Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:05, 3 November 2007

This is a page for working on Arbitration decisions. The Arbitrators, parties to the case, and other editors may draft proposals and post them to this page for review and comments. Proposals may include proposed general principles, findings of fact, remedies, and enforcement provisions—the same format as is used in Arbitration Committee decisions. The bottom of the page may be used for overall analysis of the /Evidence and for general discussion of the case.

Any user may edit this workshop page. Please sign all suggestions and comments. Arbitrators will place proposed items they believe should be part of the final decision on the /Proposed decision page, which only Arbitrators may edit, for voting.

Motions and requests by the parties

Checkuser needed on User:linshukun

1) Checkuser needed on User:linshukun

This is Shu-Kun Lin adding some words here: these days I added articles. Please feel free to delete the articles I contributed or the parts I contributed to "Gibbs paradox". It is completely alright with me. Best regards,--Linshukun 19:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Tree Kittens has been working on the mess since the beginning of the Human molecule afd and Gladyshev afd. In the Georgi Gladyshev afd, she discovered that Georgi, Lim Thibbs (Sadi Carnot in real life), and one Lin Shukun all were self published by the same publishing house, and were the only people published by that publishing house. Lin Shukun has been a quiet editor for a long time. Created Nov. 19, 2006, with one burst of edits between the 18th and the 25th of February. During the discussion of Sadi Carnot, Lin Shukun suddenly became quite prolific again, with [|250 edits] since the 24th of October. Since the case is in arbitration, I cannot request a checkuser directly, but must request it in the arbitration page. I hope this is the right place.Kww 15:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

not quite correct. Well... --Linshukun 20:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadi Carnot is almost certainly not a real life name. I have the name of the person who registered the web site and evidence that makes the case he is the real life ID of Libb Thims and Sadi Carnot. Email me privately if you want it. Keith Henson 01:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC) hkhenson@rogers.com[reply]

I agree that this checkuser is required. There is a clear COI and the pattern matches the Wavesmikey -> Sadi Carnot pattern that was already observed. Edited articles overlap as well. — Coren ^(talk) 15:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is "COI"? --Linshukun 20:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced of sockpuppetry. This could be a different person doing their own COI editing. Nonetheless, I think you could request checkuser citing diffs to support your case. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser cannot be requested by most editors about topics that are the subject of arbitration. Only the arbitration committee can do so. Diffs aren't really the convincing part on this one ... it's the pattern of articles combined with the timing.Kww 18:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very civil discussion occuring about this case on User talk:Physchim62, involving many of the above parties. My own opinion is that a checkuser is unnecessary, but I am hardly going to object if it reassures other users. Physchim62 (talk) 12:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Based on the pattern of edits (lots of small ones to articles that obscure the full impact of the work), type of articles (historical sciences, non-mainstream biological sciences), and the time of editing, I don't know that much more is needed for a finding of abusive sock puppetry to avoid a community ban (though someone should put an evidence section together with diffs, and commentary for the arbcom to review). --Rocksanddirt 16:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions

Interim ban on Jehochman

1) Jehochman is banned from editing Wikipedia, except this arbitration and his user talk page, until this arbitration is completed, without prejudice to any sanctions which this Committee might wish to impose on him.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I have only a limited amount of patience—a great deal when it comes to attacks against myself, but only a small amount when it comes to harrassment of uninvolved parties who are merely trying to help resolve a difficult dispute. This edit is so obviously inappropriate that, given Jehochman's previous actions as described in my evidence, I can only ask that this user be partially banned for an interim period under the conditions described above. Physchim62 (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Absurd.Kww 16:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. What? The history you're pointing at (not a diff, by the way) shows nothing worthy of a mild warning, let alone a ban! — Coren ^(talk) 16:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for that, and thanks for pointing it out. I have replaced the original link to the history of User talk:Nick Y. with the edit from Jehochman to which I object so strongly. Physchim62 (talk) 16:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either I'm missing context or I'm entirely off base, here, but I can't see what you feel is objectionable in that edit (or, for that matter, the resulting exchange). Would you care to elaborate what you feel needs a ban? — Coren ^(talk) 16:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is objectionable is that Jehochman should feel free to consider that users might have had a previous identity, simply because they have not agreed with him on this arbitration, coupled with the facts stated in evidence that he has permitted himself to edit policy pages to reflect his point of view without consensus. I won't even start with the inconsistencies in his attitude, I believe that members of ArbCom are capable of reading for themselves. This does not appear to be an admin who wishes to resolve this dispute for the benefit of the Community, this is appears to be an admin who wishes to save his skin whatever the intellectual cost. Physchim62 (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose pshaw, how ridiculous. I cannot see any reason whatsoever for an interim ban, either punitively or preventively. Whether pointed or not, this proposal only serves to highlight an acutely sad disconnect from the community. Sarah 17:17, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Y. (talk · contribs) has ~2500 edits, nicely distributed through all namespaces and shows a keen interest in administrative tasks. While he may not agree with me all the time, I respect him, and wanted to recommend him for our admin coaching program. I occasionally send names to User:Durova and User:Sarah, as they can confirm. Before I make such a recommendation, I look at the editor's contribution history. In this case I saw evidence that Nick Y. may have had a prior identity, so without giving away my intentions, I asked him a polite question to clarify that concern. My dear Physchim62, ask before jumping to conclusions if somebody does something you don't understand. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(posting out of place for clarity) Yes, since Jehochman has decided to say this I'll confirm. I do a lot of admin coaching. I wanted to know what account or IP this editor had originally used so that I could check out whether this was someone I could trust as a potential protégé. The people who are familiar with my volunteer work can probably guess why. Durova^Charge! 19:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Completely unwarranted. Newyorkbrad 16:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The single diff cited against Jehochman has no objectionable content whatsoever. Jehochman is a sysop in good standing conducting a sockpuppet investigation and posting a polite question that is obviously meritorious. I respectfully request that the proposer withdraw this motion. Durova^Charge! 17:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physchim62 should be enjoined from submitting articles for deletion

2) Some articles containing the history of Sadi Carnot's edits and Physchim62's questionable behaviour should not be deleted, as they are necessary for users doing their own investigations into this arbitration. Physchim62 has submitted at least one of these, capture bonding (which contains a history of possible wrongdoing by Physchim62) for deletion at [Capture bonding AFD].Kww 17:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

