Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elerner

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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.

[edit] Description

Eric Lerner is an expert on plasma cosmology and his contributions to Wikipedia are welcome. However, he seems to refuse to accept the norms which allow Wikipedia to function. In particular, he attacks editors with whom he disagrees and refuses to discuss his revisions on talk pages. When he does, he shows no willingness to reach consensus by adapting his changes to the comments of other authors, but continually reverts back to his version. Eric has the potential to be a valuable editor, but I think he needs someone not involved in the content debates to demonstrate how to behave properly on Wikipedia. Experts do not have a priviledged position on Wikipedia: the Pope didn't write the article on Catholicism, after all.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(These edits all occur on big bang, plasma cosmology and their talk pages.)

  1. Recent major, indiscriminate reversions without Talk page comments related to the content: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5],
  2. Unhelpful talk page discussions of major reversions: [6]
  3. Three-revert rule violation, in spite of warnings on his talk page ([7]) and the article talk page ([8]): 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th
  4. Talk page comments stating he will just revert future edits without discussion: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]
  5. Statements that he will ignore comments from other users if they do not identify themselves: [14], [15], [16]
  6. Personal attacks: [17], [18], [19], [20]

As User:200.83.204.54

  1. now making threats regarding the membership status of User:ScienceApologist [21] and personal attacks [22], [23]
  2. and continuing to wholesale revert without discussion on Plasma cosmology: [24] and [25], followed by a 3RR violation (seven reverts!) [26], [27] [28], [29], [30], [31], [32] (he was logged into his account for three of these).

[edit] Applicable policies

  1. Wikipedia:Assume good faith
  2. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines
  3. Wikipedia:Consensus
  4. Wikipedia:Writers' rules of engagement
  5. Wikipedia:Three-revert rule
  6. Wikipedia:Ownership of articles

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

  1. In general, see the entirety of the Talk:Big Bang and Talk:Plasma cosmology talk pages. Eric does occasionally respond to specific comments, but he is uninterested in compromising on the content of the article itself.
  2. In response to requestions that users identify themselves: [33]
  3. An article RFC, which was largely ignored: Talk:Big Bang#RfC
  4. 3RR notifications: [34], [35]
  5. Some attempts to explain compromise, and that you shouldn't revert without a carefully reasoned response: [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Joke137 00:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Joshuaschroeder 01:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
ScienceApologist 14:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC) (under new name)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Christopher Thomas 00:51, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Art LaPella 03:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Fredrik | tc 06:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Art Carlson 07:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
On Plasma cosmology Elerner is again engaging in substantive discussion and is no longer blanket reverting edits he disagrees with. While his tone is still not a shining example for Wikipedians, it is well within the usual bandwidth. At this time I have no reason to continue supporting the criticism of his behavior. --Art Carlson 16:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
I have engaged Elerner for over a month on Aneutronic fusion. It has been impossible to work constructively with him and our interaction has degenerated into a revert war. I can't decide whether the problem is primarily behavior (a personality disorder) or content (incompetence), but either way it is a waste of time and I can't figure out how to fix it. --Art Carlson 08:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  1. —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-10-23 21:16:23Z
  2. --JPotter 05:24, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. User must follow WP:NOR and WP:V. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:35, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  4. --DV8 2XL 02:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  5. --Deglr6328 16:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
As of the ~15th of July 2006 Lerner has again begun whitewashing his own bio page to remove criticism and applying misinformation containing blanket reverts to the article Aneutronic fusion.--Deglr6328 16:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[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.

The problem has arisen on two articles, plasma cosmology and big bang. On plasma cosmology, I rewrote the article as an expert into the field. Joshua and Joke use their huge abundance of time to, on the one hand, ruin and make inaccurate the plasma cosmology article. On the other hand, the use immediate reverts to get rid of anything I edit on the big bang page or anything else that tells the reader about the many conflicts between observation and theory. Neither of them seems to know anything about plasma. Nor are they expert in cosmology. In fact they reject comments based directly on the conclusions of leading big bang advocates themselves, such as Gary Steigman.

Writing an article for Wikipedia should not be a full-time life-long job. Nor should correcting major inaccuracies in another article. But because Joshua and Joke seem to have nothing else to do in their lives (judging from the amount of time displayed in the histories and discussion pages of both articles), they dominate any subject they turn to. It is impossible for anyone who actually has a life to continually again and again answer the same objections and errors, which have been abundantly addressed.

I suggest that the two of them be blocked from both plasma cosmology and big bang. Otherwise, Wikipedia will represent not a consensus of knowledgeable editors, but just what the two of them want, based on thier unlimited time.Elerner 03:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


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

  1. Jon 02:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. -Iantresman 09:14, 23 November 2005 (UTC) (See also Talk)

[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.

This is a content dispute, not a user conduct RFC. After a brief review of the edit history of Big Bang, the kinds of edits Elerner looks to be making [41] appear to conform perfectly with the WP:NPOV policy and should not be reverted wholesale. This sort of edit does not require justification on talk as to the specific merit of the POV he is advancing, because he is advancing it neutrally. The NPOV policy is "absolute and non-negotiable."

Elerner appears to be discussing this matter in a rough and dismissive tone but I can't say I blame him, since I would be exasperated in a similar situation.

