Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-06-08 Dean drive
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | ||||||||||||
|
Contents |
[edit] Request details
[edit] Who are the involved parties?
Dean User & Gwernol
[edit] What's going on?
Dean User is a long term contributor to the Dean Drive article and discussion pages. Gwernol is a newcomer to the page. Gwernol has drastically altered the article and discussion pages, deleting long term content and adding tags without regard for their accuracy. Gwernol has also engaged in censorship - calling all edits but his "vandalism" and "unconstructive" or "disruptive" edits, summarily removing and reverting the content of BOTH the discussion and article pages such that comment on the discussion pages or edits to the article are removed.
Gwernol has for all intents and purposes hijacked the Dean Drive article and discussion pages. He has also violated the privacy of legitimate editors by tags displaying the IP address & ISP of dissenting editors and encouraged others to harass editors by contacting their ISPs. Any attempt to edit the article is met with unwarranted threats to block legitimate editors of the article.
[edit] What would you like to change about that?
Convince Gwernol to stop his monopolizing the Dean Drive pages, end his unilateral editing and censorship of the article and cooperate with other editors to produce a well developed significant and neutral article.
[edit] Mediator notes
I'll take this case if that's ok with everyone. Give me 24 hours to read up on the background to this dispute. PhilKnight (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Administrative notes
[edit] Discussion
Special Thanks
Thanks for your help. I hope I speak for all parties in this dispute when I say that your mediation efforts are greatly appreciated. I would like to end this dispute amicably and in a low key fashon, if that is possible. I believe it is important for the other readers of this article that this dispute be resolved and that other editors, some of whom may disagree with each other, be allowed to express their comments and contributions on the Dean Drive page. This is a controversial subject and needs the widest range of viewpoints to be relevant.
70.57.105.31 (talk) 00:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC) User I/Dean User
Heated Debate in Progress
There is currently an intense debate raging on the Dean Drive page of Wikipedia regarding the abusive editing and censorship prosecuted by editor/user Gwernol. Members of the Dean family have attempted to provide historically interesting content available nowhere else and thereby shed some light on a subject that has generated very little but heat for far too long.
I for one would like to view this material and it unquestionably makes the Wikipedia article superior to just about every other information outlet on the web because it is so close to the original sources. (By the way - for the record, I have absolutely no connection whatsoever to the Dean family, nor for that matter do most of the others who have been editing the Dean drive article.)
Something HAS to be done to calm the whole dispute down and provide a neutral point of view (NPOV) where valuable historical information provided by the Dean family is not summarily removed just because someone else thinks it is worthless. Good lord, if all historical information had to be vetted by a panel of skeptics, we would hardly have a scrap of history left.
THIS DEBATE IS AS MUCH ABOUT THE CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL ASPECTS OF THE DEAN DRIVE AS IT IS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE THING REALLY WORKS. The cast of characters includes a veritable "who's who" of important personages of the day.
I am appalled that Gwernol is apparently so blind that he cannot see that what he is doing amounts to CENSORSHIP! Insist that information be properly sourced? Fine. Make sure that the edits are properly written to avoid errors? Great. Debate the issues on the discussion page? Fair enough. BUT, summarily destroying material because YOU (or anyone) thinks it is wrong? NEVER!!!
Lost in all the name-calling is the need for adherance to the NPOV policy of Wikipedia. In the end, the article MUST reflect BOTH sides of the debate. We can not and should not allow either side to preempt the other and stifle the truth. In law, truth is a defense. It's too bad that this apparently isn't the case in literature as well.
63.230.204.90 (talk) 07:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[User I/Dean User]
This has gone on far too long. The editor above is correct that we need to abide by Wikipedia's core policies here, just as we do with any article. However, given that "Dean User" and his various proxies don't understand our policies, it is difficult to maintain the integrity of this article. WP:NPOV does not imply that we need to pretend that the Dean drive is anything except an unproven mechanism. The Dean drive would break Newton's Third Law of Motion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. There is no independent, published evidence that the Dean drive works, so the article cannot include any such claim. There are, however, good references to show that it does not and cannot work as claimed.
