Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerk: AlexandrDmitri (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Newyorkbrad (Talk) & Jclemens (Talk)

Case Opened on 08:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Case Closed on 21:39, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Watchlist all case pages: 1, 2, 3, 4

Please do not edit this page directly unless you are either 1) an Arbitrator, 2) an Arbitration Clerk, or 3) adding yourself to this case. Statements on this page are original comments provided when the Committee was initially requested to Arbitrate this page (at Requests for arbitration), and serve as opening statements; as such, they should not be altered. Any evidence you wish to provide to the Arbitrators should go on the /Evidence subpage.

Arbitrators, the parties, and other editors may suggest proposed principles, findings, and remedies at /Workshop. That page may also be used for general comments on the evidence. Arbitrators will then vote on a final decision in the case at /Proposed decision.

Once the case is closed, editors may add to the #Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions as needed, but this page should not be edited otherwise. Please raise any questions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for clarification, and report violations of remedies at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement.

Involved parties

Lsorin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
Andy Dingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Andy Dingley [1]
Binksternet [2]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

The previous request was not solved.
This case is refilled, as for two weeks nothing happened on the lower levels to solve the dispute on this case. Statement by User:Newyorkbrad: If the problem has not been resolved in two weeks then the case can be re-filed at that time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was suggested by the admin User:Amatulic to take it to the ArbCom as low level solutions were tried without success. This can be confirmed by the involved parties, if not I can extend this section with links to those tries from the extensive archive of Coanda-1910 discussion.

Statement by LSorin

I need help in resolving the issues caused be the behaviour of the Andy Dingley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Binksternet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) regarding the usage of the mainstream sources regarding a subject which is controversial in the mind of two aviation historian former colleagues with very doubtful approach on the subject. And to make one more point clear: I am not accusing Andy of anything. I was just listed the fact that his stated that Henri Coanda is a liar. In Romania a public statement ( like Andy's in Wikipedia ) is punishable by law, if somebody would bother to take the case to the court.

The main problem is about the introduction of the Coanda-1910 article. Henri Coandă's airplane from 1910 was the first jet-propelled aircraft in the world. This statement is supported by the majority of the sources present today in specialized media.

Sources according to WP:IRS

Secondary Souces
- Academic

- [http://books.google.com/books?ei=Ud_yTM_DF8yWOobw1KoK&ct=result&id=CYpTAAAAMAAJ&dq=coanda-1910+proceedings&q=coanda-1910#search_anchor History of rocketry and astronautics:

proceedings of the twenty-fourth Symposium of the International Academy of Astronautics, Dresden, Germany, 1990]

- [http://books.google.com/books?ei=Ud_yTM_DF8yWOobw1KoK&ct=result&id=9odTAAAAMAAJ&dq=coanda-1910+proceedings&q=coanda-1910#search_anchor History of rocketry and astronautics:

proceedings of the Seventeenth History Symposium of the International Academy of Astronautics, Budapest, Hungary, 1991]

-Romanian Academy

-Royal Aeronautical Society

- Scholarship
  - Monographs
    - Books

Dan Antoniu, 2010 Henri Coanda and his technical work during 1906-1918.

Stine, G. Harry, 1983 The Hopeful Future.

V.Firoiu, 2002 Din nou acasa

Gibbs-Smith, C. 1970 Aviation: an historical survey from its origins to the end of World War II.

(According to the rule generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars Gibbs-Smith can be considered as it was endorsed by Antoniu but caution as it is considered to contain speculations on evidence of absence and using incorrect sources.)

- News organizations
  - Magazines

Sandachi, George-Paul, 2010 , several "Cer Senin" magazines

Walter J. Boyne, 2006 -The Converging Paths of Whittle and von Ohain, A Concise History of Jet Propulsion

G. Harry Stine , 1989 - The Rises and Falls of Henri-Marie Coanda

Gérard Harmann , 2007 - Clément-Bayard, sans peur et sans reproche

Frank H. Winter , 1980 Ducted fan or the world's first jet plane? The Coanda claim re-examined

As per WP:IRS if the secondary sources are conflicting or they give biased positions ( as an example Antoniu vs Gibbs-Smith ) the primary sources can be used.

