409:
disagree with
ScienceApologist censorship of their work, on the basis that NPOV tell us to represent the view of "most scientists". He is forced to use censorship because, since "most scientists" don't publish their view, he has no basis for adding verifiable material to preserve the balance. He has thus frequently removed extremely well-source statement, such as statements from peer-reviewed journals in the top third of ISI ranking. These statements would be accepted in any other non-controversial article. I'd argue that it may be a pity that critics of a theory do not publish their opinion, such as the professor who is
450:
users on board. I'm all in favor of having people at
Knowledge (XXG) who have a difference of opinion. Some of them learn to deal well with the fact that their opinions are only of marginal status and do not protest when other editors work to appropriately frame their opinions in such a way... but such users are coming harder and harder to find.
462:"yes". More than that, the community has become downright toxic for editors dedicated to the standards of high-quality research -- generally to the point of driving away editors who are passionately devoted to the principles and practices that our content guideline and policy pages say are most in-line with best editorial practices.
408:
words that are not truly verifiable. All scientific revolutions have started when a few scientists have scientifically analysed an anomaly. I don't see why
Knowledge (XXG) would not want to echo what they say, while saying at the same time that the view of "most scientists" is different. I totally
388:
In particular, I would appreciate that the ArbComm address the following issue: How to determine the preponderence of opinion that is the basis of NPOV ? ScienceApologist defends the view that it should be based on the opinion of "most scientists" : it is indeed a good way to maintain the status quo
493:
I will be on wikibreak for much of this arbitration because these things are such time sinks. I would prefer to talk directly to arbitrators about my position through e-mails, phone calls, etc. and would not mind if we published some of these conversations in the evidence pages. I don't have time to
449:
There exist
Wikipedians who vehemently disagree with my aims. I can provide a list, but shall refrain in the interests of deferring to community tradition. I come into conflict with the users on this list on a fairly regular basis. I am often mystified as to what justification there is to keep such
380:
It is common sense that man have interests, and that they take pride in achieveing their goal. If
Knowledge (XXG) were to exclude such men, who would be left to write it ? How many would be left to pay for it ? If I get banned from Knowledge (XXG), many others would later be. I believe that the
1033:
article and related pages, including some edit warring and minor instances of incivility. However, the vast majority of the evidence presented related to questions (and disputes as to those questions) about the reliability of particular sources and the relative weight to be associated with various
773:
8) Knowledge (XXG) users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into
470:
are upheld as "policy" in the spite of the known fact that the civility-standards are culturally relative. More than this, the monolithic behavioral structure contradicts the pluralism that
Knowledge (XXG) claims to endorse. Why is that the Knowledge (XXG) community lack diversity? In part it is
453:
Instead, at
Knowledge (XXG), most minority-opinion holders exploit the fact that Knowledge (XXG) has never forcefully endorsed any content standards, even its own. Should we let people with minority opinions actively disrupt the articles to the point of driving away good contributors who are not
403:
Here is my take on that issue. "Most scientists" cannot be a reliable source on all topics, because they cannot be expected to be knowledgeable in all subjects. Furthemore, they cannot be a reliable source on cold fusion because they don't publish about it. Statements that start with "most
376:
We have indeed a conflict of interest, but it's not what some people think. As his user pages says, ScienceApologist is interested in promoting the status quo, while I'm interested in defending progress, and thus changes. As a consequence, he favors evidence that Cold fusion was seen as
485:
The ONLY reason I continue is because
Knowledge (XXG) is the best thing going at the moment which is seen by the fact that students use it. I feel it important that students are not turning to a resource that skews presentation of facts, opinions, etc in a way that defies
356:
There comes a point in any dispute, perhaps somewhere after three months, but surely after a couple of years, beyond which it is no longer reasonable to say "this is a content dispute" and we must instead presume that the reason the dispute hasn't yet been resolved is the
1153:
1) Should any user subject to an editing restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be briefly blocked, up to a week in the event of repeated violations. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one month. All blocks are to be logged at
494:
deal with all the potential drama that will accompany this case. There are enough people who take delight in stalking me from place to place that I think it better to not be directly involved in the evidence, workshop, or discussion pages of this arbitration.
389:
that he wants. I say that it should be based on the preponderence of opinion in the most reliable sources published on the subject. Cold fusion is a case where these 2 principles give a different answer, and give thus a different basis for NPOV. (See
647:; that is, they must fairly portray all significant points of view on a subject in accordance with their prevalence. Knowledge (XXG) is a mirror for human knowledge: it seeks to reflect, and not distort, the current state of thought on a subject.