While deleting articles related to this arbitration should pose no major problem; I agree that, as a courtesy, no articles should be deleted unless absolutely required. — Coren ^(talk) 18:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could the clerk please save a copy of that article? It contains a revert-protect sequence by Physchim62 that is needed for evidence. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I think the deletion process as usual should go ahead if warranted. If any pages that are relevant to the case are deleted on AfD, a user can ask the Clerk to arrange they be undeleted/retained temporarily for use during the arbitration (this has been done in prior cases, most recently Allegations of apartheid). Newyorkbrad 18:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Disruption is disruption

1) Positive contributions in one area of the encyclopedia cannot be used as a blanket excuse nor reduce the impact or significance of disruptive edits in another.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. It may be an issue of dispute on exactly what fraction of Sadi Carnot's edits were positive or not, but I believe that severity of damage should be assessed on absolute, not relative, terms. A single legal threat is sufficient to get an instant indef block regardless of previous positive contributions. An admin that would start deleting the main page would be emergency desysoped without counting how many good deletions he has performed in the past. Likewise, long term damage should be evaluated without regard to the existence or quantity of putative good edits intervening. — Coren ^(talk) 20:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reworded 23:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC) to clarify the original intent. — Coren ^(talk)

I think this one is the key, and agreement on this principle would have eliminated most, if not all, of the conflict. The unblocking began not because anyone thinks that SC was not disruptive, but because one admin felt that his positive contributions outweighed his negatives. In fact, they didn't matter at all ... his negative contribution rendered them moot.Kww 00:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody is 50% disruptive and 50% nice, a classic Jekyll/Hide, I think we would just call them disruptive and show them to the door, at least until they recognized the problem and offered to change their ways. If somebody is 0.5% disruptive, we would excuse those incidents as occasional lapses. Nobody's perfect. If a user is 5% disruptive, we would talk to them about the problem and try to work with them. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer PP6.1, which is also closer to current ArbCom jurisprudence and just as harsh as this PP. Physchim62 (talk) 13:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add that disruption is the result, not the intention? Somebody can mean well, but still be disruptive because they are pushing original research and fringe theories using links to unreliable sources which they happen to have published themselves. We don't require an intention to cause harm. Simply the fact that harm is the result of the editing is enough justifaction to ask the editor to cease editing. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is a bit strong. If someone established made a few incivil edits, we wouldn't treat them the same as we would someone whose incivility started on their second edit. -Amarkov moo! 01:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I'm trying to say; I mean that (to take your instance) incivility is just as bad from someone with 5000 edits as it is from someone with 2. If anything, it's worse because then the editor should have known better. — Coren ^(talk) 01:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For that matter, why wouldn't they be treated the same? On the severity scale, a few incivil comments is not very high. In both case a warning is warranted, isn't it? Experienced editors certainly don't get an "incivility allowance". — Coren ^(talk) 01:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But they do. Experienced editors get every extension of good faith and allowance for poor behavior, unitl the patience of the community or other en.wikipedia mechanism is exhausted. --Rocksanddirt 03:34, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allright then. Do I get one slightly incivil comment every 500 good edits? Does it take 1000 to "buy" a downright offensive attack? How about an edit war? How many good edits does an indulgence from that cost? — Coren ^(talk) 13:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case that wasn't painfully obvious, I was being sarcastic to illustrate how untenable that position is as a matter of policy.

On a more serious note, I do think its critical we look at this seriously. Disruptive edits are exactly as harmful when coming from an experienced editor as they are when coming from a freshly created SPA (although sometimes the presumption of good faith might be affected by that). Otherwise, not only do we give the appearance of favoring the in-crowd, but we are in fact creating an in-crowd.

I already have "racked up" enough thousands of edits that I can be called an "established editor". I am still bound by the same policies as the day I make my first typo fix over four years ago. I'm probably going to be an admin eventually. When I do, I fully expect to be held to an even higher standard because I should know better. — Coren ^(talk) 13:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. However, that is not the way wikipedia works. We favor experienced editors and the "in crowd." However distasteful that may be. --Rocksanddirt 14:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Maybe I am mistaken but I read "disruptive" very differently than "poor quality" or "misguided" or even "deceptive". Disruption seems to me to require at least two parties.~~ I do not see any extensive evidence of SC being uncivil towards others or being childish or a vandal. The major places where s/he seemed to be in conflict with others s/he was either in the right or relented when wrong and always civilly. Even in the way this whole thing played out s/he eventually concurred with consensus speedy deleted her/his own articles and has not returned. Yes perhaps one could say as a whole s/he was disruptive or maybe more appropriately counterproductive to the progress of WP through some bad or even deceptive editing. I see many counterproductive edits by new editors and even experienced ones. I don't mean to wikilawyer but PC's position is that there was overreaction. I have personally dealt with very disruptive, uncivil, deeply mistaken and dogmatic editors that insist on inserting their OR everywhere, violating 3RR etc. I would even say I have seen more deceptive use of references through synthesis than any of SC's. Yet, they did not receive the treatment SC got. They got a fair hearing, a talking to and a limited ban just to certain articles. Nowhere in SC's behavior has s/he been a blatant vandal perhaps a limited ban is more appropriate. Also do we think that any ban would stop someone who is uncivil and doesn't respect the ban? I essentially agree with this principle but perhaps we need to recognize the reverse as well, given that bans are meant to be preventative and not punishment. Prevent the damage not the quality edits. So, while quality editing does not negate or excuse bad or deceptive editing, bad or deceptive editing does not negate quality editing and administrative actions should be used to prevent damage not punish. --Nick Y. 21:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am meaning "Disruptive" as per the guideline; in particular:

A disruptive editor is an editor who:

Is tendentious: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.
Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.

(I have also added the link in my proposed principle to clarify what I meant). — Coren ^(talk) 04:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I apologize for the semantics. My major (bolded) point remains. The further point of which is that more thought was required in this case than one of an exclusively disruptive editor.--Nick Y. 19:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking

2) Administrators should not unblock users blocked by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended.

