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[edit]

Checkuser needed on User:linshukun[edit]

1) Checkuser needed on User:linshukun

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) [email protected][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]

Conflict of interest David Mestel^(Talk) 19:59, 4 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]

If you have a lot of dicussions about a User --someone might be new and unfamiliar with the rules -- can you please let that User know and make a link to the website where you are making some comments about that User? You may simply add a link to his website so that he can join you. I guess your guys do not want to use Wikipedia as a trap to destroy some innocent people's reputation. I prefer to presume first that the new comer is innocent and may need help. For me, you may add a link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Linshukun. This is only a kind suggestion. Your guys have fun here!--Linshukun 22:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to observers: both Jehochman and I placed comments on his talk page. As usual, Jehochman was a bit more cuddly than me, and left links to this discussion. Linshukun blanked his talk page on 30/10/07.Kww 22:34, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Only a moment ago, I read the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Georgi_Gladyshev, where the IJMS paper was mentioned several times. I have no comments on that IJMS paper. All the IJMS papers are peer-reviewed. If I can be of any help, please let me know. [email protected]. --Linshukun 21:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

2)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed temporary injunctions[edit]

Interim ban on Jehochman[edit]

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]

Withdrawn as having little (if any) support for such a drastic action. Physchim62 (talk) 17:40, 5 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]

LOL. Physchim62 (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully request a strikethrough of that comment, Psychrim. That post is a serious breach of civility and good faith. The chat log is in my files, and though it hardly ought to be necessary for a motion that no one supports, I could supply evidence to back up my affirmation. Durova^Charge! 10:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point is for the Committee to decide, with or without your private evidence. Physchim62 (talk) 17:21, 5 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]

I don't see the point. This seems like an overreaction to me. --Itub 23:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no need to turn up the heat on a dispute that is much ado about nothing since everyone seems to agree as to the orginal issue and agree with withdrawing this proposal for that reason, I would say that although Jehochman's question was polite and I took it in good faith I find his assumption of bad faith in his final conclusion to be very flawed and unbecoming an admin. "Cat's out of the bag. You've had an account before, or done significant IP editing." Cat's out of the bag??? Implied guilt to say the least. While I appreciate his recommendation that I seek adminship, if this was his intention it probably would have been best to wait until after this dispute is gone to start investigating me when he already stated that I am clearly not a sock of SC. I really did not understand the intention of the whole thing but I assumed good faith. He, however, seemed to assumed bad faith and I come to think this may be a more significant cause of the problem in this dispute than I previously thought.--Nick Y. 05:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that in the end I misunderstood Jehochman's actions in this regard as did others. I would clarify that I have never had another user name and my IP editing was limited to the first few months of WP activity before assuming a user name.--Nick Y. 18:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physchim62 should be enjoined from submitting articles for deletion[edit]

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]

Unnecessary. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't see any merit in this and anything that gets deleted can easily be undeleted if needed for investigations. Sarah 02:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all of you tend to forget that not everyone interested in this affair is an admin. The rest of us can't examine deleted edit histories.Kww 03:07, 10 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]

If the article is worth deleting, delete it (FTR, I !voted redirect). Much of the evidence rests in deleted articles anyway, and I don't see why this one should be an exception. If necessary, it can be moved to project space without leaving a redirect in article space. --Itub 23:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I see no evidence that Physchim would or has ever used this mechanism to cover tracks. The article cited is one we all agree should be deleted. If they are deleted and archived for the time being I am certian PC will have no objections and neither should we.--Nick Y. 05:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

3)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template[edit]

4)

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Questions to the parties[edit]

Proposed final decision[edit]

Proposed principles[edit]

Disruption is disruption[edit]

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[edit]

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]

This comes close to asking the Committee to write WP:WHEEL. There's an open RFC on that policy right now. Durova^Charge! 18:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings[edit]

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[edit]

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]

Better to remand the definition of a community ban to the community. Durova^Charge! 18:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community Ban[edit]

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]

As an informative point, it isn't necessary to unblock someone in order for the editor to present a defense at a community ban discussion. Templates have been used to transclude statements from the editor's user talk page to the noticeboard where the discussion was taking place. Durova^Charge! 23:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious cranks and disruptive editors[edit]

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]

I've suggested doing so at the guideline level repeatedly, fully agreed regarding its wording. Durova^Charge! 18:38, 5 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[edit]

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[edit]

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]

Strong agreement; this is arguably the single most dangerous type of vandalism, as it destroys Wikipedia's credibility in a way that's hard to mend. — Coren ^(talk) 22:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As per Itub below, I would prefer a statement which said "deliberate misrepresentation of source sonstitutes disruptive evidence". The "deliberate" nature of the misrepresentation is onften hard to ascertain, and I think that, if ArbCom voted this principle, it would be opening the door to many many more content disputes. Physchim62 (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hanlon's Razor, "Never ascribe to malice that can be explained by stupidity," may be applicable, but when ignorance and malice are indistinguishable, the remedy is often the same. We don't punish, we prevent further damage. Neither condition is going to be cured by a short block. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:10, 7 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]

I agree with the principle that "deliberate misrepresentation of sources constitutes subtle vandalism, a great danger to the encyclopedia". However, it is not clear to me that the misrepresentation was deliberate in this case. Furthermore, I don't think the university dean analogy is valid. Wikipedia is not a university (how about adding that to WP:NOT? ;-), and universities do have very clear and strict rules about academic dishonesty. While I wouldn't necessarily oppose adding similar rules to Wikipedia, I think it would be quite a major change and that the precedent is just not there. Quick expulsion from Wikipedia for academic dishonesty seems too strong given the normal sequence of warnings used for other forms of disruption. --Itub 12:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, with the proviso that deliberate generally be understood to mean a pattern of problem behavior that continues after explanation and/or warning, or a particularly elaborate deceptive scheme (as described here). Durova^Charge! 19:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree but deliberate can be a slippery slope and by calling it vandalism we would be dramtically expanding the definition of the word. We should be careful here to define terms. Itub rightfully tries to do this as well as Durova. I am not sure either hits the nail on the head. I might suggest "misrepresentation of sources and the use of out of context materials to support articles is a serious problem that is difficult to detect and poses a serious threat to the integrity of wikipedia."--Nick Y. 05:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are precedents; the report I prepared above led to an indefinite siteban and a long term vandalism report. People who skew the facts in Wikipedia's articles operate on a long continuum, beginning with Joan of Arc was Noah's wife and ending with publishing a fake academic journal. That principle was endorsed by the community a year ago, and the Committee would only be ratifying existing practice. Durova^Charge! 14:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For me, this is the most important issue in this Arbitration case, & I support this proposal. It is a matter of trust. However, I agree with Nick Y. that the enforcement of this proposal needs to be done with care: to quote the old saw, "Never ascribe to malice that can be explained by stupidity." -- llywrch 18:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith[edit]

