Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Licorne/Evidence: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 302: Line 302:
: Thanks for your intervention and witnessing on the talk:David Hilbert page. I'm taking a time-out and will check back in later. I have tried very hard to engage only productively, but it is quite difficult! John (Jwy) 19:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
: Thanks for your intervention and witnessing on the talk:David Hilbert page. I'm taking a time-out and will check back in later. I have tried very hard to engage only productively, but it is quite difficult! John (Jwy) 19:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wvbailey"
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wvbailey"

==== RE Schulz's post of Licorne's anti semitic screed: if you don't cull this vile Licorne I'm leaving Wikipedia until you do. I'm ashamed to be associated with anything this wretched. ====
wvbailey[[User:Wvbailey|Wvbailey]] 16:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


== Evidence presented by [[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] 07:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC) ==
== Evidence presented by [[User:Stephan Schulz|Stephan Schulz]] 07:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC) ==

Revision as of 18:51, 14 March 2006

Anyone, whether directly involved or not, may add evidence to this page. Please make a header for your evidence and sign your comments with your name.

When placing evidence here, please be considerate of the arbitrators and be concise. Long, rambling, or stream-of-conciousness rants are not helpful.

As such, it is extremely important that you use the prescribed format. Submitted evidence should include a link to the actual page diff; links to the page itself are not sufficient. For example, to cite the edit by Mennonot to the article Anomalous phenomenon adding a link to Hundredth Monkey use this form: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anomalous_phenomenon&diff=5587219&oldid=5584644] [1].

This page is not for general discussion - for that, see talk page.

Please make a section for your evidence and add evidence only in your own section. Please limit your evidence to a maximum 1000 words and 100 diffs, a much shorter, concise presentation is more likely to be effective. Please focus on the issues raised in the complaint and answer and on diffs which illustrate behavior which relates to the issues.

If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.

Be aware that the Arbitrators may at times rework this page to try to make it more coherent. If you are a participant in the case or a third party, please don't try to refactor the page, let the Arbitrators do it. If you object to evidence which is inserted by other participants or third parties please cite the evidence and voice your objections within your own section of the page. It is especially important to not remove evidence presented by others. If something is put in the wrong place, please leave it for the arbitrators to move.

The Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at /Workshop. /Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as arbitrators. After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies voting by Arbitrators takes place at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit /Proposed decision.

Evidence presented by Alvestrand

Licorne makes repeated PoV edits

I will use a specific example: Licorne asserts that David Hilbert claimed credit for the General Theory of Relativity. As can be seen from Relativity priority dispute, this is not accepted as a fact. Many participants think that it is false.

Licorne has repeatedly added this POV to articles. Examples, all fetched from David Hilbert February 22-28:

[2] [3] [4] [5]

Hilbert may have a claim to the equations (not the theory). This is also disputed, but Licorne states it as fact (same article, same time period):

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

He has been inserting the same claim (and been reverted by multiple people) since December 28:

[11]

Licorne has attacked other articles with the same tenacity.

Licorne is rude to other editors

This is adequately documented in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Licorne.

Licorne has been using IP sock puppets

This is not an important point, compared to the other charges. But if Licorne tries to argue that he is supported by multiple people, it might come in handy to evaluate the evidence of such support.

The following IP numbers have been used to push the same viewpoint, sometimes replying to comments made from one of the other

  • User:69.22.98.162 (contributions) - started the Einstein debate on Jan 31, after confining most of his attention to Henri Poincare from December 28; first contribution on November 26, 2005; stopped contributing on Feb 1. IP is an Earthlink/Mindspring cable subscriber in Tampa Bay, FL.
  • User:69.22.98.146 (contributions) - contributed only on Einstein, started Feb 1, 2006 - IP in the same netblock as above.
  • User:66.194.104.5 (contributions) - misc contributions Nov 18, 2004 - Feb 3, 2005 - after that, 100ish contributions to Henri Poincare talk. IP is assigned to Time Warner Telecom, and seems to be in use by St. Petersburg College, FL.
  • User:Licorne (contributions) - ~200 contributions Feb 12, 2006 - Feb 15, 2006 - all of them in Talk:Henri Poincare and Talk:Albert Einstein

These are too obvious to be called sock puppets, despite some confusing statements about whether they are the same person or not: Licorne denying being 66/69.