2.1) "You don't unblock a problem user without discussion with the blocking [administrator]...Period". Any administrator who does so may face temporary desysopping at the direction of Jimmy Wales or the Arbitration Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From Wikipedia:Blocking policy - Jehochman ^Talk 20:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed 2.1). Time for the ArbCom to decide where it stands on this: [1]. Daniel 22:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An the admion who block their opponent in an edit war, what do we do about that? Jimbo's statement goes far beyond the jurisprudence of this committee. Physchim62 (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

3) Warning is not a prerequisite for blocking but administrators should generally ensure that users are aware of policies, and give them reasonable opportunity to adjust their behaviour accordingly, before blocking. Users who have been made aware of a policy and have had such an opportunity do not require further warning.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From Wikipedia:Blocking policy - Jehochman ^Talk 20:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Consensus

4) Wikipedia works fundamentally by building consensus. Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome; instead, it means that everyone agrees to abide by the outcome.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From Wikipedia:Consensus. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

we need somehow to develop a consensus on what keeps a community ban/sanction in place. --Rocksanddirt 00:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly more importantly, we need to have some sort of consensus of when a Community Ban comes into effect. Physchim62 (talk) 13:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community Ban

5) It is not necessary to actually unblock for an administrator/sysop to contest a Community Ban during a Community Ban Discussion.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Agreed. Simply stating the fact that one would be willing to unblock should be enough to reverse the presumption without having to actually unblock right then and there. — Coren ^(talk) 01:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be a PFF (or even a resolution), not a PP. I'm not sure I agree with it based on the wording which was on the policy page at the time of the dispute. If I say that I am "willing to unblock" but I don't unblock, there is surely an implied "but", an implication that I might change my mind on the basis of further evidence or discussion. Hence my intention would be unclear. Newyorkbrad has pointed out that the jurisprudence of ArbCom is not clear on the matter. WP:BAN says at one point that banned user can appeal on their talkpage, at another point that they are not allowed to edit their talkpage. The whole thing is a mess. Physchim62 (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

proposed. This likely should be worked into the WP:BAN policy as well. It seems that folks feel like they have to actually do the action to make the point that they contest a ban. --Rocksanddirt 22:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but this should not be used against admins in the current dispute because there was much room for confusion. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:29, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there does not appear to be any reason for sanction of admins, but that an endorsement from the committee of a principle like this (I'm not married to any wording) would also remind all admins and others that one doesn't have to be disruptive to have appropriate input. There was plenty of disruption last week (see miltopia on an/i, for example). --Rocksanddirt 00:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious cranks and disruptive editors

6) Obvious cranks and disruptive editors may be blocked indefinitely by admins, or banned by ArbCom or by a consensus of Wikipedians

6.1) Disruptive editors may be blocked indefinitely by admins, or banned by ArbCom or by a consensus of Wikipedians

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

From the nutshell of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Obvious" is determined after investigation, not before. Given the evidence we have in this case, it is obvious that we are dealing with a tendentious POV pusher who has misrepresented sources, cited unreliable sources, and continued making the same problematic edits even when those problems had been called to his attention repeatedly. - Jehochman ^Boo! 07:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could support this principle if you remove the reference to "obvious cranks": it's unnecessary, uncivil and subjective. Otherwise, I think this is a more consensual principle that PP1. Physchim62 (talk) 14:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done, version 6.1. The uncivil text came straight from the guideline. Perhaps that could be edited. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amarkov, according to the evidence, Sadi Carnot misrepresented sources, spammed, wrote for person promotion, and created entire nonsense articles. Of course that's disruptive. We're an encyclopedia, not a chat room.- Jehochman ^Talk 22:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't think SC was an obvious crank. S/he was a very un-obvious crank at the most. I don't think it is a stretch in my mind to say that s/he was misguided. There was nothing obvious about this situation. In fact I would say that SC was not disruptive and had a tendency to deal with disruptive editors with great grace. Even in the afd debates you do not see disruptive behavior. In fact once consensus was clear SC moved to speedy her/his own article and when challenged that he couldn't do that S/he was patient.--Nick Y. 20:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The longer historical pattern mitigates my above statements, although I still stand by my statement that SC was not an obvious crank nor disruptive in the sense of being uncivil. There was definitely a problem that needed to be dealt with but I don't think this principle applies in this case.--Nick Y. 23:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is most certainly not one of those cases. Was SC disruptive? From what I've seen, probably. But was he so disruptive that he should have just been blocked? I doubt it. -Amarkov moo! 22:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of opinion

7) Action is only taken against Wikipedia users on the basis of their actions on, or related to, Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Physchim62 (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this would apply to the current case. Weren't the links to pseudoscience sites inserted into Wikipedia? Weren't the sources falsified and distorted on Wikipedia? What actions made outside of Wikipedia's scope are being factored into this discussion?

I don't favor banning pseudoscientists from editing on the simple basis of them being pseudoscientists, and I haven't heard anyone speak in favor of that. I can understand how they may have useful things to say about literature and the arts. Once they start inserting falsehoods into science articles, I believe in swift and permanent injunctions.Kww 17:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We can have articles about pseudoscience topics that are notable, such as cold fusion or intelligent design, but we must not allow editors to misrepresent pseudoscience as scientific fact. - Jehochman ^Boo! 20:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I agree with Kww. I also understand the intentions of PC in proposing this. To a certain degree SC was persecuted for his beliefs. Although his actions were reprehensible and action was required the swiftness and degree of response seemed driven by anti-pseudoscience fervor. I think that if we look carefully some of his work in pseudoscience was decent quality and even some of the misleading use of references could have been misconstrued (of course in that case it was his failure to clarify, a common ruse of pseudoscience). Note also that use of ones own work is not necessarily COI or POV. He is clearly a leading figure in human thermodynamics. To a certain degree the issue with his pseudoscience articles are if they are notable subjects. Individually SC's actions might be reacted to differently if it was surrounding a different subject area. I think a few people reacted to the discovery of his external website as the smoking gun and I do thin it addresses motivation. PC was calling for rational reaction to the events not supporting SC actions. I still support a ban on him because we do need to deal harshly with intentional deceptive editing which I think this was, in my measured rational judgment.--Nick Y. 20:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with nick Y. SC was not banned due to his point of view, but due to his disruptive and deceptive editing. The reality is nobody cares about his point of view if the additions to the encyclopedia are good. --Rocksanddirt 17:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It needs to be clear that we're not banning him for supporting pseudoscience, but for the way in which he went about that. -Amarkov moo! 22:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberate misrepresentation of sources

8) Deliberate misrepresentation of sources constitutes subtle vandalism, a great danger to the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

