heck back soon for all the details of the ongoing war over the Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LHC This article used to have a significant safety section. But recently, safety was moved to it’s own article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety of the Large_Hadron_Collider
Changes are now being made to delete key information even in the separate Safety article and a coordinated effort is underway to censor Jtankers and others who have been contributing editors for some time now.
-Another
The discussion below details an incident at Wikipedia. Recently I was blocked from adding references to the Wikipedia article “Safety of the Large Hadron Collider”, that challenged the probability that Hawking Radiation might cause micro black holes to evaporate. A CERN employee and Wikipedia administrator became annoyed with my efforts and reported my conduct to the Wikipedia Administrators’ Incidents board under the heading “LHC Fringe Theorists”.
At this same time, a notice was placed on my talk page that my talk page had been
nominated for deletion. I’m not sure what would happen if my talk page was deleted, as I don’t think this has ever been done to an active user before, but it may have left my account crippled in its ability to communicate.
After the two actions above, I stopped editing the Wikipedia article. If the intent was to silence me, they made some progress. The discussion below details what I believe is an attempt at censorship by persons with a clear conflict of interest IMHO (In My Humble Opinion).
Terms Used:
* COI: Conflict of Interest
* NPOV: Neutral Point of View
* DR: Dispute Resolution
- JTankers
…
Update… (July 14, 2008)
The Wikipedia article Safety of the Large Hadron Collider now contains a summary of some of the basic safety arguments of the organized safety opposition, after a long battle with CERN supporters to fight censorship of these concerns.
The concerns are not just from legal action and from what is raised in the media as the article still tends to imply. The safety concerns are lead by world recognized, credible scientists. Dr. Otto Rossler is an eminent award winning professor of theoretical sciences and a significant contributor to Chaos Theory. Professor Rossler’s research indicates that safety has not been reasonably proven, and danger is very plausible.
Published peer reviewed papers from science professors that question one of the of the primary safety arguments (Hawking Radiation) are still censored from the article. A 2004 Delphi study showing up to 50% doubt among physicists polled is still censored from the article. (Physicists do have reasonable doubt about Hawking Radiation, contrary to what the article implies).
From the Wikipedia article Safety of the Large Hadron Collider:
Concerns raised in the media
Nuclear physicist Walter L. Wagner has argued that if Micro black holes are produced at the LHC, they might not decay as predicted by CERN, since Hawking radiation is not an experimentally-tested or naturally observed phenomenon and might not exist.[8][22]
Professor Otto Rössler has stated that micro black holes created in the LHC would grow exponentially, accreting the Earth in 50 months to 50 years, and he has sought scientific debate on his research[23] before the LHC particle collisions begin.[24]
- JTankers
—-
Update June 20, 2008
What part is undue weight? This just feels like censorship of concerns from the general public and from credible PHD level scientists. The conflict of interest could not be more clear. I have nothing to gain that I do not share with the defendants (safety of Earth), CERN has potential Nobel prizes, future employment, fame and fortune, potentially at the cost of Earth 50 months to 50 years from now. The debate could not be more relevant now and could not affect more people. To bury the concerns another link level deeper would certainly be better than completely censoring the concerns, and I can accept the solution. But I think the undue weight is given to the concerns of CERN and they will not be satisfied until the article appears to suggest that there is no conceivable danger, when in fact safety arguments are no more substantial than unverified original research. CERN’s safety analysis is original research that has not been accepted by peer reviewed journal for publication, only approved by a 4/5 majority internal assessment which called some major argument unverified and peer review of the self published work is still in progress. A CERN employee editor has even had links to published peer reviewed papers that challenge the primary safety argument, the probability that Hawking Radiation exists removed against editor consensus. How can that be justified? According to Professor Dr. Otto Rössler the results of CERN’s actions could result in the greatest crime against humanity imaginable. Dr. Rossler is arguably among the world’s most eminent living contributors to theoretical sciences, a former university visiting professor of theoretical physics (a fact suspiciously removed from Dr. Rossler’s Wikipedia bio June 2, 2008 without prior discussion) and founded a new field of theoretical physics in collaboration with MIT Physics Professor David_Finkelstein who is historically significant for his contribution to black hole theory. The public and other scientists have the right to know that scientific consensus is credibly challenged by multiple credible PHD level theoretical scientists. More importantly, we deserve credible concerns to be addressed before collisions begin. Wikipedia should not be a public relation tool to influence public opinion and limit information to other physicists by censoring descent. This is a very significant issue.
