Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WNDL42

In order to remain listed at Requests for comment/User conduct, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 19:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is:, 29 July 2024 (UTC).



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Statement of the dispute
User:Wndl42 has been recently been engaging in vigorous talk page discussion on the article What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know%21%3F, a movie which was heavily criticised by many scientists as giving an inaccurate assessment of many scientific matters to the public (to put it politely). The crux of the problem is that Wndl42 appears to be engaging in tendentious editing in support of many of the movie's more egregious claims. Jefffire (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Desired outcome
As one might imagine, editing a controversial page will always be difficult. Most of the users disagree with each other in some way, and we can usually find some way around this. However, discussing matters with Wndl42 is a frustrating and time consuming matter, for the reasons detailed above. My preferred solution would be that there is a complete change in behavior from the user. Failing that I see no other answer than for the user to be subject to administrative action.Jefffire (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Description
Links to fringe journals are produced to support some claims, but Wndl42 will not accept clarification that such journals are not reliable. In many cases google searches are provided by the user as justification, and will not accept that they are inadequate. In one case, when informed that the C.V. of one of the movie makers was not a reliable source for a particular claim, Wndl42 claimed that this was an accusation of deception against the film-maker and thus a violation of WP:BLP. An extremely extensive discussion took place on the matter, in which Wndl42 was corrected on their interpretation by a number of users.

Furthermore, anyone who disagrees with Wndl42 is generally accused of engaging in "strawman attacks" by the user, with the phrase being used often nonsensically at times. Furthermore, the user has posted rather pointed discussions about "pathological skepticism" and "group think" on the talk page. On my own talk page, the user has talked about the "tribal" behavior amongst "a largely incivil and difficult group" to which I was informed I belonged. What was described as a "hopelessly muddled and unreadable" compaint by the closing admin at the arbitration enforcement page was also filed by Wndl42 against user:ScienceApologist Aside from the obvious problems with the claim, it also contains the full "symptoms of groupthink" quote which is almost becoming a trademark. Jefffire (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Wndl42 also has engaged in edit-warring on the main article, constantly attempting to modify the final sentence to avoid the phrase he objects to, contains pseudoscience. Many of those reversions his other obsession, that Arntz, a man with a BS in Engineering Science, needs to be referred to as a "former research physicist", despite not having the credentials, nor any source describing him as such that doesn't seem to track back to his own bio.

The particular sentence he objects to is as close to a consensus as the article has ever achieved. I even received a barnstar from MartinPhi for it. If someone like me is getting barnstars from MartinPhi, it's pretty good evidence that the sentence is about as NPOV as you can get.Kww (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
 * -slight incivility, and insistence on google searches
 * -disagreement over the application of WP:BLP. My quotes, directly from the policy and demonstrating explicately that Wndl42 was incorrect, were dismissed as "quote farming".
 * -accusation of "groupthink" and tribalism from Wndl42
 * Wndl42's complaint against ScienceApologist, including full quote of the symptoms of groupthink

Another example: Here is where he reveals that after arguing about a paragraph for weeks, he had never bothered to read the references supporting the statement, and simply denied their existence, while simultaneously insulting me by accusing me of groupthink. Here is where I show the references. Here is where he responds by dismissing every scientist interviewed by the BBC as being "fringe."

Similarly, the WP:SET test on Google Scholar he refers to as saying that there isn't support for the word pseudoscience brings up only two articles that actually deal with the science in the movie ... one describing it as quackery and the other as tortured science, which he apparently thinks refutes the referenced sources that use tosh, balderdash, and distortion.

Edit warring here, here, here, and here.

A truly off-the-wall accusation of incivility.

Another incivility accusation.

Another incivility accusation.

Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
 * Disruptive_editing
 * WP:Reliable sources
 * WP:BLP
 * WP:Civil

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
 * , warned by myself
 * , user:Kww asks Wndl42 to desist in using google searchs as evidence and repeated accusations that others are using "strawmen"
 * Kww requests for the edit warring to stop. Of course, the article was protected due to Wndl42's edit warring shortly afterward.

Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}


 * Jefffire (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Kww (talk) 22:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Other users who endorse this summary

 * Endorse. Woonpton (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Very much so. The Rationalist (talk) 19:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep --Shot info (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Response
''This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.'' ''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary:

Outside view
''This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.''

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Outside view by Sbowers3
Without evaluating the evidence, I see some evidence of disputed behavior. I see very little evidence of trying to resolve the dispute, and I see very little, if any, evidence of failing to resolve it.

In the "Evidence of trying ..." section, the first item looks like a legitimate warning - but it is weak on specifics. It is more an advance notice of this RFC than a full-fledged attempt to resolve the dispute before starting an RFC. The second two attempts to resolve the dispute look more like a continuation of the dispute than an attempt to resolve it. They are placed on the talk page in the middle of the dispute, rather than on the user's talk page.

As for "Evidence of ... failing ...", the question is, "Has the disputed behavior continued after the attempt to resolve the dispute?" I note the date of the first attempt to resolve, i.e. 26 February. Pretty much all of the evidence of disputed behavior occurred before that warning. I'm not sure I see any evidence that the behavior has continued after the warning. So I don't see evidence that the attempts failed.

There may exist better evidence of trying to resolve the dispute, and there may exist better evidence of failing to resolve it. I just don't see it presented here. I make no comment about the "accused's" behavior, just about the structure of the RFC. I would like to solid evidence of trying to resolve a dispute, and solid evidence of failing to resolve it, before starting an RFC. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Sbowers3 (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) PhilKnight (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by Ncmvocalist
I am of the opinion that it was inappropriate to come here at this stage, and feel that there is not enough for a case here. I am only able to accept the second of the 4 diffs provided as evidence of questionable behaviour.

Re: incivility, I find both sides have engaged in incivility and disruptive editing. As noted above by Sbowers3, the "...attempts to resolve the dispute look more like a continuation of the dispute than an attempt to resolve it."

The remainder of your issues should be taken up through a form dispute resolution. As it is on a particular article, either an Rfc on article content (- not user conduct!) would be fitting, or mediation may be appropriate. Perhaps more negotiation is necessary.

I find that there is as such, not enough solid evidence for this Rfc. Any issues regarding the article should be taken through negotiation, an Rfc on article content (rather than user conduct), or mediation. My view is therefore to dismiss this Rfc.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 05:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Epbr123 (talk) 22:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) —  Rlevse  •  Talk  • 18:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) PhilKnight (talk) 22:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Outside view by PhilKnight
Accusing the other side of group-think, and in particular, accusing individual editors, is probably less productive than acknowledging that both sides can exhibit this characteristic. Also, instead of repeating lengthy details about group-think, it would probably be preferable to write an essay, complete with a shortcut, and just link the essay.

Users who endorse this summary:
 * 1) PhilKnight (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.