If I were a university dean, and a student did this, I would expel them for academic dishonesty. That's what we need to do with editors who misrepresent sources to create phony support for their fringe theories. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concur.Kww 04:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Absolutely. --Rocksanddirt 04:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberately causing incorrect information to be put in an article by any means is certainly disruptive, and should be treated as such. -Amarkov moo! 19:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact

Sadi Carnot was aware of site standards

1) Sadi Carnot was aware of relevant policies and guidelines, including Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Spam, and Wikipedia:Fringe theories. He had been editing for two years and had been involved in AfD debates and a Mediation Cabal case where these policies were pointed out to him on numerous occasions. He had ample time to correct his editing to comply with site standards.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Based on Coren's preliminary evidence. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is the conclusion I have reached from the available evidence. — Coren ^(talk) 01:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems premature given the state of the evidence at present. I would like to see more details of the MedCab case before being able to support this. In any case, the AfD debates cannot be used as evidence of a "warning", as SC simply stopped editing after he lost (ie, changed his behaviour in response to community criticism). The fact that he is a long term user is not particularly relevant either: I frequently come accross admins who are unfamiliar with some point or other of WP policy (and I no doubt make mistakes myself, after two years admin experience). Physchim62 (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which AfD are you referring to? The ones two years ago where his OR was pointed out to him (as WavesMickey)? The ones one year ago where his OR was pointed out to him (as Sadi Carnot)? Or his latest ones where his OR was pointed out to him? We're not talking about some subtle point of an obscure guideline, here, but about one of the core policies— and having the same articles deleted multiple times because of that policy. — Coren ^(talk) 18:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to add the necessary references to your evidence section? Physchim62 (talk) 12:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will deal with the MedCab case, and recommend that Coren work on the AfDs. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I tend to agree with this one. Clearly there is a long term problem and he ignored policies that were pointed out to him several times at the cost of his beloved articles which he later recreated.--Nick Y. 23:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wavesmikey changed identities to Sadi Carnot in order to evade scrutiny

2) While the transition from using Wavesmikey to Sadi Carnot occurred prior to the formal procedure for changing identities, the timing of the transition demonstrates that the Sadi Carnot persona was a ruse specifically intended to allow Wavesmikey to continue to insert content in conflict with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Spam, and Wikipedia:Fringe theories

Comment by Arbitrators:

We can't really mindread and convict people of having malicious intent. Yes Wavesmikey is the same guy though, by userpage admission. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 03:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by parties:

From Coren's investigation.Kww 00:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe "abusive sockpuppet" is quite right since the periods of edits do not overlap. It was a change of identity, and I do believe the purpose of that change was to evade scrutiny. — Coren ^(talk) 01:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kww, can you change this to be very neutral. It's the same person, continuing a past pattern of behavior with a new identity. These are facts, not conclusions. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Softened a tad.Kww 03:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the new wording. — Coren ^(talk) 03:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite simply contrary to the evidence. Had SC wished to set up a "ruse", he could easily have split his edits between both accounts. He didn't. Neither was he obliged to provide verifiable personal details on the user pages of his accounts, but he did. The only relevance of SC's username change to this case is the fact that it is so obviously irrelevant, as could have been very simply verified in less than two minutes by any admin, and should never have formed part of block justification. Physchim62 (talk) 17:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A user who meets Sadi Carnot at an AfD debate will not immediately realize he is the same person as Wavesmikey. I don't investigate every new user I meet. Whether intentional or not, changing identity helped Sadi Carnot extend the length of time that good faith was assumed while he was repeatedly making problematic edits. He did not have a link on his userpage to the previous identity, nor was there a redirect from old identity to new. He could have done these things to avoid the appearance of using multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny. However, I agree with you that the proposed wording may be too strong. - Jehochman ^Boo! 18:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my phrasing. What good motive could the username change have had? To see that Wavesmikey and Sadi Carnot were the same did not require major detective skills, but was not obvious, because Wavesmikey blanked his userpage. You would have had to be curious enough to go to the history, and compare the historical record of his user page to Sadi Carnot's. To believe that the motive was not to avoid scrutiny is quite simply contrary to common sense.Kww 20:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Users change their usernames for any variety of reasons. User:Wavesmikey was blanked on 7 March 2007, more than an year after the change in username. There was ample time for anyone who was bothered to make the connection, this was not done in secret. Physchim62 (talk) 12:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I find this a somewhat odd conclusion to make since User:Sadi Carnot's main page declares his interest in these oddball subjects with even a link to his external web site identifying his real name and listing the books which he later self cited. Not particularly deceptive in my opinion. And as pointed out by Coren the editing periods do not overlap. Although Sadi seemed to use references deceptively he seemed to be quite open about his interests. It also seems clear that the change of user name may very well have been for the reason stated in the first sentence of his main page. I.e. he found a name that had meaning to him rather than just a random name. I don't mean to defend him but I think the evidence here is scant and mostly supposition.--Nick Y. 22:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On further review of the time line in the evidence I see better why this might be assumed; however, I still say it is supposition and there are many contradicting actions that simply do not jive with this theory. Why go to great lengths to change identities to avoid scrutiny only to declare openly on your front page who you really are and that you are interested in subjects that are bound to arouse scrutiny.--Nick Y. 23:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive my delving a bit into pop psych here, but I think what you are seeing is the conflicted result of having two incompatible objectives. On the one hand there is (in my opinion), effort to cover one's tracks after noticing that reception to OR is negative; and on the other you have the vanity imperative to get recognition for one's pet crank theory (which, usualy, also means recognition of the theorist). That gives you SC.

Take a look at the (long, convoluted) history of his user page. He alternately admits who he is, or doesn't.

