User talk:Bogman2/Pseudoscience

This is admin-Bucketsofg's working page to investigate complaints brought about User:ScienceApologist by User:Iantresman and User:Ionized. Please do not edit it. If you want to add something, do it on the accompanying talk-page.

Involved users and articles

 * Wolf effect
 * Plasma cosmology
 * Electric universe (concept)
 * Wolf effect
 * Plasma cosmology
 * Electric universe (concept)

Other relevant appeals/hearings/etc.

 * 17 Dec. 2005 Iantresman files WP:RFAR:ScienceApologist
 * withdrawn
 * full case
 * 4 Jan. 2006: Iantresman calls for WP:ANI:ScienceApologist
 * 4 Jan. 2006: Iantresman calls for WP:ANI:ScienceApologist (2) (Archived)
 * 7 Jan. 2006: Iantresman calls for WP:ANI:ScienceApologist (3) (Archived)
 * 27 May 2006: Iantresman appeals for WP:ANI:Disruption of new article Plasma Universe
 * 17 Aug. 2006 Iantresman calls for Third Opinion
 * 20 Aug. 2006 Iantresman appeals to Assoc. of Members Advocates (which resulted in an exchange with advocate User:Aeon10006 here and here)
 * 11 Sept. 2006 Iantresman files AP:PAIN/ScienceApologist leading to a block of SA by User:Shell Kinney (block was controversial, see ANI discussion)
 * 2 October 2006, User:Iantresman filed Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience
 * 23 Nov. 2005 Iantresman files RFC/Biographies William G. Tifft
 * 17 Dec. 2006 Iantresman files WP:AE:ScienceApologist
 * 24 Dec. 2006 Iantresman files WP:AE:ScienceApologist (2)
 * 29 Dec. 2006 Iantresman files WP:AE:ScienceApologist (3)
 * 1 Jan. 2007 Iantresman files WP:AE:ScienceApologist (4)
 * 12 Jan. 2007 Iantresman files WP:AE:ScienceApologist (5)
 * 19 May 2007 Iantresman files WP:AE:ScienceApologist (archived)
 * 18:45, 22 May 2007 Iantresman files WP:AE:ScienceApologist 2

WP:RFAR/ScienceApologist

 * 18 November 2006, User:Asmodeus filed Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist complaining about SA's "disruptive editing" and other policy violations: WP:RFAR/SA/Evidence_of_Asmodeus
 * Important summary here
 * The Findings of Fact made no findings critical of SA.
 * User:Iantresman and User:Ionized were not parties in this RFAR; Iantresman made a few edits to the workshop.
 * User:Asmodeus, who filed the case, was banned from some articles, put on probation.
 * User:ScienceApologist was "counselled": "ScienceApologist is counseled to be more patient and diplomatic with users who may edit their own article or advance original research. Many users err, but eventually become valued contributors."


 * Conclusion. ScienceApologist apparently vindicated. ("counselling" I take to be a very weak warning.)

WP:RFAR/Pseudoscience

 * on 2 October, User:Iantresman filed Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience
 * Important summary here,
 * Principles, findings, and remedies relevant to Iantresman:
 * Principle 9) Content disputes Restrictions are placed on users only in cases where their behavior seriously disrupts the wiki process or fulfillment of Wikipedia's mission to produce an accurate and useful reference work.
 * Finding 12) Iantresman is uncivil Iantresman has also been uncivil regarding ScienceApologist, accusing him of bad faith or vandalism.
 *  Finding 13) Iantresman's editing style Iantresman's editing to pseudoscience and science-related articles are characterized by low level edit warring and frequent edits against consensus. See Special:Contributions/Iantresman.
 * Finding 15) Iantresman's orientation Iantresman, in his editing philosophy, favors challenges to standard knowledge, which he sometimes terms "dogma", his personal website, a site devoted to scientific anomalies User:Iantresman, see also many of the other links at Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence
 * Remedy 8b) Iantresman placed on Probation Iantresman is placed on probation for a year. He may be banned from any article or subject area which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing. All bans are to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_blocks_and_bans.