–Jtankers (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
—–
Administrators’ noticeboard/IncidentsArchive446
LHC fringe theorists
Hi, I’d appreciate another admins input on an article I’m involved in, hence I cannot take any actions. If you have 10 spare mins read through Talk:Safety of the Large Hadron Collider.
User:Jtankers is part of a fringe theory group on the web who believe that the LHC will possibly destroy the world. He’s continually adding original research links and adds material in a WP:ATT join the dots type of logic to make readers come to his conclusions. For 6 months we (myself and a number of other editors) have been trying to explain to him the meaning of reliably sourced and verifiable information. Yet he still continues to add his links and tries to sway the article to his own agenda. A quick google search of his name (James Tankersley) and a look at his user page shows his involvement in these fringe groups.
I myself work at CERN but have I believe at no time compromised my position either as an administrator or via COI by the fact I work at CERN. This can be seen on the talk page as well, when James made some unbased accusations and eventually he recalled them when pressed to show where I had abused my position.
Myself and a number of other editors have repeatedly try to explain to Jtankers why his links are not suitable, and have given him far more leeway than WP:FRINGE recommends. But all we have in return is alot of handwaving and how we are repressing him and the article is biased agianst his position. Though we have repeatedly explained to him the type of links he should find to promote his position, yet is unable to do so. We revert and he goes past 3RR, and we explain to him about 3RR and yet we are threatening him.
Yet the OR links keep coming, we keep trying to explain why they aren’t acceptable but it’s falling on deaf ears. You may also wish to read the LHC talk page as this is where it started before the subject matter was split away. Any help pointers etc would be appreciated. Khukri 17:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- I got as far as where JTankers alleges a Vast ecritKabalConspir’cee to get him and his, and got sick of it. There are three regular editors there, WWheaton, Khukri, and Phenylalanine desperately trying for … over a week? to get this guy to pay attention. It’s a great deal of CIVIL POV PUSH, till he gets to the conspiracy to suppress him. He refuses to acknowledge a lot of their gaps, instead purporting some great theoretical idea and demanding they all disprove it. He seems, at this point, to be actively ignoring policies. The only way he couldn’t understand the policies by now is if he’s deliberately refusing to ever read them, which may well be possible, but then, he’s deliberately being disruptive. Another editor came in and offered an opinion, but that too, seems to have fallen on deaf ears. The editor could well do with a topic ban. ThuranX (talk) 17:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- More on this: JTankers has brought this, in one day, to : AN, 3RR, NPOV, and COI in the last 24 hours, in what’s got to be the Memorial day sale of Forum Shopping.
- I note that the user’s User page is being used as a SOAPBOX for his viewpoint, since it cannot be achieved in the article. ThuranX (talk) 17:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- The editor has been notified. ThuranX (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- I MfD’d the user page, as you are right, it is a blatant WP:SOAP violation. (There is an ongoing controversy about another user’s page which has WP:SOAP-ish problems, and I feel I would be a terrible hypocrite if I did not take action against this page as well) –Jaysweet (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- I immediately removed all content I thought might violate WP:SOAP as soon as it was brought to my attention. –Jtankers (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- But where to next, we’ve tried to explain and he claims he wants dispute resolution but when a new editor HaeB came in and explained the position he was ignored and the information was re-added. I’ve said from the outset when it was included in the LHC article that it deserves an a section/article, although it does fall squarely into the realms of fringe theories it has received main stream press hence deserves a mention. But it’s been a continual fight to try and keep these theories in perspective, and it’s far in breach of WP:UNDUE and yet we cannot seem to explain this clearly enough. Khukri 18:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- What’s this about black holes??? Is that for real? –Dragon695 (talk) 20:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Really? That’s the best response we can get at AN/I? read all that material. I did. (Well, msot of it. after a while, it’s repetititve.) ThuranX (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Nobody who has responded is an admin. The admin’s are terribly overburdened, and the best us non-admins could do here would be to try to explain to the user what the problem is — which has already been tried extensively and failed.
