Revision as of 23:06, 18 December 2008

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important informationShortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change, or is no longer an administrator; or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Misplaced Pages and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Edit this section for new requests

Tag-teams

Is it acceptable for editors to tag-team to get round 1RR, viz. Domer48 and Big Dunc? , , Mooretwin (talk) 02:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Mooretwin, I have advised you several times to drop the tag team accusations, or if you absolutely had to bring them up yet again, do so in the context of the ongoing ArbCom case (with DIFFS that show that they're tag teaming you, not just that they both disagree with you). If you do this again, I will block you for personal attacks. SirFozzie (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought this was the ongoing ArbCom case. This is where you directed me. I'm really confused now. Mooretwin (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let me try again. See where I posted my evidence towards you? (http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ireland_article_names/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_SirFozzie) is the URL, is a direct link. That's the ArbCom case dealing with the Ireland naming dispute (and the conduct of the editors IN that naming dispute). I suggest you post the evidence there (in your own section). SirFozzie (talk) 02:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, SirFozzie was not the only person who pointed you to the relevant page during your latest dispute about capitalization of Site of Special Scientific Interest, Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and others (see User talk:Mooretwin, User talk:Ddstretch and User talk:SirFozzie): I did.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I was pointed to the wrong page by both of you. Hence the confusion. Eventually Sir Fozzie directed me to the correct page. Mooretwin (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm coming in mostly cold on this one. As far as I can see from RFAR: The Troubles,

Domer48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on a topic 1RR

Mooretwin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is on a normal 1RR.

If so, they have both broken their existing editing restrictions and should be issued editing holidays.
On the 14th, Domer reverted Mooretwin on Northern Ireland and Sinn Féin; and on the 11th, Domer reverted Mooretwin a whole raft of articles.
User:SheffieldSteel blocked user:Mooretwin for a week at 14:11, 16 December 2008; this hasnt been logged on the RFAR log.
John Vandenberg 03:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

At the time of the block, I was aware of the article probation but not of any restrictions on the individual editors. I will make a note in the log. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I like to point out to John Vandenberg I am not on any 1RR and that it the articles that are on 1RR. I have not breeched the 1RR. I've checked out the Northern Ireland article and no there is no breech of 1RR. I have now checked my edits for the 11th, and again no breech of 1RR. Could John Vandenberg possibly be mixing 1RR with 0RR? Thanks, --Domer48_'fenian' 19:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Domer is no longer on any specific restrictions following a number of threads and actions, I will update the log momentarily.--Tznkai (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Domer; I did know that this situation was more complex than the already complex log indicates, which is why I posted here and didnt act on it. ;-) John Vandenberg 22:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Tznkai for that, I hope that will clarify things for editors. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please have a word with Mooretwin, despite the above warning and a week block for edit warring and engaging in personal attacks, they insist on using their talk page now to attack editors. They have made accusations against two admins, who have tried to reason with them, and have ignored all advice and warnings. From here down on their talk page is a litany of abuse, blocks and warnings, a number of which they have removed. This report here resulted in the one week block. The conduct has been raised here on a current ArbCom case, and this case here at AE. All I want is the name calling to stop, and to get on with editing. I have in the recent past asked that Mooretwin, not be blocked for the edit warring and breech of AE sanctions. I have asked and tried to be reasonable when asking them no to make accusations. I've placed warnings on their page, and it has been suggested that I go to AE here, by an Admin who has bent over backwards to help. I really don't want to have to go there, and every one who know me knows why, so all I'm asking for is that someone have a word and try to reason with them, before their block expires. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 21:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm one of the two admins who am probably too involved now to be a fair judge of what to do with Mooretwin, but let me say this. Mooretwin has racked up five or six edit-warring blocks in less then four months (First one was August 29th, latest one was the 16th of this month), and attacks other editors habitually. The last block was for edit warring personal attacks back on to multiple pages. This is his second one week block. At some point, we need to inform him he's on a LAST chance, and then lengthen the blocks if the behaviour doesn't improve. SirFozzie (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

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 , this John Vandenberg 02:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Also tackled at Misplaced Pages:ANI#User:Sockofadix_is_User:Fadix_evading_one_year_block. and User_talk:Jpgordon#Sockofadix. John Vandenberg 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)

Well we could just make him happy and make it indefinite. If he wants to come back in a year we can then just unblock him. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Enough is enough. Indeffed. --jpgordon 07:23, 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", 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 " is mainly a display of ignorance, not bias.", clutters the talk page history with useless OR (42 of last 100 edits as of 01:52, 10 December 2008, counting also Sinebot because he doesn't see the point of signing even after being asked nicely by several editors), when menaced with arbitration discrectionary sanctions 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 Misplaced Pages article with the fag end of a barge poll, nor would any scientist I know" 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.

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):

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.

1. "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
2. "engages into lenghthy OR discussions"
   • i.e. corrects misinformation / fallacy (before it finds its way into the article)
3. "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.
4. "...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.
5. "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.
6. "forces other editors to engage into more OR to disproof his misrepresentations"
   • I have yet to see any editor "disprove" his "misrepresentations".
7. "promotes his own website as the alpha an omega of cold fusion sourcing"
   • false on its face
8. uses the page as a WP:SOAPBOX
   • As far as I'm aware, he hasn't made any edits to the article whatsoever.
9. "claims that " 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.
10. clutters the talk page history
    • Oh no!!
11. (counting also Sinebot because he refuses to sign)
    • etiquette. but i do agree it's getting kind of old.
12. "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 Baas 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 Baas 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! 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 Baas 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 Baas 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)

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 , or they erased it and published fake results" 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 Baas 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.

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", 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 Baas 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 Baas 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 . 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)

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 () 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 Baas 20:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my bad, the correct diff is . 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 Baas 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 Baas 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 Baas 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 Baas 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 Baas 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. 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 . 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 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.

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 will talk about shooting Scientologists, getting arrested, right ... no sorry, sorry ." 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 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 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 16:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Bah, they look like links to be avoided. I've taken them out. Jehochman 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages:BLP#External_links, Misplaced Pages:BLP#Criticism_and_praise and Misplaced Pages:BLP#Reliable_sources with a fine-toothed comb, and then look at Misplaced Pages: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)

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 19:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)