I think what you're noticing isn't conflicting evidence, but conflicting behavior. — Coren ^(talk) 23:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your pop psych theory is right, but in that case the intentions of SC are not very clear in this regard because his behavior is conflicted. If he was consistent in covering his tracks and denying his identity we could conclude this easily. He could have reconciled his conflicting interests and covered his tracks much more effectively with an army of sock puppets, yet he doesn't have a single one? Most cases of self aggrandizement involve a self bio article, yet there is none? I think the more likely explanation of SC behavior is a fundamentally distorted conception of social and academic norms and he was likely in line with his own understanding of good behavior. He is always very respectful, very knowledgeable, never overtly deceptive yet fails to understand certain rules and expectations. His understanding of thermodynamics is very good. Much of his pseudoscience work was properly referenced and thus real (as in a real crackpot theory (regardless of notability of the crackpot theory)). He just simply seems to not understand that scientific concepts applied to one system are not interchangeable with other systems despite the use of common linguistic elements. His misleading and inappropriate use of references are almost always relevant *if* you are willing to interchange definitions between contexts at some point. I just think that reading this intention into his behavior is a stretch when it was minimally abusive of the system (he actually followed every rule in this regard at the time), any deception was largely defeated by his own actions and he clearly fails to understand the subtleties of the social fabric.--Nick Y. 20:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative actions were performed in good faith

3) All administrative actions that were done during this incident were done in good faith, ~~with no intention of wheel-warring~~.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think it is very obvious by now that while there was a serious disagreement on the correct way to proceed, and that some actions may have been performed a little hastily, everything was done in good faith and with a desire to protect WP integrity. — Coren ^(talk) 15:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with this, although I think the mention of wheel-warring is superfluous if we accept good faith. Physchim62 (talk) 17:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that removing wheel warring is a good idea. We want to turn down the heat. - Jehochman ^Boo! 17:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree in the cases of Jehochman, ~~Physchim62,~~ and Sarah~~, even though it may have taken a while for me to see Physchim62's actions in that light~~. I can't enthusiastically state that protection of Wikipedia was behind DragonflySixtyseven's actions, although they don't seem to to descend to the level of bad faith. I think that reverting a block that had been already placed twice, with a large community asking for that block, not in order to protect Wikipedia but in order to protect Physchim62's feelings, deserves at least a negative comment.Kww 17:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC) modified14:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that others have commented that this may have been– or has skirted close to– wheel warring, making an explicit comment that none was intended was a Good Thing. If you feel the need to strike that part, I'm not opposed. — Coren ^(talk) 18:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been aware of Sadi Carnot's editing patterns for six months and was in no way hasty. Per the evidence, I defended him as recently as mid-October. Had the unblocks been discussed, rather than coming out of the blue, I would have explained this. I am willing to excuse the reversal of my block as a misunderstanding over the process behind community bans, because our community banning policy was poorly documented. - Jehochman ^Boo! 08:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Y., I am not required to seek consensus before blocking a problem user who is damaging the encyclopedia. I stated during the ANI thread that "indefinite" simply meant, "no length specified", not "infinite". I fully expected a discussion that would result in some sort of resolution and that we would refactor the block accordingly. These "block too long" and "block too hasty" arguments are red herrings. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This was apparent to me all along. There was clearly a misunderstanding of the complex character of Sadi Carnot. PC's exposure to SC was mostly positive, with SC being one of the better editors on many mainstream science pages. Jehocheman et al. on the other hand had seen a pattern of deceptive editing. Clearly there is room for both sides to have erred in opposite directions and both were hasty in that regard.--Nick Y. 19:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman- the hastiness being discussed is the length of community discussion not the length of your personal consideration of the situation.--Nick Y. 22:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadi Carnot has engaged in disruptive editing

4) For a period of well over two years, and with at least two consecutive identities, this editor has been repeatedly inserting references to his research as well as articles containing such, despite repeated admonitions to desist (in the numerous AfDs).

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. This is, I beleive, the inescapable conclusion from the available evidence and repeated recreation of articles to expound his original research.

Not all of the edits from this editor have been tendentious, and some or most may have been productive, but the bare fact remain that a great deal of disrupting editing has taken place. — Coren ^(talk) 04:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might be better to split this into two parts: the "walled garden" articles and the insertion of links into mainstream articles. Physchim62 (talk) 12:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add the word consecutive. It cannot hurt to be more specific. Also take out "at least". There's no evidence or suggestion of other accounts.- Jehochman ^Talk 02:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added "consecutive", but I am hesitant to remove "at least"; at this point, the only thing we know for sure is that there were two user accounts. There might be more previous, or one currently, that we do not know about. I intend the wording by its strict meaning: the number of identities is known to be no less than two, and that is all we know. — Coren ^(talk) 02:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's 209.86.97.41, and the possible meat-puppetry of Lin Shukun. I thought there was an actual user named "Libb Thims", but based on this post, it seems that Wavesmikey just changed his signature file to make it less obvious when he left a comment that he was the same user that made an edit.Kww 02:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree although the "two identities" without clarification of "non-time overlapping" or "consecutive" is misleading by omission. --Nick Y. 22:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

5) Sadi Carnot did not engage in sockpuppetry, disruptive or otherwise.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This is the only finding of fact on the subject which is actually supported by the evidence. Physchim62 (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this finding, and think that it represents wishful thinking on the part of Physchim62. Sockpuppeting doesn't require that the master's voice stay active.Kww 12:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:SOCK in the version before it was edited by Jehochman on 22 October 2007. Physchim62 (talk) 12:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He used multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny. Guilty of sockpuppetry, though I grant that it is a degenerate case.Kww 12:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hells bells. Check WP:SOCK today and see what it says. Wait, what it says doesn't matter. Wikipedia isn't a Code Civil jurisdiction. We run on Common Law generated by community consensus, not statutes. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the version of WP:SOCK that he quoted includes a prohibition on the use of multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny.Kww 20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no disclosure of the rename. No link. No redirect. Amarkov, if you've seen disclosure, please provide diffs on the evidence page. The second account repeated mistakes of the first account, so it was two bites at the same apple. Had only one account been used, I think this problem would have been stopped at a much earlier stage. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot accept that written policy pages are not the basis for admin actions. To do otherwise would be to say that admins can do whatever they feel like; claiming their own view of "consensus". This is what you have been doing in editing the policy pages to make them fit with your actions in this case. I feel that your arguemnts (and your actions) are quite inappropriate. Physchim62 (talk) 12:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. While I am fairly convinced of bad faith, and that the change of identity was motivated by a desire to escape scrutiny, the simple fact that the user accounts were used consecutively and never in concert or to support each other pretty much excludes that behavior from WP:SOCK. — Coren ^(talk) 02:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

From what I've seen, he disclosed the change of account. Although a rename would have been preferable, it's not really sockpuppetry if you disclose what you've done. -Amarkov moo! 22:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with this finding. If it was his intention to sock puppet he didn't use it effectively at all, in fact never. He changed identities. What his intentions were in that regard we may never know as discussed above but it was clearly not sock puppetry.--Nick Y. 20:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disruption only account