9) Wikipedia:Assume good faith.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Proposed. Much of this dispute could have been averted had users not been so quick to jettison WP:AGF with respect to Sadi Carnot. Physchim62 (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

Agree Although clearly the some of his actions viewed alone could reasonably exhaust a reasonable assumption of good faith.--Nick Y. 18:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks are preventative[edit]

10) Administrative blocks from editing Wikipedia are intended to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia, not to be a punishment for user conduct.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Proposed. Normal consensus meaning of WP:BLOCK. Physchim62 (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

Strongly agree This should not be an issue of debate.--Nick Y. 18:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The line isn't as clear as this statement implies, though. When we block people, we do so because their previous conduct indicates that further contributions from them will cause disruption. Admins do not, and should not, regularly unblock anyone who says they "won't do it again". And how do temporary blocks make sense with this anyway? If we're applying a block in hopes that it will cause someone to change their conduct, that is a punishment. -Amarkov moo! 06:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative actions are reviewable[edit]

11) Any administrative action is subject to review by other administrators. An administrator should not reinstate an action which has been undone by another administrator without first seeking consensus at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Proposed. Sometimes referred to as 1RR for admin actions, or even as "bold-revert-discuss" (but see PP13 below). Physchim62 (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

Administrators' discretion[edit]

12) Administrators have discretion in using their administrative tools within the general principles of Wikipedia. In particular, no administrator is ever required to take a particular administrative action, and administrators are responsible for all actions which they take.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Proposed. Physchim62 (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

I'm not sure why this is relevant to the case, but it's certainly true that no admin can hide behind "I HAD to do it!" when their actions are questioned. -Amarkov moo! 06:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

13) Administrators are expected to promote Community discussion and the search for consensus solutions before taking administrative action wherever this is possible without risking undue disruption to the encyclopedia.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Proposed. Discussion can, of course, occur before the first admin action is taken, although any admin will tell you that that is not always possible. Physchim62 (talk) 12:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you had done this before reversing my block. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you had allowed discussion before blocking in the first place, there would have been no need for me to undo it! Physchim62 (talk) 12:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. When a user is clearly abusing the encyclopedia to spam and self-promote, and on top of that he is misrepresenting sources, any administrator can block the user without prior discussion. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with Nick Y. There is no culpability for blocking an abusive user. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

Agree and on this point there is plenty of culpability for all.--Nick Y. 18:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman-I agree there is no culpability for blocking an abusive editor, but that is not what this principle is about and is not what I was speaking of. There are obviously varying degrees to which community discussion can be promoted and there are different levels of thoroughness to consensus building that can be achieved. Additionally there are different levels of threat to wikipedia that can be effectively managed by different levels and timing of administrative action. Regarding your actions with respect to this principle I find that your promotion of discussion was present but not great and the administrative actions you took were reasonable but unnecessary and somewhat of an over reaction and definitely hasty as there was no imminent threat. Consensus is not exclusively getting a few people to endorse an action. True consensus seeks out opposing points of view even if the majority still reaches the same conclusion. Often consensus is a common middle ground and majority rule that does not consider the input of the opposition is definitely not consensus. Yes, consensus sometimes excludes fringe points of view but is not synonymous with majority agreement especially when the opposition is not even present. Consensus seeks to maximize agreement. Regarding P62's actions regarding this principle I find his failure to open or invite discussion with you to be a serious failure to promote discussion; however, I do believe that his intentions, although flawed in part, were in fact designed specifically to reopen discussion that appeared abruptly ended by your actions. A reasonable reading of your comments was that you specifically invited him to take such action (~unless and another admin is willing to unblock). The appropriate action on his part would have been to state "I am willing to unblock and believe there needs to be more discussion about this." Thus, there were failures by both you and P62 to promote discussion appropriately and thoroughly enough to reach a true consensus before taking administrative actions. And there was no urgency to take action giving SC apparent absence and his history of civility and only long term failure to respect community decisions.--Nick Y. 17:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

17.0) Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right

17.1) Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy.

17.2) No hearing or discussion is required to revoke privileges when they've been abused.

17.3) Discussions may be helpful either before or after a block has been placed.

17.4) ~~It is common practice to~~ Administrators occasionally request a block review at WP:ANI after a block has been placed.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Proposed. Per policy and common sense. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

I don't think 17.4 is such a common practice in general, and I suppose you didn't mean it like that. It is (or probably should be) common practice when a block has been placed on an established editor (whatever the definition of such may be), or when a block is contested on the admin's talk page and no agreement can be reached. Posting at ANI for every block would flood ANI in a terrible way.[2] Fram 15:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Struck partially and added red text. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allright, thanks. Fram 15:54, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Source material hosted on personal / fringe websites[edit]

18) Personal websites and sites advancing novel or fringe theories should not be used as sources other than for the person, site or theory as primary subject.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Object. the uncontentious material hosted by Sadi Carnot dates from the 19th century. WP should find better soucres for it, but the linking from humanthermodynamics.com was not one of his punishable offences. Physchim62 (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

I put this in because it's a problem I've seen in other fringe / pseudoscience disputes. WikiSource exists for hosting of public-domain material. Material not in the public domain is often in violation of copyright, linking to external copyright violations is not acceptable per WP:C. A fringe site that hosts material by others will often include editorial or links which serve to distort the interpretation of the material. Guy (Help!) 11:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed findings of fact[edit]

Sadi Carnot was aware of site standards[edit]

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.

1.1) Sadi Carnot was aware of relevant policies and guidelines, including Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and Wikipedia:No original research. He had been editing for two years and had been involved in AfD debates that mentioned these and other site standards, and a Mediation Cabal case where he quoted these standards himself, and said, "As to conflicts of interest, I learned early on in Wikipedia that incorporating your own research into articles is a no-no." 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]

Done. Revision 1 closely matches this evidence: [3] [4]

Given what followed, I feel that no further warnings were necessary. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:56, 5 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]

He was certainly aware of them. Perhaps he didn't really understand WP:SYN and WP:EL, though. --Itub 08:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wavesmikey changed identities to Sadi Carnot in order to evade scrutiny[edit]

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[edit]

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]

Alright so banning was jus teh first step in a long discussion? Fair enough, however where was the forum created to discuss these issues further. It seemed to me like it was problem solved good riddance. On the whole I would tend to agree that with all of his positives and negative good riddance to SC departure is about right but that does not negate that we shoul dnot be hasty. I strted out by saying he should be banned to some extent or another and I still believe it. There were however other possibilites that I was willing to consider as we all should.--Nick Y. 05:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse this finding. --Itub 08:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadi Carnot has engaged in disruptive editing[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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]

