Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Workshop

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. It provides for suggestions by Arbitrators and other users and for comment by arbitrators, the parties and others. After the analysis of /Evidence here and development of proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies, Arbitrators will vote at /Proposed decision.. Anyone who edits should sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they have confidence in on /Proposed decision.

Motions and requests by the parties

Requesting evidence of pseudoscience

1) Can I request specific evidence (ie. article Diffs) to substantiate claims in their orginal statements, that I push or promote pseudoscience inappropriately, from (a) ScienceApologist [1] (b) FeloniousMonk [2] [3] [4] (c) Guettarda [5] (d) Joke137 [6] --Iantresman 13:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This request refers to a statement by me that is misrepresented by Ian. --ScienceApologist 22:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Not needed and somewhat confrontational. Best if each party puts down your evidence and proposals as needed. Arb com can go from there. FloNight 00:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Requesting confirmation of expertise from ScienceApologist

1) I note in your introductory statement that you described yourself a "mainstream expert"[7], while describing me as a "nonscientist layman" [8], and an "admitted non-expert and non-scientist" [9], and one of the "editors who champion pseudoscience"[10]. You also note that "the scientific community defers to its expert members for evaluation of controversy"[11], and JBKramer suggest that "[Eric] Lerner .. is likley not 'an expert in physics.' .. He does [not] have 'a doctoral degree.'"[12].

Under the circumstances, perhaps you would confirm your statements, that you are "a professor of physics" [13], and confirm your doctorate? --Iantresman 18:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

At some point Ian Tresman's continued disruption of this workshop page is going to get him blocked regardless of the outcome of this case. JBKramer 18:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right, this is not relevent to Arbitration. Question removed. --Iantresman 21:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Requesting determination of inclusion

1) The article is about Plasma cosmology. By definition the material should be about plasma cosmology, correct? Why should the Plasma Cosmology article be about/derived from/compared to the Big Bang article? Such a comparison would be perfect in an article called "Cosmology", or even non-standard cosmologies, but big bang has no place in Plasma cosmology. Just like classical music is not expected to be included in the Rock n Roll article. Seems to me that in the plasma cosmology article undue weight would apply to those aspects of plasma science which differ in significance. The old view and the new view for example. So exactly where are the boundries of inclusion of determinants of undue weight? Does undue/due weight apply ALSO to comparisons to subject matter from outside the plasma cosmology domain? Where does it stop?Tommy Mandel 06:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

2)Is my earnest striving to "disrupt" the actual POV editors, who consider only their evidence, in order to maintain the honesty and integrity of Wikipedia a violation of Wikipedia policy? (If that is so, then I do not belong here.)

Tommy Mandel 00:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

3) Why is it that all of us are allowed to beat down plasma science to the status of a fringe theory, but we are admonished not to point out big bang flaws because we are only amateurs" If this case is not about content, then how did plasma cosmology content become fringe science, and big bang science become unassailable?

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It's very simple. The article is about Plasma cosmology. The big bang group is not helping the article by interjecting their obviously biased viewpoint of (an alternative) plasma cosmology into the article which is titled and serves to explain plasma cosmology. The big bang group, and groups do exist, on the grand scale, is destroying the integrity of Wikipedia

Tommy Mandel 00:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

to 3): Plasma cosmology (plasma science is a red herring) is promoted by amateurs and a very few professionals, hence it's fringe science. Big Bang theory is led by professionals. Each is best debated on its own terms. Art LaPella 21:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Knowledge is nowhere discontinuous. In a comprehensive article on rock and roll, of course you need to talk about the effects of classical music have actively had on rock and roll, which at the most extreme has led rock and roll to be played in a classical style and for rock and roll bands to play with classical orcherstras. But classical music was not an immediate influence on the development of rock and roll, nor is one musical form true and the others not. As an immediate ancestor of the plasma cosmology theory, and a dominant theory that conflicts with plasma cosmology, of course it needs to be mentioned in the plasma cosmology article.--Prosfilaes 14:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I find your phrasing "In a comprehensive article on rock and roll, of course you need to talk about the effects of classical music" spot-on, as it indicates due weight. Only a fraction of that rock-and-roll article would discuss classical music. Harald88 23:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

May I say something? The article is about plasma cosmology. It is not about various non-standard cosmologies which of course would include all significant cosmologies. Well, according to the cosmology article editor, "big bang is not argued, it is presupposed." If that is how it is, so why not plasma cosmology presupposed in the plasma cosmology article?

[Back to margin.] Tommy Mandel is showing a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's mission. The mainstream scientific theory is what we should be presenting as such in all articles. Wikipedia is a reference work, not some sort of media outlet that misguidedly thinks it has to give "equal time" to all sides. That said, the main focus in an article on a fringe theory should simply be to describe the theory (while making clear that it is a fringe theory). Metamagician3000 05:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

How then, is NPOV applicable? Isn't a determination of mainstream made by wikieditors a violation of NPOV which states that we should not be introducing a POV?

Exactly, in the plasma cosmology article mainstream plasma cosmology should be presented, correct? In the cosmology article, plasma cosmology deserves only appropriate mention. So why doesn't this rule apply to big bang when it is cited in the plasma cosmology article? Deserving only appropriate mention?

If I undersrtand you correctly, then all religious articles should be written from the POV of the mainstream religion...Does that really make sense to you?

Tommy Mandel 18:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed temporary injunctions

Restrict the Plasma cosmology article to edits about plasma cosmology.

1) At a glance, the plasma cosmology article should be about plasma cosmology, not about how the big bang has more popular explanations.

Tommy Mandel 00:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Restrict big bang editors from editing plasma cosmology.

1) One way of dealing with this "problem", and precedent setting situation, is to let the plasma cosmology editors edit the article as they wish for a period of thirty days. At that time, the big bang side can edit a criticism section as they wish. And see what happens?

Test us!

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It is possible to make a huge mistake merely by trying to maintain the status quo. It is also possible to make huge changes at Wikipedia merely by being insightful.

Comment by others:

Restrict big bang editors to a section

1) Combining comments, If the plasma cosmology article must mention "alternatives" why not do it as a section? Why not let the plasma cosmogists edit their plasma cosmology article, and let the big bang edit their big bang section within plasma cosmology, and see what happens?

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Iantresman, Rednblu and Tomysun restricted

1) For continued disruption to this workshop page, Iantresman, Rednblu and Tomymandel are enjoined from any further edits to the page. They may only make edits to the workshop page if such edit is approved of by any arbiter or clerk.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

For your consideration. JBKramer 21:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is how they think. Because I am presenting good evidence, they must find a way to get rid of me. It is no diferent in the article. The big bang editors seem to believe that the plasma cosmology article should be about the big bang cosmology. And therefore, when a plasma cosmology edit is undertaken, it is considered disruptive if it does not support the perceived position of the big bang cosmology. Why would plasma cosmology be expected to conform with the big bang hypothesis? Why should the plasma cosmology article be written in relations to the big bang theory?

Comment by others:

Disagree. Some of their comments seem ill-advised and unhelpful, but I think we should all show them a bit of latitude as long as they are civil (which they mostly are). It's important that their understanding of the situation be presented and understood. In some cases, Tommymandel in particular shows a misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is all about, but I don't want to gag him. Metamagician3000 05:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with MM3. If their comments fail to help their cause; that is their problem. --EngineerScotty 18:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

In a post graduate University of Illinois course in information science, according to my daughter, the class considers Wikipedia a "social phenomenon and not a reliable source of information" that should not be allowed in the classroom.

My understanding of this situation, is that certain editors are circumventing NPOV in order to edit in their own POV. An encyclopedia should be written so as to present all meaningful evidence in such a way that the reader can become competant enough to decide for himself.

And isn't it obvious that the subject material should be about the subject matter?

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Edit warring considered harmful

1) Edit warring is considered harmful. When disagreements arise, users are expected to discuss their differences rationally rather than reverting ad infinitum. The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to three reverts, nor does it endorse reverts as an editing technique.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Of course, But..:

• Perhaps the exemption in 3RR on "Reverting potentially libellous material" could be clarified, where it says it does "not apply to users making a good-faith effort to enforce this provision". (my emphasis)
• Perhaps the description in WP:LIVING could also be clarified, ie. "Editors should remove any controversial material about living persons.. or is a conjectural interpretation of a source .. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked." (my emphasis) --Iantresman 20:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Good faith efforts to remove material should not be confused with the repeated removal of sourced material or non-sourced uncontroversal material that are critical of the subject. --FloNight 04:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The Plasma Cosmology article is written as if it were an addon to the big bang article. It does not include any of the nuances of Plasma Cosmology because the big bang editors have removed them, Tommy Mandel 04:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Basic and applicable. --FloNight 17:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm.. To make it practically applicable in the sense that FloNight interprets it, it should be somewhat modified: If first of all one editorremoves properly sourced and pertinent material, another editor should not be punished for reverting one time more than the first editor (just do your math!) in an attempt to protect the article. Or, to put it differently: Such simple revert rules are indifferent about the subject of removal of properly sourced and pertinent material. Harald88 21:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No, reverting is not helpful as you describe it at all. It is edit warring. It is clear from WP:BLP that 3RR applies except for a very narrow exception to remove controversial poorly sourced or unsourced content. If someone reverts negative material back into the article they might be blocked. This exception is not meant to aid experienced users in edit warring to their prefered version to reinsert noncontroversial material. FloNight 05:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. We seem to agree but express it differently. The 3RV rule is not helpful for making the distinction you discuss here above: it can't help protect against the removal of pertinent material. Harald88 11:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

That was not the intent of my comment. I was highlighting the difference between good faith efforts to remove potentialy defamatory material with the repeated removal of sourced material that is critical of the subject. In the second instance discussion on the talk page is always needed. The BLP exception to 3RR does not apply. FloNight 12:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[Back to margin.] Support proposal. Metamagician3000 05:03, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy

2) Users are expected to be reasonably courteous to each other. This becomes even more important when disputes arise. See Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks, and Wikipedia:Wikiquette.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Do we need to include in these policies, the implication from WP:LIVING that we extend this courtesty to living people "These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages"[14]? So calling a controversial scientist a "pseudoscientist", "woo-woo", "out-and-out insane", etc, would be prohibited, though commenting on a third party source with these description might not be? --Iantresman 20:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It is the conduct of the editors that brings us here. They are big bang editors who will not allow Plasma cosmology editors to write a good article on plasma cosmology. Isn't that vested interest?

Tommy Mandel 04:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This proposal is about editor conduct towards each other. Editor conduct is the main focus of arbitration cases not article content. FloNight 03:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My comment had nothing to do with content, but conduct towards living people. Lerner was insulted before he became and editor. Calling other living people by the names above, is not going to encourage them to become editors. --Iantresman 09:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Essential to avoid adding heat instead of light to discussions. --FloNight 17:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Support. Metamagician3000 05:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Interpretation of policy

3) When Wikipedia policies conflict they should be interpreted in the light of the purpose of the project, creating a useful, up-to-date, and accurate reference work.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

How can an accurate article on Plasma cosmologists be written by the big bang group?Tommy Mandel 04:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actions speak louder than words. A group of editors act as if they are big bang supporters trying to help the plasma cosmology editors improve their article...Isn't there something wrong with this scenario?

Tommy Mandel

Yes in principle "it shouldn't matter what view the author holds" because he will not let his beliefs influence his editing. But what really happens is this, as published by Wikipedia in the article called cosmology --[[15]] ...

"This discipline, which focuses on the Universe as it exists on the largest scales and at the earliest times, begins with the big bang,"

Remember the article is cosmology which is a general term for all cosmologies. Perhaps this is a mistake. So how productive has it been when we don't recognize groups pushing a POV? Is there anything wrong with the big bang group tearing the plasma cosmology to pieces in their effort to help? When does right become wrong? Or can admins do, as one wiki admin stated, "as they damn well please?"Tommy Mandel 00:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This issue is easily cleared up. The sentence cited is not in the introductory paragraph, but in the section titled "Disciplines". The antecedent of the pronoun "this" is not cosmology in general, but only "physical cosmology". This distortion is either terminally sloppy or dishonest to the core, and I would like to offer it as evidence of Tommy Mandel pushing his POV. --Art Carlson 08:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

THe issue was cleared up by me who added "theory" after big bang. It has since been changed again this time saying "it is generally understood..." I don't understand how assuming that physical cosmology applies to the scientific explanation is ternminally sloppy or dishonest to the core, can you explain? If stating that the big bang is a theory is a POV then I am guily. Although if you ask me saying that "begins with the big bang" leaving the theory qualification out is pushing a point of view. But this demonstrates how they work, valid objections are met with counter attacks, not civil discussion.

Since you ask, I have no objection if you want to try to improve the formulation of that sentence. The sloppiness or dishonesty, whichever it was, starts with your emphatic statements

Remember the article is cosmology which is a general term for all cosmologies."

and

To recap, the article titled "cosmology" states in the beginning of it "This discipline...begins with the big bang..."

although you damn well knew (dishonesty), or should have known (sloppiness), that that sentence certainly did not refer to cosmology in general. --Art Carlson 07:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I know how to read Art. Of course I knew it applied to physical cosmology. The point to be grasped is that the big bang is a theory, so it should read "This discipline begins with the big bang theory. By leaving out "theory" the big bang become a presupposed fact of life. The way it was written implied that physical cosmology is the big bang. Is that true? Tommy Mandel 05:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, is it true Art? Is physical cosmology the big bang? Or is the big bang theory only one of many possible theories?