- If you can get an admin’s attention, that would be great, but “That’s the best response we can get at ANI/I?” is not likely to endear you to them ;p –Jaysweet (talk) 21:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Hello, my name is James Tankersley Jr. I am a US Army Officer veteran, a computer programmer with some college physics back ground, and founder and co-administrator of the web site LHCFacts.org. The safety opposition are not fringe, supporters to one degree or another include the following scientists:
- Professor Dr. Otto_Rössler, Max Planck Institute, University of Tübingen
- Teresa E Tutt, Ph.D, Nuclear Engineering Texas A&M University
- Dr. Paul J. Werbos, National Science Foundation
- Nuclear physicist and lawyer Walter L. Wagner
- James Blodgett, Master’s degree in statistics and leader the Mensa Special Interest Group Global Risk Reduction.
- Many others, including some wish to remain anonymous.
I have been contributing to the Large Hadron Collider and Safety of the Large Hadron Collider article and for several months without incident, including content related to legal action against CERN in US Federal Courts. I respect and follow Wikipedia rules and admin instructions to the best of my ability, and my only goal is to prevent unreasonable censorship of the Large Hadron Collider safety issue.
There is an effort to censor the views of recognized experts on Hawking Radiation. Credible scientists including Professor Dr. Otto_Rössler who warn of potential danger from operation of the Large Hadron Collider have been censored from the article in violation of virtually every aspect of WP:NPOV in my opinion. Peer reviewed published references that meet WP:VERIFY and challenge Hawking Radiation are being censored by members with apparent WP:COIN concerns. The validity of Hawking Radiation is a primary safety argument and a significant component of legal challenges to CERN currently before US Federal Courts in Hawaii. Wikipedia admin and CERN employee Khukri (talk) recused himself of admin duties when I asked him to intervene against rule violations by user Phenylalanine (talk) during the period of July 4th through July 9th 2008.
Details of activities in apparent violation of WP:NPOV by editors with potential WP:COIN concerns are detailed at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Safety_of_the_Large_Hadron_Collider and Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard and Talk:Safety_of_the_Large_Hadron_Collider. Thank you, –Jtankers (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- I see an argument from special knowledge above. I see an attack on Khukri for doing the right thing. I see forum shopping. I do not see Jtankers acting ina responsible manner. The assertions of censorship aren’t borne out by the talk page, where his sources are ripped apart by numerous editors who oppose his edits. ThuranX (talk) 01:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
-
- Editor Phenylalanine (talk) removed the content without discussion multiple times and editor Wwheaton (talk) argued for keeping the references. What actions were not responsible? I am not getting help and assistance, just attacks. There is a clear conflict of interest, the issue is before US Federal Courts and CERN editors outnumber the opposition. Shouldn’t we error on the side of inclusion rather than on the side of possible censorship? –Jtankers (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- No. Here we err on the side of Wikipedia policy; one policy is WP:NPOV, which specifically charges us to avoid undue weight given to fringe claims. You shouldn’t need to have this explained any further. If you continue to ignore Wikipedia policies, you may be blocked for tendentious editing. — Scientizzle 04:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I do not wish to violate Wikipedia policy. There are no fringe claims that I am aware of, I believe that the article violates WP:NPOV by excluding references to published peer reviewed papers that directly challenge safety arguments (Hawking Radiation) used by CERN related to operational safety and to argue for dismissal of the lawsuit currently before US Federal Court in Hawaii. I wish to pursue formal dispute resolution, I am not sure exactly how this is done, but in the mean time I plan to limit my efforts primarily to the discussion page. (fyi: Of a quarter million AOL voters, 61% do not feel that the risks have been reasonably addressed, not fringe theories and not fringe concerns). –Jtankers (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- While it may or may not be undue to dispute the existence of Hawking radation on the article Hawking radiation, peer-reviewed papers that dispute it do not belong in an article on something else! And that’s because, NPOV concerns aside, a tangent on a merely related topic constitutes original synthesis if it is placed there to draw a conclusion unsupported by those high quality sources. That is to say, there is a difference between Hawking radation doesn’t exist and Hawking radation doesn’t exist; the LHC will kill us all! Aside from the one blog, none of the sources I’ve seen from you even mention the LHC. So until you find a high quality source to demonstrate that this belief is significant, it is adequately covered by the statement already present and a link to the article on the topic. You can carry your Hawking-radiation-doesn’t-exist argument to that page if you wish. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- The article Safety of the Large Hadron Collider currently contains the statement:
- “One concern is that Hawking radiation is not an experimentally-tested or naturally observed phenomenon, and might not exist at all“.
