Wikipedia Arbitration |
---|
|
Track related changes |
Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Create your own section and do not edit in anybody else's section. Please limit your main evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs and keep responses to other evidence as short as possible. A short, concise presentation will be more effective; posting evidence longer than 1000 words will not help you make your point. Over-long evidence that is not exceptionally easy to understand (like tables) will be trimmed to size or, in extreme cases, simply removed by the Clerks without warning - this could result in your important points being lost, so don't let it happen. Stay focused on the issues raised in the initial statements and on diffs which illustrate relevant behavior.
It is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff in question, or to a short page section; links to the page itself are insufficient. Never link to a page history, an editor's contributions, or a log for all actions of an editor (as those will have changed by the time people click on your links), although a link to a log for a specific article or a specific block log can be useful. Please make sure any page section links are permanent. See simple diff and link guide.
This page is not for general discussion - for that, see the talk page. If you think another editor's evidence is a misrepresentation of the facts, cite the evidence and explain how it is incorrect within your own section. Please do not try to re-factor the page or remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, leave it for the Arbitrators or Clerks to move.
Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators (and clerks, when clarification on votes is needed) may edit the proposed decision page.
Evidence presented by Abd
JzG was involved with Cold fusion pushing an anti-fringe POV
See JzG_long_involved_with_Cold_fusion RfC section, JzG long involved with Cold fusion for a full record.
There were 64 article edits by him through January 30, 2009. A few, beginning with his first:
- 11:54, 13 July 2006 (Someone does not understand what "evenly split" means. A 2/3 majority against is not "evenly split".)[1]
- This edit was in error, see subsequent edits; the possible POV that may be inferred from it remains visible in one of his most recent edits:
- 09:26, 26 January 2009 (Further developments: and that is the usual cherry-picking and distortion, we have already been over this ground many times. The conclusion of the report is vastly more skeptical than these cher) [2]
- JzG's position is not supported by consensus, though, at present, the lead is impoverished on this; there is more detail deeper in the article in the section on Further developments; to summarize, reviewers were evenly divided on the question of excess heat, which is central to the claim of cold fusion. The overall report, based on a "preponderance" of reviewer opinions, considers that nuclear process is "not conclusively demonstrated." That's not "rejected." It means "not proven," and the panel very clearly recommended further research to resolve the issue.
- JzG's position is not supported by consensus, though, at present, the lead is impoverished on this; there is more detail deeper in the article in the section on Further developments; to summarize, reviewers were evenly divided on the question of excess heat, which is central to the claim of cold fusion. The overall report, based on a "preponderance" of reviewer opinions, considers that nuclear process is "not conclusively demonstrated." That's not "rejected." It means "not proven," and the panel very clearly recommended further research to resolve the issue.
and others from the RfC summary:
- 19:35, 27 October 2008 (Extreme WP:UNDUE in the lead; it is special pleading at its worst. So what if the CF advocates are still saying it exists? No new significant work since the 2004 review) [3]
- 14:04, 8 December 2007 (External links: Hmm. That one smells strongly of kook to me)[4]
- This was a removal of an External link to lenr-canr.org, a library of documents related to Cold fusion (most published elsewhere, many in peer-reviewed publications, as well as conference papers, and hosted by permission), probably the best available.
There were also 140 edits to Talk:Cold fusion in the same period. His first shows the origin of his POV, and this history is confirmed by him and expanded in many places. Oddly, this report could be seen as confirming the central 1989 claim of Fleischmann, excess heat. Fleischmann's initial findings regarding specific nuclear evidence have been discredited and retracted and are considered by the cold fusion research community to have been in error.
- 10 January 2006 17:22 Talk:Cold fusion (Wow, is this ever a blast from the past!)[[5]]
JzG used admin tools with respect to Cold fusion and editors involved.
JzG long refused to acknowledge involvement or to recuse
JzG has painted concerns about recusal as POV-motivated content dispute
Evidence presented by Beetstra
I may go way over 1000 words here, but there is just too much to this case. I am sorry if I do so.
Abd's tendency to misinterpret other's statements
- This is part of several discussions between me and Abd about 4 links on Abd's talkpage
- diff my comment
- Abd's reply where the thread is summarised "This is a novel argument, Beetstra: we should block a web site providing material, allegedly imbalanced, not because of their intention, but because of reluctance of authors or publishers to give permission for hosting, a reluctance allegedly affecting one side of some controversy, on the argument that an imbalance is created."
- This is opposite to a part in my comment concerning this, where I mention: "... Can the site be used in a fringe way? Quite possible/Yes (possibility being true for every site, but we don't blacklist on possible abuse ..)..."