Primary Sources
- 1) articles written by Coanda himself in 50s and 60s is several magazines
- 2) articles,leaflets, books from very close to the event ( newspapers like "Le Temps", "Le Figaro", books Bases et methodes d'etudes aerotechniques - Leon Ventou-Duclaux )
- 3) persons Victor Hoart "L'Histoire de l'aviation recontée à mon fils."
- 4) several museums around the world in Romania, England, France, USA, Germany.
- 5) patents

Tertiary sources

Several major encyclopedias: Jane's Encyclopedia of Aviation, World Encyclopedia, American Encyclopedia etc Special events: coins, stamps, exhibitions Institutions bearing his name with special emphasis on the first jet-propelled aircraft.

On the Content

Please understand this is not about the content and don't expect any high graded administrator from Wikipedia to make assumptions on the content in a pure break of WP:SYNTHESIS. My case is about the usage of mainstream and correct WP:WEIGHT of the subject especially in the introduction part of the article. And if I'm allowed I will make an original synthesis here to stop the discussions related to the content and to concentrate in solving the blockage from parties involved: If the Coanda 1910 would have not been tested as those two aviation historians have tried to demonstrate in the most absurd way, Henri Coanda would have been the first aircraft designer in world to not test his invention, eventually just selling as wood for fire or even worse set it himself on fire, to get recognition of Frank Whittle and Von Ohain inventions 50 years later.

Statement by Binksternet

Nothing has changed since the previous request. At that time, I said:

This is either a content issue which should not be dealt with here or it is an issue of the continuation of tendentious editing by one unsatisfied user who was unable to achieve consensus with his preferred version. I'm very proud of my work at Coandă-1910. It was among the most difficult tasks I have undertaken on Wikipedia, more difficult than my two FAs. I made a number of trips to the local university library and I learned a lot about the subject. The article is ... now a WP:Good Article. Lsorin helped make the article as good as it is, adding important content, but he did not make it easy on other editors. He and some anonymous editors from IP addresses based in Romania kept reverting the constructive work being done by a handful of veteran editors from the Aviation project, which kept tabs on the progress and helped achieve a neutral stance, one that deftly straddles deeply divided expert sources. As a content issue, I consider this matter closed. As a behavior issue, I am willing to expand on my thoughts if the case is accepted.

I am still willing to help with the case if it is accepted. Binksternet (talk) 18:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Andy Dingley

Nothing has changed since Lsorin's last attempt

This is an editor who has stretched POV-pushing to whole new heights. He's allowed to make comments like this without redress, and to turn his entire userpage into an attack page. How many times are other editors expected to have to defend themselves to ArbCom because this one editor is allowed, and even encouraged, to bring the same complaints back over and over again? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decisions

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (11/0/0/0)

Accept, as this matter does not appear to have been resolved; however, Lsorin needs to be aware that the Arbitration Committee will not rule on the content dispute itself, and will examine the behaviour of all parties including himself. Risker (talk) 20:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 21:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Jclemens (talk) 22:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accept Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 23:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. - Mailer Diablo 13:15, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accept--Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accept, Roger ^talk 01:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accept. Fut.Perf. may be right that an arbitration case is not absolutely necessary here, but there is a consensus of the arbitrators to proceed, and a case may help to define the border between standing up for one's beliefs and disruptive editing in the face of consensus. Risker's point above should also be noted. This can and should be a relatively short case, duration-wise; all evidence and proposals should be posted within one week from the date the case is opened. The case title, of course, should not include the word "defamation" or anything similar. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accept as this looks like the quickest way a resolution can be reached, per Brad's proposal above. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Accept per Newyorkbrad's comment. PhilKnight (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)

Final decision

All numbering based on /Proposed decision, where vote counts and comments are also available.

Principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, publishing or promoting original research, and political or ideological struggle, is prohibited.

Passed 14 to 0 at 21:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Conduct and decorum

2) Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users, and to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, and unwarranted assumptions of bad faith, is prohibited.