6) Sadi Carnot was not a "disruption only" account.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Several editors have come forward to praise Sadi's edits in certain areas. It is simpler to accept that he was not a disruption only account than to suggest that he subtly fooled the whole of Wikipedia over nearly two years (see Ocham's razor). Physchim62 (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly everyone will get some praise from somebody. We've seen people praise his work on history of science articles, while we get comments like this on the same topic:from someone that took the time to read SC's contributions. From what I can see, his positive contributions are trivial, and, as stated above, given the level of disruption he has caused, moot.Kww 12:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw man argument. The account doesn't have to be 100% disruptive to be worthy of blocking or banning. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that account had to be 100% disruptive to be blocked: I'm saying that your original blocking reasons were demonstrably wrong, and that this shows a lack of care on Jehochman's part in the use of his administrative tools. Physchim62 (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a drop down menu on the blocking screen. I chose Disruption as the most appropriate category, and then typed specifics in the box. I linked to the ANI thread from his talk page where full details were available. The Disruption menu item inserts "Disruption only" in the edit summary and then appends the more specific reason. Arguing based on the block log summary is wiki-lawyering. We understand that he was doing lots of damage, that his purpose here wasn't to write an encyclopedia, but instead to promote himself and his fringe theories via spamming and COI editing. If he made some good edits to ingratiate himself, blend in, and befriend editors and administrators, that's no excuse. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was any doubt at at least some of Sadi Carnot's edit were constructive; indeed had this not been the case he would have ended up blocked long ago. My suggestion that most or all of his edits were suspect is just that: they need to be checked, because we cannot know what proportion was used to "bury" the bad edits, as it were, as opposed to genuinely constructive edits.

I note, however, that this is a moot point regardless— the fact that good edits have taken place is not especially relevant to the determination that disruption has taken place. — Coren ^(talk) 02:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Endorse. In reply to Jehochman, I think acknowledging this fact is important and is not a straw man argument (it is not even an argument, but a proposed "finding of fact"!), because initially, Sadi Carnot was painted as a "disruption-only account", "vandal", etc., which made everything seem so conveniently simple, so black-and-white, and the block so obvious. I think it is fair to say in retrospect that the "100% disruptive" assessment was wrong, given the dispute that arose. I accept that an account doesn't need to be 100% disruptive to be blocked, but the treatment does depend on the relative amount of disruption, as has been discussed above. With a truly 100% disruptive account, few would dispute an immediate block. But with a, let's say, "50% disruptive" account, it would be reasonable to ask for a more thorough warning or dispute resolution process before blocking. --Itub 09:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Agree I have had many positive experiences with SC's editing and interactions. The implication of this, however, is not that he should not be banned. The implication is that more thought should go into it than a knee-jerk reaction. I still do not object to a lifetime system-wide ban on principle, but think there may be a more effective (in preventing damage) middle ground.--Nick Y. 20:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing by Kww

7) Kww's repeated comments on multiple AfD discussions calling for Sadi Carnot's banning constitute tendentious editing

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Physchim62 (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tendentious editing is the persistent pushing of a point of view in article space, such as Sadi Carnot was doing. There's no requirement of NPOV in project space. This could be disruption to make a point if extreme, but I am not aware of any uninvolved administrator who thought so. Perhaps Kww is frustrated by our inability to deal with the problems that Sadi Carnot created. I think this proposal constitutes nibbling on an inexperienced editor (~1267 edits) who may not know the appropriate places and processes for dealing with an editor like Sadi Carnot. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gald to see that you've taken the time to read WP:TE since this edit. If, you prefer, I will settle for "inappropriate and disruptive". Physchim62 (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Touché. I will settle for "inappropriate". The committee members can determine if these comments arose to the level of disruptive. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps if someone had answered question 1 or question 2 we wouldn't be having this discussion.Kww 15:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Object to this proposal. Another attempt to deflect attention from the real sources of conflict. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to find reasons why Jehochman, a normal reasonable person, should have blocked so hastily. I believe Kww's actions in stirring up the storm played a part in that. His actions were noticeably less useful than those of other contributors to the discussion, IMHO. Physchim62 (talk) 12:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's ironic to be accused of bad faith by someone that can apparently extend the assumption of good faith to just about anyone in the face of overwhelming contrary evidence. I have to believe that the accusation comes more from the fact that I have, to some extent, succeeded at doing something that my accuser disagrees with. The whole essence of assuming good faith is not to allow yourself to be conned ... it's to understand that people can have opinions, beliefs, and goals that are contrary to your own and still be good people that are doing what they think is right. In my case, it is my heartfelt belief that Sadi Carnot is a dangerous fraud that intentionally introduces false information into Wikipedia, and that the proper thing to do is to ban him and all of his alternate identities and meatpuppets for life. Hopefully, when this arbitration is over, that's where we'll be. I've been adamant about the need for banning him, and asked on multiple occasions where the proper channel was. Once it was answered, I waited for something to start. If Coren hadn't started the ANI, I would have. Bad faith? Tendentiousness? No. Just trying to get something accomplished that is actually very difficult to do around here ... getting a well-spoken abuser banned.Kww 13:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this proposed finding both because it is incorrect (having a strong opinion in discussions where opinions are, by definition, solicited cannot be construed to be tendentious by any meaning of the term) and because it is both inappropriate and irrelevant to this arbitration. — Coren ^(talk) 02:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

This is an absurd proposal, Kww has done Wikipedia a great service by bringing this long-term abuse to the community's attention. Tim Vickers 20:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point of fact, it was User:Ggreer.Kww 20:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call this tendentious editing; I prefer to reserve the term to editing of actual articles. I would just calling it "yelling". --Itub 09:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Yelling" or whatever seems to have been what it took to bring a really serious problem to the front burner.

And I agree that Physchim62 is way off topic in going after Kww. Sadi Carnot (real name xxxx) engaged in a long term relatively successful corruption of the Wikipedia. All parties including Physchim62 agree to this point. (Correct me if this is not true Physchim62.) The point of focus in this workshop is (or should be) to learn from this experience how to prevent it from happening again.

