Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bensaccount

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, 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 ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Bensaccount continues to defy NPOV policy, and rather than reporting the mainstream scientific view as a view, he insists on reporting the mainstream scientific view as "fact" or "true" and anything opposed to it as factually untrue or factually unscientific. i.e. Bensaccount insists on reporting from the "Scientific Point Of View" (SPOV).

[edit] Description

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

The dispute revolves around Bensaccount's insistance on editing according to the "Scientific Point Of View", versus the "Neutral Point Of View". NPOV policy says to report the mainstream scientific views as the mainstream scientific views. Bensaccount shows a repeated history of representing the mainstream scientific point of view as fact. This dispute has been going on the Creation Science article for roughly two weeks now and despite attempts from several editors, Bensaccount refuses to change his editing behaviour. This recent post by Bensaccount on the Creation Science talk page basically sums up his position and his unwillingness to follow NPOV policy:

"You have absolutely no grasp of science FuelWagon. Science is not a point of view. Do you think that by misquoting me you will advance your cause and have all relevant facts omitted from the intro? Its not going to work. Yes views are opinions, but no I never I have nothing against them. My problem is with people replacing facts with views and pretending they are the same." Bensaccount 19:02, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[1]

Bensaccount refuses to report the mainstream point of view as being a view from a group or an individual and instead insists on reporting as "fact" that CS is pseudoscience, that CS commits logical fallacies, that the CS doesn't meet the webster definition of "science" therefore it is not scientific, and so on. This recent post sums up his defiance against reporting "points of view":

"NPOV does not allow you to give preference to certain views so unless you plan to include every quotation from every magazine that has ever written anything about CS (and I guarantee there will be more pros than cons) you are going to have to remove your biased quotations." Bensaccount 18:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC) [2]

I inserted a sourced quote from the National Academy of Science and another sourced quote from Skeptic magazine as expressing the mainstream scientific view that considers Creation Science to be pseudoscience. This in accordance with NPOV policy to report the different views from their sources. Bensaccount refuses to report mainstream scientific views as views, and instead insists on reporting from the "scientific point of view", namely that the mainstream view of science is fact and anything counter to it is false. Bensaccount repeatedly removes the sourced quotes and replaces it with undisputed assertions of fact that "CS is not scientific" or similar statements that follow SPOV.

The Creation Science article is undergoing "churn" with the same disputed issues being inserted and removed over and over again, rather than the article making any real progress towards consensus. Editors on the Creation Science page have been attempting to resolve this dispute with Bensaccount for two weeks, but the above recent posts from Bensaccount indicate his continued defiance of NPOV. It is clear that Bensaccount is an intelligent editor and knows the subject matter of the articles, however his continued defiance of NPOV makes work for other editors to fix, causes revert wars, and fills the talk pages. It is hoped that this RFC will alter his editing behaviour so that he can contribute to the articles within wikipedia policy.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [3]
  2. [4]
  3. [5]
  4. [6]
  5. [7]
  6. [8]
  7. [9]
  8. [10]
  9. [11]
  10. [12]
  11. [13]
  12. [14]
  13. [15]
  14. [16]
  15. [17]
  16. [18]
  17. [19]
  18. [20]
  19. [21]
  20. [22]
  21. [23]
  22. [24]
  23. [25]
  24. [26]
  25. [27]
  26. [28]
  27. [29]
  28. [30]
  29. [31]
  30. [32]
  31. [33] 17 October 2005. Behaviour continues.

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. NPOV

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. [34]
  2. [35]
  3. [36]
  4. [37]
  5. [38]
  6. [39]
  7. [40]
  8. [41]
  9. [42]
  10. [43]
  11. [44]
  12. [45]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. FuelWagon 03:34, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Banno 11:20, August 22, 2005 (UTC); I responded to an RfC at Talk:Creation science/Archive 7#A bit of close analysis way back in July, suggesting that "calling creation science a pseudoscience is expressing an opinion, making a value judgement" and that the solution was to include citations - this is essential the same argument as that in which Fuelwagon is now involved. Talk:Creation science/Archive 7#Why CS is unscientific is Bensaccount's reply - essentially the same as he is now using with Fuelwagon. Since Bensaccount seemed to take my presence personally, (referring back to a previous debate of ours) I bowed out of the argument, but have been keeping an eye in the discussion as it progressed.
  3. Parker Whittle 16:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC) — Bensaccount does not appear to be willing to participate in achieving consensus. All requests to provide support or references for his arguments are met with silence or outright defiance.
  4. Robert McClenon 19:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  5. FuelWagon 19:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC) - well, apparently it hasn't been resolved.

