Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:29, 15 November 2008

Create your own section to provide evidence in, and do not edit anyone else's section. Keep your evidence to a maximum of 1000 words and 100 diffs. Evidence longer than this will be refactored or removed entirely.

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 Jehochman

Cold fusion is a fringe topic

Cold fusion was a field of science begun in 1989. After about ten years of failure in attempts to verify the initial experimental results, Cold fusion faded into the realm of fringe theory, as reported in 1999 by this source.

Pcarbonn

Others have presented evidence. I need not repeat it. Pcarbonn has engaged in Misplaced Pages:Advocacy of the point of view that cold fusion is disputed field of science, rather than a fringe theory.

ScienceApologist

ScienceApologist has been under ArbCom restrictions against incivility and using multiple accounts. He has continued to be incivil towards other editors and this has lead to disruption. He has also used multiple accounts.

When the recent thread at WP:AN on Pcarbonn's topic ban started, the discussion was at first calm and rationale. When ScienceApologist added inflammatory remarks, the discussion quickly deteriorated towards a non-result. This was the proximate cause of my filing this request for arbitration. Had SA stayed away from that thread, I believe it would have come to a proper resolution one way or the other. This is not an isolated incident. SA has repeatedly disrupted threads with shrill rhetoric.

I have tried every possible way I know of to encourage SA to focus on productive contributions and refrain from disruption. Unfortunately, I have not been successful.

Evidence presented by Enric Naval

Disruption to articles can be caused can be caused without editing the articles themselves

As seen on the similar homeopathy case, a single editor can disrupt articles even if he never edits the actual article. It's just enough that he wikilawyers on the talk page about interpretation of sources. Bringing again and again the same studies will tire out all neutral editors who have better things to do.

No adequate tools to deal with this

The community does not have adequate tools to fend off the above behaviour, so it all depends on individual hard-boiled editors who have to basically kick the POV pushers out of the talk page in unfashionable but effective ways, like I had to do myself here and here, so they won't scare neutral editors out of the page.

The real point of this case: are cold fusion's walled-gardens representative of scientific consensus or are they fringe

Mind you, Pcarbonn is way lees disruptive than Dana, and he actually raises good points: should the peer-reviewed meta-reviews published at journals where only cold fusion proponents edit be considered reliable sources? Can they be used to indicate scientific consensus or are they just walled gardens that should be considered as fringe sources? See Vesal's statement for a better explanation.

The problem will solve itself by clarifying if we take walled-gardens seriously as part of mainstream scientific consensus, or if we take them as a fringe escission from consensus.

Note: Cold fusion is probably just one of the scientific disciplines where the walled gardens are bigger and more reputable-looking, that's why it has reached arbitration first. I suppose that more will pop up over time, although I can't pin-point a specific field.

Evidence presented by Pcarbonn

Published reliable sources on the subject indicate an ongoing scientific controversy

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability#Reliable_sources says "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers".

Here is what the most reliable sources say according to this ranking and WP:PSTS:

1a secondary reputable peer-reviewed papers:

Favorable : Biberian, Jean-Paul (2007), "Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (Cold Fusion): An Update" (PDF), International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology '3 (1): 31–43, doi:doi:10.1504%2FIJNEST.2007.012439,

1b books published in University press:

Negative: Park, Robert (2000), Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud, New York: Oxford University Press, ISBN 0-19-513515-6

Favorable: Marwan, Jan and Krivit, Steven B., editors (2008), Low energy nuclear reactions sourcebook, American Chemical Society/Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-8412-6966-8

Favorable: Storms, Edmund (2007), Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction: A Comprehensive Compilation of Evidence and Explanations, Singapore: World Scientific, ISBN 9-8127062-0-8

1c primary reputable peer-reviewed papers:

Too many to cite, even if we limit ourselves to the top third of journals by impact factor. Mix of favorable and skeptical articles. See bibliography in our article, or D. Britz bibliography.

Less reliable sources also indicate an ongoing controversy. See Ranking of sources per reliability. The author of the leading skeptic book, Bob Park, recently said that 'there are some curious reports - not cold fusion, but people may be seeing some unexpected low-energy nuclear reactions'. This was published in Chemistry world, i.e. not a journal dedicated to cold fusion.