Nick, had people, particularly Physchim62, been just a bit more concerned with content as opposed to form, SC's behavior might have been given more attention back last spring in the context of the now deleted capture-bonding article. SC did *exactly* the same thing to that article (stuffing it with off topic but referenced nonsense) he did to many others. You could see this in the history and talk page. Unfortunately the evidence is now gone. Keith Henson 20:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to assume good faith by Kww[edit]

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[edit]

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]

I agree with the first sentence. The second is plausible, but speculative. --Itub 12:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community banning policy is ambiguous[edit]

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]

Policy is whatever we commonly practice. The written policy is supposed to reflect practice, not dictate practice. However, I think that if the written practice is confusing or contradictory, an admin cannot be sanctioned for following what is written. That is why I oppose all sanctions against admins involved in the present case. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:51, 7 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[edit]

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]

I reverted and protected to prevent COI abuse by Keith Henson. The article is now on AfD. This proposed finding of fact is just yet another in a long line of hysterical personal attacks by user Kww. Physchim62 (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someday, you should take a look at WP:KETTLE. It contains valuable advice for getting people to listen to admonitions of civility.Kww 15:49, 5 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]

Reverting and then protecting is bad, of course, but the examples given here don't really justify any action against him. -Amarkov moo! 19:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree A major role of an admin is to protect article integrity. I have no reason to believe that PC was not attempting to do this in the cited previous case even if it was misguided (which I personally do not know). I find his actions in the current situation to be in good faith even if slightly off from optimal as were the actions of jehochman and kww. --Nick Y. 05:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On further investigation I find that P62's actions did indeed have at least some efficacy in protecting article integrity.--Nick Y. 19:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadi Carnot deliberately misrepresented sources[edit]

12) Sadi Carnot has deliberately misrepresented sources.

12.1) Sadi Carnot has misrepresented sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, based on this comment by User:Itub during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human chemistry. - Jehochman ^Talk 04:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, as per Itub below, I would certainly support this finding of fact if you removed the adjective "deliberate". As it is, I am neutral. Physchim62 (talk) 12:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "Sadi Carnot willfully misrepresented sources"? — Coren ^(talk) 14:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this FoF would be more useful in future situations if it simply said "Sadi Carnot has misrepresented sources." It would also fit better with the rest of the agreed points, where we accept that fringe theories (outside of their specific articles) are bad for WP and can be removed regardless of the motivation. Physchim62 (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Whether he was trying to do damage, or was sincerely misguided and refused to change course, the net result is the same: an editor doing serious damage who was very likely to continue doing so without some sort of external controls. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly. We need to be able to act against disruptive editing regardless of the motives behind it. That I think we all agree on. The dispute is is the manner in which we act against it, or in the manner in which we try to guess the motives, which ever you wish. Physchim62 (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This was exactly my point at the beginning of this ... does it really matter whether he is a fool or a con artist? The behaviour was the problem, and it didn't and doesn't matter whether he believed what he wrote or not. What there is not is any reason to believe that it is some kind of transient problem that can be rectified by moderation or observation.Kww 17:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I suppose I have to agree with this one, since you are quoting me. ;-) That said, I'd place some qualifications on "deliberate". Did he do it in a deliberate attempt to disrupt Wikipedia? I'm not convinced of that. I think that he was desperately scraping the bottom of the barrel when looking for references to protect his original-research articles from deletion. Did he consider this a misrepresentation? Who knows. But the net result is that yes, he misrepresented sources. --Itub 12:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that he misrepresented sources. I find all of the implications of motivation in all of the points discussed throughout this arbitration to be irrelevant. We will never know. In order for people to make progress here we need to drop the motivations and go with real findings and actions that are testable.--Nick Y. 05:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physchim62 has not abused sysop tools[edit]

13) Physchim62 has not abused sysop tools.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, to reduce the acrimony. Administrators are allowed to make an occasional mistake. The revert-protect sequence cited in my evidence may have been unintentional. Nor can Physchim62 be faulted for unblocking when our banning policy and blocking policy are inconsistent. I am hopeful that Abcom will help illuminate policy. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to be educated. When are revert-protect sequences acceptable in the absence of vandalism?Kww 01:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert-protect is OK when it's not a content dispute. I did one today. An IP spammed PageRank for the Nth time. I reverted the spam, and semi-protected the page. - Jehochman ^Talk 02:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would seem to count as vandalism, so I'll buy that it wasn't a content dispute. The one in question here wasn't a content dispute?Kww 02:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People are allowed to make a mistake now and then. I want him to concede that point. Yes, it seemed like a content dispute between two COI editors where neither was in the right, but he probably didn't perceive it that way at the time. - Jehochman ^Talk 07:24, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a fully description of my actions below. To amke it clear, I revert protected because I felt that HkHenson was editwarring in contravention of WP:COI and WP:NPOV to say the least, and because the case was being passed on to another forum. Physchim62 (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it was an isolated incident. Everyone is allowed an occasional mulligan, even if this was not perfect. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Yes. The difference between just using sysop tools incorrectly and using them abusively is important. -Amarkov moo! 01:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree--Nick Y. 05:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadi Carnot's Spamming[edit]

14) Sadi Carnot has spammed Wikipedia with links to his own, and affiliated, websites.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, based on MER-C's evidence. We are talking about >200 links, the majority added by Sadi, with some then spreading virally to other language Wikipedias through good faith translations and trans-wikis. - Jehochman ^Talk 08:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a practical matter, I don't think anybody is excited to spend their days picking through Sadi's 8000+ edits to find the link drops and determine which were in article space and which were in talk space. Most editors who add even a fraction of this many spam links to Wikipedia get indefinitely blocked. Sadi escaped detection for a long time by working slowly and covering the spam with content edits that appeared to be legitimate (but often weren't). - Jehochman ^Talk 09:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly true, but it should be remembered that there is evidence that at least some of the links added were legitimate (ie, links to faithful copies of 19th century research papers), or were added to talk pages. The actually number of spammed links has not been investigated, although it is certainly greater than zero. Physchim62 (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am attempting to get a comprehensive list of external links added so that we can review them. Facts are friends. If this is feasible with the resources available, it will be provided. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Support. However, I think that the 200+ figure sounds worse than it is, as many of them were in talk pages and not in articles. Some of the links might even have been acceptable as references, such as his hosting a copy of historic papers by Clausius (www.humanthermodynamics.com/Clausius.html, assuming that the copy is accurate), but even that link was added excessively. --Itub 09:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree although as pointed out the extent is mitigated from the raw numbers by at least some legitimate use of externally hosted information.--Nick Y. 20:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadi Carnot's COI editing and self-promotion[edit]

