Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Sadi Carnot

Sadi Carnot
Sigh. After the closure of Articles for deletion/Georgi Gladyshev (and my amusing, if embarrassing, original mistake there) I've spend some amount of time looking through the contributions of Sadi Carnot. What I see there is a large, elaborate a subtle walled garden of pseudoscience&mdash; probably for the purpose of hawking his books (or simple self agrandizement).

Besides Georgi Gladyshev, Human molecule, Human chemistry, Interpersonal chemistry, Heat and affinity which seem to be the core of his garden; he makes large numbers of sometimes subtle vandalism to many articles related to thermodynamics using his own website as source to justify them. Many of the edits lie at the edge of my personal knowledge of thermodynamics, but given that his sources are unfailingly looping back to his website (humanthermodynamics.com) or that of another dubious institution related to him (endeav.org), and that they feel fishy, someone with better topic knowledge should probably look at the whole bunch.

The user has already admitted to being the author and owner of the site being pushed.

I dislike making personal allegations against a specific editor, and I am loathe to run through his contributions by myself quietly (I don't want this to look like stalking), but at this time I am convinced that we are either facing the perpetrator of a long and elaborate hoax, someone working at self-promotion, or simply the promoter of a fringe theory. &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In April 2007 I mediated a case between Sadi Carnot and User:Hkhenson about the Capture bonding article. We saw similar problems there. It may be useful to ask Hkhenson for further information. - Jehochman  Talk 03:31, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, since you asked for it, the registered contact person for humanthermodynamics.com is:(DELETED personal info, no need to identify the editor here - JEH) Keith Henson 06:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you Keith. I am sure you posted that publicly available info in good faith, but I don't think we need details about the user posted here.  Should that information be needed, we will ask you for it confidentially.  If you want to add comments about Sadi Carnot's editing, feel free to do so at the bottom of this long thread.- Jehochman  Talk 06:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When you are talking about something as serious as banning an editor, I disagree with you with respect to details. "Sadi Carnot" claims on his user page a double major in chemical and electrical engineering.  His alter ego, Libb Thims, claims the same plus "PhD Biochemistry / MD Neuroscience (in progress) - UC Berkeley."  I didn't yet and may not check up on the Berkeley claim because the claim is outside of Wikipedia.  In Sadi's favor (assuming he is the identified person) he *does* have a double major in ChE and EE--which makes his connection to this fringe business all the stranger.


 * BTW, anyone who uses the Internet, especially when they are trying to determine the reliability of information should be aware of tools that are much like looking in the front of a book to see who published it. There are direct ways and also web based tools.  For example, http://www.dnsstuff.com/.  If you go there and put humanthermodynamics.com in the "whois box" it takes you to the name Jehochman deleted.  From there it's just putting the name in Google.  This doesn't work if someone goes to a little more trouble.  For example an associated web site, humanchemistry.net takes you to a web hosting service that is a dead end for finding out who is behind it.  (This site uses Time, National Geographic and  Wikipedia to give it credibility.) Keith Henson 17:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