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

  1. Ryan Delaney talk 18:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    You write that the edit you refer to above is an excelent NPOV edit. I disagree, in that edits cannot follow only one of our three fundamental policies. Specifically, the inserted paragraph "Critics of the theory..." unsourced, and wesealy. The inserted "Again the notion of dark matter has been sharply criticised by some physicists," is unsourced, and wesealy. The inserted "A third explanation is that some process causes light to lose energy as it travels." is unsourced. The inserted "The big bang theory predicts that ... " is a massive OR violation. I avoided comment that would require more than high-school scientific understanding to realize are a massive violation of NOR and V, but such exist through the edit history. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Adamfeuer 20:00, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Jon 02:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Falerin talk16:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Duke nemmerle 14:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by McClenon

This is primarily a content dispute, but it also involves conduct issues on both sides. I suggest content-oriented mediation. I agree with the comments that Elerner is "rough and dismissive" and attacks the qualifications of his critics. He also does appear to be claiming article ownership based on knowledge. Whether Wikipedia should have special places for subject matter experts is a policy issue. It currently does not. On the other hand, I have also occasionally interacted with ScienceApologist. He also has a tendency to try to assert article ownership. He also has a tendency to push a mainstream science POV as an NPOV, which is not the Wikipedia NPOV concept. Both of these editors need to put their egos aside and try to work together on the articles that they both edit. I would suggest mediation.

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

  1. Robert McClenon 22:24, 5 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Outside view

Hello. From a total outsider. I did not run a deep search on the case. Just one comment though. The plain statement about systematic revert for example here is not driving me to a relaxed state of mind. Such end-of-story-period-and-shut-up behavior makes me very tense. Maybe it could be avoided to keep the talk happening ?

I understand the annoyance felt, but entering a systematic revert war is hardly ever leading anywhere.

Bye. Gtabary 17:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

Eric Lerner (BA in physics. Not MA. Not Ph.D) is associated with plasma physics and plasma cosmology. His level of expertise is controversial. [42]

He knows more physics than 99% of wikipedians and less physics than at least 99% of Ph.D. physicists. I welcome sourced contributions from him.

But he makes money in his activities related to controversial physics hypothosis widely debunked by real physicists. You know. The kind that publish research or make theoretical predictions in peer reviewed professional literature. Therefore his contributions should be viewed as sometimes, just sometimes, perhaps related.

  1. WAS 4.250 18:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. NPOV requres that "Articles ... may not include tiny-minority views at all." While various alternatives to the Big Bang (specifically, the religious alternative) are not tiny-minority views, Eric Lerner's personal research, in addition to being OR, is a tiny-minority view. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. --DV8 2XL 02:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view

I've gone back over this RfC and I can't speak to the content issue because the topic is foreign to me. The RfC, is clean and well documented, but I think that the examples cited aren't as dire as they are made out to be. As for the claim of of the subject not assumming good faith, I see disagrements, and an instance in which the subject stomps his foot, crosses his arms and turns his back on them in hopes that the ones he disagrees with just leave; that isn't going to happen.

Is user:Elerner trying to control the content, probably. Could he vent his frustrations in another way, most certainly. But I don't view him as having the type of dysfunctional personality traits that I have seen in other RfC's based upon the examples here, nor to I think that he has constructed a sock drawer of puppets that are doing dirty work on his behalf.

  1. OnceBitten 00:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment -- I think that the examples cited need to be contextualized. The user isn't as reticent as other problematic editors I've come across, but he has shown a consistent unwillingness to dialogue and has made his intentions known with regards to promoting future edit wars on Plasma cosmology. I think some of this may be due to an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia culture, but this kind of advocacy is frustrating to other editors who are genuinely trying to work toward bettering the article in the fashion that consensus dictates. Take a look at the last section of the Talk:Plasma cosmology page to see what I mean. --ScienceApologist 00:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inside view

I recently took a first look at Wikipedia and was saddened by what I found. Instead of a truly neutral point of view, entries, those I have looked at, obviously do take a point of view, but claim otherwise. So far they, those I have looked at, appear to me to take the strictly materialistic viewpoint. In itself, such a approach may seem benign, but it is often the case where opposing views are distorted or confused or simply deleted by powers to be. Constructive dialogue with them does not work simply because they merely stick to their guns. And worse, they form alliances to beat down the opposition. I don't have access to the actual quotes which illustrate this at the moment but I will come back with them later. Suffice to say that scienceApologist is a big bang advocate, I have his own quote which states this plainly, but yet he seems to think that he can go to plasma cosmology, non-standard cosmology, and even astrophysical plasma, and remove supporting positions, citing POV, or insert opposing positions. According to him plasma cosmology is irrelevant. Big Bang does not even mention plasma cosmology, let alone present that interpretation. They state on astrophysical plasma that plasma cosmology has been discredited, which is strange because plasma is not a theory, it is a fact. Users Jon and Joke work with him on a regular basis. Wikipedia seems like a wonderful idea, enabling the inclusion of information not found elsewhere. But it hasn't worked out that way, as far as I can tell. Instead the regulars beat down any views, and complementary interpretations do exist in science proper, which seem to refute their own view. Then they cite POV as if they are the good guys. Talking to professionals about Wikipedia also saddened me because they think that Wikipedia is a joke. I can't say that I blame them. It is a good thing that the history of changes is accessible. It is a bad thing that most readers won't bother to dig that deep. Wouldn't be so bad if they were at least half right, but according to them, plasma is free flowing electricity. I don't know what can be done, the "gang" is adept at confusing the issue and making it appear they know what they are talking about. So the casual observer is likely to be taken in by them, while the knowledgable, well, like one said, Wikipedia is a joke. I don't think it is funny. Tommy Mandel 14:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[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.