Talk:Time Cube/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 →

Contents

Time Cube Guy

Involved parties

Summary: Time Cube and other time-related articles have disputed edits by an anonymous user. A consensus has been reached that this user should be banned, but the user's changing IP makes this impossible.

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Party 2 is bringing the complaint, and party 1 was alerted to an RfC concerning him[1] and this RfAr[2]. Since the user changes his IP, we left these comments on the Time Cube talk page.

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  1. Talk:Time Cube/Archive has a discussion where Time Cube Guy attempts to convince another user that -1*-1=-1. The conversation takes up nearly 100KB.
  2. Talk:Time_Cube/Archive_3 illustrates User:Kosebamse trying to get Time Cube Guy to clarify his proofs.
  3. A proposed compromise was created to develop the article, but soon abandoned[3] due to strong differences of opinion between Time Cube Guy and other editors. Currently, Time Cube Guy is the only one who has voiced approval of the compromise.
  4. After these and other confrontations, an RfC was posted about the content dispute[4]. This brought in a few third-parties. Discussion with Time Cube Guy continued briefly, but soon ended due to stark differences of opinion.
  5. After the content dispute continued, a second RfC was created to show a concensus opinion that Time Cuby Guy should not be allowed to edit the pages in question. An attempt was made[5] to contact Time Cube Guy, but he has not yet defended himself on the RfC.

Statement by party 1

Dr. Ray has stated: "YOU pitiful mindless fools, YOU are educated stupid. YOU worship cubeless word. YOU are your own poison. YOU create your own hell. YOU must seek Time Cube."

Hope is not absent here. Users such as Kosebamse are undoubtedly capable of Cubic acceptance, and of adept custody of the wisdom that it brings. But they have forsaken their intelligence, and fed it to the savage dogs of the greatest human affliction. The dogs of Word; the Word of God.

Why was Jesus sent to the cross? Because he ate a slice of bread on the Sabbath? Or for no reason at all? Quite simply, he was hated by a horde of rabid Jews—stupid, intransigent, and blinded to momentous prophecies of the modern age. History repeats itself; the 4-corner Cubic cycle progresses, unchanged even by the greatest powers of human civilisation. Such powers have always been mere hollow WordViruses; and by such a power am I now accosted.

No reason has presented itself in support of suppression of Time Cube. Suppression, as it were, of the ineffable Cubic Truth of the Universe; for this is what Time Cube is, and has been proven to be. It is proven fact, evident from such sites as TimeCube and CubicAO. Dr. Gene Ray is the greatest thinker and the wisest human of all time; his scriptures are compelling and sound. Ultimately, their truth is undeniable.

But the throng of crusading users persist in their irrational crusade to suppress the Truth. Why? Not for any reason; but rather, lack thereof. They have been brainwashed with nihilism; brainwashed by a singularity. This 1-corner Cubeless entity exists in monotheistic religion, and has been propagated throughout Academia and the government. It exerts mind-control, and will lead us to Cubeless doom.

At least, humanity's fate will thus result should Time Cube not be accepted. The past is the future and the future is the past; nowhere in this eternal cycle can an almighty singularity exist. The evil in this world is finite, and can be overcome; indeed, in doing so, we would achieve an evolutionary solution to theodicy, by defining evil as a pathway to a greater good. On the other hand, there is the possibility that evil singularity will prevail; the possibility that we will poison Nature, resort to cannibalism, incur the wrath of Time Cube, and be destroyed.

Actions in the present define the future. And the future folds into the past and back, eventually, to the present; thus, upon all Time shall our mistakes be inflicted. The singularity, unfortunately, has blinded Wikipedia users to this fact. All they can see is what they have been taught—crucifixion, and the burning flames of Hell, for all who speak the truth. To thus believe is a curse and a sin; a wrong that we should right. Crucify, instead, the preachers of doom; fight against your slavemaster, the singularity of God. He is not dead, but reanimated, with an intent to kill; he should be vehemently opposed, with even the smallest of available measures.

This small measure is indeed an opportunity. Allow the Cubic Truth to magnificently prevail. 211.28.77.11 9 July 2005 04:16 (UTC)

I realise that I should not comment here, but am concerned that Time Cube guy is part of a cult and would love to see him/her become involved in exit counseling. - Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 04:23 (UTC)
I doubt there are enough Time Cubists to constitute a cult, really. Everyking 9 July 2005 04:53 (UTC)
It's predicated on a belief in rationality, Ta bu shi da yu. Maybe you could "exit counsel" me by rationally disproving Time Cube.