15) Sadi Carnot has improperly used Wikipedia to promote his own website, fringe theories, and original research.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed, based on MER-C's and Coren's evidence. - - Jehochman ^Talk 09:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree. --Itub 09:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.--Nick Y. 20:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coren acted correctly[edit]

16) Coren (talk · contribs) acted correctly in taking his suspicions about Sadi Carnot to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Proposed. It would be nice to have at least one positive FoF :) Physchim62 (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No need to state the obvious. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

Agree.--Nick Y. 20:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capture bonding created as PoV-fork of Stockholm syndrome[edit]

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Proposed. This is by his own admission. Physchim62 (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I have been repeatedly attacked by parties for my handling of the Capture bonding incident, I think it is important that we consider Keith Henson's role in all of this. Physchim62 (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

23) Jehochman acted precipitively in blocking Sadi Carnot after less than two hours discussion when the user was inactive.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Proposed. I am trying to be a little more specific than "hasty" in describing the first block. Physchim62 (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your unblock one minute after your comment wasn't precipitous? Your logic escapes me. Oppose. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. The precipitate act was rushing to unblock someone who was inactive and not requesting unblock, without agreement, consensus or discussion. Sarah 03:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

Did you mean "precipitately"? At first I thought I read "prescriptively", so I'm not sure. --Itub 12:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precipitously? Durova^Charge! 14:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinite block excessive[edit]

24) The indefinite block of Sadi Carnot was an excessive measure when compared to the remedies agreed by this Committee in similar cases.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Proposed. See, for example, the Depleted uranium case, where the remedy imposed was a topic ban and probation. Physchim62 (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus at ANI supports the indefinite block. Res ipsa loquitor. Furthermore, I invited comment and explicitly stated conditions on which I would unblock. You chose to ignore those invitations. An indefinite block has no specified length of time. When reasonable conditions for unblocking are offered, it can not too long. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not ignore your comments at all! Do you wish to make the evidence page even longer? I'm quite willing to do so. Physchim62 (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed to your favored resolution of this case -- mentorship. All I wanted was for you to strikeout the allegations of bad faith you made against me and others, and conceded that we should discuss things before reversing each other's sysop actions. I am still willing to settle the case on that basis if you would like to do so, and I will strike out every negative thing I've said about your actions. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless. The indefinite block was a community sanction, not an ArbCom remedy. Why compare apples to oranges? Sarah 03:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

Disagree with this FOF - sanctions handed out during community ban discussions at AN/I are usually a full indef ban. Usually with less discussion and no conditions for repreieves. --Rocksanddirt 18:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman failed to assume good faith[edit]

25) Jehochman failed to assume good faith with respect to Sadi Carnot in not considering alternative explanations for that user's actions.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Proposed. Jehochman, as an administrator, had a particular responsability to assume good faith and to carefully weigh the evidence. Physchim62 (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would show the participants in this arbitration 1/10th the good faith you show Sadi Carnot. Again, your logic is unfathomable. There is no requirement to assume good faith when there is substantial evidence to the contrary. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was not, and could not have been, consensus at ANI because of they way you preempted the discussion. Physchim62 (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. Sarah 03:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

Suggest withdrawl of the motion per WP:KETTLE. Durova^Charge! 14:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Durova. --Rocksanddirt 18:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman acted inappropriately[edit]

26) Jehochman acted inappropriately in editing policy pages relating to this dispute while the case was before this Committee.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Proposed. No user is irreplaceable on Wikipedia, Jehochman should have left changes to someone else. In editing himself he gives the distinct impression of trying to change the rules to suit himself. Physchim62 (talk) 12:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of your two previous attempts to have me banned from policy discussion, both of which were strongly denied, you propose yet a third time to restrict my editing. I wish you could see your actions the way others see them. Changes to policy were made following discussion and consensus. Those changes haven't been reverted by anyone, except you. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. He acted appropriately in trying to tighten up the policy so this kind of debacle doesn't happen again. He was working in good faith in the best interests of the project and other editors. Sarah 03:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

It is a fairly common thing in arbitration for participants who wind up on the wrong side of a case to take a sudden and active interest in rewriting some guideline or policy that worked against them in the case. Often, but not necessarily, those actions are disruptive. Jehochman opened these matters for consensus discussion, sought a WP:RFC, and modified proposals in accordance with feedback. That can only be construed against him if we paint with a very broad brush and disallow all policy editing by named parties in arbitration cases, and I don't think it would be good for the project to introduce such a principle. Durova^Charge! 14:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Posting here for clarity. This is a unique situation because both P62 and I agreed that the policies were unclear, and that poorly written policies were an important contributory factor to this dispute. I have specifically said that changes should not be applied against anyone here because we shouldn't make ex post facto rules.- Jehochman ^Talk 14:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While there is potential for such action to be disruptive, Jehochman's participation in policy discussions and policy page changes had not been. --Rocksanddirt 18:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Physchim62 refused to abide the consensus[edit]

~~27) Physchim62 refused to listen to opinions that disagreed with his own.~~

~~27.1) Physchim62 refused to engage in good faith negotiations with those who disagreed with him.~~

~~27.2) Physchim62 consistently attacked those who opposed his actions, using slurs like "witch hunt".~~

~~27.3) When enjoined from acting himself by the wheel warring policy, Physchim62 recruited an agent to do his bidding, thereby subverting the consensus.~~

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Proposed -- somehow I deleted my original comment by accident. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse at the obvious risk of violating WP:KETTLE myself.Kww 14:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P62 has struck the proposal to ban me, so perhaps he will prove this finding unnecessary. Retracting the comments of "witch hunt" and replacing them with something more neutral, such as "hasty", "ill founded" or "sub-optimal" would go a long way towards reconciliation. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a technical measure, and given that this section is already long, I would rather that theis PFF is split into its consituent points so that I can reply to each one in turn. I could do it myself, but I shall wait to see if anyone else wishes to do it first. Physchim62 (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me strike it to save you the time. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:09, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

Endorse. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sadi_Carnot/Workshop#Interim_ban_on_Jehochman above: being out of step with the community is one thing, but being drastically out of step without either yielding to consensus or having remotely persuasive evidence, and responding aggressively to polite analysis, is not the kind of pattern I like to see in any Wikipedian. Durova^Charge! 14:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deliberate actions[edit]

28) Given Sadi Carnot's coordinated spamming, fringe theory pushing and misrepresentation of sources, it was tenable to conclude that these acts constituted a pattern of deliberate editing abuse.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Proposed. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not keen on the word deliberate but I agree with this in general. Sarah 03:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

