Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Der alte Hexenmeister

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 with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. 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: 00:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 11:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC).

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Der alte Hexenmeister (talk · contribs · block log) is engaged in an ongoing campaign to place his personal relativity POV into the article space. In addition to violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, he also violates WP:CIVIL.

[edit] Description

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

Der alte Hexenmeister believes that relativity is incorrect, and he has made numerous disruptive edits of Theory of relativity. His responses to requests the he stop are rude, crude, and filled with claims that the other editors are the real violators of WIkipedia policy.

Der alte Hexenmeister is a frequent poster under such as handles as "Hexenmeister" and "Androcles" on USENET. He has a long history of rude behavior there. Unfortunately, despite the attempts of several Wikipedians to educate him about certain differences between Wikipedia and Usenet culture, so far he has resisted modifying his style while he is using this website.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)

Given that User:Der alte Hexenmeister is a very new Wikipedia user, it is striking that almost all his edits to date have been questionable in one way or another. In reverse chronological order:

  1. 08:57, 11 July 2006 vandalizes user page of User:Ems57fcva (immediately after a 24 hour block expired)
  2. 14:29, 9 July 2006 "Nor am I interested in what you fail to see, that is your problem. Visit an optician if you are having trouble seeing."
  3. 10:39, 9 July 2006 accuses Einstein of fudging perihelion of Mercury; compare Did Einstein Cheat? by John Farrell, Salon, July 6, 2000.
  4. 12:23, 23 June 2006 Blanking vandalism of Theory of relativity
  5. 12:22, 23 June 2006: vio WP:CIV: "shithead? Junior questions are for juniors, moron. You, Schaefer, are a liar and a fraud."
  6. 05:49, 23 June 2006 adds "The derivation of the Lorentz Transfomations begins with" with link to his animation; this presents his own idiosyncratic opinion as established scientific opinion, which is ludicrously misleading
  7. 18:35, 22 June 2006: adds sarcastic comment "so-called strengths" to Theory of relativity
  8. 18:19, 22 June 2006: vio WP:CIV: "imbecile, you are an arrogant jerk who thinks he's holier than thou."
  9. 13:21, 22 June 2006 : vio WP:CIV: "shut the f*ck up, you lying c*nt."
  10. 19:36, June 21, 2006 Add misinformation to theory of relativity (yet again).
  11. 15:47, 20 June 2006: namecalling: "a sure indication of a moron's mentality is his ability to spell simple words such as "escalation" and 'Androcles'."
  12. 01:33, 20 June 2006: inflammatory mischaracterization of (apparently) a talk page comment by User:Hillman: "That's why Hillman slapped you. Hard."
  13. 00:17, 20 June 2006: violates WP:NPA-WP:CIV: "Hillman had to wipe your mouth out with soap and water, I'll give him credit for that. He wants to wipe his shoe clean of what he stepped in, but he should have looked where he was going in the first place. He's a fully paid up member of the Flat Earth Conspirators Executive Society (FECES), which you are attempting join."
  14. 12:41, 19 June 2006 vio WP:CIV: " Your opinions and fake politeness mean nothing to me... Hillman, an RfC has been initiated, battle has commenced. Your options are to allow factual edits and call a truce or come under fire."
  15. 03:22, 19 June 2006: vio WP:CIV: "Schaefer and Hillman are vandals and liars. I call for them to be blocked from editing Wikipedia if they will not correct there non-neutral point of view."
  16. 7:00, 18 June 2006 nasty tone of comments; addressing Ed Schaefer he says "C'mon, Cardinals of the Holey Church of Relativity, explain to the world how your little tin god Einstein's religion works" and addressing Eric Gisse he says "You do not seem very sorry, even though you lied that you were."
  17. 13:35, June 18,2006 makes an inappropriate edit of Template:relativity-stub, reading in part "Wikipedia seems to be engaged in physics by popular vote. I would remind readers that history has such precedents, most notably the forcing of Galileo Galilei into recantation upon threat of excommunication. This same threat is being practised by Wikipedians today as the talk pages will reveal. The following edit has been repeated rejected by those with a non-neutral PoV."
  18. 13:08, 18 June 2006 namecalling in User talk:Der alte Hexenmeister: "I don't care what you gather, Schaefer, I'm not going to discuss relativity with a vandalizing bigot"
  19. 00:33, 18 June 2006 unneccessary sarcasm: "You seem to be afraid of the truth, Cardinals Hillman and Schaefer, why is that?"
  20. 17:57, 17 June 2006 uneccessarily combative in Talk:Theory of relativity: "I have requested the WP board of trustees to have Schaefer blocked from editing, I shall now make the same request for Hillman to be blocked."
  21. 16:11, 17 June 2006 apparently attempting (wiki-incorrectly) to introduce sarcastic scare quotes in Theory of relativity
  22. 5:53, 17 June 2006 adds misinformation to Theory of relativity: "The speed of light in a vacuum is not constant (specifically, 0/0 meters per second), for Einstein clearly states -- the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity-- and calculates c = 2AB/(t'A - tA) so that the light travels from A to A in time t'A-tA, reversing direction at B over a distance x' which is infinitesimally small."
  23. 13:47, 17 June 2006 In Theory of relativity, to the sentence "The laws of physics are the same in any frame of reference." adds a sarcastic comment "(no surpise there)"
  24. 13:40, 17 June 2006 makes incoherent and misleading addition to Theory of relativity: (Einstein) " took to be intuitive based on the work of John Goodricke, an eighteen year old amateur astronomer he decided that Algol was an eclipsing binary star."
  25. 13:21, 17 June 2006 Adds misinformation to Theory of relativity: "The speed of light in a vacuum is not constant (specifically, 0/0 meters per second)"
  26. 13:17, 17 June 2006 Replies to my request on his user talk page that he be nice by saying in part "I don't claim to nice, Hillman, so that comment is non-sequitur. Jowl is not nice, Hillman is not nice, Schaefer is not nice."
  27. 01:33, 17 June 2006 Adds signed comment to Theory of relativity "This article is in dispute for it non neutral point ot view content. Der alte Hexenmeister 08:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)" (hopefully a newbie mistake)
  28. 15:13, 16 June 2006 Replies to a (poorly worded) talk page comment by Jowr by escalating the nasty tone: "Personal bile from you is as water off a duck's back to me. Go away, moron."
  29. 06:08, 16 June 2006 Replies to user talk page comment by Ed Schaefer by saying in part "The truth is it is supposed to be Einstein's relativity, not Schaefer's relativity. ... It is not the policy of Wackypedia for you to publish your personal theories. Go ahead, Schaefer, practice your threat of censorship, continue to blantantly vandalize Einstein's paper, physics and astronomy."
  30. 13:37, 14 June 2006 unneccessary sarcasm in comment in User talk:Mpatel: "Thus it appears to be Chris Hillman's and Ed Schaefer's Relativity with such as yourself endorsing their personal points of view, handing out gold stars like a first grade schoolteacher."
  31. 17:38, 12 June 2006 Adds editorial comment to Postulates of special relativity: "(not once does Einstein use the word "inertial" in "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" and in fact specifically states "If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A", hence the word "inertial" in SR is a downright lie." and also adds factual misstatement "The value of c being the distance from A to A divided by t'A-tA = 0/0."
  32. 3:24, 12 June 2006 adds to Theory of relativity the editorial comment "One of the fatal flaws of special relativity is that it is derived from the ridiculous premise that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. This is clearly false.."
  33. 15:46, 10 June 2006 Adds to Special relativity the editorial comment "TOTALLY FALSE. Not once does Einstein use the word "inertial"..."