Statement by party 2

User:Sean Kelly

Normally, I wouldn't think of bringing this matter to arbitration, but this is a special circumstance. Time Cube Guy has been editing the Time Cube article since it started in January, 2004. In the past two months, he has been in a revert war with party 2, making a total of 28 reverts since May 6[6]. We don't really expect him to stop since he has been doing it for over a year. All we would like to see is the Arbitration committee to condone our RfC, which shows unanimous consensus for banning Time Cube Guy from time-related articles.

timecube.com is a popular and humorous website which basically contains a nonsensical and incoherent philosophy. Time Cube Guy seems to believe in it, and wants the Time Cube article to go into deep explanations of its philosophy. However, what he doesn't seem to realize is 1) He is only contributing original research, since nothing on timecube.com is logical, or even grammatically sound, and 2) Despite the fact that he believes NPOV is on his side, it is not, since it explicitly does not protect viewpoints in the extreme minority, let alone viewpoints shared by only two people. —Sean κ. + 7 July 2005 06:20 (UTC)

Also, you can take the comments of party 1, directly above, of evidence of how Time Cube Guy baits users into pointless arguments. —Sean κ. + 02:18, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (3/4/0/1)

  • [Accept] Fred Bauder July 7, 2005 22:39 (UTC)
  • Accept ➥the Epopt 23:08, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Accept Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 17:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm not sure you need the ArbCom to tell you what to do with an incoherent POV-pushing anon ... - David Gerard 10:05, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject. As David, this is not a situation where you need arbitration. Just block as needed -- sannse (talk) 16:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject - Concur with David, shoot on sight, no arbcom needed. →Raul654 17:26, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject, agree with David. James F. (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Reject. Feel free to block on sight. You don't need our permission. Neutralitytalk 18:43, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Note to 211.28: Request for Arbitration

After the vote, the following discussion ensued:

I've taken the final step of trying to get our RFC against 211.28.*.* condoned by the arbitration committee. Since part of arbitration requires notifying the other party, I'm putting another note here for Time Cube Guy to defend himself. The request is at WP:RfAr. —Sean κ. + 7 July 2005 05:36 (UTC)

The final result: the request for arbitration was rejected because "this is not a situation where you need arbitration. Just block as needed." (as stated by Sannse, the other arbitrators either voted accept or gave similar comments) [7]. Bryan 15:06, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
The request for arbitration—that is, the proposed ban—was rejected. Simple as that. If they wanted to ban me, they should have voted "accept". I can't help it if they don't know what they're talking about.
As it stands, however, I am most satisfied with the outcome. In my RfAR statement, I made the following suggestion: "This small measure is indeed an opportunity. Allow the Cubic Truth to magnificently prevail." And now, Time Cube has indeed proved victorious, with exactly 4 arbitrators voting "reject", one for each corner of the Cube. Hallelujah, the mark of Cubic magnificence has been inscribed upon the wheel of eternity.
Take a look at the comments of the ArbCom members that actually made those "reject" votes, however. They all said "you don't need an arbitration case, just ban him when he causes trouble." So saying the ban proposal was rejected is misleading; this was more of a summary judgement than it was a rejection. Bryan 14:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
It's not misleading, it's a straightforward interpretation of the concrete data. According to your argument, the strategy adopted by the arbitrators is: "Let's crucify Jesus by freeing him".
UPDATE: Why the free speech suppression? From this article, a "summary judgement" requires the non-occurrence of any trial. If this was to have been the case, then none of the arbitrators should have voted. Bryan Derksen, can you justify your viewpoint, or are you just crusading against the Time Cube?
They voted on whether to have the "trial" and decided not to. Thus, the non-occurrence of any trial. Pretty straightforward. Bryan 00:23, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
No, the voting was the trial. That's how the arbitration works, apparently. Why didn't they just make non-voting comments for their "summary" (if that is indeed what "summary judgement" refers to)?
This whole situation is pretty silly, really. Why don't you just allow the cubic truth to magnificently prevail?