-
-
-
-
-
- It seems reasonable to me that Professor Dr. Otto_Rössler’s work would be a reasonable reference to support that statement. He argues that mini black holes created by the Large Hadron Collider might become charged, grow exponentially and destroy the planet. His theory Abraham-Solution to Schwarzschild Metric Implies That CERN Miniblack Holes Pose a Planetary Risk has been published on the web for several weeks and Dr. Rossler had an appointment to meet with CERN scientists July 4th to discuss safety issues Grösstes Verbrechen der Menschheit, Chaos, conspiracy, black holes. CERN’s [Review of the Safety of LHC Collisions] also addresses charged micro black hole, a concept that does not appear to have existed before Dr. Rossler published his work, and it appears to be in direct response to Dr. Rossler’s theory. It seems reasonable to me that this reference should be included, as both his report and CERN’s reports are almost equally new and both published similarly on the web and both in the process of peer review.
-
-
-
-
-
- Variations of the following references have been in the article previously. Hawking Radiation is a significant safety factor, if it is found to not be valid, delay of the Large Hadron Collider would be much more likely. Both of the references speak at least to some degree about the “probability” that Hawking Radiation might be found to be invalid.
-
-
-
-
- An AOL poll is hardly a meritable source for your arguments, I’d wager that a sizable minority, if not majority, still think Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11, that Bush is doing a great job, that global warming’s a myth from the liberals, and that the earth was created in 7 days. Big deal. Uninformed people given questions that push that the world could end immediately, and would that be bad? will answer that the end of everythign would be bad. Duh. ThuranX (talk) 05:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- I think the “founder and co-administrator of the web site LHCFacts.org” should probably not use conflict of interest as an argument against another editor. The rest of it looks like a content dispute, as has been mentioned. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 14:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Ugh, I was afraid that this would be labelled as a content dispute & the involved parties told to go away. (I stumbled across this thread late last night, & so was unable to offer any comments.) Looking at the discussion on Talk:Safety of the Large Hadron Collider, it’s obvious that this is a far-to-familiar one person vs. a group of editors; the problem is not the content, but interpersonal dynamics. Can one person veto the assumption of a consensus? I don’t know the answer, but I can think of reasons to say “yes” — & “no”.
-
- More to the point in this case, while I have the utmost respect for anyone who has earned a position at CERN, Jtankers has a point here, after a fashion: the article lacks any explanation for why the people who filed an injunction think that the LHC is a potential danger. It doesn’t matter whether their reasoning is based on a Ouiji board, or that a mistake was in CERN’s rationale by an undeniable expert (think Klaatu or Sheldon Cooper :). A sentence or two in the proper paragraph ought to meet that need. And please note carefully: doing this does not give undue weight to a fringe theory, it is explaining the motivation for one group’s actions. Thus writing more than the amount I suggest, IMHO, would give undue weight. — llywrch (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I’s more than a content dispute, it’s more of the Civil POV Push we have seen increasingly on WP as the Pushers of all sorts of POVs get smart about how to abuse Wikipedia. He’s a POV pusher, and end is near kinds guy who won’t stop till forced to. ThuranX (talk) 01:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I don’t think anyone should feel they need to “go away” at this point, and I’m sorry if my post gave that impression. Either there is enough material to justify a WP:RFC/U or continued attempts to resolve this are needed. I just don’t think AN/I is the right place for it just yet. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- It is clear it is a content dispute, but it’s more along the lines of a number of editors trying to explain what is acceptable entries to a couple of editors with an agenda. But even though there is a COI with JTankers and even more so with another editor, they are very relevant to these issues currently ongoing and I feel can/should be able to contribute. However trying to explain what is acceptable and what is unacceptable is falling on deaf ears. Maybe RFC/U would be the place to take this, but I have a horrible feeling another group of editors explaining a position would be ignored as well. However Jtankers has said he will no longer edit the article until he “wins” dispute resolution, how one wins a resolution I don’t know. I brought this to ANI to avoid the request for mediation channel as it’s lengthy and some form of resolution is needed rapidly. It’s been through asking for third opinion, spammed across various noticeboard assitance, but still goes on.
-
-
-
- I’m asking if someone could take this on and act as an unofficial arbiter, taking an impartial view pointing out to all issues, take some time to look through the LHC article talk page and it’s archives, and look through Talk:Safety of the Large Hadron Collider. Khukri 17:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I’m somewhat aware of the topic in question and uninvolved in the on-wiki frufru over this. I will start taking a look as an uninvolved administrator. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)