Interjection By Dean User/UserI
I would like to state for the record that contrary to the assertions of User Gwernol, I am not employing "proxies", as he puts it. There are other editors on the Dean page who also object to what Gwernol has done. They have made their own objections known in far more colorful language than I have employed in response to Gwernol's actions.
By his introduction of red herrings and use of language deliberately mischaracterizing the motives and actions of the other side, (like his assertions above) Gwernol makes my point. His comment regarding opposing editors not understanding "our policies" seeks to brand opposition as ignorant and as "outsiders" not worthy of serious consideration.
No one objects to him making his case. What we all object to is that he is attempting to prevent the rest of us from making ours. He has initiated direct action like wholesale changes to the article, punitive reversions and threats to block legitimate edits opposing his viewpoint. Worse still, he has attempted to discredit views he opposes by indirect means such as unwarrented personal attacks and distortions of the truth. He can hardly complain when his actions finally stir emotions to the boiling point.
End Interjection By Dean User/User I
No doubt there will now be the same lengthy discussion here showing how a simple mechanical device is subject to various new quantum mechanical theories that shows how it really operates. Pure original research and synthesis.
Allegations of "CENSORSHIP" and how this is about "CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL ASPECTS" are balderdash on their face. This is an organized attempt by Dean's family and supporters to use Wikipedia to present this "invention" as a functioning device. Until there are multiple independent, published sources that show that it work, the device remains firmly in the world of hoaxes and pseudo-science. If the Dean drive really worked, it would change the world. Given the family claim that they are trying to get a working prototype working again, and given the history of demands for money to see a prototype, we need to be extremely careful not to allow Wikipedia to become a forum for promoting such a device. Gwernol 11:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Rebuttal to Allegations of Gwernol
As noted in my interjection above, Gwernol is mischaracterizing the opposition, attempting to demonize those who oppose his view of the subject matter. The very definition of censoring is to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable. That is exactly what Gwernol is attempting to do here. There is room for both viewpoints in the article and the readers of Wikipedia deserve to hear all sides of the debate.
The Dean family has not been significant contributors to the article until quite recently. Their present involvement is more of a response to Gwernol's own excessess than some dark conspiracy bent on using the article to promote some heinous agenda. Gwernol has been engaged in Pseudoskepticism, ignoring evidence which does not support his views and playing up evidence that does. Adequate safeguards exist within Wikipedia rules for preventing exploitation of the Wikipedia forum by either side that does not involve the complete elimination of opposing viewpoints.
If one reviews the history page of the article, it is plain that the typical edits, mine included, have been made as a natural progression like any other article typical of Wikipedia, at least until the current dispute.
It is regrettable that Gwernol cannot see any historical significance in events of the last century that made the Dean drive so prominent. Whether or not the device actually works, it has come to represent a shorthand for a certain approach to the widely held dream of finding a better method of reaching space than is offered by rockets.
Respected journalists like John W. Campbell and competent, knowledgable individuals like G. Harry Stine wrote and published material about the Dean drive as did many, many others. (Stine, considered the father of model rocketry, was well versed in Newton's laws) Their discussions are undeniably part of the history of this period, as is one of the subjects they wrote about, the Dean drive. All of these people, including the inventor, Norman L. Dean, have passed from the scene and we shall hear no more from any of them. That alone makes a historical perspective an essential part of the Dean drive article.
As for Gwernol, why is it not possible for him to come to some agreement with other editors about content for a truly NPOV article that does all sides justice? There ought to be some way that we can all come together on a balanced presentation, possibly through discussion here where we can have the benefit of a referee to resolve impasses.
Surely this would be best for the readers of Wikipedia, for both sides of this question and for those who will read our words many years hence. The inflamatory rhetoric needs to be removed from the article and perhaps relagated to a place where it can be viewed as an example of how NOT to conduct a debate.
I will gladly work with Gwernol and any other editor to achieve a fair and balanced presentation of the subject. The alternative is to continue down the present road with all of the ugly, unnecessary and downright deplorable bickering that is now taking place. I, for one prefer the former alternative to the latter and I hope that Gwernol and the other editors do as well. Let's stop the fighting and start making progress on a real NPOV article.
63.230.204.90 (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC) [Dean User/User I]