Abd continuous quest for finding independent reviewers in favour of his view
- Delisting of newenergytimes.com
- User:Durova first listed this as a request for explanation here MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February 2009#newenergytimes.com. The explanation request turned into a de-listing request, which was declined by me after reviewing the use of the link and the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 14#www.newenergytimes.com
- Second request was filed by User:Abd: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#newenergytimes.com, minimally addressing the original concerns (not a reliable source, site was abused by now (topic-)banned users), but mainly focussing on procedural errors.
- Note: When User:Abd deemed that the decision took too long, Abd asked for independent review on the administrators noticeboard, after which User:Viridae delisted citing consensus.
Abuse of lenr-canr.org
- lenr-canr.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
lenr-canr.org
lenr-canr.org is a site which contains mainly copies of articles which have been published elsewhere, and some copies of documents which are unique (in terms of the articles being the only online version of the article, other versions are in print only). The copies of articles which have been published elsewhere are also available from the original locations, but these are not always accessible for all users (i.e. user have to pay to see the contents).
The copies of material which has been published elsewhere probably qualifies as a reliable source, though the original source is a better source link. The copies of which no other online copy is available contain e.g. conference proceedings, which may have use as a reference, but they are generally not suitable to attribute information to.
Use and abuse
- Of 272 counted link additions in main, user, category and template namespace by User:Pcarbonn, 59 are to lenr-canr.org (21.6%, main link he added). Of 172 counted link additions by User:Pcarbonn, 59 were to lenr-canr.org (34.3%, main user)
Abuse of newenergytimes.com
- newenergytimes.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
newenergytimes.com
Newenergytimes.com contains information which is available elsewhere (copies of documents), and information written by the site owner himself. The site owner is a specialist in the field, and although I expect the information to be correct, the material would probably fail our core reliable sources guideline, no original research policy, verifiability policy and possibly others.
Use and abuse
- Of 272 counted link additions by User:Pcarbonn in Main, User, Template and Category namespace, 54 links additions were to newenergytimes.com (19.8%; second place for his link additions). Of 168 counted additions of newenergytimes.com to said namespaces 54 were added by User:Pcarbonn (32.1%, main user of this link).
- diff, diff: User:Pcarbonn adds a reference to a document on newenergytimes.com to an already existing reference. This reference should give yet another (reliable) view. The link here (now moved to here) is however not accompanied by the original on Science (which I have not (yet) been able to locate either) and hence, not a verifyable source.
- diff: User:Pcarbonn here introduces a large part of text, including some solely referenced to documentation on newenergytimes.com. E.g. link (I can't find the document on the new server). Again, the original is not linked (which may be here, suggesting this is not peer reviewed information), making this an unverifiable copy. Still it was used to opinionate the article.
- diff: User:Pcarbonn here adds three times a link to link (now moved, current version not (yet) found) to his previous edit here saying "per WP:CITE#SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT". This suggests that he used newenergytimes.com for information, not using the originals (well, one of the others on a site where the author of the article is the same as the domain the article is kept on, suggesting original research), and where itself the documents on newenergytimes.com are synthesised/original research.
- diff: User:76.246.148.242 (only contribs to Cold Fusion and talk) adds link (now here. The link is a copy of an official publication on Sciencedirect, but that one is not acknowledged in the edit.
There are more diffs out there by editors where material on this site is used in a similar way. The site was, next to being used, abused to give undue weight to the article Cold fusion (and other articles).
Delisting of newenergytimes.com
Abd uses (unnecessarely) strong terms in discussions
- diff: As far as I know this is the first post by Abd on this subject to the blocking admin, User:Hu12, quoting "the block based on the user name was a total error.". Even if true, that type of accusations are unnecesseraly harsh as an opening statement.
Evidence presented by Durova
Beetstra's evidence
Within the last day Newenergytimes was removed from the blacklist by a consensus of Wikipedians in which I was not a participant.[6] Agreement on the merits of a policy assessment is very different from agreement on content POV. It would be better to see that distinction articulated in a presentation that invokes my name, particularly since I established that distinction very clearly both at RFAR[7] and at RfC.[8]
Evidence presented by {your user name}
before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support your assertion; for example, your first assertion might be "So-and-so engages in edit warring", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits to specific articles which show So-and-so engaging in edit warring.
{Write your assertion here}
Place argument and diffs which support the second assertion; for example, your second assertion might be "So-and-so makes personal attacks", which should be the title of this section. Here you would show specific edits where So-and-so made personal attacks.