 * Principles, findings, and remedies relevant to ScienceApologist:
 * Principle 9) Content disputes Restrictions are placed on users only in cases where their behavior seriously disrupts the wiki process or fulfillment of Wikipedia's mission to produce an accurate and useful reference work.
 * Finding 11) ScienceApologist is uncivil. ScienceApologist has strongly and repeated criticized Iantresman with ad hominem attacks: "incompetent" "close-minded ignorance" advised him not to "be a dick" characterized him as an "avowed Velikovskian" "inordinate ignorance" of a "nonscientist layman" "pet ideas" "Basic ignorance" Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence.
 * Finding 11a) Deprecation by ScienceApologist Using strong negative language, ScienceApologist has deprecated a number of persons and their theories "well-known woo-woos", The Electric Universe (book) "discredited" "Completely unauthorative, argumentative"
 * Finding 14) ScienceApologist has edit warred ScienceApologist has occasionally engaged in edit warring, for example at Plasma cosmology and Eric Lerner (see Special:Contributions/ScienceApologist)
 * Finding 16) ScienceApologist failure to extend good faith ScienceApologist has habitually failed to extend good faith to Iantresman, see Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence.
 *  Remedy 11) ScienceApologist cautioned ScienceApologist is cautioned to respect all policies and guidelines, in spirit as well as letter, when editing articles concerning some alternative to conventional science. This applies in particular to matters of good faith and civility.

Interpretation of ArbComm rulings

 * The remedies regarding ScienceApologist respectively counselled him to be diplomatic and cautioned him to follow all rules, especially WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Since goodfaith is implicit in WP:CIVIL, failures to WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL could involve sanctions.


 * The remedy regarding Iantresman places him on probation. He can be banned for "disrupts by aggressive biased editing". Two points to watch for: is editing agressive? does it disrupt?  Yes on both points should bring a ban.

Evidence re:ScienceApologist
(last 250 edits; others per diffs, etc.)
 * (Too?) frank statements:
 * "your insistance on certain points in the article is becoming disruptive" (spade?)
 * "I'm afraid, Lou, that Ian is misleading you with non-mainstream references." (spade?)
 * edit summary: "rv uneducated POV pushing." (spade?)
 * "I'll wait for Ian. He's pretty resourceful when it comes to searching for obscure references." (meow!)
 * "Calling it a pseudoscience is absolutely silly. What is a pseudoscience, though, is the proposal you have lined up from time-to-time (which have now, thankfully, been excised from this encyclopedia as original research)." (spade)
 * "What a silly thing to say: The "EM force is 1039/" is only good for individual atoms. Not for macroscopic objects." (spade)
 * "I'm not going to entertain your POV-pushing any longer. This conversation is over as far as I'm concerned" (at the end of a long debate; incivil? or appropriate decision to end protracted and unprofitable discussion?)
 * edit summary "rv -- Ian lied about consensus." (cf. here) reacting to this edit summary claiming "noted consensus, and controversy. Added Sobel quote per Talk consensus." (withdrawn here 2 hrs later with an apology). Although the wording is incivil, it is not completely unjustified: Iantresman's claim of consensus comes after a week's silence on the page: here
 * "Ian's problem is that he's a bean counter" (as part of an assertion that Ian is counting his sources rather than weighing them)
 * General points: many good edits; on receiving end of some incivilities (seems to give less incivility than he takes)

