Misplaced Pages

:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:13, 29 December 2008 editGazimoff (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,219 edits Fixed link to #Log of blocks, bans and restrictions← Previous edit Revision as of 07:05, 29 December 2008 edit undoMartinphi (talk | contribs)12,452 edits →Involved parties: I am doing this because I want the ArbCom, by banning or sanctioning me, to formally embrace SPOV (or not). So attack away!Next edit →
Line 21: Line 21:
*{{userlinks|ScienceApologist}} *{{userlinks|ScienceApologist}}
*{{admin|Jehochman}} *{{admin|Jehochman}}
*{{userlinks|Martinphi}}


== Statement by ] == == Statement by ] ==

Revision as of 07:05, 29 December 2008

Case Opened on 00:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4
This case is currently open; as such, no changes to this page should be made. Any additions should be reverted: if you have evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider, post it at the evidence page.

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

Statement by seicer

I believe that at this point, the community's patience has been exhausted of ScienceApologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), similar in nature to Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), would be appropriate. As such, I proposed a community ban of ScienceApologist, threaded under WP:ANI#SA - once again.

Per Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Community ban, ScienceApologist has been proven repeatedly that he is disruptive in a specific area of Misplaced Pages, notably science/pseudoscience-related articles. A topic ban may be effective, but only if it is enforced, but that has thus far shown to be ineffective. He has also exhausted the community's patience to the point that multiple blocks and editing restrictions have not given the results desired.

SA is also under Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement, although this has been proven ineffective. SA also has 14 blocks that I can count, that are not adjustments or refactors.

In reply to the "wikistalking" commentary, I was a mediator for Cold Fusion, and as such, I implemented editing restrictions for the duration of the mediation, and although SA initially agreed to be a participant of the mediation process, he refused to participate in a constructive manner, and was thus removed as a result of the mediation, and the disruptions that ensued post-mediation due to edit warring and general hostility, I have passively monitored SA's contributions, as has other administrators. He has been the subject at ANI/AN, RFC and etc. far too many times, and his general negativity, as expressed here and elsewhere, is not warranted.

In the past, SA has lobbed death threats, which are explicitly forbidden under policy.

At today's WP:ANI#SA - once again, SA has filed a retilatory and frivolous community ban request against myself, and by extension, Jehochman. He has also engaged in refactoring other editors comments or rendering them impossible to be threaded, such as this and this.

Relevant links may include:

List of blocks or notifications relating to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist can be found here. Another list relating to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience can be found here.

Statement by ScienceApologist

This request was precipitated by a few comments on Misplaced Pages talk:Scientific standards which resulted in a Wikiquette alert which was immediately passed on to Misplaced Pages:ANI#SA_-_once_again which post-haste turned into a shitshow. User:seicer has been advocating for banning/blocking me for some time and decided to do this again at the urging of the newest hater-of-SA, Jehochman. That is the SUM TOTAL of what has transpired since the last arbcom case in which I was involved. All other "evidence" secier/jehochman point to was presented before arbcom in the cold fusion case as well as there being a request in the workshop for banning me. I take it on faith that the arbitrators considered this request. Of course, maybe the "new" arbcomm should take it. You know what they say, if you don't get the result you want, take it back to court until you do.

I recognize and take responsibility for the issues related to the findings of fact and principles that arbcom made in the cold fusion case. However, I think that in the interest of cleaning slates, and considering that arbcom has already looked at most of the evidence presented again (and again and again) by seicer, I believe it prudent that the decision as to whether to accept this case be judged on my activities solely today.

I think that there are three activities which people are upset about: me accusing another user of disrupting a Misplaced Pages page, me quoting a physicist who called cold fusion "shitty researchers doing shitty research", and me asking for a community ban of the user who brings this arbitration case before us today. Is this activity really enough to warrant an arbitration case? Or is this a case of users who want to see me gone looking for any and all dramatic excuses? I note that there is some disagreement over this matter in the community. Some people think the entire thing is overblown. Others think that I'm such a disruption to the encyclopedia that I shouldn't be allowed to stay.

I remind the committee that I am under certain arbitration restrictions in both the Pseudoscience and the Martinphi-ScienceApologist cases. I believe that this could be taken to WP:AE and sorted out there (possibly). Alternatively, the accusers could actually try to have a conversation with me, for once. There is no reason to take this back to arbcom and rehash the story again. I do not think that User:Seicer or User:Jehochman should be trying to police my actions as they have proven problematic at best in their interactions with me.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

The community is deeply divided over this matter. SA aims to improve the encyclopedia and their editing improves many articles. However, their behavior drives away productive contributors, leaving articles exposed to increased activity by advocates of fringe ideas. On balance, the time and disruption caused by SA are intolerable. Additionally, there has been a history of gaming the rules, including recent sock puppetry Any attempts to control SA's behavior result in cataclysimic severe disruption, including:

  • confirmed block evasion
  • mock death threats, resulting in a call to the police
  • a pointy request for community sanctions against Seicer
  • crusading for opponents to be blocked or banned
  • retaliatory editing of Elonka Dunin (No comment on the validity of the edits, but they immediately follow Elonka's sanctioning of SA.)

Please help us resolve these matters. The community has repeatedly failed on its own. As you can see on this page, there are administrators who would oppose strong sanctions on SA. It is better to arbitrate before somebody applies controversial sanctions, rather than afterwards. WP:AE has no magical ability to create consensus where none is possible. A delay of one week is fine; queue it for processing. Jehochman 20:57, 22 December 2008 (UTC) and 10:48, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The list of parties needs to be trimmed to just the essential ones, please. Jehochman 21:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
SA, at Cold fusion the Committee chose not to rule on your behavior, and you chose not to answer the allegations. Your history has not been wiped clean. We have no rule against double jeopardy. No decision means that nothing was decided.
The latest WP:ANI thread could have ended pleasantly, SA, if you would have backed down and retracted your incivil remarks, rather than disrupting the discussion with a retaliatory proposal against Seicer. It is fully within your power to end this conflict. All you need to do is stop using incivility as a weapon against other editors, stop socking, and stop disrupting. As strongly as I try to prevent you from disrupting, I will support you if you renounce disruptive tactics. Jehochman 21:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC) and 10:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Footnote
  1. I personally find it impossible to edit any article where SA is hurling bile at other editors.
  2. User:FT2 and User:Lar are familiar with the full details of the two most recent incidents.
  3. SA frequently undermines the formation consensus with tactics like argumentum ad nauseum, incivility, sock puppetry and battleground tactics. When an editor's involvement is guaranteed to derail a discussion that is "cataclysmic" severe disruption.
Mentorship

SA mentoring with Durova is fine and may be a part of the resolution. However, I think we still need to have a case to produce 1/ principals for guiding similar situations 2/ findings of fact, and 3/ a plan for dealing with contingencies, such as relapses or the termination of mentorship. Jehochman 20:37, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (6/0/3/0)

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision (none yet)

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles

Findings of fact

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.

Enforcement

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

Category:
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science: Difference between revisions Add topic