[edit] Applicable policies and guidelines

{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. WP:NPOV policy
  2. WP:CIVIL policy
  3. WP:NPA policy
  4. WP:NOR policy
  5. Wikipedia:Disruption essay

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Talk page for Der alte Hexenmeister current as of 8:50pm EDT June 18,2006.

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

  1. ems57fcva --EMS | Talk 00:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Chris Hillman 04:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC) (see also my explanation of some background for this RfC, which should help other Wikipedians understand why input from other users might be valuable here!)
  3. I certify that Der alte Hexenmeister is persistently rude and uncivil in pushing his POV and OR vandalism, with no regard to consensus. He shows no signs of any improvement or willingless to listen to anyone. --Michael C. Price talk 23:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

  1. --Jowr 22:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. crank science is a persistent problem. -lethe talk + 02:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. Jitse Niesen. 09:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
  4. DVdm 14:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

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. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

I have no objections to anyone correcting my formatting.
I do object to Hillman and Schaefer arrogantly refusing to include Einstein's third premise, the time postulate (which is central to relativity), and lying that there are only two premises, reverting my factual corrections. NPOV should be adhered to, liars should be blocked. Lying is vandalism, Schaefer and Hillman are vandals and liars. I shall call for them to be blocked from editing Wikipedia if they will not correct their non-neutral point of view, which they have the opportunity to do.
Words written in the talk section are irrelevant to the central issue, we are not discussing whether any person agrees or disagrees with Einstein, we are discussing the accurate reporting of his paper in Wikipedia. There is fault on both sides, notably by Jowr who got himself involved solely to jeer.
If anyone wishes to discuss Einstein's relativity, Wikipedia is not the place for it, USENET is available. As it stands the Wikipedia pages are Schaefer - Hillman relativity, not Einstein's relativity.