Evidence re:Iantresman
(Last 250 edits) disputatious
 * "Where do you get these ideas from?"
 * removes wired article "uses Wikipedia as a reference" (check: "They Sing the Comet Electric")
 * problematic appeal to village pump (with leading question: "Should the editor who so labels an article be attributed as the source?" cf. here
 * at village pump: "Can arbitration cases be appealed?" (and elsewhere)
 * "Your comment against Jeff Kanipe is an ad hominem as you are questioning his personal reliability as a source, and seems to be contrary to WP:LIVING. Indeed, WP:NPA" apparently responding to SA's characterization "Kanipe as a science writer and not a scientist is not a reliable source on theoretical development." (cf. here and here) (over-reaction? fails wp:agf)
 * complains of "ad hominem" about bean-counter
 * reaction to "liar" here, complaining about it again here as an "ad hominem"; "Ian is misleading you" is an ad hominem that falls under WP:NPA, and could be considered WP:CIVIL"
 * reaction to 'pathology of these people' ad hominem
 * "ScienceApologist, rather than disagreeing all the time, why don't you do some basic research and find out for yourself"
 * "No one will ever have a rebuttal for your arguments, because you just won't accept them"
 * argumentative aggressive snarky repetitive peevish personal

edit summary "Remove made up, unverifiable stuff from ScienceAoplogist"

Revert without appropriate edit summary: 1RR, another revert not identified as such 2RR. (You need to heed Help:Edit_summary).

Also, the fact that is removed in the edit, that EU is especially promoted by "currently advocated by Wallace Thornhill and Don Scott", is acknowledged as correct in the accompanying talk "You're quite right that Wal Thornhill has promoted the phrase "electric universe" more than most … it's not that Thornhill and Scott haven't played an important part in the Electric Universe, but their contribution is not exclusive"


 * Warnings Admin FeloniousMonk (Dec. 15): "your insistance on certain points in the article is becoming disruptive"; cf. admin-Guy here.


 * general points: everything is about the dispute: writes prominent authorities not how best to describe "Wolf effect", but whether it's ok to call it a red-shift.


 * in denial about arbcomm: "Nope, I am not restricted any more than I was before the Arbitration case, and no evidence was presented demonstrating that I have ever edited inappropriately. But I agree with you that the Arbitration case was more against me that ScienceApologist."

notable edits by Ionized
seems to assume bad faith:

Questions

 * abuse of process? vexatious/frivolous litigation?
 * cf. Ionized:
 * Iantresman: 'Add to that you being the subject of two arbitration cases in as many months, resulting in a caution and a counseling, I think there's a good chance they'll make you stand in the corner... and then may be it will be the naughty step.'

Mediation Cabal
In Mediation Cabal, User:Flying Jazz wrote:
 * One user, Iantresman, engages in five types of behavior in the talk pages that are disruptive and prevent others from engaging in reasonable debate.
 * 1) Iantresman misrepresents what others have said on Wikipedia. This damages the community and the talk space becomes a comedy of misunderstandings rather than maintaining focus on the article.
 * 2) Iantresman misrepresents what others have said off Wikipedia. This is damaging to the article because the misrepresentations are believed and sway opinions in content disputes. This happens most often when Ian says "There are 40 (or 100 or 200) articles that support my point" when in actuality, a brief look at a sample of those articles shows that they only use the same keywords that are contained in his point, and often the articles disagree with him.
 * 3) Iantresman replies at length in the talk space to posts that are not addressed to him or to his opinions. This prevents consensus and true conversation from taking place among multiple editors.
 * 4) Iantresman repeats the same arguments and fills the talk page with lengthy lists even after the argument has been concluded and consensus reached. This prevents other editors from focusing on specific issues under discussion about the article. In particular, the arguments he made during a request for comments continue to be made months after the RfC ended.
 * 5) Iantresman and ScienceApologist repeatedly engage in very long and repetitive debate on this talk page that is full of baiting and tangential information. Editors who hope to achieve a compromise or have a point must slog through their debate in order to reach occasional tidbits that focus on the article itself. In recent weeks, ScienceApologist has improved in this regard. Iantresman has gotten worse.

Misc. remarks
This situation is beyond dispute resolution. Note the exchange at Talk:Plasma_cosmology/Archive_7: an opinion sought, snarky rebuttal, clarification of question, dismissive retort.