Since you knew it applied to physical cosmology, then it was not sloppiness but dishonesty. You cited a sentence referring to physical cosmology, and your commentary on it unambiguously implied that it referred to cosmology in general. --Art Carlson 20:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Art Carlson that a fringe theory needn't be mentioned in the second paragraph of the cosmology article, and I agree about dishonesty from Tommy, but I don't understand how this issue is an example of dishonesty from Tommy. Omitting the word "physical" isn't dishonest unless it significantly distorts the truth. In the context of the cosmology article, physical cosmology is distinguished from metaphysical and esoteric cosmology. Given those choices, plasma cosmology is classified as a physical cosmology. Therefore we may honestly ask why cosmology is said to start with the Big Bang and not with other physical cosmologies, without dwelling on the irrelevant adjective "physical" - although a more honest debater might be quicker to recognize the answer to that question: plasma cosmology is a fringe theory. Art LaPella 21:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you read my comment above, starting with "Since you ask"? The "significant distorsion of the truth" is following the quote "This discipline, ... begins with the big bang," with the comment "Remember the article is cosmology which is a general term for all cosmologies.", and in another place "To recap, the article titled "cosmology" states in the beginning of it 'This discipline...begins with the big bang...'". How can you read that without thinking, Wow, somebody is really pushing the scientific POV if they don't even allow a place for the religous creation myths? Not until I went there to fix it did I realize that the sentence was simply a very terse summary of physical cosmology. The sentence might still be improved upon, but it is not the blatant POV-pushing that Tommy would like us to believe. (It is possible that I am so fed up with Tommy for many reasons that I am not capable of discovering a charitable interpretation of his comments. If you can, more power to you. I will leave my comments as evidence for the arbitrators to use as they see fit and drop the subject now.) --Art Carlson 11:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Following is a statement by an anonomous editors found on the history page of the cosmology article.

(Redundant. Current physical cosmology does not *argue* for the big bang, it presupposes it.)

Is this how wikipedia works?

Comment by others:

Proposed. Each Wikipedia science article and biography needs to be an useful, up-to-date, accurate reference work. --FloNight 17:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a basic principle of Wikipedia that using WP:NPOV it shouldn't matter what view the author holds. While many Wikipedia authors have clear POVs that influence their writings, viewing authors as a block as the Big Bang group isn't productive to good Wikipedia editing.--Prosfilaes 14:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, there is absolutely nothing wrong with people who believe the Big Bang theory is correct improving the Plasma Cosmology article. In practice, when people are working together well, points of disagreement should be cleaned up to NPOV status by peaceful discussions on the talk page.--Prosfilaes 15:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

In principle yes, you are correct. But in practice they do not improve the article, they rip it to pieces leaving behind a pitiful skeleton. Here is an examle of how I was introduced to your so called peaceful discussions.

"SA, in my view, you are obviously anti-plasma" : User:Tommysun,

"in my view you are obviously an incompetent editor who knows very little about the subjects on which you are trying to inject a POV based not on verifiable fact or Wikipedia style guide or policies but on your own prejudices. No one here is "anti-plasma". No one here denies plasma exists. You seem to have some warped view over what exactly the controversy is, but I welcome you to explain your edits rather than heading off on such tangents. By the way, you should keep your paranoid conspiracies regarding the Big Bang gang to yourself. It makes you sound a bit fanatical." --ScienceApologist 13:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently no one is concerned about that behavoir.

Tommy Mandel 15:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Any such concern should be directed against the flamewar that erupted when Tommy first showed up, rather than focusing on a specific flame. Art LaPella 17:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ban for disruption

4) Users who disrupt editing by aggressive biased (tendentious) editing or other disruptive behavior may be banned from affected articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Is removal of verifiable and sourced information which does not support the mainstream theory aggressive bias or is it doing a good job for the team?

Tommy Mandel 04:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Chronic biased editing in the form of repeatedly introducing fringe science or psuedoscience into articles and claiming it is mainstream science is disruptive and causes articles to remain in an unstable form and not be an useful, up-to-date accurate reference work. FloNight 18:12, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Factual comment:

Due to a for me unknown cause, the above comment copies an error that is diffused by some people such as ScienceApologist. The error is the confusion between fringe science which is a minority scientific POV, and pseudoscience which is an unscientific POV. According to WP:NPOV, notable minority scientific POV's of a subject must be included in a scientific article about it, while such is obviously not the case for pseudoscientific POV's. Thus, for this discussion it is essential not to confuse such matters. Harald88 21:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Harald88, I listed both because there is a difference between the two concepts. It is against NPOV, V, and NOR policy to misrepresent either one in science articles as a accepted science when it is not. FloNight 09:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

FloNight, some people here misunderstand the meaning of "Fringe science", as also other editors here emphasized. Your use of the term is erroneous, as fringe science is accepted science by definition (note that "science" and "theory" are different things). Please see the definition in the article Fringe science. Harald88 21:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[Back to margin.] I agree with the spirit of FloNight's proposal. However, I don't think this dispute is really about pseudoscience at all. It is about fringe scientific theories, in the sense of theories that may be accepted as products of scientific practice, but are not generally accepted (even provisionally) as correct by the relevant body of expert opinion. The main problem is that some proponents of such theories want them to be given what is, objectively speaking, undue prominence in articles on relevant mainstream theories (i.e. the theories that are generally, if provisionally, accepted as correct). That is not Wikipedia's mission: this is a reference work, and should be reporting what is generally accepted by scientists at the moment. There also seems to be a lesser problem of some users showing excessive zeal in attempting to discredit the fringe theories in articles on those theories and their proponents. Such articles should report the fringe nature of the theories in question and cross-reference to the "main" article. But there is no need for such an article to read like a hatchet job on its subject matter. Its main purpose is simply to describe the theory or to give a description of the career of the relevant proponent. I'd like to see some tweaking of the proposal with these thoughts in mind. Metamagician3000 05:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the phrase "read like a hatchet job on its subject" is an apt diescription of what the big bang group is doing to the plasma cosmology article. Take for example the article on intrinsic redshift - if one were to read it, there is no such thing.

Neutral point of view

5) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates fair representation of all significant point of view regarding a topic.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Should the article on plasma cosmology be required to present a fair representation of big bang cosmology? And what about all the rest? Should Plawsma cosmology be about all cosmologies or should plasma cosmology be about plasma cosmology?Tommy Mandel 04:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Is someone going to answer my question? Tommy Mandel 23:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Standard for all articles. --FloNight 20:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Support. Metamagician3000 07:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability and reliable sources

6) Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources require that information included in an article have been published in a reliable source which is identified and potentially available to the reader.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Standard for all articles. --FloNight 20:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Support. Metamagician3000 13:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Administrator conduct

7) Administrators are held to high standards of conduct, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Wikipedia. Administrators must be courteous, patience in dealing with others, and exercise good judgment in following official policy such as the blocking policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Should an administrator, involved in an ariticle, say something like: "your argumentation is disrupting wikipedia and if you don't stop you will be banned." Tommy Mandel 04:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Offered due to Shell's controversial unilateral block of an editor on one side of a content dispute (ScienceApologist) without prior broad community input and followed by a questionable explanation after a query was raised on AN/I by another admin. This block complicated the dispute resolution process. FloNight 22:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

So much for recusal due to your disagreement with my block? Contrary to Flo's claim, I spoke with multiple administrators over a 24 hour period due to the wealth of areas complaints were received in. While there may have been better ways to stop the edit warring, the lengthy explanation on AN/I and on my talk page should clearly show exactly why I felt a block for disruption was in order at the time. It is also worth noting the similar group of supporters who rallied against that block and those running here to support SA's behavior. Shell ^babelfish 18:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Just to clarify, I am not suggesting that Flo is part of this group of supporters; I believe she commented as an uninvolved admin. Shell ^babelfish 21:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Flo is recused as clerk in the case. Any editor may suggest proposals on the workshop page and comment on other proposals. Thatcher131 19:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Shell, mind showing us the diffs showing where you spoke with multiple administrators? Or are we just to take you at your word? --ScienceApologist 14:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Peripheral issue, and Shell acted in good faith (even though I believe she made a mistake). Let's not get bogged down with this. Metamagician3000 05:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

All Wikipedia articles must adhere to the same standards, including verifiability and no original research

8) Articles about non-mainstream scientific topics must adhere to the basic Wikipedia policies of verifiability and no original research. "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed." If the only writings about a topic are non-peer-reviewed articles by its main proponents, it fails the verifiability and original research principles and should not be included in Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Non-peer reviewed subjects may fail Reliable Sources, not necessarily WP:V nor WP:OR. If an author has a theory in a popular book, and it is described as such, that is still verifiable. --Iantresman 20:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree that an author of a popular book may be notable for the book. If this is the reason for notability then the article needs to focus on book and not include other misleading statements worded to give the impression that subject is notable for other reasons. FloNight 15:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Thatcher131 16:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

At a minimum, self-published sources which are not referred to elsewhere in the literature should be used cautiously; and should be explicitly attributed to their sources. --EngineerScotty 17:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The proposal appears to be self-contradictory and contain a misunderstanding of WP:NOR but it can be fixed. Not all Wikipedia articles must adhere to the same standards, and the proposal seems to be to raise the standard for scientific subjects to the use of peer reviewed sources only. Until recently I thought that that should be the rule. However, after I was confronted with a discussion of the Afshar experiment at my university, I changed my mind and did not propose it for deletion. Proposal 9a modified to "reliable sources" would do the job IMHO. Harald88 21:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles about non-mainstream scientific topics

9) Non-mainstream topics which have attracted significant published criticism (multiple articles in peer-reviewed journals or other reliable sources) may be included in Wikipedia even if the topic would ordinarily fail the verifiability and original research policies by itself.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Surely any subject published in a peer reviewed journal, is verifiable, and noted in a reliable source? --Iantresman 21:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

If ALL the published material is critical of a subject, does that allow the editor to also trash the subject? Are there exceptions to NPOV? Tommy Mandel 05:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Iantresman, the content of all articles should focus on the notable aspect of the subject. This is especially true of articles about less notable subjects. The introduction of content that gives the impression that the subject is notable for a different reason is against the spirit of NPOV, V, NOR. Wikipedia policy and guideline are not to be interpreted in an over legalistic way that turns the policy on its head. FloNight 09:33, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher131 16:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Note that if the vast majority of published opinion on a topic is critical; it isn't unreasonable for the article to assume a critical tone. Especially if the only published opinion in support is self-published. This is especially true in the sciences, where publication which only criticizes the work of another is unusual. --EngineerScotty 17:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No fringe theories unless they have significant independent support

9a) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight quotes Jimbo Wales, stating "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not." Following this principle, scientific theories which have not attracted significant support (in the form of peer-reviewed articles by authors other than the original proponents) should not have their own articles or be mentioned in related articles. It is true that this standard would have excluded many scientific theories that were considered "fringe" when they were first advanced, such as the theory of continental drift. However, Wikipedia is a recorder of things as they are, not a predictor of the way things will be or an advocate for the way things should be.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This would contradict the idea that minority viewpoints can become significant by the prominence of their advocates, which Wales proposed and is just common sense. Plasma cosmology was a significant viewpoint when it was initally proposed by Hannes Alfven and his collaborators because of Alfven's prominence in the field. (If he had been prominent in another field, that would not be the case.)The same goes for the steady-state viewpoint when Hoyle Gold and Bondi first proposed it. I think there has to be a positive definition of what is to be included.Elerner 04:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Plasma cosmology hardly qualifies as a fringe theory that has only a very few supporters. The reason Plasma cosmology is not a single paradigm is that there are so many aspects of it and plasma researchers, like all other scientists, specialize in their own field. Not all plasma researchers are concerned only with cosmology, or the lack of a cosmology. Tommy Mandel 05:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It may be interesting to note that the steady state theory, one of the so called fringe ideas related to plasma cosmology, can be found in the big bang. Quoting Gibbins from [[16]]

"But although inflation is generally regarded as a development of Big Bang cosmology, it is better seen as marrying the best features of both the Big Bang and the Steady State scenarios."

There is a cliche going around that all new ideas go through stages, first it is ignored by te mainstream, then it is ridiculed by the mainstream, then the mainstream says they thought of it first. So how come we didn't learn of this "marriage" from Wikipedia?

Comment by others:

Proposed. This is the hard-line counterpoint to proposal 9. There is an argument to made that for any scientific theory to be included in Wikipedia, at least one reputable scientist outside the sphere of influence of the original proponents should be willing to advance and defend it in the scienfitic literature or other reliable sources. (Note that adopting 9a would imply changes in the wording of 10 and 11) Thatcher131 17:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

* Agree in principle, but with amendments. If a theory once was published but was never referred to by any other reliable source, it may safely be assumed to be not notable enough as well as insufficiently corroborated. However, sometimes a theory is only published by one person but next openly debated in the press and at universities. Such a theory is certainly notable enough for mention in an encyclopdia. As some news agencies and university websites are specificly included as possible "reliable sources", it suffices to replace peer-reviewed articles by reliable sources in the proposal.