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Reluctantly. But Ben does need to distinguish "scientific point of view" from "neutral point of view". Clair de Lune 04:14, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Definately. Though I am not proud of some my own behaviour regarding this editor, Bensaccount has refused to listen to anyone but his own presuppositions. -- Ec5618 07:12, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  3. Robert McClenon 12:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC) Endorsement changed to certification because I had tried to resolve the dispute.
  4. I agree with Clair de Lune: Ben needs to distinguish between a "scientific point of view" from a "neutral point of view". Please see below, as well. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 16:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
  5. Somewhat relunctantly, as I think that Bensaccount has and could continue to add some useful input to this page. However, I have found him consistently unwilling to discuss these matters in a useful way. In my experience, he generally responds to questions about his positions with a challenge, and he seems unwilling to even consider that in the gray area of what is fact and what is opinion, there is some wiggle room for compromise.Synaptidude 17:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

# FuelWagon 05:59, 31 August 2005 (UTC) I've moved my certification to "endorse". Bensaccount has stopped pushing the scientific point of view. I'm willing to consider this resolved and wipe the slate clean.

  1. Banno 21:19, August 31, 2005 (UTC); Rather than have no edits from Ben [46], I'd like to see him edit within NPOV guidelines. So if Fuelwagon is willing to give him the chance, so will I.
  2. Parker Whittle 15:53, 1 September 2005 (UTC): I concur that the RfC is no longer necessary.

[edit] 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.}

You do not start a article as controversial as this with your favorite magazine quotations. Bensaccount 04:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
FuelWagon's derisive summary of my position was riddled with blatant errors and misquotations. Bensaccount 04:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Theres no such thing as "scientific point of view". There is the view of scientists if thats what you mean. Bensaccount 04:18, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  1. [47]
This is not my edit. Bensaccount 04:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

It is just too much work to constantly battle these POV pushers and their attempts to erode and twist NPOV. Why should I care if the Creation science article is misleading, anyways. I won't even bother any more. Bensaccount 04:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
This RFC is not what is stopping me from editing. I may come back and try again when I have more time. Until then, don't let such mundane and unimportant things as facts stand in the way of your personal feelings and prejudices. Bensaccount 19:05, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
For anyone new who reads this rfc: Don't listen to these misquotations and incorrect assertions about my position. Check the actual discussion at talk:creation science. Note my position which I succinctly state many times. Note my many attempts to compromise. Note my last edits to the article. Bensaccount 19:28, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] Outside view of Linuxbeak

I only needed to look at the first few diffs that were provided in order to realize we had a problem. This isn't an unfixable problem, mind you, but it should be addressed.

I think it would be who of Ben to first off take a step back and realize that the people who RFC'd him aren't attacking him personally. Ben is entitled to his own viewpoints and ideas, and we are not disputing that. In fact, some of the edits that he made were worth some attention, because they provide an opposing viewpoint. However, the manner in which Ben has provided said viewpoints is not acceptable. Example: CS makes the fallacious assumption that Creation is observable. That's a POV statement and in a sense not entirely true. Ben is making an assertation that projects a message that the alleged assumption that Creation is observable has been disproven.

So, to make a long outside view short, unless Ben can provide a reasonable "stopbit" to a theory (facts that disprove a theory beyond a reasonable doubt), it is not appropriate to project his viewpoint as undeniable fact. It is, however, appropriate to provide the viewpoint in such a fashion as to give a reasonable, intellegent opposing stance. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 17:03, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Outside view of Casito

I believe Bensaccount's statement that the creation mentioned in biblical stories cannot be observed and measured (at least by scientific standards) is not a point of view, but rather a truism, given the definition of faith.

That being said, all parties in this dispute have been quite uncivil, carying out dozens of reverts over the course of two days. I feel that both camps have been pushing their particular points of view. Both Bensaccount and FuelWagon have been hostile to one another, and much of the attempted resolution seems more like escalation. Both parties are intelligent, and have histories of good edits. I recommend that both Bensaccount and FuelWagon voluntarily refrain from editing this and similar articles until they can put this dispute behind them. ⇝Casito⇝Talk 06:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or 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.