Answering each point:


15:46, 10 June 2006 Adds to Special relativity the editorial comment "TOTALLY FALSE. Not once does Einstein use the word "inertial"..."

Which is a fact. I don't see what Schaefer's objections to facts are.


13:35, June 18,2006 makes an inappropriate edit of Template:relativity-stub, reading in part "Wikipedia seems to be engaged in physics by popular vote. I would remind readers that history has such precedents, most notably the forcing of Galileo Galilei into recantation upon threat of excommunication. This same threat is being practised by Wikipedians today as the talk pages will reveal. The following edit has been repeated rejected by those with a non-neutral PoV."

Which is a fact. I don't see what Schaefer's objections to facts are.


13:08, 18 June 2006 namecalling in User talk:Der alte Hexenmeister: "I don't care what you gather, Schaefer, I'm not going to discuss relativity with a vandalizing bigot" :Fact: I should have added "in wikipedia pages", I often discuss relativity with vandalizing bigots on USENET. The vandalizing bigots know who they are, if Schaefer recognizes himself as such that is his prerogative. I did not call him a name. "I notice he has betrayed the anonymity of Eric Gisse."

00:33, 18 June 2006 unneccessary sarcasm: You seem to be afraid of the truth, Cardinals Hillman and Schaefer, why is that?

: Fact: That was a question in an attempt to resolve the dispute that Schaefer refused to answer. He has been combative from the outset.

17:57, 17 June 2006 uneccessarily combative in Talk:Theory of relativity: I have requested the WP board of trustees to have Schaefer blocked from editing, I shall now make the same request for Hillman to be blocked.

:Fact. I have already done so, writing to the board of trustees via email.

16:11, 17 June 2006 apparently attempting (wiki-incorrectly) to introduce sarcastic scare quotes in Theory of relativity.

dunno what he's ranting about.

5:53, 17 June 2006 adds misinformation to Theory of relativity: The speed of light in a vacuum is not constant (specifically, 0/0 meters per second), for Einstein clearly states -- the velocity of light in our theory plays the part, physically, of an infinitely great velocity-- and calculates c = 2AB/(t'A - tA) so that the light travels from A to A in time t'A-tA, reversing direction at B over a distance x' which is infinitesimally small.

:Fact: That is information. Schaefer is lying when he says it is misinformation, I have quoted Einstein.

13:47, 17 June 2006 In Theory of relativity, to the sentence The laws of physics are the same in any frame of reference." adds a sarcastic comment "(no surpise there)

Fact: The word "surprise" is in response to the non-neutral point of view presented by Schaefer who sarcastically and maliciously used it first.

13:40, 17 June 2006 makes incoherent and misleading addition to Theory of relativity: (Einstein) " took to be intuitive based on the work of John Goodricke, an eighteen year old amateur astronomer he decided that Algol was an eclipsing binary star."

Fact: Schaefer is obviously ignorant of the work of John Goodricke, any incoherence is his own fault. The information is not misleading.
"This night looked at Beta-Persei (Algol) and was much amazed to find its

brightness altered. It now appears to be fourth magnitude... I observed it diligently for about an hour upwards...hardly believing that it changed its brightness, because I had never heard of any star varying so quick in its brightness. I thought it might be perhaps owing to an optical illusion, a defect in my eyes or bad air, but the sequel will show that its change is true and that it was not mistaken." (John Goodricke, journal entry November 12, 1782) [1]

At all events we know with great exactness that this velocity is the same for all colours, because if this were not the case, the minimum of emission would not be observed simultaneously for different colours during the eclipse of a fixed star by its dark neighbour. - Einstein. [2]

13:21, 17 June 2006 Adds misinformation to Theory of relativity: "The speed of light in a vacuum is not constant (specifically, 0/0 meters per second)"

already discussed above. Constant velocities do not reverse direction. Not my fault if Schaefer doesn't understand basic physics.

13:17, 17 June 2006 Replies to my request on his user talk page that he be nice by saying in part "I don't claim to nice, Hillman, so that comment is non-sequitur. Jowl is not nice, Hillman is not nice, Schaefer is not nice."

:Fact: Schaefer is not nice, he has been combative from the outset and still is, raising this request for comment. Gisse is not nice, Hillman is not nice, all are combative.

01:33, 17 June 2006 Adds signed comment to Theory of relativity "This article is in dispute for it non neutral point ot view content.