Agree I would add that previous experience and conversations that brought the inappropriateness of his actions to his attention are further evidence of the deliberate nature of his actions. Although we may never know his intentions this is a very reasonable conclusion to make. Individual actions within this pattern are not so clearly devious and might be misguided but taken as a whole I find it very unlikely that he did not know he was doing wrong.--Nick Y. 19:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

29) Given Sadi Carnot's apparent pattern of editing abuse, it was tenable to prevent him from making further edits until reasonable precautions were put in place.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Proposed. Administrators may disagree, but we have to respect each other's tenable actions. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to judge a situation in retrospect. My thought was that the discussion of a community ban would begin once a block was applied, and that we didn't want this editor to lay low for a few months and then return to old tricks. As P62 and I have already agreed, the recorded policy was unclear and needs to be clarified. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The next time something like this happens, I have learned from this example and may do things differently to minimize the drama. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point, once again, was that there was no urgency. This was not a user running a bot to place ridiculous HTML comments at 10-a-minute, like one vandal I dealt with this afternoon. The discussion should have continued, with input from a larger number of users and from a wider background, to find a real consensus solution. I'm only just getting round to compiling the list of articles that SC edited, essential for checking them. There are still some articles where he is the last editor, which says much about the checking efforts of those editors who were so quick to say how dangerous this user is supposed to be. Physchim62 (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work on that vandalbot. I saw that. Again, if you had said something like the above to me at ANI and requested unblocking Sadi, there's a strong chance I would have agreed. I enjoy agreeing with people. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know at least as much psychology as another notable party to this case, and I'm sure you wouldn't have unblocked: please don't think I enjoy using harsh words to normally reasonable people! Physchim62 (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

I agree that it was not unreasonable (I voted for a block, although I expected there to be a longer discussion) but it should be clear that it was not necessary to prevent damage and more harm than good did result from action than inaction. *If* the block had not be put in place SC would not have made any serious edits that were not easily reverted (most likely none at all) and the perception of ongoing consensus building would have been furthered.--Nick Y. 19:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

humanthermodynamics.com[edit]

30) User:Sadi Carnot is the owner of humanthermodynamics.com: [6]. This site proposes a novel theory. Where humanthermodynamics has been linked as a source, the source material includes editorial as well as the source itself.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

I'm not sure how relevant this is. Itub and yourself have presented evidence that not all the links to humanthermodynamics.com were as terrible as they have been made out to be. In some cases, a commercial site might be the only reliable source for a true paper, though this is not so for Clausius' works, which can be found at several online libraries. Physchim62 (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a clever form of spamming. If website owners load public domain documents to their own sites, plaster the pages with ads, and then drop links all over Wikipedia, that's not a good thing. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. It's a way of weaselling in an agenda while giving the appearance of neutrality, and it has been used by others also proposing novelty theories. I think that as a principle we should not link to content on such websites except as sources for the site's owner or theories. Guy (Help!) 11:27, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

This seems relevant to me. If these were simply copies of papers it might be fine, but there is editorial on the liknked pages, and they've been linked multiple times, often (if not always) by Sadi Carnot. Guy (Help!) 12:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant, for the same reason that personal websites are rarely acceptable as sources unless the owner is a recognized expert: the original material is not vetted and Wikipedians cannot be confident that reproduced material is a faithful reproduction. It's perfectly acceptable to cite the original source directly, and the owner of an accurate amateur website should be well positioned to provide those citations. Durova^Charge! 15:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's simple to sum up why it's relevant:

Sadi Carnot is known to have falsified sources to support his OR
The humanthermodynamics site was constructed by SC to support his OR

This is why we demand reliable sources with editorial oversight. Nothing found on that site can be known to be a faithful reproduction, because it is not independent of SC. — Coren ^(talk) 15:55, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Jehochman's "clever form of spamming". What do you say about the thousands of links to Google Books, which fit your description almost exactly? The only difference is who added the links to Wikipedia, but that should be inconsequential. If a link to a source is valid, it should stay even if the Devil himself added it. ;-) --Itub 09:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to believe this domain satisfies WP:RS. Durova^Charge! 09:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is every reason to believe that certain material which is hosted by this domain and which was linked to by Wikipedia satisfies WP:RS. Once again, Durova, I must ask you to refrain from commenting when you have obviously not read the discussion nor the relevant policy pages. Physchim62 (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Under what interpretation of WP:RS does a personal website become credible when it is owned by a nonexpert who has demonstrably made serious misrepresentations of sources on Wikipedia? The vetted sources he drew upon might well be reliable and he may cite them directly. This is our standard expectation of all such site owners, and it would be untenable to carve an exception for this individual in these circumstances. See special pleading. Durova^Charge! 20:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to study the topic of convenience links, which is what these are. A link to a reliable source that is located on a fraudulent site would need to be examined very, very, carefully to ensure the the owner of the fraudulent site has not distorted the text in any way. That examination would have to take place periodically, to ensure that the link was not made to good material, followed by corruption of the linked text. Once you have had to go to that level of effort, there is very little reason to link to the fraudulent site as opposed to whatever you are using as a baseline for comparison. If there is no baseline for comparison, the link has to be rejected out of hand.Kww 15:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that these links are ideal. It would be better to have the links pointing towards univolved sites, and in the case of these papers such sites exist. On the other hand, you have no evidence that this site actually modified the text (which would be difficult to do in the circumstances), and so it it is unjust to include such non-spamming references in the figures of wikispam which you quote. Physchim62 (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specific evidence of misrepresentation is unnecessary: the reliable sources guideline exists because Wikipedia does not have the resources to perform vetting and fact checking, so we limit ourselves citing to known and reputable publications. If such links were permitted until proven false then, over millions of articles, some citations certainly would be faulty. The principle is too easy to game. Sadi Carnot's personal site would be unacceptable in any event, and particular qualms about his methods enhance the necessity of avoiding its use in this site's references. Durova^Charge! 20:49, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

proposed finding of fact[edit]

Support the general idea. Sadi Carnot is either acting maliciously or he is unable to distinguish right from wrong editing. Either way, he should not be allowed to edit again. - Jehochman ^Talk 08:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree with this one. I don't really care what the reasons for his behaviour are and whether it was intentional, the point is he has systematically damaged the mainspace and shouldn't be allowed to edit without reaching an agreement with arbcom with regard to future behaviour. Sarah 02:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Proposed, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence#Evidence presented by Coren and the above findings of fact. John254 01:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems excessive.--Nick Y. 06:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadi Carnot banned from psychology articles[edit]