Another exception may be required for recent articles: within one year of publication no judgement can be made on the basis of absence of referrals, as it often takes one year for people to think about it, react on it and publish that reaction. Harald88 21:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is an exception required? Why can't Wikipedia wait long enough for people to study and respond to the publication before using it? It's really not a crime for an encyclopedia not to be on the cutting edge, for us to report generally established theories that get included in textbooks instead of radical new theories that haven't even had the time for non-authors to respond.--Prosfilaes 22:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles regarding notable fringe scientific theories

Plasma, of which 99% of the Universe is made of, is not fringe science. It is a fact of life. Plasma cosmology is just one aspect of plasma. To label it as a fringe science demonstrates a lack of knowledge rather than insightful thought. Consider also Gibbins, recommended by Linde,assessment, primary auithor of Inflation theory, that Hoyles HoylesSteady state equations and the big bang equations differ by only one term, and Gibbins conclusion that the big bang incorporates the best features of steady state. This would hardly be evidence that steady state is a fringe science. Tommy Mandel 20:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Saying the universe is 99% plasma demonstrates a lack of knowledge rather than insightful thought. It is like saying God exists cause the Bible says so. WAS 4.250 21:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the figure is closer to 99.5 % I don't get your point. All stars are in a plasma state. Tommy Mandel 15:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

9c) Per Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight, fringe scientific theories which are referred to in published sources by disinterested parties or criticsnonetheless notable, may have their own articles, provided that articles regarding those theories meet existing policies and guidelines regarding verifiability, restrictions on original research, and notability. However, in order to meet neutral point of view requirements it is essential, at a minimum, that (1) that articles regarding fringe theories clearly identify whether those theories have been subject to peer review and/or have notable expert acceptance; (2) that articles regarding fringe theories clearly identify the leading theory on that subject and the support for the leading theory; and (3) that any reference to fringe theories on other pages be minimal, clearly identify the theories as fringe, and otherwise comply with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Plasma cosmology cannot be considered a fringe science except in comparison with the rival big bang theory. Plasma is a fact, not a fringe science. Plasms cosmology is a branch of plasma science, which is far more advanced that the big bang group would admit to.Tommy Mandel

First half of [17] Art LaPella 06:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed as an alternative to 9a, 9b, and 9c--intended to be "tougher" then 9b but not as tough as 9a. IMHO, if a fringe theory is verifiable and notable, there's no obstacle to creating an appropriate page describing it. Non-notable theories should be explicitly excluded; otherwise anyone can self-publish anything and thereby bypass the intent of WP:NOR. At a minimum, someone else (a reliable source) besides the proponents of a theory should offer public comment on it, in order to demonstrate notability. Note that the alternate cosmologies advanced by Eric Lerner and others probably meet this criterion; OTOH, things like aetherometry (which was deleted from Wikipedia earlier this year) probably do not. I agree with TheronJ that a couple sentences stating the main theory pages stating: "The are a variety of fringe and alternate theories attempting to explain 'foo.' However, none of these theories has gained significant expert acceptance" isn't unreasonable; however, it should be emphasized that fringe theories shouldn't be featured more prominently than that on a mainstream page. Also, creation of multiple pages which all explain portions of a fringe theory (such as intrinsic redshift) is going a bit too far; it is undue weight to give fringe theories which haven't attracted significant attention beyond their proponents more than a single article. (Accordingly, I would suggest merging the mass of articles which are disputed in this RFA into one). Redirects from other terms defined by the fringe theory would be OK.

As a further comment, I would propose use of the word "fringe theory" to describe this phenomenon within Wikipedia; "pseudoscience" and "junk science" are highly pejorative terms which contain connotations of misconduct, rather than just being outside the mainstream. Many advocates of fringe theories are perfectly ethical; they simply haven't demonstrated sufficiently why their ideas have merit. --EngineerScotty 17:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC) --EngineerScotty 17:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• I think this proposal is better than the other "9" proposals, which is why I withdrew 9b.[18] IMHO, however, the phrase "which are referred to in published sources by disinterested parties or critics" may be a little too restrictive. Let's suppose that the only sources for Lerner's plasma cosmology theory were his editorials, published in the New York Times and other leading newspapers, and a book or two published by actual publishers, but written by Lerner or other proponents of the theory. I'd leave that up to the reference to notability rather than deciding the issue here. TheronJ 21:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm OK with that; have amended the proposal above. --EngineerScotty 22:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Significant minority viewpoints in science

9d)A “significant minority viewpoint” in a scientific field must be given coverage in Wikipedia articles. Supporters of such minority viewpoints are not to be maligned, harassed or otherwise hindered from editing Wikipedia articles.

A “significant minority viewpoint” in a scientific field is one that has adherents who are prominent in the relevant field; OR that receives coverage as a scientific viewpoint by verifiable sources, such as the popular scientific press or the mass media; OR is represented by a number of peer-reviewed papers, and is the work of several, not just one researcher; OR is supported or examined by major institutions, such as by funding, sponsoring seminars, or invited presentations.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This addresses the point that first, there is systmatic harrassmnet of minority veiwpoints by some eidtors, which should stop. Second it rolls into one definition the ways that a viewpoint should be viewed as significant. I want to emphasize that coverage in the popular pres alone is not a qualification. Creationism is covered, but not AS a scientific viewpoint. It would have to be covered as a scientific viewpoint.Elerner 02:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It has been said that ALL scientific theories were at one time the minority viewpoint.Tommy Mandel 05:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It this were to be instituted, there would be nothing stopping people from inserting time cube into the article about time. --ScienceApologist 12:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS? Is Time cube peer reviewed? Other papers by other authors? --Iantresman 13:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. Notice the proposal says "OR" and not "AND". --ScienceApologist 19:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Does a comparison with absurdity prove anything? ScienceApologist is very adept at introducing absurd arguments made by absurd thinkers as evidence that plasma cosmology is also somehow absurd. For example, quantized redshift has two possible explanations, as do most theories, on is that there is no Doppler effect, while the other is assuming that Doppler and quantized redshift are true, that the galaxies are placed at intervals and we are at the center. Apparently Creationists have jumped on this, claiming that there is scientific proof we are at the center of the universe. But that is only ture if Doppler and quantized redshift were true. ScienceApologist has taken the Creationist claims, incorportated them into the Plasma cocmology view by implicaton, and then based on the absurdity, infers that Plasma cosmlogy is a Creationist cosmology.

And then he will engage the other editors into an endless argument about creationism or other semantic issues. I think he does this only to distract us.

Tommy Mandel 21:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Plasma is not fringe science, it is a scientific fact and plasma cosmology is not pseudoscience it is a hypothesis, as much as the big bang. Pseudoscience can take place on either side, and here it takes the form of claiming that plasma cosmology is pseudoscience, but that claim is an opinion stated as a scientific fact.04:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm wary of using the mainstream press as a source on science articles. Consider what that would do to evolution articles. Phil Sandifer 17:57, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Phil. Also I think it is essential to have experts on the topic involved to help editors less familiar with the subject understand which journals are most likely to publish mainstream articles and which include more controversial topics. These decisions need to be made on each article by editors that care about Wikipedia interests above outside interests. FloNight 18:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Content of articles on non-mainstream scientific topics

10) Neutral point of view requires that conflicting views be represented fairly. It will not be uncommon for the only sources regarding a non-mainstream scientific topic to be either (a) published by its proponents, or (b) criticisms published by mainstream scientists. It is acceptable following Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Self-published sources in articles about themselves to use proponents' self-published statements about their theories as sources to accurately describe the theories. Articles should also fairly describe mainstream scientific criticism. Note that in many cases, excluding criticism will remove the only non-self-published, non-original research, reliable sources. Proponents of a non-mainstream theory may be faced with the choice between an article that describes the theory and all significant criticisms, or no article at all.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It is not appropriate to use self-published sources to describe theories - the theory is not the one doing the publishing. While self-published documents can be used to describe the publisher, and their views on the theory, they cannot be used to describe the theory. JBKramer 16:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It would seem to me that an article about plasma cosmology should have within it all the plasma cosmology views fairly represented. How did NPOV come to mean that all other cosmologies must be in te plasma cosmology article? And in particular why should an article be written in relation to some other article? Tommy Mandel 05:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher131 16:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What I mean to say is that, for example, if one was writing an article in 1859 on Darwin's ideas about natural selection, it would be acceptable to quote Darwin's self-published book On the origin of species in order to be able to accurately describe Darwin's theories. In the case of intrinsic redshift, for example, which appears to be the work of a small number of contributors, it is necessary to use those contributors as a source in order to accurately describe the theory. Whether or not to have an article at all about a topic is dealt with separately. If there is going to be an article, it would violate NPOV if the only people who could describe the topic were its opponents. Thatcher131 17:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Darwin's book was not self-published. Self published sources are not WP:RS in the vast majority of cases. JBKramer 17:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Forget about Darwin then. It is a conflict with neutral point of view if the only people allowed to say what a theory is are its opponents (or more precisely, if the only articles that editors can quote to describe a theory were written to rebut or discredit the theory). It is not unknown for writers to misstate a theory in order to more easily discredit it. While one hopes that this doesn't happen in science, I don't think Wikipedia can fairly deny that Smith is a reliable source for what Smith's law of cosmology proposes. If there is to be an article on Smith's law of cosmology, both sides should get fair representation, and in the case of fringe theories with few supporters, that will of neccessity mean quoting Smith. Maybe you should focus on principle 9a, which would deprecate the article entirely unless there were other reliable sources besides Smith. Thatcher131 17:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No disagreement there. It is a violation of WP:V to use self-published sources in an article about science. If Smith can't get published outside of www.smithspettheory.com, he merits no article. JBKramer 17:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

(back to margin) In case the disractions allow us to miss the point, here is what Thatcher said:

In the case of intrinsic redshift, for example, which appears to be the work of a small number of contributors, it is necessary to use those contributors as a source in order to accurately describe the theory. Whether or not to have an article at all about a topic is dealt with separately. If there is going to be an article, it would violate NPOV if the only people who could describe the topic were its opponents. Thatcher131 17:19, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of non-mainstream scientific theories in articles about mainstream topics

11) Scientific theories which fail the principle of verifiability (i.e. no peer-reviewed publications by proponents and no significant independent criticism) and which therefore should not have their own articles should not be mentioned in other, related articles. Non-mainstream theories that meet the standard of verifiability through reliable sources may be mentioned in related articles, provided the "undue weight" clause is followed. In most cases, this will entail a brief description of the topic (and its relation to the main article), a brief description of criticisms of the topic, and a link to the main article on the topic. For example, Intrinsic redshift may be mentioned as a possible mechanism for the redshift effect in the article Redshift, with a brief description of the concept, a brief consideration of criticism, and a link to the main article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

That "may be mentioned" is provactive. Whose to say when we should mention it or not, or in what amount and in what fashion? For example, Ian would probably say that the article on redshift doesn't mention intrinsic redshift. I would disagree. --ScienceApologist 14:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I acknowledge the article includes mention of "Instrinsic redshift", but does not say what it is, and it's mention is nowhere near, nor referenced, in the section on redshift mechanims. Likewise Wolf Effect. --Iantresman 14:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that the entire intrinsic redshift article is written as if there is no intrinsic redshift.Tommy Mandel 05:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

May I remind everyone, that the article Plasma Cosmology is about plasma cosmology. Plasma cosmology is not about the big bang, nor is it a comparison of the big bang and Plasma cosmology. The Plasma cosmology article is not about "cosmology" an article which would be required to present all cosmologies in the appropriate way. The article plasma cosmology is not about all cosmologies, it is about plasma cosmology. Plasma cosmology is the primary subject, the dominant theory, in the plasma cosmology article.

Tommy Mandel 22:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher131 16:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You're right. This principle, if adopted, will provide some guidance as to which topics may be mentioned in related articles, but does not settle every dispute. The arbitrators are extremely unlikely to rule on content issues, and most likely to focus on principles to guide good editing, with enforceable remedies against bad behavior, if necessary. Thatcher131 14:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It could be helpful and it is even promising: from the above comments by both main parties it appears that they could work out a compromise that is both precise and acceptable to them. As they present two extreme editor POV's, I'm optimistic that, if a slightly reworked version of it becomes a guideline, most other editors will also abide by that.

For example, I would suggest based on the above:

Scientific theories which fail the principle of verifiability (i.e. no peer-reviewed publications by proponents and no significant independent criticism) and which therefore should not have their own articles should not be mentioned in other, related articles. Non-mainstream theories that meet the standard of verifiability through reliable sources may be mentioned in related articles, provided the "undue weight" clause is followed. In many cases, this will entail a brief description of the topic (and its relation to the main article), a brief description of criticisms of the topic, and a link to the main article on the topic. A theory that is pertinent to the subject but held by a very small minority will usually only be mentioned once in the most appropriate section with an embedded link to its main article.

Harald88 21:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

My impression, as unwelcme as it is, is that there is no problem in principle mentioning plasma cosmology in the article cosmology. The problem is the obvious editing of the plasma cosmology article in terms of the big bang theory. IT would be like editing the article on magnetics from the POV of gravity.

Consensus about administrative actions

12) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation. Controversial actions like blocking a logged in user with many good edits should not usually be done without prior discussion and consensus among the community. See WP:CON and WP:BLOCK.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Is it Wikipolicy to allow administrators to threaten a block when an editor refuses to agree with him?

Tommy Mandel 05:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. On wiki discussion to building consensus prior to blocking an important concept. --FloNight 17:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I would worry about this. Mistakes are sometimes made, admittedly, but I don't like the idea that established users are "untouchable" by individual admins. Metamagician3000 03:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

IMO, the blocking policy supports this proposal. Of course admins can block if the need for admin action is clear, but then it would not be a controversial block, right. My point is to usually discuss first if you are blocking an editor that makes many good edits. Not to block first then ask for a review of your admin action. If your block is against community consensus the damage is already done to the user and yourself. FloNight 06:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[De-indent.] You're correct.

I think this is peripheral to the case, as I don't think this case should be about an honest mistake made by Shell - a relatively small issue in the scheme of difficult issues that the case raises. Also, although I've made a lot of comments supportive of ScienceApologist, he has erred, IMHO, in wanting to introduce an overly debunking tone and balance into the Eric Lerner article and being quite aggressive about it. Shell's response to this was not entirely unreasonable, and I think any criticism of it should be very mild indeed. I'd prefer that arbcom either not criticise Shell at all or put it down to possible excessive zeal.