Favorable articles have been published in reputable peer-reviewed journals that are not dedicated to cold fusion

The peer-reviewed journals that have published favorable articles on cold fusion are not dedicated to cold fusion, and are not at the bottom of the Impact Factor list, but in the top third or better, overall or within their category. These are further indication that the scientific controversy is ongoing. Here is what I found on the ISI website with some links to articles:

• Natuurwissenchaften: 7th among 50 journals in the MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES category. Impact factor: 1.955
• International Journal of Hydrogen: 8th among 32 journals in the PHYSICS, ATOMIC, MOLECULAR & CHEMICAL. Impact factor: 2.725
• Surface & Coatings technology: 31st among 94 journals in PHYSICS, APPLIED. Impact factor: 1.678
• Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry: 21st among 70 journals in CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL. Impact factor: 2.580

The lowest impact factor of these, 1.678, is in the 2291st place overall, just a shade below one third overall (6417 journals in total --> 1/3 = 2139) So, these journals should be seen as reliable and notable enough for wikipedia. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is the 💕 that anyone can edit

"Misplaced Pages is written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world." "Visitors do not need specialized qualifications to contribute, since their primary role is to write articles that cover existing knowledge; this means that people of all ages and cultural and social backgrounds can write Misplaced Pages articles."

"Misplaced Pages is not a paper encyclopedia; there is no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover, or the total amount of content, other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." "Some topics are covered by print encyclopedias only in short, static articles; however, because Misplaced Pages does not require paper, we can include more information, provide more external links, update more quickly, and so on."

"Content hosted in Misplaced Pages is not Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view." "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias."

I have always encouraged the writing of a section on the controversy itself

The to-do list for cold fusion includes "add a summary from the "philosophy of science" perspective, e.g based on Lewenstein (p. 13-18)", a point which I have added myself.. Lewenstein looks at the controversy on cold fusion to find out how science is actually practised.

As User:Eubulides says below, the literature about the cold fusion controversy is separate from the scientific litterature on cold fusion, and provides a different, usefull perspective on the sociological aspects of this scientific topic, and of how science is practised. Having not read this literature in detail, I do not feel qualified to write such a summary. I do know however that the demarcation problem between science and non-science is not resolved, and that the literature on the cold fusion controversy is similarly equivocal. In my view, there is no basis for the view that the sociological controversy should be presented but the scientific one shouldn't. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Greg L

I used to design PEM fuel cells and am a named inventor on many patents in the technology, (my involvement outlined here). I also wrote much of our Thermodynamic temperature article and have some facility with thermal kinetics. I can speak from an engineering point of view to the current state of affairs regarding cold fusion. I believe the Physics World Mar 1, 1999 article, Whatever happened to cold fusion? should be considered as the paradigm example of a reliable source with regard to cold fusion and should serve as the template for Misplaced Pages to use in setting the tone and summarizing the current state of affairs on the subject. It is troubling to me that scientists often can’t reproduce certain cold fusion experiments and, even when they do, the reactions disappear in a few days. This state of affairs bears many of the hallmarks of the polywater fiasco, where trace contamination by human sweat was ultimately found to be the culprit. Unless and until there is a breakthrough development in cold fusion that drastically and convincingly changes the status quo, anyone with a consistent pattern of editing on our Cold fusion article that has the effect of ennobling cold fusion and giving the field greater credibility than would be supported by the Physics World article should be considered as editing against the consensus. And a refusal to conform with that consensus view should be considered as disruptive.

I find, based on my review of others’ statements regarding Pcarbonn’s past behavior and based on my brief interaction with him here on his talk page, that he is an advanced amateur with no first-hand experience in cold fusion. He says he has spoken with researchers, which I believe, but given the current state of affairs, those who are currently working on cold fusion should be considered as operating on the fringes of science (“out in left field” in many cases). The evidence for Pcarbonn’s basic grasp of scientific fundamentals at this point is sketchy and elusive so I have little to go on, but I find his arguments for being pro-CF to be less than persuasive.

It is my personal believe that if Pcarbonn does not quickly conform to the basic desires of those who have brought this complaint, that he be quickly and decisively dealt with. Greg L (talk) 22:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Eubulides

Cold fusion is considered fringe by the mainstream scientific community

I searched Google Scholar for peer-reviewed literature about the cold fusion controversy (as opposed to the scientific literature on cold fusion itself), and found that the articles uniformly considered cold fusion to be fringe. Here are all the recent sources I found that devoted a substantial amount of space to the topic:

• Labinger JA, Weininger SJ (2005). "Controversy in chemistry: how do you prove a negative?—the cases of phlogiston and cold fusion". Angew Chem Int Ed Engl. 44 (13): 1916–22. doi:10.1002/anie.200462084. So there matters stand: no cold fusion researcher has been able to dispel the stigma of 'pathological science' by rigorously and reproducibly demonstrating effects sufficiently large to exclude the possibility of error (for example, by constructing a working power generator), nor does it seem possible to conclude unequivocally that all the apparently anomalous behavior can be attributed to error.
• Little M (2006). "Expressing freedom and taking liberties: the paradoxes of aberrant science". Med Humant. 32 (1): 32–7. doi:10.1136/jmh.2004.000205. It took two years for the cold fusion episode to be laid to rest. There are still scientists and technology companies that retain an interest in the Pons and Fleischman work. Eventually, it was decided that what Pons and Fleischman had achieved was no more than a variation of a well known phenomenon, which could not be scaled up to provide a usable energy source.
• Ackermann E (2006). "Indicators of failed information epidemics in the scientific journal literature: a publication analysis of Polywater and Cold Nuclear Fusion". Scientometrics. 66 (3): 451–65. doi:10.1007/s11192-006-0033-0. The epidemic rate of growth is ultimately unsustainable however and dies out once the initial discovery fails to be confirmed or is otherwise found wanting by the scientific community. Two of the more famous examples of unsuccessful information epidemics are Polywater and Cold Nuclear Fusion.

I also found a review of a university-press book that might be helpful, though I have read only the book review, not the book itself. Here's the citation to the book review:

• Yang A (2006). "Science or Pseudoscience: Magnetic Healing, Psychic Phenomena, and Other Heterodoxies ". Nova Religio. 9 (3): 133–4. doi:10.1525/nr.2006.9.3.133. Part Two is more empirical, and focuses on what are often called 'pathological sciences' such as research into N rays, polywater, and cold fusion ('pathological' because these have been dismissed by mainstream science) ...

and here is the book:

• Bauer HH (2004). Science or Pseudoscience: Magnetic Healing, Psychic Phenomena, and Other Heterodoxies. University of Illinois Press. ISBN 0-252-07216-2.

Eubulides (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by ScienceApologist

Please contact me through my e-mail

There are a great many users of this encyclopedia that absolutely hate my advocacy of WP:MAINSTREAM. As such, I prefer to speak with arbitrators directly regarding my evidence of the larger problems surrounding this case.

Why it comes to this

I think what has happened is that Misplaced Pages, as a community, is inconsistent in the application of its own content standards. Nor does it want to adopt more rigorous standards (like, say, Misplaced Pages:Scientific standards). There is a sense in which Pcarbonn is acting "within" policy because there are not systems in place to let him know that his advocacy is problematic other than my continual reminding of this fact. Pcarbonn seems to think that I'm some crazed lunatic who has a vendetta against cold fusion in particular when in fact my agenda (outlined here) is much more general. He dismisses my continued concern, has collected a cadre of like-minded believers, and set-up shop in defiance of WP:OWN because he thinks that I'm the one who is being disruptive. The community does not let him know otherwise and the hemming and hawing evident at all the threads started at various places over this matter only reinforces Pcarbonn's steely resolve. More than this, he was rewarded with a mediation decision that effectively disenfranchised mainstream treatment of cold fusion as a subject, led by a rather incompetent mediator who made him feel like Wikiepdia would accomodate him to whatever ends he so desired. He was so uplifted by this and so confident of his own righteousness that he wrote about it at NewEnergyTimes not anticipating the he may have been way overstepping his mandate.

In a nutshell: Misplaced Pages tolerates POV-pushing to the point where those engaging in it come to believe that Misplaced Pages is a place where they can defy WP:MAINSTREAM. It happens in the following articles:

• homeopathy
• water fluoridation controversy
• aspartame controversy
• chiropractic
• alternative medicine
• List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts
• Parapsychology
• Psychic
• Chemtrail conspiracy theory
• Pseudoskepticism
• Satanic ritual abuse
• Bates method
• near death experience
• intelligent design
• plasma cosmology
• UFO
• List of UFO sightings
• astrology

and on and on and on...

Evidence presented by Olorinish

I have edited the cold fusion page and its talk page many times over the past 1.5 years (sometimes as 209.253.120.204, 209.253.120.158, 209.253.120.198, or 209.253.120.205, before I decided to log in for every edit), and have disagreed with Pcarbonn on many issues.

Like many others, I support a temporary topic ban on Pcarbonn editing the cold fusion page because of his frequent POV-pushing (see examples below).

I do not think his comments about "winning the battle of cold fusion" should carry any weight. Misplaced Pages authorities should judge editors on the quality of their edits and their arguments, not their opinions.