66.194.104.5 has been used by Licorne to evade a block for 3RR: Edits: [12] at 15:59, March 2, 2006 (Licorne blocked for 24 hours from 10:46, March 2, 2006), [13] at 16:57, February 21, 2006 (Licorne blocked for 24 hours from 11:26, February 21, 2006).

The following IPs were seen at the poll found at [14] of whether to delete the Keswani quote from Poincare's page, and in comments on the poll, but either very rarely or not at all in other places on Wikipedia:

  • User:17.255.240.78 (contributions) - 7 Wikipedia contributions Feb 5 - Feb 15 2006, one of which was not Einstein-related. IP (a /8 block) is assigned to Apple Computer; it seems to be connected through Tampa, Florida (traceroute).
  • User:67.78.143.226 (contributions) - 4 contributions total, 1 not Einstein-related in August 2005, 3 Einstein-related on Feb 10, 2006. IP is from RoadRunner, probably in the South-East; it seems to be connected through Tampa, Florida. Another set of edits on Feb 24, when Licorne and his well known IP addresses were under a 24-hour ban.
  • User:66.194.98.170 (contributions) - 3 Einstein-related contributions on February 10. IP is from Time Warner Telecom, subassigned to city of Clearwater (probably Florida).
  • User:64.12.116.198 - AOL account; these seem very hard to match up with anything, according to the Wikipedia warning on its user talk page.

No person has come forward to claim that he is one of these contributors, and is not Licorne. However, Licorne's well known IP has on one occasion denied being one of these: 69 denying being 17,

CheckUser evidence of the above

- Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:17, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Licorne has only edited from 69.22.98.146 in CheckUserable history. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to the other users:

There's no point in even checking the AOL account. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:27, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Licorne engages in original research

Since WP:NOR has been cited, I thought it appropriate to mention this edit series.

On Friedwardt Winterberg, this edit [15] inserted a note where the documentation is scans of original documents from a Geocities website that Licorne controls, as shown by this edit on the talk page: [16] [17]

It is late in the proceedings, but this is a more blatant WP:NOR violation than most. --Alvestrand 07:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Fastfission

POV pushing

Licorne is a persistant POV-pusher, and in this is not ashamed to do many highly intellectual dishonest things. The two I have focused on here are promoting minority sources as consensus opinions, and the most serious one, quoting out of context and denying he is doing so even after he has been thoroughly exposed as such. He has but one interest, which is to denigrate Albert Einstein, and everything else comes second to that. Two sets of examples follow.

Promoting minority sources as consensus opinions

  • Relying on self-published work by Christopher Jon Bjerknes (non-academic, revisionist historian, Holocaust denier), promoting it as mainstream and worthy of inclusion [18].
    • Note that I am not mentioning Bjerknes' status to say he is wrong, but to say that he is not a mainstream opinion. This is easily verifiable—his own website explains that he thinks mainstream historians are frauds and dupes. (see, i.e., [19]). I happen to think Bjerknes is wrong anyway, but I'm not pointing out the fact of his being non-academic or a Holocaust denier to prove that, I'm pointing it out to prove that marketing him as authoritative is against WP:NPOV#Undue weight.
  • When a mainstream source disagrees with his POV, he proclaims it biased for a variety of reasons, always ad hominem.[20] [21] [22] [23]

Quoting out of context

Licorne has done a good deal of quoting out of context, and then claiming that the original author was simply "wrong" about the points that eventually turn up about what they actually said. A very clear example:

  • First promoted Kip Thorne's book as authoritative source on subject [24], insisting that it is "categorical" in saying Hilbert had priority over Einstein [25][26], and giving what is claimed to be quotes from Thorne illustrating the position taken [27]
  • Then it turns out that Thorne's quotes were taken out of context, and that Thorne actually concludes the exact opposite of this.[28]
  • Instead of admitting any error, insists that Thorne's final conclusion was out of professional pressure [29], that he "made mistakes"[30], or that it was somehow related to his wife[31].
  • Now the Kip Thorne quote is actually in the article as a footnote, but because it is the complete quote, rather than the one taken out of context, he insists it should be removed as inaccurate. [32][33][34]

Lack of civility and personal attacks

Licorne is fond of badgering other users (insisting on replies and responses, sometimes with multiple posts in all capitals within minutes of each other) and insulting other users (anyone who disagrees with him is derided as intellectual incompetent or beneath him). A small sampling of the latter includes:

