Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence

Case focus

As a quick reminder, the focus of the case is to be around the difficulty of maintaining civility and decorum in this highly disputed area of the encyclopedia (fringe scientific or pseudoscientific topics). While the behavior of some editors involved in those areas (in particular, that of ScienceApologist) will be examined, it is not the only concern of the Arbitrators and evidence as to the wider disputes on those articles and the way they have been handled to date will be especially appreciated. — Coren ^(talk) 06:22, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's collaborative editing model simply doesn't work when one editor assumes ownership of multiple articles and turns them all into battlegrounds. It drives away everyone except those who want to do battle. For example, neutral editors become labeled as 'POV-pushers' even in the absence of any evidence of POV-pushing, simply for asking that WP standards of civility and decorum be followed. The chances of achieving a reasonable consensus in such an environment are practically nil. Dlabtot (talk) 18:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

You can look at the tone of comments on the workshop page to start. You can see the attitudes on display there. Folks are unwilling to help each other achieve a common understanding. Instead, there is melee. My actions speak loudly (e.g. Cold fusion, Sadi Carnot, 9/11 enforcement at WP:AE), but look how people reacted to my proposals.Jehochman ^Talk 22:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I see people calmly pointing out legitimate issues with some of your proposals, not a "melee" at all. Proposals should be open to discussion and comment by all. To characterize legitimate discussion and comment in these hyperbolic terms is not helpful. Most of your proposals are being left uncommented; it's only the ones that people see problems with that have been subject to discussion. Surely you're not suggesting that for some reason your proposals should be exempt from comment? Or that making a comment on a proposal is somehow uncivil?Woonpton (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Question regarding evidence

I've left a question at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science/Workshop#.22Attack.22, particularly for users who will present or have presented this evidence. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:37, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Libel and harassment

I want bullshit like this -- "I'm going to get Jim Butler imprisoned for impersonating a medical doctor" -- stricken from the record. While the comment was not entirely serious, it's not the kind of thing that ought to be in search engines, where it can be taken out of context. (And my license to practice is just fine, by the way.) I consider this comment, and other recent actions by SA[1][2], to be harassment (per SA's threat: "I promise to continue to attack others within the bounds of Wikipedia rules without violating POINT or BATTLEGROUND until I see every person I'm in conflict with blocked or banned."[3]. This needs to stop, like right now. --Jim Butler (t) 13:13, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on other matters, Wikipedia and mirrors do not come up in returns. Vassyana (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes they do. --Jim Butler (t) 22:25, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced Jim Butler with "JB" in that quote, with a link to this section. I hope this is OK with everyone. Daniel (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)