Alternately we might conclude there isn't any way to prevent someone with good social engineering skills from doing it again. Keith Henson 18:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Kww was acting in good faith and I applaud his efforts in bring one half of SC's true nature to light to parties on all sides of this issue. The whole problem here is that SC's behavior was not addressed earlier and more thoroughly.--Nick Y. 20:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to assume good faith by Kww

8) Kww's failure to assume good faith on the part of Sadi Carnot has been disruptive of Wikipedia.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. Physchim62 (talk) 13:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than faulting the involved parties, I suggest you review your own actions and explain them. There is no requirement to assume good faith when confronted with evidence to the contrary. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This investigation is supposed to determine where mistakes were made which lead to this situation. I am quite happy to have my own actions reviewed, and others should take a similar line. Physchim62 (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I meant my statement literally. Before looking at other people's actions, describe and critique your own. This is good advice on how to be successful at arbitration. I'm not being adversarial. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence of autocriticism from certain other participants. User talk:Kww shows other evidence of inappropriate action which is not related to this case. He should be told very firmly that his behavior is unacceptible. Physchim62 (talk) 14:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~I will defer to the arbitrators on this, but I request leniency because he is inexperienced. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

I fail to understand what Kww's behavior has to do with the case at hand? He is overreacting, and his tone needs to be toned down (I have already suggested as much to him); but I fail to see how that can affect our current examination of Sadi Carnot's behavior and the appropriateness of the reactions stemming from the AN/I thread.

Are you suggesting that Kww instigated or influenced the behavior of the involved administrators? — Coren ^(talk) 15:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The flip side of this is "the assumption of good faith maintained by Phsychim62 in spite of contrary evidence and consensus has been disruptive to Wikipedia." I've had the courtesy to support the finding that Phsychim62's behaviour was in good faith. I don't think that expecting reciprocity is unreasonable.Kww 15:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absurd proposal. Kww is a junior editor with ~1200 edits. He's acting in good faith, for the good of the encyclopedia. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Kww is experienced enough to find his way around AfD he is experience enough for a slap on the wrist over what he does there. Ditto with ANI. We don't bite newcomers, but we don't allow them to ignore our principles either. Physchim62 (talk) 14:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if Kww's behavior was seen as inappropriate, there are proper venues to discuss it. Kww's behavior has, however, no bearing on Sadi Carnot's edit history and is not relevant to this arbitration. — Coren ^(talk) 02:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I'm not convinced of Kww's good faith, but I don't think it is relevant to this arbitration. In fact, I'm not even entirely sure why he was listed as an involved party. --Itub 09:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

neutral, leaning towards slightly agree I agree that if Kww and Jehochman had assumed good faith and looked at the larger pattern of SC's behavior they may have chosen to address the situation differently and more appropriately and thus is at least partially the cause of this situation. They were and have admitted that they were mistaken about SC in some important regards. On the other hand there is a limit to good faith and I think that although they failed to properly and fairly investigate SC their direct interactions exhausted good faith.--Nick Y. 21:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wavesmikey and Sadi Carnot

9) The transition from Wavesmikey to Sadi Carnot served to obscure the pattern of editing. Because Sadi Carnot repeated the same mistakes as Wavesmikey, because the old user page and talk pages were blanked, and because the change was made after the editing was criticized at an articles for deletion debate, it appears more likely than not that the new identity was a tactic to avoid scrutiny.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, to replace PFF 12. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean PFF 2? — Coren ^(talk) 15:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal suffers from exactly the same problems as PFF2: it is simply not supported by the evidence. As I have said above, User:Wavesmikey was not deleted until 2007-03-07, more than a year after Sadi Carnot started editing. I have added evidence concerning the procedure for username changes that is in force now, and that which was in force in late 2005. Physchim62 (talk) 15:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I still oppose although the lowering of the standards of evidence brings me closer to agreeing by definition. I still find that the preponderance of the evidence does not point in this direction. (Not that we are jurors). I *might* agree with just the first sentence and then qualified that the efficacy of his actions were moderate to minimal.--Nick Y. 21:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community banning policy is ambiguous

10) Community banning policy, as documented in WP:BAN and as applied by this Committee, is ambiguous.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed. I'm flying a bit of a kite with this one, maybe it needs some specific evidence to back it up. It does seem to be a consensus sentiment though, and can hardly be regarded as a matter of principle! :) Physchim62 (talk) 16:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, to a point. Written policy is a record of past consensus, not a determination of policy. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is a determination of policy in that case? Physchim62 (talk) 12:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In fact, had that policy been sufficiently clear, it is unlikely the present case would have reached arbitration at all. — Coren ^(talk) 02:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Physchim62 has repeatedly abused his admin authority to shield Sadi Carnot

11) Not only did Phsychim62 abuse his authority by unblocking Sadi Carnot in this instance, in the past he has reverted to and protected Sadi Carnot's version of an article. Kww 03:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Just to amplify a tad ... I originally suspected that Phsychim62 was motivated by a desire to protect Sadi, rather than for overall principles. I tried my best to use an assumption of good faith on his motives during this arbitration, but it wore thinner and thinner as I watched his behaviour. Finding this put me back on the other side. It appears that Physchim62 is motivated by a desire to take Sadi's side, and is willing to use his admin tools to make sure his side wins.Kww 19:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