  • The significance and validity of relativity was firmly established by then (after the eclipse there was worldwide acclaim), so it was absolutely controversy over Priority. - If you're still losing sleep over it Get up off your ass and go look through editions you will find it. I'm not your secretary. Licorne 04:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC) [35][reply]
  • Wait till Harald returns, he is the only person halfway intelligent there amoungst you all. Licorne 22:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[36][reply]
  • In response to a comment about which edition of Encyclopedia Britannica he uses: "....you can't even read English anymore right in the Britannica - You are binded by your tears." [37]
  • "I am the teacher, you are the ignorant student". [38]
  • "So Stop sending me your incompetent messages, you do not exist, understand ? !"[39]
  • "You have all been asses, as is."[40]
  • "You are beneath me. I have no wish to speak to a lay person."[41]
  • "HYPOCRITS ! -- VIPERS ! -- PHARISEES ! -- You say you don't want priority disputes, and that you simply want it stated on Einstein's page that he did this and that. -- Well why then shouldn't it be on Hilbert's page, in the Introduction, that Hilbert did this and that ? --Hilbert discovered the Field Equation to complete General Relativity, a published fact, why do you revert that, you HYPOCRITS ! You double standard HYPOCRITS !"--Licorne 13:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC) [42][reply]
  • "Fat fission has a fit when I do it, because he is a narrow minded bigot."[43]
  • "COME OUT OF THE CLOSET JEWBOY."[44]
  • "FUCK YOU KIKE."[45]

As for the badgering, even a cursory look at Talk:Henri Poincaré will reveal almost nothing but that. A good sampling of his approach is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Licorne, which I will not duplicate here for purposes of space.

Original research

Exact diffs have not been compiled (will try and put some together if I have some time later this week), but an even cursory look at Talk:Albert Einstein* and Talk:Henri Poincaré will reveal the following habits:

  • Often insists on evidence from primary sources, never provided by the user, often in languages other than English (see esp. the "MEINER THEORIE" parts of Talk:Albert Einstein), and then insists that these should be used in preference to synthetic and well-respected secondary accounts. Relies on his own idiosyncratic interpretations, translations; actively avoids secondary literature except to quote it out of context.
  • Often cites his own apparent ability as a someone with a "PhD in physics from UCLA" as giving him exclusive input onto these topics and denying others any real input.
  • Often attempts to argue over very specific points in the articles themselves, providing his interpretations as being more valid than those of secondary sources, and belittles other editors when they disagree.
  • Has often refused to give citations to his sources

*NOTE: The relevant talk page from the Einstein article has been moved, for the purposes of de-cluttering it, to Talk:Relativity_priority_dispute/Archive0. --Fastfission 02:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unresponsive to dispute resolution measures

Licorne has not been responsive to dispute resolution measures.

Response to direct communication about behavior

Response to RFC

User was notified of the RFC filed against him, and asked to respond, by a number of editors.[63][64][65] The immediate responses were:

After about three days, Licorne posted the following response to the RFC page:

  • Thank you ladies and gentlemen, I am really quite flattered by all the attention. Licorne 23:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[69][reply]

User was informed about what the RFC was, and the probable consequences of ignoring it.[70] No change in editing behavior.

Evidence presented by Pallen

Fabricating a Quote

Others have dealt with biased, out of context, usage of quotes. Particularly relevant, given Licorne's tendency to quote from sources hard to access, is a documented case of quote fabrication (in this case, from Britannica, making it easy to verify).

The following shows an explicit claim of an actual quote (in quotation marks), and discussion of it. [71] [72] [73]

The following, after much further discussion, leads to the admission that words were combined from disparate sections of the Britannica article to make up a quote that suited Licorne's purposes. It also shows one of the sock puppet addresses continuing the discussion begun by Licorne. It also shows incivility. [74] [75]

Incivility

Though this has been documented extensively by others, I want to include some examples in reference to myself. This is relevant as I am a brand new editor with no prior history with Licorne. My posts to the Poincare talk page maintained consistent civility that was repaid as indicated: [76] [77] [78] [79] Also, in reference to this proces itself:

  • "NO CENSORSHIP ! -- Stuff your committee !"[80]

Evidence presented by Tony Sidaway (clerk)

Licorne has declined to recognise the arbitration committee

  • 1 March 2006

Evidence presented by Rodasmith

Licorne has barriers to integrating into the Wikipedia community

Licorne distrusts Wikipedians categorically, which prevents him from integrating into the community.