Although you are correct, there is another side to it. I'm still concerned that the (good) practice you describe will lead to difficulty in imposing even justified blocks. It is one thing that we should consult before making potentially controversial blocks; perhaps we should all accept that and be more conscientious about it in future. But it is another thing that some admins may then, in the resulting discussion, oppose such blocks because, in effect, they want to give a "free pass" to well-established users. All discussion should take place against the background that there are no untouchable users or free passes to incivility and personal attacks. This case is not an appropriate forum to re-agitate that particular issue (which was prominent in the Giano debacle), so I just signal that I, for one, continue to be concerned about it. Metamagician3000 02:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Soon after Shell responded on this page to my proposals, I emailed Shell my thoughts on the block and do not intend to analyze it in more detail in this forum. I agree that it is not a primary issue here. And not identical to Giano case. IMO though that Shell was added as a party to the case to bolster one side of the case. (I could be wrong, unfortunately that happens :-) Shell decided to leave a statement and evidence. Where it goes next is out of the parties hands and up to the arbitrators. FloNight 03:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Consensus about articles

13) Wikipedia works by building consensus. This is done through polite discussion and negotiation. Discussions about articles primarily occur on the talk page of articles. Some ways to build consensus through discussion include consulting a third party, filing a request for comment (on the article in question), and requesting mediation. See WP:CON

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. Discussion is key to building consensus. Wikipedia policy lays out specific methods to resolve disagreements about content. FloNight 17:22, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Undue weight to be clarified

14) Since disagreement among editors over Undue weight may be contentious, and partly subjective, more objective criteria should be considered. For example, (a) Jimbo Wales' post of Sept 2003 is significantly different from the paraphrased version. (b) "Undue" is not the opposite of "proportional"[19] (c) Borderline (in)significant minority should tend to exclude? include? --Iantresman 21:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not a principle. JBKramer 15:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Agreed - I really don't think this belongs here. Guettarda 18:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Neutral POV to be clarified

15) Some editors feel that the (mainstream) scientific point of view, is THE "neutral point of view", which I feel misunderstands NPOV. The neutral point of view surely describes verifiable facts from reliable sources, as being either scientific, mainstream, minority, pseudoscientic, philosophical, religious (etc) points of view. --Iantresman 15:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Poorly phrased. JBKramer 15:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I don't see how this is a principle either. Guettarda 18:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Take it to Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view. --EngineerScotty 18:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not helpful to simply take it to another talk page. NPOV is the problem here IMO. The problem here is that NPOV tells us to edit without introducing our own bias into the copy. Theer should be no Wikiangle in other words. But there are ways of circumventing this, and that is what the big bang group does. They find ways of demeaning plasma cosmology at every turn. It is obvious, read the article and you will come to the conclusion that plasma cosmology is pseudoscience and discredited by all of science. Clearly policy states that the reader is left to make that decision. Tommy Mandel 04:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The reader should not be left to make that decision. After reading a Wikipedia article, it should be entirely clear what the prevailing opinions are on the subject, and how science, as the collective form of the word scientist, feels on the matter.--Prosfilaes 15:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

That is an illusion. Often the scientific community feelings about matters are divided, simply because science is not a cult in which mind control is practiced. Every scientists is entitled to his/her own opinon, and the only thing that matters (or should matter!)is what the merits as well as problems are of certain theories. According to WP:NPOV, merits and problems should be fairly described, and that happens to be the scientific approach as well. Harald88 21:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I personally do not have the information to judge the merits and problems of certain theories; the most useful thing to me is the opinion of experts. Often the scientific community is divided on an issue, but in many cases, there is clearly a dominant, frequently massively dominant, theory, and even if there isn't, there's usually prominent theories that are considered probable and theories that most scientists consider wrong or improbable. That's useful and important information, and information that is demanded by WP:NPOV: "Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular."--Prosfilaes 16:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Put like that, I fully agree. As long as an article doesn't insinuate that the most popular opinion must be "right" because of its popularity and, consequently, other opinions "wrong" simply because they are less popular. Harald88 20:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that WP:NPOV is clear enough, giving sufficient guidance to the arbitration committee to examine the evidence of violation of that policy. Harald88 07:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

16) Per WP:DE, users who edit the encyclopedia disruptively may suffer sanctions up to and including banning. While an ArbCom ruling is not necessary per WP:DE; the ArbCom is entitled to enforce this guideline.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

This is only recently a formally-accepted guideline; and so its application to this case might be ex post facto. However, many admins involved in the formulation of this policy expressed the opinion that it was a restatement of existing policy in one place; and one of the arbitrators was involved in the development of WP:DE. --EngineerScotty 18:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can put up a guideline. A guideline isn't policy and thus it is unallowable to "enforce" it. Harald88 07:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You might go re-read WP:POLICY. Guidelines frequently document community practice. One common community practice is the blocking of disruptive editors. --EngineerScotty 16:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip; Done. It's indeed not clear-cut. However, the essence of my statement is correct, as guidelines indeed describe common practice which in itself isn't law. Policy can be enforced; in contrast, common practice isn't something that can be enforced, but it just happens. Guidelines are not for nothing called guidelines. They should be "applied in most cases" [20]. Harald88 20:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Single stream linking

17) Minority opinions and fringe theories may be excluded from articles that cover general subjects related to the pages per WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Links between general articles and minority subjects may adopt the single stream model where the minority subject links to the general article but not vice-versa.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed by me to remedy the insistence that Ian Tresman makes that if articles link in one direction they should link in the other direction. --ScienceApologist 18:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Single stream linking is already in place at Wikipedia. For example, time cube links to time but the converse is not true. This isn't to say that this principle should always be used (there are obvious cases when two-stream linking is perfectly acceptable and required), but I would like it to be acknowledged that single-stream linking has its place in Wikipedia. --ScienceApologist 12:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Fringe science has been tossed around so much that it has become easy to believe that plasma cosmology really is fringe science. Keep in mind that it is the opponents, Wikipedioa editors who are stating their POV, that are claiming Plasma cosmology is a fringe science. This is not NPOV. [this unsigned comment by ?? (- not by Harald88)]

The concept of fringe science is an NPOV one; a science is a fringe science if and only if it is accepted as true by a small minority of scientists in its field.--Prosfilaes 16:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the proposal of linking instead of elaborating. However, that is in practice not what ScienceApostle seems to propose: Instead he seems to propose that minority opinions both advertise and link to the mainstream alternative, while the mainstream POV remains completely silent about the minority POV. If a minority POV is notable enough to have its own article space in Wikipedia, it makes sense that it is also notable enough to be mentioned in a general article. Thus such a generalized, complete suppression of minority views in general articles would definitely lead to large-scale infringements of WP:NPOV.

Simple linking of small minority views without any other mention in the general article would IMO be a good solution. If the links are too many, there could even be a link to a sub page of links to related articles. Cross references form one of the merits of an encyclopedia. Harald88 22:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If the spirit of this is that one-way referencing is allowable, and two-way referencing is not compulsory, I agree with it. No one should be able to argue that because a reference has gone in one direction (from "fringe" article to "main" article) that there must also be a reference in the other direction. The fringe articles should fairly report the theories concerned, but it is not Wikipedia's aim, as a reference work, to be directing readers to them. We should be making clear to our readers just what is the current state of scientific theory (provisionally) accepted by the consensus of expert opinion. Having good articles on some or all alternative theories is very much a secondary consideration. Metamagician3000 05:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Research which is only self-published is original research

18) For a novel self-published idea or theory to not qualify as original research, it should either be uncontroversial or be demonstrably vetted by a reliable source independent of the author; other than ideas which are explicify qualified as opinion. Self-publication is not a loophole to avoid WP:NOR.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Admittedly, this pushes the envelope. However, the original purpose behind WP:NOR, IIRC, was to keep fringe theories from being advanced as fact (or as mainstream thought)--authors who publish original research in a vanity press or on a personal website don't automatically get to evade WP:NOR. WP:NOR requires publication in a reliable source; self-published works do not qualify. This intendes to reaffirm the principle that self-publication is not a WP:RS, and that self-published research is original research, if not vetted independently. The "uncontroversial" exception, which clearly doesn't apply in this case, is intended to prevent this principle (if adapted) from being used as a firehose on the myriad pop culture, fandom, and other assorted "cruft" which often uses self-published secondary sources, but which are not disputed by those familiar with the subject. --EngineerScotty 18:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, added "self-published" to the principle above. --EngineerScotty 22:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

See, they talk as if it is taken for granted that plasma cosmology is fringe science. Tommy Mandel 04:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is "they"? I'm not a party named in the complaint, and nowhere in the above is any of the subjects of issue here equated with "fringe science"; I was speaking in the abstract when I referred to the history of the WP:NOR policy. In the early days of Wikipedia; it wasn't uncommon for people with rather interesting theories to try and publish them as fact. We're not talking about things like plasma cosmology which have more than a few supporters; we're talking about things that were supported by one person--who developed the theory, often in his head, and then tried to publish it on Wikipedia. WP:NOR was largely intended to shut this down. I advance this as a general principle. If this principle applies--or doesn't apply--to plasma cosmology, etc., then so be it. --EngineerScotty 15:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This is already accepted WP:NOR policy. Thus the subject is superfluous. Harald88 22:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Not necessary. Metamagician3000 03:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This principle would be DISASTROUS for a number of fields. It's a great principle for science. It's a terrible principle elsewhere. Phil Sandifer 17:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Which fields? As people have been saying, it's policy under WP:NOR, and while most of us don't stress too much about it in articles about Pokemon, more serious subjects really need non-self published cites for reliablity, and fortunately, there's ten thousand academic journals and several hundred university presses ready to publish anything of academic content, and quite a few non-academic presses find you actually make money from publishing books on all sorts of subjects. I don't see anything Wikipedia worthy where this would be a great issue.--Prosfilaes 07:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Terms like pseudoscience, quackery, suppression, etc. are inappropriate in some contexts

19) Terms like "pseudoscience", "quackery", "crackpottery", and others (along with noun forms like "pseudoscientist" or "quack") are needlessly pejorative and add fuel to the fire. They are acceptable when quoting a reliable source; e.g. an opinion from medical authorities that homeopathy is quackery. However, their use to denigrate theories, ideas, or persons in discussions, when not backed up by a reliable source, is frequently incivil, as these terms carry connotations of misconduct, incompetence, mental illness, eccentricity, and/or deceit; none of which are not necessary considerations for whether a theory has merit for publication in Wikipedia. Accordingly, the preferred term for articles/subjects such as those considered by this RFA is fringe theory; which only notes the level of acceptance a theory has among mainstream scholars and professionals in the relevant field, and does not cast aspersions on a theory's advocates.

Likewise, accusations among proponents of fringe theories that mainstream science is conspiring to suppress their work, are seldom based on any firm evidence of such misconduct, and should also be avoided--particulrly when referring to Wikipedia editors.

These terms may be used in conjunction with theories and or persons when reliable sources make such claims.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Theory is also problematic: Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Theory --ScienceApologist 19:14, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Far too much namecalling in these sorts of debate. The only issue that needs to be considered is how well a theory is referenced in indepenent reliable sources. The motives of a theory's advocates or opponents--here on Wikipedia, and outside--is irrelevant. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA need to be observed; this is offered as an example of what should be avoided. As we need to have a way of referring to non-mainstream theories, fringe theories is proposed as a less-pejorative alternative to pseudoscience and other terms. --EngineerScotty 18:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Too broad. Thatcher131 22:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

And too much of a content decision. Not the ArbCom's job. JoshuaZ 00:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh, does NPOV allow such descriptions? Let alone publish them? And isn't this article about plasma cosmology and not about big bang?Tommy Mandel 04:29, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[Back to margin.] Too broad. However, it is true that the continual use of such terms on talk pages to belittle the proposals of other editors can be uncivil and can tend towards disruption of calm, reasonable debate. Metamagician3000 03:49, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Terminology to be avoided

18a) Terms like "pseudoscience", "quack science" and others, when applied to scientific topics, may be common in popular culture but have perjorative connotations and should be avoided in articles (unless used in a direct quotation) and on talk pages (needlessly upsetting to some editors). Use of these or similar terms ("crackpot", "pseudoscientist") to refer to individuals is inappropriate and violates the spirit of biographies of living persons, if not the letter, and should likewise be avoided. The application of such terms to fellow editors, especially to disparage their edits or opinions, is uncivil and a violation of no personal attacks.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Support, and I assume WP:WEASEL is similar, listing other words and phrases to be avoided. --Iantresman 23:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV applies to the thought process as well, right? Remember that it is the slant that NPOV does not allow. "Fringe" is a slanted word.

