Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence

message: I cannot add evidence because all of the pages were deleted and I don't have diffs, but many of Sadi Carnot's statements and reverts on the old Extra-Long Article Committee evidenced an ongoing failure to understand Wiki consensus.  Of greater concern is that SC never adjusted the tone or position he took, even in the face of overwhelming community opposition to the methods of this Project.
*Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee/Incidents
*Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee
Someone might want to examine whether the other, subtle vandalistic edits to articles began after this.  
I understand my opposition to the tactics of the ELAC earned me the honor of "Worst editor" according to SC.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You have one diff. To get diffs from those pages, could we temporarily undelete and stash them somewhere? - Jehochman  Talk 23:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would inquire of someone (?) if it's worth it, because it's an issue that's almost a year old.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, the main reason I raised it on talk is because someone else might want to examine whether his other vandalism began after the deletion of ELAC, and might be retaliatory?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say that since we are examining what I believe is a long term pattern of disruption going back at least two years, the fact that the issue is one year old is not germane.  Certainly an admin should look at the edit history, and if there are relevant diffs to extract it might be worth it.  — Coren (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted Project 

message: In addition to his 255 live edits, Wavesmikey had 171 deleted edits.  That's a rather high ratio of noise to signal. - Jehochman  Talk 13:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that, in general, you shouldn't take such a ratio in isolation.  Mine probably isn't that far off— but I do a lot of new page patrol, so many of the articles I tag end up deleted.  I don't think SC did RC or NP patrol, but it's important to make sure what kind of deleted edits we are talking about.  — Coren (talk) 13:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I haven't entered this as evidence.  My ratio is also high because I was doing a lot of  work.  Each tag I added resulted in a deleted edit.  If we look at Sadi's deleted contributions, and all the Arbitrators can, we see that Sadi was adding too much content that had to be reverted or deleted.  Regardless of whether he was evil or clueless, that does not matter, he goals were not compatible with ours, and he needed to stop or be stopped. - Jehochman  Talk 13:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted edits by Wavesmikey

message: By far the most serious evidence so far is that of Tim Vickers.  I'd like to see a more systematic presentation on the topic of misrepresentation of sources.  Were other articles involved, and if so then precisely to what extent?  And if there is some wider ranging misuse of sources, is there any way of telling which subjects Sadi Carnot edits responsibly and which he doesn't? DurovaCharge! 20:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I've wasted most of my 1000 words defending myself from spurious allegations.  We should be focusing on Sadi Carnot and how to handle situations like this properly.  Perhaps Tim Vickers can expand his evidence, and we are yet to hear from Sarah.  MER-C could also present evidence of widespread spamming.  Perhaps the clerks could send out requests for evidence from the people who were active in the ANI thread cited in my evidence.  - Jehochman  Talk 21:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try and add something. I did look through the Wavesmikey and the early Sadi Carnot contributions. I'll go back and see if there was anything there. Give me a few days. Carcharoth 23:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In these instances I wouldn't worry too much about word count as long as the presentation is direct and substantive.  The Committee and the clerks have been known to be flexible on that point when there's worthwhile material.  To put it another way, go ahead and serve a big steak as long as it's a quality cut and you've trimmed the fat. DurovaCharge! 03:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Part of what we are doing here is training other Wikipedians to do good investigative work.  I'd like to encourage more participation.  Doing it all myself isn't scalable. - Jehochman  Talk 09:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not scalable, perhaps, but sometimes in a case it's necessary.  I've walked a few marathons in those moccasins.  Standing by the ten mile mark and passing out water this time; usually I've had to carry my own water on my back. DurovaCharge! 01:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I started to look into the edits, but got distracted and started reading the current state of the article human bonding. Some of the stuff in there is still a little bit iffy. The whole article reads like a hodge-podge of different theories and definitions. Some mainstream stuff and some highly metaphorical stuff. Difficult to judge what the correct weighting should be unless you really know the topic (and I don't). I fear it might be rather misleading in its current state. It is certainly confusing as there is no real overall structure to guide the reader. Cargo cult editing, I think, with bits added here and there, but no overall structure at present. Durova, do you have any of that water? :-/ Carcharoth 01:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (gives you a tall glass with ice in it) Now you know what it's like.  Focus is the key, and organization.  I usually keep several windows open simultaneously plus a separate document for cutting and pasting links and adding my notes.  After it gets long enough I print it out for reference and take notes on my notes.  Need more water? DurovaCharge! 02:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I'm coming close to avoiding this case altogether. I can see that there is past history being brought up here, and the clashing between Kww and Pyschim62 is distracting, and the subtext with Keith Henson is also making it messy. I'm sensing there is also history with Jehochman as well. I haven't been following other arbitration cases closely, and it is difficult to get a handle on it all. I'd like to concentrate on Sadi Carnot's edits (I was going to point out the clinching diffs on the Wavesmikey Sadi Carnot connection, but Mer-C got there first). What is really needed I think is an independent review of the articles. I know it has been suggested that the WikiProjects do this, but have they actually done it yet? Once that has been done, the extent of the damage caused by the behaviour of editors will be clearer. Carcharoth 12:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  There's no history with me.  Aside from what is documented in my evidence, I am not aware of any previous contact with any of the parties.  I am involved in peacekeeping efforts in the Scientology articles, and was involved in the famous COFS arbitration case.  If you read Keith Henson, you'll see why I keep one eye on Hkhenson.  - Jehochman  Talk 14:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Carcharoth, those are exactly the cases where it's most useful to have someone look at things systematically.  DurovaCharge! 02:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence 