  • He believes that Wikipedia's "employees" lack integrity [81].
  • He interprets simple questions as accusations and returns them with hostility. [82]

Evidence presented by Paul August

Inability to work with other editors

Some of the evidence below, has already been presented above with respect to incivility and personal attacks. However I present the following as evidence that, even if one is willing to overlook incivility and personal attacks (as I am), it may be impossible to work with this editor at all.

The following represents a reasonably complete record of my direct interactions with Licorne, 69.22.98.162, and 69.22.98.146, (hereafter referred to as 162 and 146 resp.) all of whom I believe to be the same person, beginning with my first encounter on December 28, and culminating with our exchange of posts at User talk:Licorne, on February 19.

  • December 28, 2005
  • December 30, 2005: I ask 162 for a source [88].
  • January 8, 2006
  • January 23, 2006: I remove/rewrite some of 162's edits at David Hilbert [93].
  • January 31, 2006:
  • February 3, 2006: I reply to 146 at Talk:Albert Einstein [99].
  • February 4, 2006
  • February 14, 2006
  • February 16, 2006
    • I post some more quotes from Hilbert and others [105].
    • I leave a note on Licorne's talk page asking, "… Can we discuss this please?" [106]
  • February 17, 2006: I leave a followup asking Licorne to "…please respond…". [107].
  • February 19, 2006: From User talk:Licorne:
Licorne, won't you please respond to my request above? In addition as Fastfission has mentioned above an Request for Comments has been created concerning your behavior at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Licorne. I would also ask you to please respond there, there is a special section reserved there for your response. Wikipedia is a community of editors who are expected to work together to resolve any problems which may arise concerning issues of content or behavior of editors. By failing to respond you are in effect saying that you do not wish to be part of this community. You may well be prohibited from editing if you continue in this way. You seem to have some knowledge in this area, and you could make considerable contributions, but you will have to conform Wikipedia's editorial policies and communities standards. Again please respond. Either here or on my talk page or at the RFC. Paul August ☎ 20:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You are beneath me. I have no wish to speak to a lay person. Licorne 20:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok (I'm not exactly a lay person I have a PhD in mathematics) you don't have to talk to me about technical issues, which you think are beyond my abilities, but what about issues related to your behavior? But if you won't talk with me, won't you please talk about the issues people have with your behavior with someone? Surely you don't think the entire community of editors is "beneath" you? Won't you please respond at your RfC? Paul August ☎ 20:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of them are physicists -- None of them is competent in these matters, yourself included. Also I have a perfect right to be as I am with you because none of you, with the possible exception of Harald, has any integrity whatsoever. -- So Stop sending me your incompetent messages, you do not exist, understand ? ! -- Licorne 20:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[108], [109], [110], [111].

Evidence presented by Harald88

Misbehaving not only from one side

Eventhough I think that some action needs to be taken about Licorne's behaviour, he is not the only POV pusher on Wikipedia, and about misbehaving, on this page Fastfission makes a bad example himself.

In his paragraph "Promoting minority sources as consensus opinions", he omits evidence for such (but there surely is, I'll try to find it back in the Poincare edits). Instead, just before claiming that Licorne makes ad hominem attacks, Fastfission does exactly that as argument against the information from Bjerkness ("non-academic, revisionist historian, Holocaust denier"). A fact is not an opinion, even if you dislike the messenger!

  • This was meant to debunk Licorne's claim that "Bjerknes' second book, which he published under the close guidance of Dr. Friedwardt Winterberg, points out that the central equation of General Relativity was published one week before Einstein by David Hilbert. This fact is recognized by Kip Thorne and Stephan Hawking."

- If indeed it is a recognized fact (I don't have a clue, but saw no comment to that by Fastfission), then it doesn't matter what Bjerkness is.

- OTOH, if it is not a recognized fact, then evidence to that effect should be produced to make an argument, in which case Bjerkness's "status" still has little relevance. It is exactly that kind of irrelevant mud throwing for which Bjerkness's book is discredited. Please abstain from copying his methods. Harald88 14:39, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting opinions as facts

A few examples:

- on Jan.17 69.22.98.162 (talk · contribs) (presumably Licorne) wrote: "Poincare of course never publicly claimed relativity as his own theory, as it certainly would have been tasteless for anyone to do so." (edit to Henri Poincaré)

- on Jan.18 he repeatedly (ignoring Talk) inserted as a matter-of-fact in the article about Poincare: "Poincaré anticipated Einstein"; [112] [113] [114].

