Please use the board only for appropriate purposes. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 19:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)