4) Sadi Carnot is banned indefinitely from psychology articles.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed based on the result of the Depleted uranium case. Physchim62 (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too weak. He has spammed in other areas too. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as inadequate, per Tim. Sarah 02:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Oppose - read the AfD debates for Human chemistry and Human thermodynamics. This remedy would only remove half of the problem. Tim Vickers 16:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per TimVickers. While Human chemistry might arguably be called pseudo-psychology (it is certainly not chemistry), the distinction is too vague. --Itub 17:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support but only in addition to other remedies. Oppose as the only remedy per Jehochman.--Nick Y. 06:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadi Carnot placed on Probation[edit]

5) Sadi Carnot is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article which he disrupts by a blatant misrepresentation of sources. A record of all bans shall be kept at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed based on the result of the Depleted uranium case. Physchim62 (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have time to play whack-a-mole? Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We would be playing "whack-a-mole" in any case, if one accepts your view of this editor. Physchim62 (talk) 13:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so because he only uses one account at a time. He seems to have a sincere desire to contribute, but a fundamental misunderstanding of our content policies, and an inability to receive and adjust to criticism. When somebody doesn't understand how to contribute, they need mentorship, or else they aren't allowed to contribute. Propose mentorship instead. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support; if the proposed ban does not pass, and at the end of the ban if it does. — Coren ^(talk) 13:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Not keen on this one. I don't like the idea of him being free to return to his playground with other editors forced to run around after him verifying every edit he makes isn't a misrepresentation of sources. Seems like unnecessary time wasting to me. Sarah 02:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

Agree.--Nick Y. 21:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadi Carnot is placed on general probation[edit]

6) Sadi Carnot is placed on general probation. He may be banned from Wikipedia by any three administrators for good cause. A record of all bans shall be kept at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed based on the result of the Depleted uranium case. Physchim62 (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He also can be blocked by any one administrator who finds him adding spam or violating any of our other content standards. He gets no special protection against being blocked. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This remedy does not suggest that SC gets any benefit against a "normal" block: it is in the form of a delegation of banning ability to any three admins, no more, no less. Physchim62 (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with JH. If there is "good cause" then it seems to me admins shouldn't have to run around looking for two other admins in order to act. I would prefer to stick with the regular application of BLOCK and BAN. This just seems like more time wasting Sarah 02:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I agree with this one with Jehochman's clarification being an important one.--Nick Y. 06:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original work[edit]

7) Original work which originates from Limm Thibs and his movement may be removed from any Wikipedia article in which it appears.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed on the basis of the Lyndon LaRouche case. Physchim62 (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary remedy. We already can remove original research and unreliable material on sight. No permission from Arbcom is needed.- Jehochman ^Talk 13:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose it as a formal recognition that SC's original research on "human thermodynamics" is inappropriate for Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the theory gets recognition from reliable sources, then certainly we could write about it. Sources can be reviewed and discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard if it happens. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support; although a finding of fact stating something along the lines of "SC's research on 'human thermodynamics' is original research" would suffice and have the same effect. — Coren ^(talk) 13:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would have more force among uninvolved admins if it could be phrased as a remedy, which it why I placed it here. There is also precedent for such a remedey (albeit a fairly old precedent). Physchim62 (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary, as per JH. Sarah 02:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

~~support~~ Oppose as unecessary per Jehochman. OR from anywhere should be removed and not just by admins. --Nick Y. 06:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kww banned[edit]

8) Kww is banned from Wikipedia for a period of one month.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed given his attitude during this case. Physchim62 (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Obviously unnecessary, and ~~retaliatory~~ punitive against an editor who has provided evidence against you. I suggest you don't propose any more ~~retaliatory~~ measures against involved parties. Let the arbitrators decide if something like this is necessary. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retaliatory? don't be silly. Are you suggesting that Kww has acted appropriately? It is normal for ArbCom to look at all aspects of the cases which are brought before it. Kww has been warened by your good self, and has not changed his ways. You might feel that a one month ban is excessive, but some sanction of his behaviour should appear in the remedies section. Physchim62 (talk) 13:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My behaviour during this case has been a good faith effort to bring the guilty to justice. Unfortunately, since I have come to the conclusion that you are among the guilty, it is probably hard for you to see my behaviour as civil. In fact, I have been quite civil: no epithets, no name-calling. I even initially supported a finding that you had behaved in good faith until the evidence and your own behaviour convinced me otherwise.Kww 15:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as ridiculous. If Kww is deserving of a block then he should be blocked, but a one month ban is excessively punitive. Sarah 02:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't see the point of this, for the same reasons I gave under "Physchim62 stripped of admin powers". --Itub 11:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose but not as strongly as banning PC.--Nick Y. 23:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kww placed on civility parole[edit]

9) Kww (talk · contribs) is placed on standard civility parole for one year. If he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith, then he may be blocked for a short time of up to one week for repeat offenses.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Proposed on the basis of the first Armenia-Azerbaijan case. Physchim62 (talk) 13:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also no - Jehochman ^Talk 13:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If people really find this necessary, I ask that Phsychim62 be enjoined from blocking me during the probation. His edit history convinces me that he does not quite understand that disagreeing with him can be a very civil thing to do, and that he is inclined to block people he considers to be his opponent. I certainly think that he has reason to consider me an opponent at this point.Kww 15:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are only an opponant in so far as I consider you to be a disruptive editor. Were you not a party to this arbitration, and had I been aware of your behaviour earlier, I would have blocked you myself. However it is normal practice that administrators do not enforce the remedies of arbitration cases in which they have been involved, and I see no reason why I should make a exception for you. Physchim62 (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sense that Kww is relatively inexperienced and that he reacts positively to feedback. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are entitled to your opinion, and the Committee may well agree with you. At the very least, this proposal is "feedback". Physchim62 (talk) 17:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. Sarah 02:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't see the point of this, for the same reasons I gave under "Physchim62 stripped of admin powers". --Itub 11:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose this but do see that Kww needs to chilax and find the productive path through this conflict. I do think Kww needs some help and guidance.--Nick Y. 23:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Chilax"? Is that a typo? I haven't seen that word before. -- llywrch 18:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chilling and relaxing. Urban slang. [7] - Jehochman ^Talk 19:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I learn something new every day on Wikipedia. -- llywrch 20:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phsychim62 stripped of admin powers[edit]

10) Physchim62 should be stripped of admin powers. He should be allowed to reapply after demonstrating that he understands that his role as an admin is not to be used to take sides in content disputes, and is not to be used to retaliate against other parties during arbitrations.Kww 14:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Oppose. See tu quoque. When one side of a dispute is unreasonable, the best response is to be reasonable. I recommend striking this proposal. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others:

I don't see the point of this, other than as part of the escalating hostilities between Physchim62 and Kww. I think both Physchim62 and Kww should cool off a bit, as kindly suggested by Carcharoth ([8] and [9]). --Itub 11:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. --Linshukun 17:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought a lot these couple days whether guys like Kww can have a position here. Normally watchdogs can be offensive, annoying but most of time lovely, and might be necessary for Wikipedia, a very interesting project in Open Access publishing. However, judgments and comments made by Kww on this page showed that his intellectual level and moral standards might be disappointedly low. While intellectual level and moral standards are difficult to say, Kww should show whether he has enough credits to be involved in the academic editorial activity of Wikipedia. Kww please show your educational background or your list of publication or make a link at your user website (We will not complain about COI). Otherwise, my honest advice is that you quietly read what the scientists provided here and do not bother those who are editing and providing some intellectual stuff to feed you. --Linshukun 17:18, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linshukun, I appreciate you are a new user, but some of what you have said above shows that you misunderstand what Wikipedia is about. I don't want to go into detail here, but the standard at Wikipedia is not the level of qualifications of the editors, but the reliability of the sources they provide for what is added to articles. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with editors, created using a form of wiki software, not an open access journal for scientists to publish their papers. I hope that helps to correct any misunderstandings. Please ask on my talk page, or follow the links people have provided on your talk pages (such as the suggestion to initially contribute material in draft form on a user subpage), if you have further questions. Carcharoth 20:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Oppose Even proposing this when it is obvious that at most this is about an honest misunderstanding and all parties making similar mistakes due to that misunderstanding is a strong indicator of bad faith to me. We all agree that SC did WP a disservice and should be prevented from repeating what he did. PC and Jehochman seem to have both acted in good faith, despite being the main parties in conflict. I am starting to question Kww's ability to moderate his position in good faith towards what is best for WP and not for his own ego.--Nick Y. 23:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hkhenson banned from psychology articles[edit]

11) Hkhenson is banned indefinitely from psychology articles.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Proposed. Based on the Depleted uranium case. Physchim62 (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive and vindictive - Jehochman ^Talk 13:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the same as I have proposed against Sadi Carnot. Physchim62 (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. I don't think this is justified by the evidence. Sarah 02:59, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

Agree- From what I have seen HKhenson's behavior is not too dissimilar from Sadi Carnot's. He has misrepresented sources with conflict of interest and pushed his own pov by citing himself. The "journal" that Hkhenson's work is published in is very questionable. It is not peer reviewed or even published and distributed in hard copy. The only difference between SC and Hkhenson is that Hkhenson misrepresentation is more subtle and sophisticated. His papers are in standard journal format to give the appearance of credibility. If I am not mistaken SC has a degree in chemical engineering or some closely related field and Hkhenson has a degree in electrical engineering or some closely related field and they are both trying to push their ideas within psychology. Now we don't need to be experts in a field to edit an area of wikipedia but I find it very disturbing to even suggest authority based on claims of expertise that would not hold up in mainstream academia.--Nick Y. 21:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick are you sure you are not an echo of Physchim? I had nothing to do with the format of the HNR article. It was sent in as a word document and Dr. Ian Pitchford or one of his staff formated it to a .pdf for publication.

As far as paper publications, I have been published on paper since the mid 1970s, most recently last year. "Evolutionary Psychology:, Memes and the Origin of War" was printed in the reviewed journal _Mankind Quarterly_ Summer 2006 as well as there being a slightly longer version on the web. It not hard to research, try Google or here [10] for a partial list. BTW, I wouldn't consider editing in most areas of psychology, but I do know evolutionary psychology. Keith Henson 18:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would further note that Keith Henson has used wikipedia articles he largely wrote as a source in his published articles.[11]--Nick Y. 20:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems too convoluted for my style. Can you substantiate this statement? Which Wikipedia article? The only place I can see the word Wikipedia in the place you are pointing to is in comments about the article by others. Or is this "shoot from the hip" type research ? Keith Henson 02:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the appearance of legitimacy was accidental, the self-citing of non-peer reviewed materials is no different than Sadi Carnot citing his self published books from a citation legitimacy perspective within the context of psychology and falls far below site standards.--Nick Y. 20:23, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would note for the record that I have no relation to or particular agreement with Physchim other than having no reason to doubt good faith on his part and having generally observed responsible behavior on his part. I would also state to make things even more clear that I have no personal issues with Keith Henson and generally agree with his personal politics if not his tactics and share many of the same interests.--Nick Y. 20:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be a bit more specific? Which interest? Evolutionary psychology? Memetics? Cryonics? Space radiators? MegaScale engineering? Nanotechnology? Space elevators? Keith Henson 02:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hkhenson placed on Probation[edit]

12) Hkhenson is placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article which he disrupts by edit warring. A record of all bans shall be kept at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Proposed. Based on the Depleted uranium case. Physchim62 (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community can handle Hkhenson. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no particular faith in Keith Henson, and have not used admin tools to shield him from any consequences. If another administrator sees an editing problem, have at it. I won't stand in the way. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:59, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason to think this is necessary. If there is a problem with Hkhenson misrepresenting sources, if there is a problem with Hkhenson being disruptive, take it to ANI so the community can examine the evidence. Sarah 03:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

Agree I think ~~Jehochman's~~ faith in Hkhenson is similarly misplaced to PC's faith in Sadi Carnot's reform.--Nick Y. 21:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hkhenson placed on general probabtion[edit]

13) Hkhenson is placed on general probation. He may be banned from Wikipedia by any three administrators for good cause. A record of all bans shall be kept at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot#Log of blocks and bans.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Proposed. Based on the Depleted uranium case. Physchim62 (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community can handle Hkhenson. He's not nearly as disruptive as Sadi Carnot. - Jehochman ^Talk 13:05, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4) In considering whether consensus exists for a ban, this Committee shall take into account:

the number of users who could reasonably have taken part in the discussion;
the extent to which alternative remedies were discussed and rejected by the Community;

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Proposed. The first point is to prevent discussions in obscure parts of WP, or discussions which are too short to allow people to contribute effectively. The second point recognises that bans are the most severe measure that we take against users, and so should be a last resort. Physchim62 (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

Enforcement of bans[edit]

5) Bans may be enforced by any administrative measure including, but not limited to, blocking and the deletion of contributions made during the ban.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Proposed. Administrators have a degree of discretion in enforcing bans, as in other administrative actions. In particular, they might wish to take useful edits on the part of a banned user as a de facto appeal of that ban rather than a direct breach. Physchim62 (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

Appeal of bans[edit]

6) Any ban may be appealed to this Committee, either through the talk page of the banned user or by email to an active Arbitrator.