Because in the Plasma cosmology page, it is the big bang that is the fringe theory, wouldn't you say? Tommy Mandel 04:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No name calling. However, a hard ban is unlikely to accepted (except toward other editors), neither will the arbitrators impose a preferred wording (or so I predict). Thatcher131 22:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I support that. I advanced "fringe" as a safe harbor--we have WP:FRINGE--but if that is beyond the scope of the arbcom's ruling, so be it. --EngineerScotty 23:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A further thought--should we put back the language concerning accusations of suppression? WP:AGF and all that. --EngineerScotty 23:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Like many of the discussed proposals this is essentially a content matter; there is no reason the ArbCom should be addressing this. JoshuaZ 00:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding articles; you've a point. Regarding comments made about other editors, that seems to be within the ArbCom's jurisdiction. BTW, this shouldn't be construed to give license to some of the nasty things that advocates of fringe science have been known to say. --EngineerScotty 00:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Definition of pseudoscience

19) {text of proposed principle} A field, practice, or body of knowledge is reasonably called pseudoscience or pseudoscientific when (1) it has presented itself as scientific (i.e., as empirically and experimentally verifiable); and (2) it fails to meet the accepted norms of scientific research, most importantly the use of scientific method. Characterization of a field as pseudoscience must be defended by vierifiable sources that demonstrate the lack of use of scientific method.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

proposed. This is the definiton given in the Wiki article on pseudoscience. We need to stop allowing this word, which does have a meaning, form being slung aroudn as an insult or as a way to substitute for real debate.Elerner 02:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is a ploy employed here by pseudoscientists to discredit their opponents. Tommy Mandel 04:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

It may be useful to make a distinction between "fringe science" and "pseudoscience." (To wit: Astrology could fairly be called a pseudoscience, but intrinsic redshift should be termed fringe science because, while not widely accepted, it is studied using the scientific method.) I don't think the arbitrators are going to touch this sort of content proposal. However, it seems like a useful subject for an essay, for example Wikipedia:Fringe and pseudoscience. If both sides got together to work on such an essay, focusing on terminology to start with, it might help you establish common ground to move forward. Thatcher131 03:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have made a proposal at User:MichaelMaggs/Minority science and pseudoscience. --MichaelMaggs 20:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually I think this RFAr isn't about Pseudoscience in itself. Neither the article, nor the category. And not all "minority view" articles are in the categoyr or should be there. So, this suggestion seems out of scope. --Pjacobi 20:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

By definition, minority scientific views are scientific views, and I hope that I made that clear in my introduction to the Arbitration case. --Iantresman 21:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The definition of pseudoscience is subject of a Wikipedia article in which it's already appropriately described - any disagreement should be discussed on its talk page and not here. Harald88 22:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I need to think about this, but I find the discussion at User:MichaelMaggs/Minority science and pseudoscience very useful and suggest that others give thought to it. Metamagician3000 03:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

We should be clear that this case is about the handling of articles where there is a mainstream position widely accepted by the relevant scientific community and also one or more minority positions that are not really pseudoscience, in that they are the products of genuine scientific investigation and theorising, but may correctly be described as fringe science, as rejected by the mainstream, or whatever. The title of this case, "pseudoscience", is therefore somewhat misleading. There may be issues about how Wikipedia should handle pseudoscience, or about the scope of that concept, or whether it is itself just one thing (do astrology and Creation Science actually belong in the same category, for example?), but those questions don't arise in this case. Elerner is correct that it is unhelpful to refer to minority or fringe science "pseudoscience" in debates that take place on talk pages and elsewhere. That practice can be done in a way that is provocative and uncivil, and it should be deprecated. Metamagician3000 02:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Assessment, responsibility and policy

20) We wait until the Arbitrators assess the evidence, and then depending on the nature and severity of any infringements of policy, it is considered whether either (a) Indviduals (including myself) need to take some responsibiltiy (b) Policy requires clairfication to prevent further infringements. --Iantresman 13:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not a remedy. JBKramer 15:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The purpose of the Workshop is to help with the analysis of the evidence, which includes proposing remedies. And, as JBK pointed out, this isn't a remedy - would the clerk consider moving this to Talk? Guettarda 18:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a remedy. Moved to principles. Thatcher131 11:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Mainstream experts

21) Input from wikipedians who are mainstream experts is absolutely essential if Wikipedia is to be a reliable resource.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Submitted by ScienceApologist 18:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Specialists in minority scientific fields are equally valuable --Iantresman 22:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Equally valuable as a Wikipedian, not equally valuable as a means to approach a useful and reliable encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 22:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

I would suggest modifying this to say "Input from..." - their presence alone doesn't do much good if they don't spend much time on their speciality. Guettarda 18:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a finding of fact. Moved to principles. Thatcher131 11:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I consider myself to be rather well informed about most mainstream opinions as well as about certain fringe opinions. I'd say that input of experts of all relevant POV's is essential for Wikipedia to be a reliable (as well as neutral) source. Harald88 22:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the modified version. This can be lost sight of, so I commend it to the arbcom. Metamagician3000 03:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Deleting a sourced significant view violates WP:NPOV policy

1) WP:NPOV requires that Wikipedia pages represent significant views fairly and without bias. Accordingly, deleting a sourced significant view from a page without replacing it with an equivalent is a violation of Wikipedia WP:NPOV policy.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Indeed, as NPOV Undue weight suggests that only "extremely small (or vastly limited) minority" may not be included in an article at all.

Comment by others:

Proposed --Rednblu 21:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sufficient criteria for a view to be "significant"

2) A view is "significant" for WP:NPOV policy if all of the following are true of the view: 1) there has been in the last two years a 2) publication of the view in an article (A) abstracted by Academic Search Premier (EBSCOhost), Citation Indexes / Web of Science, or JSTOR where the article (A) references at least 3) ten years of prior articles arguing for or against the view. The above three criteria are sufficient to make a view "significant"--but are not necessary.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Heck no, sorry. The criteria for inclusion is WP:V and WP:RS, the latter telling us that for the Physical sciences, to "Cite peer-reviewed scientific publications"[21]. This makes sense, as a peer reviewed paper will have already been noted as significant enough for publication by other experts in the field. I think your criteria may enable us to distinguish mainstream scientfic views from minority scientfic views, but nothing more. --Iantresman 21:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed --Rednblu 21:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What mainstream or minority scientific view published in a peer-reviewed scientific publication would not be abstracted by one of the three indexing services: 1) Academic Search Premier (EBSCOhost), 2) Citation Indexes / Web of Science, or 3) JSTOR? I am just looking for a concrete definition of that "significant" means in WP:NPOV. Can you give me either a false positive or a false negative to the above "Sufficient criteria for a view to be significant"? Thanks. --Rednblu 11:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing from mainstream POV does not by itself violate NPOV

If a scientific field has a mainstream view, editing an article about a non-mainstream theory in that field from the mainstream point of view cannot by itself be a violation of NPOV. Cardamon 12:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It depends. Any subject can be described in an NPOV style. But the deliberate removal of minority views, if they exist, violates NPOV. And vice versa. --Iantresman 17:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ambiguous. If a large part of the discussion of the theory is edited from the opposing point of view (but without allowing inclusion of erroneous claims or presenting disputed claims as fact), and an appropriate part of the article is edited from the theory's own POV, in accordance with fairness and due weight, that is OK I'd say. A simple test if an approach is NPOV is to formulate it in a neutral way, as I do here. The approach should be obviously fair no matter where one adds "majority" or "minority".

Of course, editing a whole article from a single non-neutral POV is definitely in strong violation of WP:NPOV and the policy instructs: "When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed." Harald88 21:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of this dispute in this case is the editing of a group of articles loosely connected to cosmology and related topics, including Big bang, Plasma cosmology, Intrinsic redshift and others. One involved party is also a leading developer and proponent of one of the topics in question, and has a biography on Wikipedia (Eric Lerner), which is also involved.

One group of editors see themselves as defending Wikipedia from POV-pushing by advocates of unscientific theories, and argues that proponents of these topics are presenting original research and distorting the facts to give their fringe theories more credence than they deserve. They furthermore argue that such theories ought not be found in Wikipedia (at least not alongside the mainstream science articles), and/or clearly tagged as pseudoscience, and failure to do so undermines Wikipedia's authority as an encyclopedia. Some have suggested that Wikipedia adapt a scientific point of view.

Proponents of unorthodox theories argue that neutral point of view requires presentation of their theories and views along side mainstream or orthodox scientific topics and accuse the other group of suppressing their views. Many argue that mainstream science is not the only epistimology which is entitled to be presented.

Some editors occupy a middle ground of sorts--Wikipedia should present notable theories and who supports them with appropriate weight per WP:NPOV, and should repel attempts to give them undue weight, but should also refrain from aggressive attempts to exclude them entirely or tag them with the pseudoscience label.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Yes in principle "it shouldn't matter what view the author holds" because he will not let his beliefs influence his editing. But what really happens is this, as published by Wikipedia in the article called cosmology --[[22]] ...:::"This discipline, which focuses on the Universe as it exists on the largest scales and at the earliest times, begins with the big bang,"

Need I say more? To recap, the article titled "cosmology" states in the beginning of it

"This discipline...begins with the big bang..."

No hypothesis yet to be proved, no theory yet to be confirmed, just an absolute, no doubt, "begins with the big bang." Principles sound good, but what the editors are really up to is what matters in the end. Tommy Mandel 00:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This issue is easily cleared up. The sentence cited is not in the introductory paragraph, but in the section titled "Disciplines". The antecedent of the pronoun "this" is not cosmology in general, but only "physical cosmology". This distortion is either terminally sloppy or dishonest to the core, and I would like to offer it as evidence of Tommy Mandel pushing his POV. --Art Carlson 08:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is the crux of the problem stated in very clear language. Following is a statement by an anonomous editor found on the history page of the cosmology article.

(Redundant. Current physical cosmology does not *argue* for the big bang, it presupposes it.)

I am really at a loss for words, but I think what is really being said is perfectly clear. Is this how it works at Wikipedia?

Comment by others:

A little long, but it will give the arbitrators someplace to start. Thatcher131 23:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a good summary to me. Harald88 20:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Eric Lerner

2) User:Elerner is Eric Lerner, an advocate of the plasma cosmology theory, and has edited Eric Lerner and Plasma cosmology.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Correct. ie. He is the subject of the article of the same name, Eric Lerner --Iantresman 13:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Prop Thatcher131 13:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is necessary to say in the findings somewhere and is not controversial. Metamagician3000 05:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Elerner edits disruptively

3) Elerner has edited articles disruptively, including Big Bang, Plasma cosmology, and other articles related to his research. (Edit warring: [23] [24], declaration of intent to revert [25] , disparaging other editors [26] [27], 3RR violations [28] [29]). For other evidence see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elerner#Evidence of disputed behavior. This behavior has continued recently at Aneutronic fusion with edit warring [30] [31], appeals to original research rather than finding sources (most of the talk page, but especially beginning here, see also [32]), and contentious editing Talk:Aneutronic_fusion#Eric's justification for his reversions.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Just as some editors may argue that they were editing agressively to rid articles of pseudoscience, Eric may argue he was editing agressively because minority scientific views were being mispresented as pseudoscience. --Iantresman 14:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that I have not done anything that was not provoked by other editors continually reverting without justification and often in violation of Wiki policies. I admit I was unaware of the rule about editing my own page, but stopped as soon as I was told about it. I am baffled as to how the last example can be considered "contnetios editing", what ever that is. I said "this is not worth the time, let's end it." Not very contentious. We reached a resolution immediately after that.Elerner 02:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have seen what goes on in this article. I do not believe that we are dealing with honestly here. I still do not understand how a big bang advocate can edit plasma cosmology in such a way that it infers that the big bang theory is the only valid theory within the plasma cosmology article, and then claim he is doing a good job. It isn't that they edit here, it's that they tear the entire plasma cosmology paradigm to pieces by manipulating the evidence such that the big bang is the only correct theory, and they cite all these policy statements which allow them to do it. They cannot do it. They cannot ass a Wiki POV even if they were right. Plasma cosmology is not about the big bang it is about plasma cosmology. perhaps, as was suggested above, the big bang might deserve mention in the plasma cosmologyarticle , but not after every assertion made by plasma cosmologists.

Comment by others:

Proposed Thatcher131 14:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive editing is never good. I'm not done with proposed findings of fact, and you are free to write your own as well. Thatcher131 14:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ian Tresman

4) Ian Tresman has become involved with certain science-related articles on Wikipedia with the expressed intent to advance a POV promoting fringe positions in an effort to make them more visible and more mainstream. [33], [34]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

submitted by ScienceApologist 18:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipeidia encourages the description of minority views --Iantresman 20:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

The fact or belief that a particular POV is underrepresented is not a justification for POV-pushing. This was an issue in the various arbitrations concerning User:Ed Poor, who justified POV pushing on the grounds that certain theories were underrepresented on Wikipedia. --EngineerScotty 22:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

POV Pushing is not acceptable. POV pushing is defined as "editing articles so that they disproportionately show one point of view." (my emphasis). Removing a minority scientific view to leave only the one mainstream view is consequently POV pushing; include minority views, is consistent with NPOV Undue weight. --Iantresman 08:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV states simply that an article cannot have a "wikiangle" to it, an inference placed there by the editor. To say something like "It is generally agreed that ....puts a slant on the article. If this "slant" is justified, the correct way of saying the above would be "So and so believes/proves/suggests that it is generally agreed that..." Tommy Mandel 12:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing by User:Iantresman

4.1) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4.2) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Art Carlson

5) Art Carlson has engaged in edit warring and appeals to original research at Aneutronic fusion. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Evidence presented by Art Carlson.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Nolo contendere. My behavior on Aneutronic fusion can reasonably be seen as edit warring and arguably as original research. I feel my actions were justified under the circumstances, but would apreciate a ruling on the matter. Independent of the ruling, I recognize that edit warring is always on some level a failure, and I regret that I wasn't able to find a better solution. Some guidance to a better solution for next time would be very much appreciated. --Art Carlson 16:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

We are incredibly lucky that Dr. Carlson is not yet another loss to the disruptive practicies of people with financial/ideological motive to make Wikipedia less informative. JBKramer 16:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've not personally had any problems with Art's editing, and find him straightforward to work with. --Iantresman 22:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that Art appealed to original research at aneutronic fusion. No more than User:Joke137 appealed to "original research" when he pointed out that Eric Lerner was less-than adroit at evaluating general relativity implications of Friedmann models on the Talk:Plasma cosmology page (diffs coming). --ScienceApologist 12:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. The evidence of edit warring is clear. The problem for the arbitrators to adjudicate is whether (from Art's point of view) a strenuous defense of science, to keep incorrect statements and POV pushing out of the encyclopedia, justifies edit warring. Thatcher131 14:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing by ScienceApologist

6) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

It should be noted that quantity does not mean quality. SA is 100% materialist as described on his own page, this by itself is an outdated world view which if brought into articles would severely limit what is placed there. Not that materialism by itself is limited, but when only materialism is the view, all other views are meaningless to them. Tommy Mandel 13:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

In response to Prosfilaes (below) , In science, a world-view is a critical aspect of theory construction. And to be more specific about it, a materialist world view in science simply means that all theories founded with materialism as a basis would have by design limitations imposed by the materialistic viewpoint. I think you are talking about belief systems which are not a subject studied by science. Are you say9ing that some evidence should not be presented because it create bad feelings? Tommy Mandel 15:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Criticizing someone's worldview is much like criticizing someone's religion; doing so casually has a distinct chance of igniting hostilities and possibly even a flamewar. The very nature of the Internet means that everyone will be dealing with people who hold worldviews that are ridiculous, absurd, and outdated in our eyes, but which worldviews those are will be different to each person. You don't make casual negative comments like that in mixed company. The fact that you would bring up his worldview as a criticism reflects very poorly on you in my eyes, and if it were elsewhere I would have brought it to the attention of the arbitrators.--Prosfilaes 19:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm saying, Tommy, that that statement pisses me off. It doesn't matter what he believes, all that matters is what he writes in the article is NPOV. Now, if he doesn't get at least a repermand for not making NPOV edits, I'll be surprised, but that doesn't make his personal beliefs fair game. That irrelevant little swipe is not evidence, and has had me surpressing foul language this entire post. Yes, sometimes you don't say things because it will create bad feelings, because people you've created bad feelings in don't want to work with you anymore. It's called tact, and it's an essential part of surviving life.--Prosfilaes 18:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Editing by JBKramer

7) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

FeloniousMonk

8) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Pjacobi

9) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Tommysun

10) {placeholder}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Tommysun primarily edits talk pages, as his edits to main pages are usually promptly reverted by ScienceApologist. If someone has objected to an extreme position Tommysun has expressed in the past, he doesn't agree, he doesn't disagree, he just ignores non-current objections, apparently hoping we'll forget. It doesn't matter how many times or how loudly the objections are repeated; he just keeps repeating the same oft-refuted opinion over and over again, like this issue for instance. Art LaPella 22:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

How am I expected to discuss "rv Tommyson's nonsense? I am smart enough and experienced enough to know that if I edit something and it gets reverted, reverting the revert is not going to work. As noted elsewhere my edits are usually about including evidence that redshift is not Doppler related. Obviously such evidence would be reverted because it is a direct falsification of the whole big bang theory. Does the fact that I repeat it over and over, rephrased differently each time, mean that I am being disruptive? Six months ago, the editors here did not even know about quantized redshift, but they did notice after I placed my quantized edits because they proceeded to create an article which has since been edited to imply that quantized redshift has been discounted when in fact it has not. They did this by removing those papers which confirmed Tifft's findings, and inserted a paper which stated that they did not see quantization. In fact it has been verified many times over, even by those who stated out to falsify it.

And at that that beginning time for me, plasma was defined in the article as electricity. Most of the Universe is made of plasma, it is not fringe science. The big bang theory is gravity based and does not take plasma effects into account leading them to hyopothesize all sorts of tricks to make the gravity based theory work. What SA is doing is stating by implication that these adhoc hypothesis are facts. The big bang is a theory, it is not a fact. The beginning of the big bang theory is Inflation. Inflation has not been proved, witness the "bewildering versions" of it nevessary to explain observations.

I am proud to have been reverted by ScienceApologist over a hundred times. And it doesn't surprise me that his supporters support him. Tommy Mandel 01:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

continued on talk page Art LaPella 02:30, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

If I read the above correctly, Tommysun does not engage in edit wars that are initiated by ScienceApologist, but for some reason he is here ciriticised for his non-engagement by Art LaPella - correct? Harald88 23:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect. I interpret your question to mean you haven't followed the above link labeled "continued on talk page", which clarifies I'm criticizing Tommy's talk page behavior of ignoring previous criticism. Art LaPella 01:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of personal attacks found through Art

Quoting Science Apologist's discussion tactics with me from a long time ago.

SA, in my view, you are obviously anti-plasma : User:Tommysun,

"in my view you are obviously an incompetent editor who knows very little about the subjects on which you are trying to inject a POV based not on verifiable fact or Wikipedia style guide or policies but on your own prejudices. No one here is "anti-plasma". No one here denies plasma exists. You seem to have some warped view over what exactly the controversy is, but I welcome you to explain your edits rather than heaading off on such tangents. By the way, you should keep your paranoid conspiracies regarding the Big Bang gang to yourself. It makes you sound a bit fanatical. --ScienceApologist 13:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Art!

Tommy Mandel 02:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: The accusation above isn't my idea. Tommy means only that my other links directed him to an old talk archive. Art LaPella 03:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Art is right, He was directing me elsewhere, but I have been looking for this cooment SA made a long time ago for weeks. And Art led me right to it. This, SA's comment above, is the welcome I received from this talk page. I thought I was doing a good job. I still think that SA is anti plasma cosmology, pro big bang, works with others to edit the plasma cosmology page, had rewritten nearly all of it to reflect the big bang popularity that he claims, and removing any evidence of the hundreds which do not believe in the big bang. Tommy Mandel 22:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Expert editors have been leaving Wikipedia

11) Many subject-matter experts have left Wikipedia recently. While the reasons vary, and some of them are beyond the scope of this case, in many cases such editors have complained about the need to "defend" mainstream academic topics from advocates of fringe theories; see Wikipedia:Expert Retention and Wikipedia:Expert rebellion for details. (This case is mentioned there, BTW).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Is that why they are organizing Citizendium?

Comment by others:

While expert editors should not receive preferential treatment (policy is clear on this); disruptive activities which cause editors to leave are clearly detrimental to the encyclopedia. --EngineerScotty 19:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Indeed; however, it has not been shown that the abovementioned complain is really what caused their leaving. Experts have a natural tendency to impose their personal opinions on articles. That that is not allowed may lead to frustration but can't be helped. Obviously the strongest resistance against POV pushing by such experts is to be expected by similarly strong-minded (possibly expert) editors with opposing views, and vice-versa.

If the demand of experts of fringe theories for enforcement of WP:NPOV causes people to leave, so be it. And if indeed advocates of fringe theories infringed WP:NPOV on such a large scale that it caused other expert editors to leave, then that is certainly deplorable and on-topic. But at least in the case of CH, much frustration was caused by often anonymous cranks who continuously insert their personal POV's in articles. Happily, sensitive articles can nowadays be restricted to registered users. Harald88 00:21, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This edit violates WP:NPOV policy

1) This edit violates WP:NPOV policy by removing from a Wikipedia page a significant view in which the authors Bell and McDiarmid extended to the year 2006 the Halton Arp controversy over the empirical data in support of intrinsic redshift.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No, this edit removed an related set of references from an article about a different subject. --ScienceApologist 12:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we assume then that the proper reference to Bell and McDiarmid was placed in the appropriate place so as to improve the article? Tommy Mandel

It is placed in the appropriate article. --ScienceApologist 22:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed --Rednblu 21:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Proabably needs reformulation, in part because of ScienceAplogist's comments as well as because the 2006 reference is only to an Arxiv paper, if I see it correctly... Harald88 00:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Good comment. Here are the details. The citation to the Bell and McDiarmid 2006 ApJ article, the first article citation that was cut in this edit, was appropriately corrected from publication year 2005 to 2006 when it was moved to the last note on the Redshift quantization page.

However, if you read what Bell and McDiarmid (2006) actually wrote, they report their most recent findings that their "intrinsic redshift" model agrees with the observed redshift distribution of all 46,400 quasars in the SDSS Quasar Catalog including the six peaks at preferred redshift values. And Bell and McDiarmid cite to the 2005 Arp preprint in which he argues that the positioning of the discrete preferred values supports the "interpretation of the redshifts as intrinsic." Hence, it is a severe violation of NPOV to invert the explicit writings of Arp, Bell, and others to say that their arguments are not about "intrinsic redshift." For Arp, Bell, and others explicitly say that even the "discrete preferred values" support the "intrinsic redshift" explanation.

So how would you formulate what is wrong with this edit? To satisfy NPOV, at least the findings of Arp 2005 and Bell 2006 should be cited and summarized on the intrinsic redshift page. Would you agree? --Rednblu 02:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

This edit violates WP:NOR policy

2) This edit violates WP:NOR by substituting the 1) Bell and McDiarmid authors' express opinion that they were writing about intrinsic redshift with the 2) editor's opinion that the authors really were talking about redshift quantization and not intrinsic redshift which is the term the authors used in the title and text of their article.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There was no substitution going on, therefore the evaluation presented is wholly incorrect. How can it be NOR to remove a list of misbegotten references that belong in another article? --ScienceApologist 12:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, it's pretty clear to me that User:Rednblu didn't read the paper in question. The authors do not discuss their intrinsic redshift model in the paper, they use it as a starting point to evaluate claims of redshift quantization. Go over to the other article and you find the paper discussed! --ScienceApologist 12:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

POV fork? This is only removal of a list of papers! I find the summative comments by Rednblu to be a massive amount of hot air. Maybe there should be a "Wikipedia law" against User:Rednblu writing about the dogmatic edits of "BigBangBelievers". Rednblu's choice of language and willful ignorance is wearing very thin -- this kind of advocacy doesn't belong here. --ScienceApologist 19:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed --Rednblu 21:36, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There must be a Wikipedia law against even a well-meaning expert making this edit which imposes a BigBangBeliever POV-fork that severely misrepresents what Bell, Arp, and other scholars have actually written about intrinsic redshift, the subject of the page in question. I quote Arp 2005 himself: "Quasars are always higher redshift than the ejecting galaxy and none show negative redshifts of approaching velocities. The conclusion is that they must have intrinsic redshifts which are much larger than their ejection velocities. Supporting the interpretation of the redshifts as intrinsic it was then found that the redshifts had discrete preferred values in the frame of their parent galaxy. (The Karlsson periodicity formula).The ejection velocities allowable are small compared to these intrinsic redshifts." The resistance of the well-meaning BigBangBelievers against representing significant views fairly and without bias demonstrates the necessity of clear and self-consistent policy text to prohibit edits like this edit. This is not a content dispute. This is merely one example for clarity from the whole extended pattern of well-meaning BigBangBelievers ripping from Wikipedia pages the sourced NPOV that their dogma cannot stand. --Rednblu 19:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Damage from lack of clear and self-consistent NPOV policy

3) In the absence of clear and self-consistent Wikipedia policy text that prohibits deleting sourced significant views from pages, it is a waste of time for any editor to try to fix biased and unfair pages such as intrinsic redshift. Look at the sorry state of this page and look at its sorry history. Compare that current murky intrinsic redshift page with a crisp concise summary of "intrinsic redshift," such as Arp starting at the bottom of page 1 "The Basic Hypothesis." There, Arp clearly distinguishes intrinsic redshift theory from what he calls the "canonical" view of the authoritatively correct Big Bang explanation.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed. --Rednblu 07:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, we all know that intrinsic redshift is wrong. That is, all of us would base our NSF proposal on what Arp calls the "canonical" explanation of Big Bang theory, would we not? But Wikipedia is not a list of NSF proposal canons, is it? Wikipedia is a collection of NPOV summaries of significant views. However to be fair, we should indicate clearly what NSF would consider "canonical," as seems to be done quite well already throughout the various cosmology pages. --Rednblu 07:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Eric Lerner opposing others

1) Eric Lerner has requested blocks, bans, and punative measures against other editors by shopping for sympathetic administrators and trying to get pages protected to his preferred version.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

submitted by ScienceApologist 01:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Ian Tresman opposing others

1) Ian Tresman has requested blocks, bans, and punative measures against other editors by shopping for sympathetic administrators, posting vexatious reports against editors, and trying to rewrite policy to favor his opposition to certain editors.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

submitted by ScienceApologist 01:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• How does one "shop for a sympathetic administrator"? I think that the intervention of William M. Connolley and FeloniousMonk described in my evidence, show otherwise. --Iantresman 09:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that when you continually post at AN/I you are basically admin shopping. The evidence is clear that as you present your evidence at those places, you rarely let it be known that there is an extensive history in the conflict. This is where Shell got confused (coupled with the fact that she apparently did not discuss with other admins -- or at least has not been able to provide evidence that she talked to other admins about the situation). When you do find administrators that you think lend you a sympathetic ear like here you like to give them a wink and a nudge to attempt to get your agenda through and get me either blocked, banned, or sanctioned. --ScienceApologist 12:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed remedies

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

ScienceApologist and JBKramer commended and cautioned

1) User:ScienceApologist and User:JBKramer are commended for their actions in attempting to maintain NPOV and avoid OR on articles dealing with fringe science, but are reminded to avoid edit warring at all costs.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JBKramer (talk • contribs)

Comment by others:

Unclear why these two editors are being noted out of the 13 parties. FloNight 17:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

If you believe others deserve special notice, please note them. JBKramer 17:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that one or more Finding of facts are needed to support sanctions against a party. FloNight 18:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

great, BKramer is proposing to commend Bkramer--very objectiveElerner 04:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not that familiar with the edits of JBKramer, but I believe that the edits of ScienceApologist have been very valuable for WP. From what I can recall of JBKramer, he is a good editor too. Bubba73 (talk), 02:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Not necessary. Metamagician3000 03:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

ScienceApologist and JBKramer banned from biography for one year

1) {text of proposed remedy} User:ScienceApologist and User:JBKramer are to be banned for one year from editing any biographies of living persons.Elerner 04:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This would have negative impact on the encyclopedia - see Deborah_Frisch, Derek Smart, Emmalina. JBKramer 11:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

No. But see article probation for Eric Lerner below. Thatcher131 14:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Excluding Eric Lerner, there is no reason to restrict either editor from arbitrary biographies. In the case of Eric Lerner--possible; but the same should apply to every disruptive editor in this case. --EngineerScotty 20:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

No evidence or Find of facts to support this remedy. FloNight 00:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, this is going much too far. Metamagician3000 03:13, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Iantresman, Tommysun, Elerner banned

1) Iantresman, Tommysun and Elerner are banned for one year.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

For your consideration. JBKramer 11:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If I am disruptive for maintaining that the big bang is a theory, that certain evidence does not support the theory, that the theory had been misrepresented as a fact, and sometimes even the factual qualification is tossed out, and the big bang is "presupposed" Then please ban me forever from here. Citi-Zen-dium. . .