- on the same day he added the loose, unsustained remark concerning electromagnetic field equations: "The problem is that Lorentz could not prove it" [115]

(And so on).

I was unable to explain to him the difference between facts and opinions, and the consequential difference in presentation as required by Wikipedia. Harald88 21:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insults

And here is a typical example from the Poincare Talk page:

15 January 2006 - "To Harald: For a non-scientist and hack writer who can't spell, I can't expect an article any better than the one you have done. A Physicist reading through your article spots many logical problems and inconsistencies, but there is no way to get through to someone like you." [116] Harald88 20:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Evidence presented by E4mmacro

POV pushing and vandalism

Vandalises the Hilbert page None of Einstein papers before Nov 25 had the right equations. The page already mentioned that Einstein finished his GR work on Nov 25. This was a gratuitious slur and POV (since the earlier papers were correct enough to get a number of important correct results).
Vandalises the Hilbert page: Replaces a well documented and sourced statement that Hilbert invited Einstein to lecture at Gottingen on general relativity with an unsourced slur that Einstein went seeking help from Hilbert.
Vandalises the Hilbert page: Changes a quote from Hilbert: "(Einstein's) later papers"), to "(Einstein's) papers later than mine"

Ad hominen rejection of sources

This cut from the relativity dispute talk page at [117]. Cannot find the log of when it was inserted as the section was moved from Hilbert talk to dispute talk.

Specifiaclly "any possibility that Einstein took the clue for the final step towrads the field equations from Hilbert's note is now definitely precluded" (Sauer 1999)
Sauer is there just ass kissing. Licorne 03:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Evidence presented by Wvbailey 19:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from the Talk:Hilbert page on 9 March 2006. Sorry I don't understand the formatting. Hope this is okay.

The evidence below speaks for itself. Licorne's choice of words and editorial actions incites (foments, arouses, stirs up) anger. wvbailey does not believe this sort of behavior is productive. An one-time grumy outburst is one thing, but this has been going on for months.

Exchange between Jwy and Licorne

Hilbert was the greatest PHYSICIST of the twentieth century, after Poincare's death. Licorne 15:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Confirmation: we have a fundamental disagreement here. John (Jwy) 15:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
What do you know about physics ? Licorne 15:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Enough. Where are your citations that Hilbert is the best physicst of the twentieth century? John (Jwy) 16:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Enough ? You mean nothing. Licorne 16:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
No, I meant enough. I just don't know how to answer your question otherwise - or why I need to. John (Jwy) 16:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
It's clear you don't know what you're talking about. Licorne 16:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
Hilbert did what Einstein never could, and Hilbert knew what it was, which Einstein never did. -- Hilbert was the PHYSICIST, Einstein is a media clown, and a plagiarist who always seemed to find the right equations days or months after others. -- Licorne 16:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

wvbailey's and Jwy's reactions

Refactoring is necessary, the above exchange is not so good

I just quickly read the link provided by Jwy re WP:ATTACK. It's too bad that the anonymity of the 'net allows this. In my prior life, we had to sit across from one another and debate, for hours and hours, to reach consensus. It's really hard to shout in someone's face in the presence of others. Sometimes the debates got a bit hot, but we always reached consensus and ate supper together after. My advice to Jwy et. al. is to do what we did with my kids when they were misbehaving: send them to their rooms, and especially: not to engage. Just don't engage. It's been good sport to watch this, but it's gone on long enough, methinks. Move to arbitration? Vote? wvbaileyWvbailey 17:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The following is Jwy's message to me:

Thanks for your intervention and witnessing on the talk:David Hilbert page. I'm taking a time-out and will check back in later. I have tried very hard to engage only productively, but it is quite difficult! John (Jwy) 19:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wvbailey"

RE Schulz's post of Licorne's anti semitic screed: if you don't cull this vile Licorne I'm leaving Wikipedia until you do. I'm ashamed to be associated with anything this wretched.

wvbaileyWvbailey 16:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence presented by Stephan Schulz 07:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Anti-semitism and personal attacks

I think there now is plenty of evidence that Licorne's anti-Einstein POV pushing (that's where I encountered him first) is based in nothing but anti-semitism. See the following:

--Stephan Schulz 07:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Licorne/Evidence&oldid=43764021"