Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ExplorerCDT 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute, not different disputes. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 22:30, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 04:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC).


See also: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ExplorerCDT.


Statement of the dispute

[edit]

There are three issues here, stemming from the VfD for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cayley-Newbirth operation matrix.

  1. ExplorerCDT is engaging in personal attacks
  2. ExplorerCDT has vandalized Wikipedia by introducing nonsense and hoax articles
  3. ExplorerCDT has lied in an attempt to prevent the deletion of a hoax article

Description

[edit]

On 22 December, 2004, the article Cayley-Newbirth operation matrix was listed on VfD on the suspicion that it was a hoax. The first vote made was a "keep" vote by ExplorerCDT, in which he indicated that he was familiar with the subject, and could cite sources for the subject. When a number of other Wikipedians stated that the article was definitely a hoax, he retracted his "keep" vote and made a statement that could easily be interpreted as saying he had perpetrated the hoax ("The article has been up for 8 months. You can only leave so many clues. ;-)"). Attempts to clarify the issue have either quickly devolved into personal insults, or have been deleted from his talk page.

Evidence of disputed behavior

[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Creating pointless articles: User:ExplorerCDT#Test of the Week... -- I presume from the title of this section that ExplorerCDT is creating nonsense articles to test how fast the Wikipedia:Speedy deletion process is
  2. Lying to prevent the deletion of a hoax: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Cayley-Newbirth operation matrix -- his first vote indicates that he has significant knowlege of the subject, and in a later note all but claims to have created the hoax.
  3. Personal attacks: User talk:ExplorerCDT#nutjobs not welcome to post their self-righteous b.s. here
  4. Personal attacks: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#Current position re User:ExplorerCDT
  5. Personal attacks: User:Charles Matthews/Hoax investigation, towards the bottom of the page.

Applicable policies

[edit]

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:No personal attacks
  2. Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point

Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

[edit]

(provide diffs and links)

  1. User talk:ExplorerCDT#nutjobs not welcome to post their self-righteous b.s. here -- it's kind of hard to discuss the issue with someone who refuses to listen.
  2. [1]
  3. [2]
  4. [3]
  5. [4]
  6. User talk:ExplorerCDT#Hi, could you please try to be polite?
  7. [5]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute

[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Carnildo 23:00, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC), on all points
  2. --fvw* 23:15, 2004 Dec 27 (UTC)
  3. Charles Matthews 13:56, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC) Basically this is behaviour hard to accept, on top of behaviour at VfD that is hard to explain. I looked for but did not in the end find any evidence of complicity in the original hoax edits. I don't condone the edits to the user page about vandalism; but neither can I condone the comments there against policy,and the clear evidence that the user tests the system for deletions.

Other users who endorse this summary

[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Dbenbenn 02:21, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Terry 07:48, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) Agree with #1 and #3 but not #2. A glance at the user contributions history on 22 Dec shows that ExplorerCDT was commenting on multiple VfD posts, not just the CNOM hoax page, making it unlikely that he was directly related to that hoax page. Best guess was that ExplorerCDT made a small lie with that post (asserting authority on Cayley's mathematics), which when challenged covered up with another lie to save face (citing a famous reference), and covered that up when challenged (now claims ignorance of mathematics, and misread reference, which he packed away days beforein an inaccessible location), and eventually resorts to pure bluster and abuse. The original offense is minor, but the trait of using further lies, incivil, and otherwise strange behavior to avoid losing even the slightest face is somewhat disturbing.

Response

[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}

Levelling insinuations and accusations without substance, repeating unsubstantiated claims that I started a hoax (one started before I even came to Wikipedia). Overzealous persecution based on a misunderstanding. Continued harassment. Refusal to accept any explanation I put forward. Carnildo (who also had taken it upon hismelf to vandalize my user page) and his cabal have made me angry enough. I will not be compelled to deal with their power-tripping, holier-than-thou persecution.ExplorerCDT 23:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just for the record, the vandalism in question is [6] --Carnildo 23:28, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

Outside view

[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries}

In addition to defending the hoax article Cayley-Newbirth operation matrix, User:ExplorerCDT has a long track record of vandalism. User:ExplorerCDT is almost certainly User:66.171.124.70, to judge by the edit histories of Rutgers University and Norman Maclean circa 1 Oct 2004. See also User:Charles Matthews/Hoax investigation for a statement from User:ExplorerCDT concerning his IP address. User:66.171.124.70 vandalized Rutgers University, removed himself from the vandalism in progress page, and blanked User talk:66.171.124.70 which had notices asking him to stop vandalizing. As User:ExplorerCDT, he has vandalized several articles, sometimes repeatedly:

In addition, he has twice created a joke article List of letters in the alphabet between A and C, described as "test of the week" on his user page [16].

User:ExplorerCDT claims these are an occasional tongue-in-cheek edit (see User:Charles Matthews/Hoax investigation).

More on the 66.171.124.70 connection: ExplorerCDT has removed vandalism warnings from User talk:66.171.124.70. See also Edmund Plowden history for evidence of connection. See Star Jones for more inappropriate edits by 66.171.124.70. Michael Ward 16:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:55, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  2. Not sure that ExplorerCDT has bad intentions, but he has a demonstrated and self-proclaimed lack of respect for Wikipedia conventions. These include civility, avoiding joke edits, and disruption of Wikipedia for his amusement. Michael Ward 16:43, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  3. "I hate civility. No use sugar-coating the hard truth or being nice to stupid people...no matter what Wikipedia policy pleads." A user who categorically refuses to abide by a site's policies might find himself happier on a site without such policies. Asbestos | Talk 21:23, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  4. Difficult to dissent from all of the above. He's the sort of person who drove me and countless others from Usenet. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 00:17, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  5. Clearly a bad apple. Judging by his hilarious spat on the discussion page, he'll regret this when he grows up. Ban him forever. -Ashley Pomeroy 21:23, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  6. I don't agree with the assertion that including Dubya on a "list of villains" is vandalism (the article was a bad idea in the first place and a free for all) but I am against the idea of creating joke articles in the main namespace as a test; this just wastes everyone's time, especially those honourable people doing Newpages patrol. --JuntungWu 16:58, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Outside view 2

[edit]

This user seems to have a low boiling point. On Usenet he would probably be identified as a troll or a kook because of his predilection for disruptive behavior and abrasive defensiveness. The best suggestion we can make in this case is that he should look for a community that would be more welcoming of, and more likely to be entertained by, his interactions with others.

  1. Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

[edit]

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page.