message: Surely there's a better way to substantiate the serious accusation about Keith Henson than a single link to a historic page version as edited by Akhilleus.  Akhilleus's actions aren't under scrutiny here.  Show us exactly what Keith Henson did, and how he responded to feedback. DurovaCharge! 04:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nick Y.

message: I can't remember who wanted this list or where they asked for it, so I shall place it here :) Physchim62 (talk) 20:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Interesting history indeed.  It looks like Sadi made a mess here.  Here's an example of him removing an Original Research maintenance tag without fixing the problem:   There are many other interesting edits and comments in the history that suggest fringe theory pushing. - Jehochman  Talk 06:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I've checked all these articles, and I see a possible effort to use Wikipedia for Advertising.  Sadi created List of waterparks, and added a bunch of external links that aren't necessary, except to promote the target websites.  The other waterpark articles were edited to link to the list. I request additional comments on whether List of waterparks is a proper list, and whether the external links comply with WP:EL. - Jehochman  Talk 06:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be more inclined to suppose Sadi Carnot had a passing interest in waterparks, rather than anything else. This still looks like relatively minor stuff to me. Any specific diffs? Most of the edit activity was at the list, wasn't it? Sometimes external links are added as "sources" to allow verification, rather than as advertisement. Carcharoth 10:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles edited by SC since July 

message: *Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
*Arnold Sommerfeld
*Charles Galton Darwin  - At random, I checked this one.  What a bad edit:  - Jehochman  Talk 21:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: People

message: *Biophysical economics (redirect after merge - contains interesting edit history - see also Talk:Biophysical economics)  
:* Interesting history indeed.  It looks like Sadi made a mess here.  Here's an example of him removing an Original Research maintenance tag without fixing the problem:   There are many other interesting edits and comments in the history that suggest fringe theory pushing. - Jehochman  Talk 06:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redirects with significant edit history

message: *Stick-and-ball model (single edit creating a redirect)
*Thermodynamic boundary (redirect left behind after move)
*Landau potential (single edit creating a redirect)
*Edward Guggenheim (single edit creating a redirect)
*Chemical Engineer (single edit rerouting a redirect)
*Reaction dynamics (single edit creating a redirect)
*False Geber (single edit creating a redirect)
*False-Geber (single edit creating a redirect)
*Affinity table (single edit creating a redirect)
*C.G. Darwin (single edit creating a redirect)
No problems with these. Carcharoth 00:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Simple redirects

message: *Water slide
*Waterpark
*Indoor waterpark
*List of waterparks
*FlowRider  - Improperly removed an advertising maintenance tag.  - Jehochman  Talk 21:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked all these articles, and I see a possible effort to use Wikipedia for Advertising.  Sadi created List of waterparks, and added a bunch of external links that aren't necessary, except to promote the target websites.  The other waterpark articles were edited to link to the list. I request additional comments on whether List of waterparks is a proper list, and whether the external links comply with WP:EL. - Jehochman  Talk 06:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be more inclined to suppose Sadi Carnot had a passing interest in waterparks, rather than anything else. This still looks like relatively minor stuff to me. Any specific diffs? Most of the edit activity was at the list, wasn't it? Sometimes external links are added as "sources" to allow verification, rather than as advertisement. Carcharoth 10:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Waterpark articles