Passed 14 to 0 at 21:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

3) Article content must be presented from a neutral point of view. Where different scholarly viewpoints exist on a topic, those views enjoying a reasonable degree of support should be reflected in article content. An article should fairly represent the weight of authority for each such view, and should not give undue weight to views held by a relatively small minority of commentators or scholars.

Passed 14 to 0 at 21:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Editorial process

4) Wikipedia works by building consensus through the use of polite discussion—involving the wider community, if necessary—and dispute resolution, rather than through disruptive editing. Sustained editorial conflict or edit-warring is not an appropriate method of resolving disputes.

Passed 14 to 0 at 21:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus

5) As reflected in the policy page Wikipedia:Consensus, determining when consensus has been reached is not always an exact science. Editors should endeavor in good faith to work toward consensus when content disputes arise. Editors are not, in striving for consensus, required to abandon their beliefs about historical or other facts, or to simulate agreement with article content with which they continue to disagree; advocating forcefully, but civilly, for one's view is part of the process that has built some of our strongest articles. However, there comes a point when the existence of consensus becomes clear, so that disagreeing editors must accept that consensus is against them and cease editing against it, at least for a reasonable period of time.

Passed 14 to 0 at 21:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee

6) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors. However, an editor's continuing to edit or threaten to edit against a clear consensus—after appropriate discussion, warnings, and the use of applicable dispute resolution methods—may cross the line into disruptive editing that constitutes a conduct (rather than exclusively content) issue and may be grounds for sanctions.

Passed 14 to 0 at 21:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration sanctions

7) The scope of sanctions imposed as remedies in arbitration cases, such as topic-bans, should be clearly defined so as to avoid later misunderstandings and disagreements. A sanction remedy should also clearly specify the duration of the sanction and the procedure, if any, available to the sanctioned user to seek lifting or modification of the sanction in due course.

Passed 12 to 2 at 21:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Findings of fact

Locus of dispute

1) The locus of the dispute is editing relating to the Coandă-1910 aircraft, and in particular, the claim that this aircraft embodied the first jet engine.

Passed 14 to 0 at 21:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Lsorin

2) Lsorin (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive editing in connection with Coandă-1910, including edit-warring, advocacy in support of a particular historical point of view, editing against a clear consensus, proposing to delete an article to which he had contributed after failing to prevail in a content dispute, incivility, and personal attacks. See evidence containing links to examples; further evidence with examples.

Passed 14 to 0 at 21:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Lsorin's response

3) Lsorin's evidence in this arbitration case and the contents of his userpage reflect that while Lsorin appears to be acting in good faith and to have done substantial research on the Coandă-1910, he still does not appreciate the serious concerns that have been expressed about his editing.

Passed 14 to 0 at 21:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Lsorin topic-banned

1) Lsorin (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing or commenting on articles about the Coandă-1910 aircraft, its inventor Henri Coandă, or the history of the jet engine. This topic-ban shall be effective indefinitely, but Lsorin may request that it be terminated or modified after at least six months have elapsed. In considering any such request, the Committee will give significant weight to whether Lsorin has established an ability to edit collaboratively and in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines in other topic-areas of the project.

Passed 14 to 0 at 21:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Scope of topic ban

2) The topic-ban imposed in this decision applies to all pages in all namespaces. However, the topic-ban does not preclude Lsorin from (1) responding to good-faith, reasonable inquiries from other editors on his user talkpage seeking information about the Coandă-1910, as long as Lsorin does not misuse this permission; (2) participating in the arbitration enforcement discussion of any allegation that he violated the topic-ban; or (3) posting an authorized request for the lifting or modification of the topic-ban after the specified time period has elapsed.

Passed 14 to 0 at 21:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Enforcement

Enforcement by block

1) Should Lsorin violate the topic-ban or restriction imposed in this decision, he may be briefly blocked by any uninvolved administrator for a period of up to one week. After 5 blocks, the maximum block shall increase to one year. All blocks are to be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Henri Coanda#Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions.

Passed 14 to 0 at 21:38, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Log of blocks, bans, and restrictions

Log any block, restriction, ban or extension under any remedy in this decision here. Minimum information includes name of administrator, date and time, what was done and the basis for doing it.

Lsorin blocked 24 hours for violating restriction against editing Coandă-1910.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]