454:
passionately aligned to a minority opinion? Should we encourage them to create an environment so caustic that getting outside expert help is nearly impossible? Since I first became involved with
Knowledge (XXG), the answer has gone from being a
400:, while others, like me, see them as interesting science practiced by a minority of good scientists. So, this case is about the status of good science practiced by a minority of scientists, with a different view from the (silent) majority.
821:
are privileged. In the interests of facilitating open communication between parties, communications made during mediation may not be used as evidence in other dispute resolution or similar discussions, including (but not limited to)
384:
So, how should we go about resolving such conflicts ? Knowledge (XXG) offers plenty of dispute resolution mechanisms, and I have accepted them all. Apparently, they are not enough. I therefore support the ArbComm's involvement.
465:
Instead of fostering an environment where good research is rewarded and poor scholarship is punished, Knowledge (XXG) relies on a set of vague, messageboard-centric "behavioral" guidelines to police. Concepts like
235:
91:
106:
685:. Thus, views held by a relatively small proportion of commentators or scholars should not be overstated, but similarly views held by a relatively large proportion thereof should not be understated.
662:
3) The requirement of the neutral point of view that points of view be represented fairly and accurately, and
Knowledge (XXG)'s nature as an encyclopaedia, demand that articles should always use the
165:
795:
75:
Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided at
303:. This has resulted in a persistent disruption to the editing environment and consequential deterioration in the quality of the article as good faith contributors are driven away from editing.
87:
80:
420:
One may say that I choose that view because it favors progress. He would be right. What would be the value of knowledge, and of Knowledge (XXG), if it is not to enable progress ?
499:
425:
342:
490:. I don't care if Knowledge (XXG) survives or not, and usually hope that it fails a miserable death and gets buried in the sands of time because of the problems I outline above.
396:
I believe that there are many other valid scientific controversies where the opinion of "most scientists" and of the "experts in the field" differ. Some like to discard them as
911:
377:
pathological science in the 1990's, while I favor well-sourced evidence that it is an ongoing scientific controversy to this day. We have both doggedly defended our opinion.
1178:
1174:
478:, but rather a community of anti-social internet denizens who alternatively enjoy the mind trip that is "an encyclopedia anyone -- even I -- can edit" or are hoping to play
315:
704:. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.
326:
requesting a community topic ban. That thread has regrettably deteriorated into the usual bickering that surrounds this topic. A recent thread on ANI was disrupted by
1105:
Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.
928:), which failed to reach a resolution, amidst suggestions that the successful resolution of the discussion had been disrupted by several uncivil interjections by
827:
474:
This situation is exacerbated by the fact that Knowledge (XXG) has become a community not of expert researchers or at least people dedicated to the principle of
288:. We know you don't resolve content disputes, but this one seems to have resisted all forms of dispute resolution because of underlying behavioral issues.
439:
I hate arbitration. I don't trust arbitration. Nevertheless, I am a named party in this case, and so should at least try to explain where I'm coming from.
471:
because Knowledge (XXG) is tolerant of behaviors that traditional internet users endorse while being intolerant of behavior standards that are different.
306:
Prior attempts at dispute resolution are numerous, yet the problems continue. I had suggested to ScienceApologist that the matter could be resolved at
681:
4) In describing points of view on a subject, articles should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not accord them
755:
602:
598:
Accept to look at all aspects. Dispute of this kind arise fairly often; let's see if we can resolve this in a way that helps other similar disputes.
593:
579:
565:
551:
539:
525:
845:
10) Encyclopedias are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with current mainstream scientific thought.
985:
939:
758:. Revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique.
666:. A neutral point of view cannot be synthesised merely by presenting a plurality of opposing viewpoints, each derived from a polarised source.
252:
102:
17:
270:
199:
79:
and serve as opening statements. As such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the
211:
644:
229:
217:
701:
277:
1071:
Additionally, Pcarbonn has treated Knowledge (XXG) as a battleground; his actions to that effect include assumptions of bad faith
205:
90:. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at
775:
1007:
1002:
884:
879:
223:
129:
823:
743:
720:
1126:
1011:
971:
925:
888:
750:, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally. Edit-warring, whether by
182:
799:
783:
413:'s friend, but it's not wikipedia's place to right that wrong and to give a non-verifiable say to the silent majority. The
482:
to achieve fake positions of power like "administrator" or "bureaucrat" or "arbitrator". It's petty, silly, and I hate it.