The term "disruptive, when taken out of context, is a relative term. For it can easily be proved that anyone rocking the boat is being disruptive. So Disruptive of what? The editors who act as if they own the article? Or the integrity and honesty of Wikepedia? Are those who are forced to fight for the Integrity and honesty of Wikipedia, by definition, being disruptive? I guess so...Tommy Mandel 00:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Needs strong findings of fact that they are disruptive and that other remedies such as probation and revert parole are unlikely to work. Thatcher131 14:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

These need to be a separate remedy for each editor based on find of facts. FloNight 15:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

At this point, a wholesale ban from Wikipedia is inappropriate. --EngineerScotty 17:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is also going much too far. Metamagician3000 03:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree that evidence has not been presented that supports a ban for any of these parties at the time. FloNight 11:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Iantresman, Tommysun, Elerner banned from editting science-related articles

1) Iantresman, Tommysun and Elerner are banned from editing science-related articles for one year. They may discuss their ideas on the talkpages.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

For your consideration. ScienceApologist 18:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

IMO, not out of the question but needs a separate remedy for each user based on specific Finding of facts. FloNight 09:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that Elerner should be strongly cautioned against editing the article on himself, and confining himself to the talk page. Even there, however, I'd not want to see a total ban. There might be occasions when it would be justifiable for him to insert uncontroversial material or to delete clearly inappropriate material. I don't think we are going to be able to come up with nice bright-line remedies here. Metamagician3000 03:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree that this ban is not supported at this time for any party in this case. More appropriate I think is a remedy that triggers bans from science articles. Bans are enforced by blocks. Bans would increase in length for multiple incidences of disruption. They need to be fine-tuned for each party based on their individual history. IMO, an editor whose primary focus is adding controversial material is different than an editor that makes many uncontroversial edits as well. The first exhausts the patience of the community much sooner than the later. FloNight 11:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Probation

1) Iantresman, Elerner, Art Carlson, ScienceApologist, JBKramer and Tommysun are placed on Probation for one year. Each may be banned from any page or set of pages for disruptive edits, such as edit warring or incivility. All bans and are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No evidence of a pattern of disruption on my part. JBKramer 15:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. There has been evidence regarding bad behavior on all sides. As yet, this is unsupported by findings of fact, and as the findings of fact develop, editors may be added or removed from this list. Thatcher131 14:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

More specific remedies will be needed to cover different editors - assuming there are going to be any bans at all, which I am sceptical about. Metamagician3000 03:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Revert parole

1) Iantresman, Elerner, Art Carlson, ScienceApologist, JBKramer and Tommysun are placed on standard revert parole for one year. Each is limited to one revert per article per week, excepting obvious vandalism. Further, each is required to discuss any content reversions on the article's talk page.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

No evidence of my having revert warred on articles in question. JBKramer 15:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with WP:BRD? I think this works the best in dealing with tendentious editors. As such, this proposal conflicts with my favorite conflict resolution-style. --ScienceApologist 22:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. Same comment as for probation. Thatcher131 14:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Needs to be separated and tweaked for each separate user based on each users indiviual history. FloNight 15:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm working on it. No more until tonight, though. Thatcher131 15:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[Back to margin.] I agree with FloNight. Metamagician3000 03:20, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Elerner banned

1) Elerner is banned from editing Eric Lerner, Plasma cosmology and Aneutronic fusion for 6 months for disruptive editing and conflict of interest violations. He may edit the talk pages of the articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Reality check, folks. I have not edited my own page since Sept.12 when I was informed of policy against this. I stated on the talk page that I was not editing it and have not since then, limiting my comments to the talk page. Anyone can check this by looking at the history. This is known to the other parties. So this is entirely unneeded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elerner (talk • contribs)

Comment by others:

For consideration. Pro-active application of the probation remedy. Not sure if this should be applied now or if he should be given a chance to improve first. Thatcher131 14:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A good precedent is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt. Note that in the Carl Hewitt case; Hewitt was a mainstram scientist who nevertheless got booked for excessivly promoting his own research, in addition for his promotion of the fringe theory that the Actor model (his main contribution to computer science) represents a significant result in physics. Persons who demonstrate an inability to remain impartial on a subject they are connected with, may be banned from that subject, regardless of expertise. --EngineerScotty 17:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Per WP:AUTO Elerner shouldn't really be editing Eric Lerner at all. Guettarda 18:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If he hasn't been editing his own autobiography since being warned not to (well prior to the start of this arbitration), fine. OTOH, his edits to articles related to his work may still run afoul of policies. --EngineerScotty 01:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no policy against such expert editing, quite to the contrary! See WP:No_original_research#Citing_oneself. However, on this point there is also a guideline: [35]. Harald88 08:16, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyone can see that I have not been editing my own article since I learned of that policy. To restrict my edits on articles on which I have some expertise from my own research would surely contradict the basic idea of Wikipedia. If you are considered to have a conflict of interest because you work in a field and know something about it, the only people allowed to edit articles would be those who know nothing about the topic. Not a good way to run an encyclopedia, IMHOElerner 02:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

If you can't work well with others it doesn't matter how expert you are. As I said this is a suggestion for the arbitrators to consider. I think a general probation is more likely but I was putting all possible arguments on the table. Thatcher131 04:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems unnecessary. It is sufficient to caution him not to edit his own article and to note that he has already taken this on board (if that's actually so). Metamagician3000 03:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

He has also edited disruptively at Aneutronic fusion and Plasma cosmology. Thatcher131 04:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Eric Lerner on article probation

1) The article Eric Lerner is placed on article probation. Any editor may be banned from editing this article by an uninvolved administrator for an appropriate period of time for disruptive edits. All editors are reminded to edit Eric Lerner in accordance with the principles of biographies of living persons.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I strongly support this regardless of anything else. JBKramer 14:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Proposed. I have seen some worrying things here, but I have not yet written a finding of fact. Thatcher131 14:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

To clarify: This is a proposed remedy concerning the article Eric Lerner and not User:Elerner, right? Does the ArbCom issue such rulings--especially one which is binding on non-participants? If so, how about issuing the same ruling for the whole encyclopedia?  :) --EngineerScotty 18:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, articles have been placed on article probation before. There are so many fringe science topics involved in this case that the only practical remedies will likely be those directed at editor behavior (revert parole, probation, or topical bans) but there is precendent for article probation, and in a BLP case it seems to make sense. Thatcher131 20:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[Back to margin.] I support this. It gives uninvolved admins more ability to keep order on an article that needs it. Metamagician3000 03:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Misrepresenting editors to be warned or banned

1) Any editor found to be mispresenting (a) pseudoscience (b) minority scientific views (c) mainstream scientific views, to be publicly warned for the first 3(?) noted offenses, and to receive a one month ban for each subsequent noted infringement, to run consecutively. --Iantresman 16:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Issue is not ripe for arbcom. JBKramer 16:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Content based remedies are rarely adopted. And who will be the judge? Thatcher131 16:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The ArbCom doesn't issue policy, nor do they issue decisions which are binding on the Wikipedia community as a whole. Only named parties may suffer (or enjoy) arbcom remedies. Note that WP:DE covers disruptive editing. --EngineerScotty 17:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like m:instruction creep. Obviously, changing policy is outside of the role of the arbcomm, but even if it were, it's too difficult to codify things like this. As long as we don't have the sort of expert board to determine things like this, it's totally unworkable. Guettarda 18:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Beyond arbcom's remit. Metamagician3000 03:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Editors infringing policy to be warned or banned

1) Any editor found to have infringed policy, to be publicly warned for the first 3(?) noted offenses, and to receive a one month ban for each subsequent noted infringement, to run consecutively. --Iantresman 16:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Major changes to wikipedia policies require more than an Arbcom case. JBKramer 16:44, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This requires no change to existing policy, just an indication of who hasn't kept to policy. --Iantresman 17:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

As above, it's instruction creep. If someone infringes policy repeatedly we have the option of RFCs and community bans. The basic principle is already permitted. On the other hand, instituting a system of "punishments" would require a modification of policy. Guettarda 18:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Beyond arbcom's remit. Metamagician3000 03:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"Policy advisors" to be set-up

1) Since so many policy transgressions seem to have been alledged, a "fast track" dispute resolution process would be of tremendous help. Any editor may request "policy advice", whereby an advisor comments on whether an edit or discussion is within policy. Advisors would declare their areas of expertise, so that for example, science experts can NOT advise on science subjects (since they may be biased against the content), etc. I do not think that the current Request for Admins works too well. --Iantresman 16:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

• [Added] I see the ambiguity. I meant that policy advisors who have an interest in science, would not give advice on policy in science articles. Of course science experts edit science articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Beyond this being beyond the scope of arbcom, it demonstrates the basic problem that exists - "experts cannot advise if they are experts." Also demonstrates Ianttresman still doesn't quite get DR - "Request for Admins?" JBKramer 16:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Experts on science aren't necessarily experts on policy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iantresman (talk • contribs) 17:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Content based remedies are rarely adopted. On what basis will advisors be chosen? What happens when an editor disagrees with an advisor? Thatcher131 16:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Advisors volunteer... perhaps they are Admins who declare their interest. If an Editor and Advisor disagree, then two more Advisors give a majority ruling. --Iantresman 17:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This does not appear to be "policy advice" (science experts can NOT advise on science subjects), since policy is independent of the subject matter. In addition, the idea that experts cannot be involved because of "conflicts of interest" is absurd if we actually are here to write an encyclopaedia. (It does sound like a good suggestion for Uncyclopedia though). Guettarda 18:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Vote +1 Uncyclopedia admin! - David Gerard 18:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. "You can write about something if and only if you are not an expert"? Wikipedia is not anti-expert, but some Wikipedians definitely are - David Gerard 18:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is called Citizendium...04:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

"[P]olicy advisors who have an interest in science, would not give advice on policy in science articles" - what "policy on science articles"? Policy is policy - it's the same for science or non-science articles. My original point still holds though - the people who can best speak about the application of policy to science articles are the people who are experts on both topics. There is no more of a conflict of interest there than there is one when policy "experts" speak on the application of policy.

According to Wikipedia:Policy there are four key policies: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; Respect other contributors; Don't infringe copyrights; Avoid bias. I don't think that we are talking about the first three here (although, of course, everyone could be more civil in this dispute). The issue of interest is the issue of WP:NPOV - specifically the Undue Weight provision.

If you want people to make judgements on what constitutes due or undue weight, they need to be experts on the subject matter, or they need to become experts in order to make these determinations. If subject experts cannot make these determinations, then we have a situation in which the desired qualities of "policy advisors" are ignorance about the topic and a lack of diligence (because someone who is diligent about making decisions runs the risk of becoming someone who could be mistaken for, heaven forbid, an expert). So I stand by my original conclusion - this is an idea better suited for Uncyclopedia than for Wikipedia. Guettarda 03:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And the mainstream experts say that to them, a minority view fails undue weight, and the minority view experts say that to them, it is significant. It's a bit like asking a bunch of Democrats at a Democratic convention whether Republican views are signficant. --Iantresman 09:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

No, not at all. Your proposal amounts to saying that Democrats at a Democratic convention should not be allowed to comment on what Democratic views are significant. But to use your analogy, Democrats would be better able to comment on significant Republican viewpoints than would people who are totally unaware of either party's positions. To be honest, Democratic activists need to be aware of which Republican views are significant (since they define the climate in which they are to work). Scientists don't necessarily need to know anything about pseudoscientific or fringe ideas, because they don't usually impinge on the practice of science. It's fairly easy for an expert to distinguish fringe ideas from controversial or new ideas. You just need to be familiar with the literature. It's very difficult for a non-expert to tell, because, as non-experts, they are unfamiliar with the literature and ill-equipped to distinguish an idea that has been debunked and rejected from an idea that is well-supported or new and controversial, but still viable.