In contrast, I do not support a ban on Pcarbonn editing the cold fusion talk page. I believe he honestly wants to improve wikipedia, and I think[REDACTED] should establish a precedent that editors will not be banned from discussing articles because they make poor edits. The way to counteract POV problems is to increase the number of editors looking at an issue, not limit it. Olorinish (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Pcarbonn has pushed the pro-cold fusion POV

Regarding two articles he wanted to mention:

When describing "replication" of cold fusion:

Comment on Pcarbonn's section on pro-CF articles in respected journals

I think people should be aware that none of the four journals Pcarbonn mentioned above frequently report on the field of nuclear reactions, or fields close to it. The "multidisciplinary" Natuurwissenchaften reports almost exclusively on biology topics. Olorinish (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Evidence presented by JzG

Pcarbonn is a "mission poster"

Pcarbonn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has admitted both here in an external forum that his goal on Misplaced Pages is to change the thrust of the article on cold fusion to better reflect what is without question a minority view. This minority is reasonably well organised and has its "house journal", New Energy Times, in which advocacy is evident specifically in respect of the Misplaced Pages article: Pcarbonn explicitly sees this as a "battle": and sees that he has "won" the battle, which is an accurate perception, the two main problems being that (a) he should not have brought the battle her ein the first place and (b) the battle is to violate core policy so should not have been won.

A review of his contributions will sow little if any involvement outside of the area of cold fusion, i.e. Pcarbonn is a single purpose account.

The mainstream view

Physics Today is mainstream and discussions there largely reflect the mainstream view. shows that before the DoE review people were fair (as was the WP article). Note the lead tot hat article: "Whether outraged or supportive about DOE's planned reevaluation of cold fusion, most scientists remain deeply skeptical that it's real". Example:

"The critical question is, How good and different are new results?" says Allen Bard, a chemist at the University of Texas at Austin. "If they are saying, 'We are now able to reproduce our results,' that's not good enough. But if they are saying, 'We are getting 10 times as much heat out now, and we understand things,' that would be interesting. I don't see anything wrong with giving these people a new hearing." In ERAB's cold fusion review in 1989, he adds, "there were phenomena described to us where you could not offer alternative, more reasonable explanations. You could not explain it away like UFOs."

— DoE Warms To Cold Fusion, Physics Today, April 2004

But the DoE report clearly showed that the necessary condition we understand things is not met. This is the main finding of the DoE review, to my reading, that without getting the basic science right and proposing a credible mechanism by which the effect can work, they will not get what they want.

How did the mainstream Physics Today cover the hotly contended issue of the DoE review? The same author wrote as follows:

Claims of cold fusion are no more convincing today than they were 15 years ago. That's the conclusion of the Department of Energy's fresh look at advances in extracting energy from low-energy nuclear reactions. A report released on 1 December 2004 echoes DOE's 1989 study that followed the headline-making claims of cold fusion by Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann.

— Cold Fusion Gets Chilly Encore, Physics Today January 2005

Now, I would invite the arbitrators to review the current article and Pcarbonn's contributions and see how consistent they are, on the specific issue of the interpretation of the DoE review, with that mainstream (read: pro-WP:NPOV) interpretation. That is, I think, the crucial issue here. As an aside, I would note that quoting the above paragraph in the article was resisted to an almost hysterical degree by the CF advocates, and indeed this summary of the Physics Today article on the DoE review is not quoted in the article as it stands today.

I would argue that there will be few better sources than Physics Today to give Misplaced Pages a clear idea of how the DoE report (a primary source) was received by the mainstream scientific community and should therefore be described by us. Mainstream sources will only very occasionally revisit fields which have been identified as rejected, unless there is major new work and we (Misplaced Pages) will only know if such changes in view have happened when there are overview articles in mainstream journals which tell us that the dominant view has shifted. Looking at articles by prominent holdouts is actively unhelpful because they are holdouts, their view cannot be held to support or deny the mainstream acceptance of that view. And this is a very common problem in articles on fringe subjects - advocates for the fringe view will pile up huge numbers of quotes from advocates in order to try to swamp the documented fact that the field's dominant thesis is generally regarded as unproven or even outright false.

The crucial questions seem to me to be:

1. Does the Misplaced Pages content square with the fact, documented in an overview article in a mainstream and widely-read journal, that the claims of the cold fusion advocates are "no more convincing today than they were 15 years ago", and is Pcarbonn's editing and advocacy in line with that, as required by WP:UNDUE.
2. Is Pcarbonn using synthesis from primary sources to draw a novel interpretation, that cold fusion is an emergent field of great potential, to offset the documented mainstream view and thereby present cold fusion as a valid alternative of equal stature with the mainstream view, as forbidden by WP:SYN.
3. Has Pcarbonn succeeded in skewing Misplaced Pages content towards a fringe view and away from the mainstream?
4. If so, how do we change the way we work in order to prevent this happening again?