361:. It is on this basis - and the apparent inability of the community to resolve this issue at any forum up to and including
141:
910:
article and disputes as to its contents. This Arbitration originated following an administrators' noticeboard discussion
746:, rather than through disruptive editing. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an
663:
1193:
994:
871:
719:
6) Weasel words (words or phrases that seemingly support statements without attributing opinions to verifiable sources)
159:
147:
1086:
1083:
1080:
135:
979:
933:
561:
246:
153:
1056:
754:
or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic, with only a few
193:
535:
791:
487:
475:
443:
818:
751:
739:
975:
929:
628:
1) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.
557:
521:
433:
242:
787:
779:
747:
86:
Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at
742:. This is done through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and
575:
350:
319:
188:
123:
417:
should work both ways: if proponent write in the top third of journals, critics should do it too.
414:
405:
1120:
965:
919:
548:
531:
176:
682:
589:
1060:
479:
76:
998:
875:
517:
467:
365:- that I urge ArbCom to accept this case and consider the conduct of the users involved.
362:
323:
307:
296:
571:
397:
118:
101:
as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at
301:
and other editors have latched on to these statements and are using them to assert COI
1187:
1116:
1052:
1045:
961:
915:
545:
410:
370:
299:
wiki that suggest he is using Knowledge (XXG) for promotion or ideological struggle,
281:
172:
585:
327:
1028:
905:
442:
Perhaps most succinctly, interested parties can look at a new proposal I started:
1130:
990:
954:
867:
285:
960:
2) Some evidence has been presented of problematic editing by users including
1179:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log of blocks and bans
1034:
points of view, content questions which cannot be resolved by the Committee.
1156:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion#Log of blocks and bans
599:
1175:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Notification logs
107:
Knowledge (XXG):Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement
103:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification
381:
ArbComm should avoid that route. What would we gain from it ?
291:
The heart of the problem is that Pcarbonn has made statements
570:
Accept to consider all behaviour related to this dispute. --
544:
Accept for close review of all aspects of the situation.
446:. This explains my motivations almost in their entirety.
1077:
1075:
1072:
1069:
1066:
1064:
1024:
1020:
1016:
901:
897:
893:
643:
2) All Knowledge (XXG) articles must be written from a
510:
390:
311:
292:
284:
has been involved in a long running content dispute at
65:
59:
53:
47:
702:
does not publish original research or original thought
316:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience
511:
Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (7/0/0/0)
332:
I believe the entire situation bears close scrutiny,
1181:where all such notifications are now being logged.
498:Clerk note: Statement trimmed from original found
424:Clerk note: Statement trimmed from original found
341:Clerk note: Statement trimmed from original found
97:Once the case is closed, editors may add to the
516:Accept to consider all aspects of the matter.
1133:and related articles and pages for one year.
8:
1163:Passed 7 to 0, 21:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
1138:Passed 7 to 1, 21:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
1093:Passed 7 to 0, 21:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
1039:Passed 8 to 0, 21:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
947:Passed 8 to 0, 21:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
850:Passed 7 to 1, 21:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
835:Passed 8 to 0, 21:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
807:Passed 8 to 0, 21:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
763:Passed 8 to 0, 21:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
728:Passed 8 to 0, 21:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
709:Passed 8 to 0, 21:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
690:Passed 8 to 0, 21:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
671:Passed 8 to 0, 21:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
652:Passed 8 to 0, 21:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
633:Passed 8 to 0, 21:38, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
1155:
530:Accept. This needs looking into carefully.
271:Knowledge (XXG):What Knowledge (XXG) is not
98:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration
105:, and report violations of remedies at
774:disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as
738:7) Knowledge (XXG) works by building
334:including the behavior of all editors
7:
865:1) The locus of this dispute is the
318:might not be applicable. Therefore
278:Knowledge (XXG):Conflict of interest
658:Neutral point of view and sourcing
24:
1079:. For more complete evidence see
828:user conduct requests for comment
624:Role of the Arbitration Committee
330:a sock puppet of a banned user.