Comment by Arbitrators

Comment by parties

Proposed. Simple restatement of current practice, but see PPC7 below. Physchim62 (talk) 12:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by others

User talk pages[edit]

7) This Committee shall not consider the editing of a banned user's talk page to appeal a ban to be a breach of that ban. User talk pages of banned users should not be routinely protected, but may be protected in accordance with Wikipedia:Blocking policy if they are abused by the banned user.

Comment by Arbitrators

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]

Could someone please explain to me when and why this examination of the behavior of Sadi Carnot has degenerated into a personal mud flinging contest? The vast majority of the "proposals" above are now little more than retributive, mean spirited attacks completely unrelated to the case at hand, and what's left of civility is now so threadbare you can see the bile and venom lurking just beneath.

I believe I have made the case that needed to be made, and since no productive discussion is taking place, I will leave examination of that case into the arbitrators' hands.

I will, of course, return should the committee have questions, or in the increasingly unlikely case that the participants of this brawl return to their senses and start discussion again. — Coren ^(talk) 14:39, 6 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]

"that he was not a disruption only account or an obvious crank" is why the mess he was causing took so long to be understood. The problem in at least some cases was that it took expert level knowledge rather than wiki lawyering to pick up on Sadi's BS. Unfortunately that seems to be in short supply here. I would like to point you to an article that is close to all Sadi's work, Human Bonding. Read it. Read it carefully. Come back to this thread and state so if you find it to be a factual, well written article. If enough of you can be taken in by it, I will analyze the article for what it is. If you feel uneasy about endorsing that article that's a good sign.

BTW, this is not directly related to the current matter under discussion, but it might interest some of you anyway [12] Keith Henson 05:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean human bonding, and you are right, I am uneasy about that, but for reason not just related to Sadi Carnot's editing. Thanks for the link to the Telegraph article. Carcharoth 11:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching the link error. I saw it, but my net connection died before I could fix it. Keith Henson 00:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory look at the human bonding article indicates that although there are some needed corrections especially regarding the over use of chemical concepts in a semi literal manner, the article as a whole is in reasonable shape. Certainly some Sadi work needs to be reviewed and some further editing is needed.--Nick Y. 18:47, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should not give you another chance Nick, but go down into the article and read "types." Read it carefully and think of it from the viewpoint of a high school student using Wikipedia to get an idea of what the subject is about. Does it make sense? Is it on topic and useful? Is it even correct? You might also look at a removed section "Fluid bond" and the comment. (No, I didn't remove it.) Limerent? Human-insect bond? Even if capture-bonding survives AfD I don't think it belongs in such a list, it's just to far off topic. This is *typical* of what Sadi did. It was as if he had a temporal lobe lesion that causes hypergraphia. It isn't just the obsession with chemistry, think about this article in the context of a high school student and tell us if you think this article is better than no article at all. Keith Henson 00:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the kind of scrambled mess Sadi made out of capture-bonding isn't going to be caught by wiki lawyers. It *looks* good, but it doesn't make sense to someone who has knowledge of evolutionary psychology. The same might be true of other articles. They really need to be examined by experts. Keith Henson 01:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with you that Sadi's contributions need to be reviewed as I stated directly above. The human insect bond section seems not-notable to me, there are some other sections that seem questionable and there is some poor choice of words that seem to further Sadi's interests subtly. But overall the article has more good quality than corruption and only needs to be cleaned up. Everyone agrees that much of Sadi's work in the psychology related articles is seriously flawed. Your contributions are also seriously questionable. Although you *may* (or may not) have expert level knowledge about any particular subject, you consistently fail to understand or purposely ignore what makes appropriate primary literature references and push not-notable and/or non-mainstream viewpoints. Please do not cite any non-peer reviewed publications and refrain from introducing or POV forking subjects that are not clearly notable.--Nick Y. 18:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reset indents

You state that "much of Sadi's work in the psychology related articles is seriously flawed." I agree. Do you agree that an article on human bonding *is* a psychology article?

re peer reviewed:

From their web page:

"Mankind Quarterly is a refereed academic quarterly journal. Qualified authors wishing to submit manuscripts are invited see Notes for Authors."

From Wikipedia: Mankind_Quarterly "The Mankind Quarterly is a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to physical anthropology and cultural anthropology and is currently published by The Council for Social and Economic Studies in Washington, D.C. It contains articles on human evolution, intelligence, ethnography, languages, mythology, archaeology, race, etc. It aims to reunify biology with anthropology. The journal was founded in 1960, and originally published in Edinburgh, Scotland, by the International Association for the Advancement of Ethnology and Eugenics."

I had forgotten that I used capture-bonding as an example of a typical evolved human psychological trait in the EP, Memes and War article as well. (It just isn't that important a part of an article that attempts to account for the origin of war.) But from the web version, I probably did. If anyone is near a large library that carries this journal please look it up. I can't be sure the web version is exactly the same till I find my hard copy of the Summer 2006 issue, but the web version reads:

"Evolutionary Psychology

"My contention, simply put, is that the evolutionary approach is the only approach in the social and behavioral sciences that deals with why, in an ultimate sense, people behave as they do. As such, it often unmasks the universal hypocrisies of our species, peering behind self-serving notions about our moral and social values to reveal the darker side of human nature. (Silverman 2003)

"The understanding that emerges from applying the profoundly powerful tool of evolutionary psychology to strange human behavior is often so obvious that one marvels why it has not been known for ages.

"Consider the mysterious behavior of Elizabeth Smart in Salt Lake City in 2003 or that of Patty Hearst when she was abducted in 1974. In both cases the victims bonded to their captors and resisted leaving them. The evolutionary origin of this psychological trait, known as the Stockholm syndrome [2] (or more descriptively as capture-bonding), almost certainly comes from millions of years of evolutionary selection where our ancestors--usually our female ancestors--were being violently captured from one tribe by another. Those who had the psychological traits (ultimately gene-based brain mechanisms) to socially reorient after a few days (i.e., bond) to their captors often became our ancestors and passed on the trait. Those who didn't have this trait all too often became breakfast. (Or were just killed.)

"Being captured was a relatively common event among our ancestors if their history is anything like the recent history of the few remaining primitive tribes. [3] In some of those tribes (Yanomamö, for instance) practically everyone in the tribe is descended from a captive within the last three generations. Perhaps as high as one in ten of our ancestors were abducted and incorporated into the tribe that captured them. Once you understand the evolutionary origin of this trait and its critical nature in genetic survival and reproduction in the ancestral human environment, related mysterious human psychological traits fall into place. Battered-wife syndrome is an example of activating the capture-bonding psychological mechanism, as are military basic training, fraternity bonding by hazing, and sex practices such as sadism/masochism or bondage/discipline.[4]"

I should be able to locate my copy or a library copy and check the above wording in a few days. Keith Henson 07:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]