WP:AGF encourages to allow for the fact that Pcarbonn's actions may genuinely be the common misconception that WP is like academic publishing, where you are positively encouraged to draw novel syntheses. If Pierre Carbonnel wrote an overview of the subject in the terms that Pcarbonn writes on Misplaced Pages, this would absolutely not violate the policies and norms of academic writing, whether or not it passed peer review, but it does, in my view violate Misplaced Pages's policies, because on Misplaced Pages we are not subject matter experts and are not, therefore, permitted to give ourselves the role of a peer review panel, only of editors.

WP:TRUTH

Pcarbonn's evidence above is yet another example of asserting WP:TRUTH versus WP:NPOV, arguing his personal interpretation of primary sources (forbidden per WP:NOR) instead of the mainstream view as seen in Physics Today and as documented by the Department of Energy review. Indeed, selective interpretation of the DoE review and advocacy for the use of cherry-picked sentences rather than its high-level overview, was a bone of contention in the arbitration case. In mainstream science, cold fusion falls somewhere between ignored and derided. The article as Pcarbonn rewrote it, largely on his own since his constant argumentation and tens of thousands of words of repetitive argument form primary sources drove away anyone who did not have, as he evidently does, months to spend on this one subject, more or less hides this fact.

This is an arbitration case, arbitration cases do not address content. Instead they address how content is edited, and whether that is in line with our core policies, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V. What Pcarbonn advocates is certainly verifiable, although often from dubious sources (i.e. sources that have a systemic bias towards the field and are nto considered reliable outside of the field). It does not, however, meet the requirements for neutrality, and often skirts (and I would argue crosses) the boundaries of novel synthesis. Note above that he argues from primary sources about the validity of the field, not about how it is received in the mainstream community, whicj is the crucial question here. A look at Remote viewing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) will show that it is perfectly possible to write an article from sources which asserts that it is possible to view objects at a remote site using parapsychological powers. The poblem, of course, is that virtually every scientist in the word will call it nonsense. So we have a large number of sources which are extremely low impact factor, and often walled gardens, versus a small number of very high profile documents that show the field to be pretty much universally ignored. You will not get a paper in Nature saying "cold fusion still unproven", you might get an overview in Physics Today noting that the last review still found significant deficiencies in the basic science. Which is what happened. So counting the number of peer-reviewed CF papers is always going to violate WP:UNDUE and WP:SYN, as an assertion that this somehow amounts to acceptance where no such acceptance can be attributed to a valid authority.

Inadequate controls on missionaries

The core question for arbitration is: does Pcarbonn's involvement serve to promote a neutral point of view, or to move us away from it. Has Pcarbonn's involvement made it easier or harder for Misplaced Pages editors to document a fringe field in ways that make it clear that it is a fringe field, and why, and will his continued involvement be conducive to maintaining that position or will his continued involvement serve to move Misplaced Pages content further away from reflecting the mainstream view. I would say that his influence and actions are and always have been counter-policy. It would, however, be entirely legitimate in another venue such as the letters pages of scientific journals. There is nothing evil about challenging mainstream scientists to think again about a rejected field, but Misplaced Pages is not the place to do it.

Even after it was shown (to my satisfaction) that Pcarbonn is here principally to violate our guidelines in favour of a minority view for which he has sympathy, it was not possible to agree any form of control over that behaviour because he was polite in doing so. Misplaced Pages currently has on effective method to control people who are single-issue obsessives, since those who resist them and support the mainstream tend to have hundreds off separate single-issue obsessives to deal with, leading to burnout. But Pcarbonn is far from the worst offender in this line, other articles have much worse missionaries.

That we have tried and failed to control the issue of long-term civil POV-pushing is obvious, since the problem still exists (hence this arbitration) despite the existence of guidelines such as WP:FRINGE. The history of WP:UNDUE also shows attempts by fringe advocates to change core policy in order to further support their behaviour. Even if ArbCom banishes Pcarbonn to outer darkness, that core problem will not be fixed. It needs to be fixed by giving specific guidance and hopefully teeth. As the homeopathy case shows, the missionaries are becoming expert Wikilawyers as well and will ruthlessly exploit any ambiguity. The Misplaced Pages community, and the admin community, is not homogeneous, and fringe advocacy is a substantial minority view, sufficient in some cases to prevent consensus to enforce core policy. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

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.