841:Encyclopedic coverage of science
36:on 21:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
30:on 15:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
664:best and most reputable sources
813:Privileged nature of mediation
1:
817:9) All communications during
603:11:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
594:03:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
580:23:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
566:17:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
552:17:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
540:15:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
526:13:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
609:Temporary injunction (none)
359:conduct of the participants
324:Administrators' noticeboard
1210:
45:Watchlist all case pages:
1129:) is banned from editing
269:I bring you a case about
784:assumptions of bad faith
796:disruptive point-making
308:arbitration enforcement
99:#Log of blocks and bans
1169:Log of blocks and bans
1061:Knowledge (XXG) policy
1055:edits articles with a
322:commenced a thread at
265:Statement by Jehochman
1111:Pcarbonn topic-banned
912:proposing a topic ban
645:neutral point of view
639:Neutral Point Of View
506:Preliminary decisions
1149:Enforcement by block
1074:, and edit warring.
696:No original research
260:Requests for comment
1194:WikiProject Physics
700:5) Knowledge (XXG)
320:User:SheffieldSteel
77:arbitration request
744:dispute resolution
458:"yes" to almost a
92:/Proposed decision
1107:
802:, is prohibited.
800:gaming the system
734:Editorial process
721:should be avoided
592:
502:
428:
345:
72:
1201:
1173:Please refer to
1103:
1032:
1014:
976:ScienceApologist
930:ScienceApologist
909:
891:
861:Locus of dispute
856:Findings of fact
776:personal attacks
588:
558:Charles Matthews
497:
434:ScienceApologist
423:
415:parity of source
404:scientists" are
340:
243:ScienceApologist
239:
169:
113:Involved parties
71:
70:
43:
1209:
1208:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1184:
1183:
1171:
1151:
1146:
1113:
1101:
1049:
1005:
989:
958:
882:
866:
863:
858:
843:
815:
771:
736:
717:
698:
679:
660:
641:
626:
621:
616:
611:
513:
508:
437:
374:
354:
314:suggested that
267:
262:
191:
121:
115:
73:
46:
44:
37:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1207:
1205:
1197:
1196:
1186:
1185:
1170:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1150:
1147:
1145:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1112:
1109:
1100:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1048:
1043:
1042:
1041:
957:
951:
950:
949:
862:
859:
857:
854:
853:
852:
842:
839:
838:
837:
814:
811:
810:
809:
770:
767:
766:
765:
735:
732:
731:
730:
716:
713:
712:
711:
697:
694:
693:
692:
678:
675:
674:
673:
659:
656:
655:
654:
640:
637:
636:
635:
625:
622:
620:
617:
615:
614:Final decision
612:
610:
607:
606:
605:
596:
582:
568:
554:
542:
528:
512:
509:
507:
504:
436:
430:
398:Fringe science
373:
367:
353:
351:SheffieldSteel
347:
310:, but a prior
266:
263:
261:
258:
257:
256:
240:
189:SheffieldSteel
186:
170:
114:
111:
42:
40:
32:
26:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1206:
1195:
1192:
1191:
1189:
1182:
1180:
1176:
1168:
1164:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1157:
1148:
1143:
1139:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1132:
1128:
1125:
1122:
1118:
1110:
1108:
1106:
1098:
1094:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1087:
1084:
1081:
1078:
1076:
1073:
1070:
1067:
1065:
1062:
1058:
1057:stated agenda
1054:
1047:
1044:
1040:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1030:
1026:
1022:
1018:
1013:
1009:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
987:
984:
981:
977:
973:
970:
967:
963:
956:
952:
948:
945:
944:
943:
941:
938:
935:
931:
927:
924:
921:
917:
913:
907:
903:
899:
895:
890:
886:
881:
877:
873:
869:
860:
855:
851:
848:
847:
846:
840:
836:
833:
832:
831:
829:
825:
820:
812:
808:
805:
804:
803:
801:
797:
793:
789:
785:
781:
777:
768:
764:
761:
760:
759:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
733:
729:
726:
725:
724:
722:
714:
710:
707:
706:
705:
703:
695:
691:
688:
687:
686:
684:
676:
672:
669:
668:
667:
665:
657:
653:
650:
649:
648:
646:
638:
634:
631:
630:
629:
623:
618:
613:
608:
604:
601:
597:
595:
591:
587:
583:
581:
577:
573:
569:
567:
563:
559:
555:
553:
550:
547:
543:
541:
537:
533:
532:Sam Blacketer
529:
527:
523:
519:
515:
514:
505:
503:
501:
495:
491:
489:
488:WP:MAINSTREAM
483:
481:
477:
476:WP:MAINSTREAM
472:
469:
463:
461:
457:
451:
447:
445:
444:WP:MAINSTREAM
440:
435:
432:Statement by
431:
429:
427:
421:
418:
416:
412:
407:
401:
399:
394:
392:
386:
382:
378:
372:
369:Statement by
368:
366:
364:
360:
352:
349:Statement by
348:
346:
344:
338:
337:
335:
329:
325:
321:
317:
313:
309:
304:
302:
298:
294:
289:
287:
283:
282:User:Pcarbonn
279:
276:
272:
264:
259:
254:
251:
248:
244:
241:
237:
234:
231:
228:
225:
222:
219:
216:
213:
210:
207:
204:
201:
198:
195:
190:
187:
184:
181:
178:
174:
171:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
128:
125:
120:
117:
116:
112:
110:
108:
104:
100:
95:
93:
89:
84:
82:
78:
69:
68:
63:
62:
57:
56:
51:
50:
41:
38:
35:
29:
19:
1172:
1162:
1152:
1137:
1123:
1114:
1104:
1102:
1092:
1050:
1038:
982:
968:
959:
946:
936:
922:
864:
849:
844:
834:
816:
806:
772:
762:
737:
727:
718:
715:Weasel words
708:
699:
689:
683:undue weight
680:
677:Undue weight
670:
661:
651:
642:
632:
627:
496:
492:
484:
473:
464:
459:
455:
452:
448:
441:
438:
422:
419:
402:
395:
387:
383:
379:
375:
358:
355:
339:
333:
331:
328:User:IwRnHaA
305:
300:
290:
274:
268:
249:
232:
226:
220:
214:
208:
202:
196:
179:
162:
156:
150:
144:
138:
132:
126:
96:
85:
74:
66:
60:
54:
48:
39:
33:
27:
25:
1144:Enforcement
1131:Cold fusion
991:Cold fusion
955:cold fusion
953:Editing of
868:Cold fusion
824:Arbitration
518:Newyorkbrad
406:WP:Weaseled
286:Cold fusion
212:protections
142:protections
34:Case Closed
28:Case Opened
792:harassment
780:incivility
756:exceptions
619:Principles
584:Accept. --
312:straw poll
275:an alleged
224:page moves
154:page moves
988:) on the
819:mediation
752:reversion
740:consensus
218:deletions
148:deletions
119:Jehochman
88:/Workshop
83:subpage.
81:/Evidence
1188:Category
1127:contribs
1117:Pcarbonn
1099:Remedies
1059:against
1053:Pcarbonn
1046:Pcarbonn
986:contribs
972:contribs
962:Pcarbonn
940:contribs
926:contribs
916:Pcarbonn
788:trolling
748:edit war
556:Accept.
546:FloNight
468:civility
456:de facto
371:Pcarbonn
253:contribs
200:contribs
183:contribs
173:Pcarbonn
130:contribs
1008:protect
1003:history
885:protect
880:history
769:Decorum
586:Deskana
460:de jure
1012:delete
974:) and
889:delete
798:, and
590:(talk)
572:bainer
230:rights
206:blocks
160:rights
136:blocks
1029:views
1021:watch
1017:links
906:views
898:watch
894:links
480:games
363:WP:AN
16:<
1177:and
1121:talk
1025:logs
999:talk
995:edit
980:talk
966:talk
934:talk
920:talk
914:for
902:logs
876:talk
872:edit
826:and
576:talk
562:talk
536:talk
522:talk
500:here
426:here
393:)
391:here
343:here
295:and
273:and
247:talk
194:talk
177:talk
124:talk
1115:3)
1082:,
1051:3)
942:).
600:FT2
549:♥♥♥
411:JzG
297:off
280:.
236:RfA
166:RfA
94:.
1190::
1158:.
1088:.
1085:,
1068:,
1063:.
1027:|
1023:|
1019:|
1015:|
1010:|
1006:|
1001:|
997:|
904:|
900:|
896:|
892:|
887:|
883:|
878:|
874:|
830:.
794:,
790:,
786:,
782:,
778:,
723:.
578:)
564:)
538:)
524:)
293:on
109:.
64:,
58:,
52:,
1124:·
1119:(
1031:)
993:(
983:·
978:(
969:·
964:(
937:·
932:(
923:·
918:(
908:)
870:(
574:(
560:(
534:(
520:(
336:.
255:)
250:·
245:(
238:)
233:·
227:·
221:·
215:·
209:·
203:·
197:·
192:(
185:)
180:·
175:(
168:)
163:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
139:·
133:·
127:·
122:(
67:4
61:3
55:2
49:1
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.