:Fact:

I have no objection to having my signature deleted and typographical errors corrected. I was in error. <shrug>

15:13, 16 June 2006 Replies to a (poorly worded) talk page comment by Jowr by escalating the nasty tone: "Personal bile from you is as water off a duck's back to me. Go away, moron."

Yes indeed, that was a mild response to the viscious attack that nasty Gisse levelled against me in his first shot on Wikipedia pages. "Androcles, your behavior on sci.physics and sci.physics.relativity is reprehensible by itself. Don't pollute Wikipedia by bringing your incredibly vile and useless attitude here too."
Gisse (Jowr) should be the subject of this malicious RfC, not I, and it is quite clear that Schaefer is prejudiced in favour of those who align themselves with him and his prejudicial point of view.

06:08, 16 June 2006 Replies to user talk page comment by Ed Schaefer by saying in part "The truth is it is supposed to be Einstein's relativity, not Schaefer's relativity. ... It is not the policy of Wackypedia for you to publish your personal theories. Go ahead, Schaefer, practice your threat of censorship, continue to blantantly vandalize Einstein's paper, physics and astronomy."

The words "blatant vandalism" did not originate with me. I don't see what Schaefer's objection is, other than the fact that I've challenged his non- neutral point of view.

13:37, 14 June 2006 unneccessary sarcasm in comment in User talk:Mpatel: "Thus it appears to be Chris Hillman's and Ed Schaefer's Relativity with such as yourself endorsing their personal points of view, handing out gold stars like a first grade schoolteacher." :Fact, isn't it?

7:00, 18 June 2006 nasty tone of comments; addressing Ed Schaefer he says "C'mon, Cardinals of the Holey Church of Relativity, explain to the world how your little tin god Einstein's religion works" and addressing Eric Gisse he says "You do not seem very sorry, even though you lied that you were."

Aww... I was nasty to the little darling after he said he was sorry and then retracted it. How naughty of me.


17:38, 12 June 2006 Adds editorial comment to Postulates of special relativity: "(not once does Einstein use the word "inertial" in "ON THE ELECTRODYNAMICS OF MOVING BODIES" and in fact specifically states "If one of two synchronous clocks at A is moved in a closed curve with constant velocity until it returns to A", hence the word "inertial" in SR is a downright lie." and also adds factual misstatement "The value of c being the distance from A to A divided by t'A-tA = 0/0."

Fact: I don't see what Schaefer's objection to facts are, he certainly makes editorial lies claiming that Einstein's paper makes use of inertial frames of reference and has only two premises.

3:24, 12 June 2006 adds to Theory of relativity the editorial comment 'One of the fatal flaws of special relativity is that it is derived from the ridiculous premise that the "time" required by light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires to travel from B to A. This is clearly false..

Yes indeed. The editorial comment 'One of the strengths of special relativity is that it can be derived from only two premises" is a lie, the third premise is essential to the derivation of the transformations Einstein blames on Lorentz. But now the issue is becoming a disagreement with Einstein. All I want is to see the paper reported factually, without Hillman's and Schaefer's non-neutral points of view. Gisse doesnt count, he's never read the paper and wouldn't understand it if he did. He is actually a victim of the malicious lies such people as Hillman and Schaefer spread.


Der alte Hexenmeister 10:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

{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.}

Users who endorse this summary:

[edit] Outside view

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. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

[edit] Outside view by CambridgeBayWeather

I can't comment on which version of Theory of relativity is correct or even more nearly correct. Thus I could not say if Der alte Hexenmeister has violated NPOV or NOR. However, having gone through this, after being asked to take a look at it by Ems57fcva (Edward Schaefer), I get the impression that to a certain extent an off-Wiki argument has been brought here. I do think that there has been several violations of Civil and NPA by Der alte Hexenmeister and in at least one case by Jowr here. I think that at the very least Der alte Hexenmeister needs to bring the tone of his remarks done to a more civil level and drop the sarcasm, including in this RfC. I would ignore the adding of the editorial comments, such as listed at #23, or formatting errors, such as this (surprising and strengths) as I think these are more just a new editors misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Urlor 20:35, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Outside view by Pjacobi

I didn't have any encounters with this user yet, but reading his statements on this RfC page alone, I see a severe misunderstanding of Wikipedia (or if he correctly understands, what Wikipedia aims to be, an announcement to not play by the rules). Wikipedia is not about endless discussions and trying to be smarter than academic science in science articles. I strongly suggest to have two Arbcom ruling precedents in mind here:

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

Alfred Centauri 15:50, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.