maybe. But I don't think it's very important. --Rocksanddirt 04:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I essentially agree with Nick W., although I think that persistent, sneaky spammers should be blocked until they demonstrate a desire to be unblocked. This difference of opinion is within the range for which reasonable people disagree. Admins are expected to act in good faith. They are not required to be perfect. When admins disagree, we should talk, not revert. If blocking Sadi after 1:51 of discussion seemed hasty to Physchim62, surely unblocking him after 00:01 with no discussion was even more hasty. If we could just agree to talk before undoing each other's admin actions, we could all shake hands and walk away as friends. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that I unblocked on the basis of 33 hours discussion, because the block had no basis in policy and because unblocking (ie, returning to the status quo ante) seemed the only way to recenter the discussion on the actual evidence, rather than simply on how bad people felt that Sadi Carnot was. I think the events have proved me correct in my feeling that no sensible discussion of the evidence was possible at the time that I unblocked: it is obviously difficult enough now. Physchim62 (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should have proposed unblocking and stated your reasons to all of us, and then there could have been a consensus developed and reasonable conditions on unblocking established. While you may have considered the evidence for 33 hours, the first public objection from you was 1 minute before the unblock. I would have readily agreed to unblock if you had offered to mentor and Sadi had agreed. Why do something by force when you can get the same result by consensus? It's still within your power to end this arbitration. All you have to do is say that you will not revert blocks without discussion with the blocking admin, and I will ask for this case to be withdrawn. I really want to get along with you. It's sad and unfortunate that we had a misunderstanding. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that you would have unblocked at that time: the sanction on Sadi Carnot was increasing as the evidence against him was being shown to be more and more feeble. Nor do I actually believe that it's in the interests of the community to end this arbitration. Now we've come this far, we should actually try to look at what happened and provide guidance for the community as to how to proceed in similar cases and as to what policies need re-examining. Physchim62 (talk) 13:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have unblocked if you had talked to me. You can ask around and you will learn that I have a reputation for reconciling after disagreements. Ask User:Matt57, User:Orderinchaos, User:SandyGeorgia, and User:Shutterbug (formerly User:COFS). Nonetheless, I agree that we can proceed with the case in order to set clear precedents for the community to follow. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I do not consider myself a party to this case but would like to comment. Many of Sadi Carnot's edits to main stream science articles are factually correct and he had been a force that rejects common misnomers about science and had demonstrated a good knowledge of science. A good example would be his work at heat. I would also like to point out that there is nothing wrong with writing articles about pseudoscience as long as they are notable, well referenced and the content is verifiable. The bad edits of SC are not bad because of the pseudoscience but because they are about marginally notable (pseudoscience) subjects with sometimes misleading references and he spammed his own work for personal gain. I find SC actions in these regards to be reprehensible. Physchim was correct to call for calm and rational discussion before taking harsh action against SC. My reading of the unblock action that he took was to allow SC to comment and explain his actions more than to allow unmitigated vandalism and the action seemed temporary until a consensus or joint decision was reached. Although I think that Physchim's belief in the possible reform of SC may be too optimistic I do not find it unreasonable. I did not see the urgency to blocking SC and the lack of harm to actual wikipedia content of the unblock action demonstrates the reasonableness of PC's actions. I would tend to think that the status quo before any administrator action was taken would be the default status in which to have discussion. I personally am willing to support a permanent block on SC. I could also support supervision of SC and I see no problem with PS being the mentor. I find the effort misplaced but not the trust in physchim.--Nick Y. 01:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I note without personally having investigated that three editors who were involved in the editing of heat related articles spoke up on the value of Sadi's contributions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=166582334#Witch_hunt

Endorse ban dave souza, talk 22:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse ban Carnot has done nothing positive on the entropy article; instead he's raised irrelevant issues, twisted the meaning of entropy to suit his own purposes, been tendentious, argumentative and so POV as to be nauseating. He has claimed to be an expert on entropy, and yet as Dave noted, he simply cannot grasp the concepts that entropy ≠ disorder and that the entropy = disorder equation was born of ignorance. In essense, he has held the article captive to his lack of understanding. •Jim62sch• 23:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse ban Per Dave and Jim. Again, might I ask, why do we waste time with these POV warriors who are basically vile. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Endorse ban, I was one of the editors who dealt with the Human chemistry and Human molecule AfD discussions and reading these articles was a profoundly disturbing experience. The articles misrepresented and misquoted sources and pushed blatantly misleading interpretations. This was complete junk, but written with care to give the appearance of serious scholarship. This is much worse than simple vandalism since it is intended to mislead and will easily take in those who are not experts in the subject. This editor is a liability to the project. Tim Vickers 02:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no personal opinion of what he did there, but I feel for these people on the basis of what Sadi did to capture-bonding.

Keith Henson 03:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the comments you quote are not directly related to heat-related articles. The only related comment is the one by Jim62sch, and I don't think it's entirely fair. What entropy "is" is a controversial issue, as you'll see if you read the extremely long discussions in the talk page, where there were many disagreements, and many which didn't involve Sadi Carnot. Textbook authors and experts disagree on how to best explain entropy. Is it a surprise that Wikipedia editors disagree? As I pointed out in one of the discussions, IUPAC, which could be called a reasonably authoritative source, avoid the problem altogether by refraining from giving a qualitative definition in its glossary, and just gives the good-old equations instead... (diff) I did disagree with Sadi Carnot's overemphasis in old historical definitions, which I called "impenetrable to the modern reader", but that didn't make me doubt his good faith.

There was another comment regarding an odd paragraph in History of heat which defined heat in terms of particle physics.(diff) I don't have the expertise to say for sure whether it was bollocks or not, but once that paragraph was deleted, the remaining article seems more or less OK.--Itub 09:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Itub's statement above. The view that entropy is a measure of disorder is extremely common to the point of being taught in the top academic institutions and being used as the first order definition in many textbooks and is not *entirely* mistaken. Such a disagreement is reasonable. Most of the other comments are off topic. Clearly in retrospect and seeing the whole picture SC contributions should be viewed with skepticism but it remains that the vast majority of his edits in heat related articles had an accuracy rate higher than the average editor could manage on the subject and he demonstrated a fairly good understanding of thermodynamics. The point of this is not that he should be trusted but that he was not a disruption only account or an obvious crank.--Nick Y. 22:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 :'''Comment by parties:'''
 ::[[User:Tree Kittens|Tree Kittens]] has been working on the mess since the beginning of the [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human moledule|Human molecule afd]] and [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgi Gladyshev|Gladyshev afd]]. In the Georgi Gladyshev afd, she discovered that Georgi, Lim Thibbs (Sadi Carnot in real life), and one Lin Shukun all were self published by the same publishing house, and were the only people published by that publishing house. [[User:Linshukun|Lin Shukun]] has been a quiet editor for a long time. Created Nov. 19, 2006, with one burst of edits between the 18th and the 25th of February. During the discussion of Sadi Carnot, [[User:Linshukun|Lin Shukun]] suddenly became quite prolific again, with [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=Linshukun |250 edits]] since the 24th of October. Since the case is in arbitration, I cannot request a checkuser directly, but must request it in the arbitration page. I hope this is the right place.[[User:Kww|Kww]] 15:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
+::: not quite correct. Well... --[[User:Linshukun|Linshukun]] 20:05, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 :::Sadi Carnot is almost certainly not a real life name.  I have the name of the person who registered the web site and evidence that makes the case he is the real life ID of Libb Thims and Sadi Carnot.  Email me privately if you want it.  [[User:Hkhenson|Keith Henson]] 01:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)  hkhenson@rogers.com