Look at the talk page histories at evolution. Well-meaning but clueless people pop up all the time and demand that the "flaws" in evolution be included in the article. Asked to provide these flaws and they bring up ideas that were rejected long ago. If you read Well's Icons of Evolution you are presented with a host of "problems" with evolution, and if you don't know the science they sound reasonable. However, if you know the science, you realise that his arguments are, for the most part, speciose. Leaving determination of what belongs in a science article in the hands of people who know little about the subject matter would result in articles much like we had in 2002. Guettarda 12:58, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I haven't explain it well enough then. Democrats and Republicans both have views on defense, health, social security, foreign affairs etc. Of course Democrat views are important, and they are the best people to asssess and describe their views. But we wouldn't be surprised if Democrats considered Republican views on the same issues to be insignificant. NPOV demands we describe views from both parties, describing which are Democrat, and which are Republican. Likewise we describe the majority scientifict view as such (probably best described by mainstream sceintists), and we desecribe minority scientific views as such (probably best described by the specialist experts in that subject). And we use verifiable reliable sources to help us describe these views. --Iantresman 13:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[Back to margin.] Well-intentioned but beyond arbcom's remit, and seems like a layer of bureaucracy that could just lead to more confusion and disputation. Metamagician3000 03:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"NPOV advisors" to be set-up

1) Since so many edits concern NPOV and neutral wording, a "fast track" dispute resolution process would be of tremendous help. Any editor may request "content advice", whereby one or more editors SHOW their reliable sources, and their proposed article discription, and an advisor indicates whether the sources support the wording proposed, and for example, excludes weasel words. Advisors would declare their areas of expertise, so that for example, science experts can NOT advise on science subjects (since they may be biased against the content), etc. I do not think that the current Request for Admins works too well. --Iantresman 16:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Not appropriate for arbcom to modify existing policies out of whole cloth. Yet again, attempts to keep expert editors away from where they are experts. JBKramer 16:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

(a) An expert on any subject is not necessarily an expert on Wikipedia policy (b) Expert editors do not necessarily need to be experts in the subjects they edit. --Iantresman 17:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Content based remedies are rarely adopted. On what basis will advisors be chosen? What happens when an editor disagrees with an advisor? Thatcher131 16:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Since NPOV is a core policy, this is redundant with the proposal above. Or is this meant as an alternative? Guettarda 18:47, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

This kind of decision would not be in ArbCom's jurisdiction, of course. But this proposal has the core of a good plan in my opinion, and this is the only place to discuss it right now. We need to take the "policy" and "NPOV" interpretation decisions away from the localized consensus of editors with the greatest tenacity. We need some way to put the decisions on "policy" and "NPOV" interpretation in the "hands" of the wide Wikipedia community. One way to put these decisions in the "hands" of the wide Wikipedia community would be for us to elect "judges" to make these quick controversy-by-controversy decisions for us--subject to review by ArbCom perhaps in some lengthy proceeding like this one. --Rednblu 23:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonwithstanding this RFArb, you're welcome to propose such. However, I a) don't think it would be adapted, and if it were, b) I don't think you will like the results. --EngineerScotty 23:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What results do you mean? --Rednblu 23:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My suspicion is that such a panel would take a stronger stand against "alternative" theories than Wikipedia does now. --EngineerScotty 23:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! In your crystal ball, do the advocates of "alternative" theories accept the decisions of such a panel without having to resort to edit wars? --Rednblu 00:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've no clue; the panel wasn't my idea :), I'm only suggesting that given the politics of Wikipedia and the WFM, either one of two things is likely: a) there ain't gonna be a panel; or b) it's going to be one that backs "mainstream" science over alternate theories (if it its effect is to be different than what we have now). The WFMWikimedia Foundation and Jimbo are sensitive to comments coming from the outside (from academia in particular) that Wikipedia is unauthoritative and unreliable. Without passing judgment on the current case; I would note that many of those comments come from mainstream scientists who think Wikipedia too tolerant of alternative theories, and wish Wikipedia to be more like Encyclopædia Britannica--which has no article on plasma cosmology, and likely never will. My comment is intended only as a warning to Ian: Be careful what you wish for, you might get it. --EngineerScotty 17:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No. It is difficult enough to get even the top experts in a field to agree on anything (and so, NPOV dictates that such articles accurately reflect the fact that there is a significant disagreement); if you get people who are only experts in a related field... well, it is unlikely to be good. I would propose that if there were such a panel (which I oppose for other reasons) it should consist of 12 ppl and decisions only be binding if they are unanimous. ObsidianOrder 18:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Well said. So then I guess my question is directed most appropriately to User:Iantresman. Consider with me please the following hypothetical. Suppose we as a Wikipedia community would elect "judges" to decide "fast track" such controversies as UndueWeight, ReliableSource, and NoOriginalResearch on any page, would you accept the decisions of the "judges" as the legitimate expression of the Wikipedia community--even if the "judges" decided that the pages should have the balance that they do now? I also understand that your "opposition" apparently has warped the existing rules and ripped your significant NPOV contributions from pages. So the rules that your "opposition" has applied would have to be clarified to be fair. What do you think? --Rednblu 17:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure. I suspect that once it has been resolved, both sides of this arbitration case will want a speedier way to resolve these issues. --Iantresman 22:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I would like to remind everybody: Substantial policy changes, such as setting up a "NPOV review board", is BEYOND THE SCOPE of the ArbCom. The ArbCom lacks the authority to impose policy. I'll concede that they may interpret it, and in doing so set precedent for how it may rule in the future (as there are no inferior tribunals presently on Wikipedia--unless one counts WP:AN as a "tribunal"--to speak of binding precedent in the Wikipedia context is meaningless). While such a thing might be useful; here is not the appropriate place to discuss. If someone is serious about such a thing, I suggest reading of WP:POLICY, and/or creating a page to discuss it. I'll even create a red link for you: Wikipedia:NPOV review board. But this is not a matter for the ArbCom to consider. Period. --EngineerScotty 20:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Let's examine that little disruption of the discussion for a second. We all understand that the discussion in this section is not binding on ArbCom. This discussion is located totally within this section--and possibly also the preceding section as a variation. So the discussion bounded in this section cannot reasonably be interpreted as "disruptive" of the purpose of the "Workshop" page. This is a Workshop page looking for solutions to problems, after all. And there are some problems in this case having to do with the murky and self-contradictory text in Wikipedia NPOV policy. I don't see anyone here advocating a particular solution to the problems, so it would be too early to move to a WP:POLICY subpage. This discussion in this section so far is only a RequirementsAnalysis activity; what are the causes of the problems? -- what are the possible resolutions of the problems? And this is the appropriate place to have this discussion because we have all the raw data of the "problems" and failed "solutions" here in links on this page. That is just my vote in the matter. What do others think? --Rednblu 20:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Not trying to disrupt anything; except to note that this page is for information needed to assist the ArbCom. Extended discussions of side topics are out of order here. If the clerk (or any of the arbitrators) feel that I'm wrong, please let me know. --EngineerScotty 21:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you should stop disrupting the workshop page, now. JBKramer 21:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we saved simultaneously. Am I correct in that the above was addressed to User:Rednblu? --EngineerScotty 21:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

We did. Yes, you are. JBKramer 21:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Write plasma cosmology article about plasma socmology

1) If the article were about "cosmology" then all cosmologies should be included, along with the policies of NPOV and Undue Weight atc. But the Plasma Cosmology article is about plasma cosmology, and there is no apriori reason to reference the big bang, except perhaps in a section called big bang something. Tommy Mandel 05:02, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Analysis of evidence

Wikipolicy on NPOV

Wikipedia has an important policy: roughly stated, you should write articles without bias, representing all views fairly. Wikipedia uses the words "bias" and "neutral" in a special sense! This doesn't mean that it's possible to write an article from just one point of view, the neutral (unbiased, "objective") point of view. That's a common misunderstanding of the Wikipedia policy. :::The Wikipedia policy is that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute, and not make an article state, imply, or insinuate that any one side is correct. [36]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Executive summary

Comment by others:

I don't see this as "evidence". It may serve as pointer to the allegation that ScienceApologist's modus operandi conflicts with WP:NPOV policy as summarized above. Harald88 20:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of presupposition

(cur) (last) 02:17, 18 August 2006 Astrobayes (Talk | contribs)

(Redundant. Current physical cosmology does not *argue* for the big bang, it presupposes it.)

[[37]]

Here we have evidence of POV Pushing in that the big bang is a theory, yet to be proven, and is by no means something that can be presupposed. For example, the authors of Inflation theory call there model a theory, while Gibbins says there are a bewildering arrary of different versions, yet to be determined which is going to be successful. While the comment above is not in the article, it reflects the thinking process of the editor and those who edit plasma cosmology to improve it.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed by Tommysun. Is this the diff for the "Current physical cosmology does not *argue* for the big bang, it presupposes it" Edit summary? --Rednblu 11:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Tommy Mandel

evidence of misrepresentation

The article reads:

Advocates for these ideas are mostly ignored by the professional community[2].

The source for this statement (2) reads

^ Prominent plasma cosmology advocates Anthony Peratt and Eric Lerner, in an open letter cosigned by a total of 34 authors, state "An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences." and "Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies." [1]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Tommysun is unwise to open a discussion of misrepresentation - here is an old list of my reactions to his various misrepresentations. Art LaPella 05:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

He may be unwise to do so, but it is for the good of this encyclopedia. Misrepresentation of facts in article by one party cannot serve as excuse for misrepresentaion of facts in an article by another party. Harald88 19:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, yeah. I have defended ScienceApologist on this issue here and in the following discussion. Art LaPella 22:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of removal of evidence

[[38]]

The article reads in part:

[Redshift|Cosmological redshifts]] are a ubiquitous phenomenon that is summarized by Hubble's law in which more distant galaxies have greater redshifts. Adherents to plasma cosmology dispute the claim that this observation indicates an expanding universe, and they point out that Hubble himself did not embrace expansion.

history reads:

(cur) (last) 11:29, 25 September 2006 ScienceApologist (Talk | contribs) (rv Tommysun nonsense.)

(cur) (last) 05:23, 25 September 2006 Tommysun (Talk | contribs) (hubble did not believe in expansion)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Note that the issue here is that this generally is not pointed out by plasma cosmology adherents. It is something pointed out by Alan Sandage who isn't a plasma cosmology adherent. --ScienceApologist 22:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The above is one example of what I tried to put in

and they point out that Hubble himself did not embrace expansion.

and what SA subsequently did:

rv Tommysun nonsense.)

Please note that while I tried many times, each edit was phrased differently ranging from a verbatum copy of what Hubble said in detail to this simple phrase above.

Comment by others:

[Placeholder]. I'll refactor the long comment I originally made here, as I slightly misunderstood the context. I'll put it somewhere to work on, but it's obviously in the history as well. Metamagician3000 09:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

All right, I've put some re-cast thoughts at this subpage for anyone who thinks they might be of value and would care to consult them. Metamagician3000 10:20, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Eric Lerner's ideas do not influence mainstream science

Somewhere in this mess I read a statement to the effect that no one had been able to prove that Lerner's ideas were ignored by mainstream science. I set out to test this proposition.

I have access to a database called ISI Web of Science. It finds journal articles and reports how many times they have been cited by other articles. Unfortunately I can not provide links, because it is a subscription site. In search for publications by Eric Lerner, I found, 6 papers in IEEE Transactions in Plasma Science, 2 papers in Astrophysics and Space Science, one paper in Astrophysical Journal and one paper in Laser and Particle Beams all relating to plasma cosmology. These 10 articles have been cited a total of 40 times, which is respectable. However, 26 of those citations were in other papers by Lerner, meaning the number of times he has been cited by other scientists is 14, or 1.4 per article, which is quite low. Furthermore, nearly all of the articles that cite him themselves have very low citation counts, generally 4 or less. One important article that does cite Lerner is in Nature 352, 769 - 776 (29 August 1991), a major journal. However since the title of this article is "The case for the relativistic hot Big Bang cosmology" and the abstract states

The relativistic hot Big Bang model for the expanding Universe has yielded a set of interpretations and successful predictions that substantially outnumber the elements used in devising the theory, with no well-established empirical contradictions. It is reasonable to conclude that this standard cosmology has developed into a mature and believable physical model.

I don't think it puts much stock in the idea that radio absorption by the intergalactic medium is responsible for the measured redshift effect.

While I am sure I did not search all of Lerner's papers, there is no reason to think this is not a representative finding. Thatcher131 04:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is a very good summary of the status of Lerner with regards to the cosmological community. What I'd like to point out is that the opposing "side" in this arbitrartion case has resisted efforts to state this plain fact on pages such as plasma cosmology and Eric Lerner. --ScienceApologist 01:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

General discussion

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I do not aspire to become a Wikipedian. I am not a Wiki editor. I am a reader who happened to find numerous flaws if two articles that I was interested in. I really believed that this encyclopedia was free, and that edits would be welcome. BUT what I found was that controversial articles are "owned" by a select group of editors who manage to slant the article one way or the other, usually their way. It really is obvious. I also found that it is almost impossible to correct the situation, for, as one admin stated on the general talk page "Wiki admins can do as they damn well please."

I do not understand how the fact that plasma cosmoogy is not the big bang theory escapes nearly everyone. I do not understand how a big bang advocate can edit plasma cosmology, removing what plasma has to offer, and leave the article in complete disarray, and get away with it? Does everyone think they are doing a good job?

My daughter is working toward her masters in information science. According to the class, Wikipedia cannot be used as a source in academic situations. Believe me, it is not because experts are pushed away by pseudoscientists, it is because, as my colleagues told me several times, of the edit wars. They just don't have the time to play the game. Wikipedia, at least at UofI, is considered a social phenonmenon, and it is not considered by them as a "reliable source of information."

Because I have tried to implement such a project as Wikipedia myself i can appreciate the significance of this project. But there is a cancer at the very core of Wikipedia, and there is no mechanism to ferret it out and make course corrections. Ultimately the truth will be known, so what appears in Wikipedia now will have no lasting effect. But it is a shame that our children who find Wikipedia easy to use, will suffer the consequences

Just for your information, in our work, we use the four domains of philosophy, science, methdology and action. The philosophy are the general principles, the science is application of those principles, methodology, assuming discovery and diagnosis, is the plan for resolution, and all this ends in action. The modeling is recursive.

As a post script, I have met a couple Wiki-walkers, workers who only want to help. So I know they exist.(I am grateful for your help.) On the other hand I have also met Wiki-talkers who are very adept at wiki-talk. They are very adept at telling us they are doing a good job, while they wiki-talk in the article.

Tommy Mandel 01:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Wikipedia does not given weight to subjects that run contrary to established knowledge. For example, someone editting wikipedia claiming the sky it polka dot will have their edits reverted. Arbusto 23:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)