(Note: I've notified the editor) &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The referenced Capture bonding mediation can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-04-23_Capture-bonding. I'm glad for that record, because it shows the kind of mess that Sadi Carnot makes of any article that he takes a strong interest in. As with all pseudo-scientists, it is always difficult to distinguish the charlatan from the fool. If I assume good faith, he has no capability of distinguishing fact from fiction, and is a dangerous editor. If I trust my instincts, I lean towards an elaborate hoax. He has at least one apparent sock puppet (User:Wavesmikey). Given the use of sock puppets, and my belief that he is consciously creating fraudulent articles, I heartily recommend a lifetime ban on the editor. I think it is worth forming a committee of people with greater depth in some of these topics than I have to go through every article he has touched and verify that his edits were not harmful. Capture bonding should simply be reverted to the state before he ever touched it, and someone should send poor beleagered Keith Henson a note saying that he is free to fix it without further sabotage.Kww 04:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keith Henson may need outside help. He's written about the topic and wants to cite some of his own work.  Those citations may be appropriate, but they should be reviewed to prevent COI issues. Looking at the article history, it seems like Sadi gave up on capture bonding. The article has been sanitized. - Jehochman  Talk 04:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's true, I more or less removed the BS Sadi Carnot added to capture-bonding and stuffed it into another article capture bond. If anyone want to delete capture bond, it's fine by me.  Capture-bonding could still use some clean up work if anyone wants to.  Sadi did "wikify" articles in addition to stuffing them with BS.  Keith Henson 06:25, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As for the proposed community ban, Sadi Carnot has a clear block log. Within the mediation he said he's written a ~500 page textbook. The most plausible explanation is that Sadi has WP:COI and WP:FRINGE issues. Within the mediation he cited WP:COI.  He's familiar with the guideline so there's no need to warn him.  If he's weaving his own book references and novel theories into Wikipedia, that needs to be stopped immediately. - Jehochman  Talk 04:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ack! It's worse than I thought: 132 links are peppered all over!  &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)  (added:)  Although many of those are in AfD for bits of his walled garden.  Still around 40 in mainspace.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost a year ago, when he created the Extra-Long Article Committee, Sadi Carnot seemed to have limited understanding of the way Wikipedia works. Since the Project was deleted, I can't provide examples, but it was quite frustrating and he tried the patience of even those who originally supported his goals.
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee/Incidents. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The account hasn't edited since October 10 when the hoax was unmasked at Articles for deletion/Human chemistry. To prevent further damage or spamming, I am going to indef the account because it's clear to me that it's been used primarily for long term, subtle vandalism and COI editing, causing serious, widespread damage.   Let's discuss this and see if any admin is willing to unblock.  Establishing a community ban will be helpful because it will allow us to immediately revert and block any socks that show up. - Jehochman  Talk 05:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Anyone here object to going through those contributions and scrubbing the links away? I'll do so tomorrow (now is bedtime) if so.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been on a wikibreak for three weeks and just returned from a trip to London from Australia. I am surprised by this discussion. Sadi Carnot has tried my patience in the past but I have always thought he was well-meaning. His contributions to articles on thermodynamics have always been in good faith. The discussion above does not mention the wide range of articles where I have come across him. As the jet-lag fades, I will try to look into this. --Bduke 09:44, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * A possibility might be a ban on him adding links to his website or citing his own work (or that of the "institute"). I've looked over the website and it does seem a strange mish-mash of serious references mixed up with polls and fringe theories. There are references to articles published in mainstream journals - but I would suspect that those papers would be, well, more restrained than what is said at this website. The journal (humanthermodynamics.com/Journal.html) also looks like a self-published effort with not much I can see in the way of credibility. For the "institute" (humanthermodynamics.com/About-IOHT.html), the "who are we" (humanthermodynamics.com/about-us.html#anchor_126) list starts off poorly and rapidly gets worse (scroll down the bottom). The best qualifications I can find are a PhD in polymer chemistry and a PhD in mathematics. It is also rather small - the core group is only about 10 people. Also, see humanthermodynamics.com/Science-or-Pseudoscience.html for a discussion of science vs pseudoscience for this "human thermodynamics" topic. I have to conclude that this is a fringe theory, and at best original research. We don't want it on Wikipedia until it becomes accepted by the mainstream (and I doubt it ever will be). At the most (per undue weight, a very small footnote somewhere with one link. No more. Carcharoth 10:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention, capture-bonding and capture bond are confusingly similar and look like content forks. The issue needs to be resolved in one article, rather than splitting them like this. Though on a second look they do seem to be describing something different, but the titles are too similar and need to be disambiguated. I also agree that Keith Henson, as a researcher and publisher in that field, needs to beware conflict-of-interest concerns. Possibly someone else needs to write that article, not him. Carcharoth 10:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Capture bond is where I put the unrelated material I cleaned out of capture-bonding. If someone wants to delete capture bond in the general clean out of Sadi stuff, that would be fine by me.  As to me being a "researcher and publisher in that field," it's a claim I would be reluctant to make.  I used capture-bonding only as a minor example in a long article I wrote and credited John Tooby (who really is a researcher).  Keith Henson 18:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I should point out that this is his editing pattern. FWIW, this is Wikipedia's greatest weakness: someone subtly weaving a POV (or pet theory) into a large number of articles by doing large number of subtle edits over a long period of time&mdash; this makes it less obvious there is a problem because when he makes one of the edits, it seems to be supported in other articles. For that matter, he also adds lots of citations and references... but when you actually read the referenced papers they turn out to be either completely unrelated, or misrepresented so badly the author would be livid if they knew about it. I've been checking some of the subject matter of his edits, like  which he's been continually trying to push on Genius, Goethe and others despite numerous attempts by everyone involved in those articles at making him stop.  When he gets sufficient resistance, he simply moved to another article. I fairly confident we can stop assuming he's doing this in good faith.  He's either willingly trying to push his pet theory into WP, or he's been constructing an elaborate hoax.  In either case, it should stop.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If Sadi Carnot wishes to continue editing, he can ask to be unblocked, and we can discuss the conditions on which that will occur. An indefinite block doesn't mean "forever."  It means, "until the problem is resolved."   I personally wouldn't unblock him until he recognizes that what he's been doing isn't compatible with Wikipedia's purpose, and he undertakes not to edit the articles or subject areas where problems have occurred in the past.  Additionally, he should join WP:ADOPT to be paired with an experienced editor who will monitor and assist his editing to make sure there are no relapses.  Bduke, I think Sadi Carnot may become a good faith editor, but right now he doesn't understand how to edit Wikipedia and he's causing tremendous damage that involves many articles.  My block is designed to prevent further harm until we can come up with a better arrangement.  - Jehochman  Talk 12:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please remember to block Wavesmikey as well, or he will just immediately switch to his sock when he feels the need.Kww 14:00, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Clearly the same user. Can you please check if this alternative account has been used disruptively and report back here? For now it's just blocked because the main account is indef'ed.  If there is evidence of a disruptive sock puppetry that needs to be added to this case. - Jehochman  Talk 14:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman suggested that I comment on Sadi's editing here. I had rather not and just point you to []. Keith Henson 18:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've tagged Wavesmikey as a confirmed sockpuppet because the account suddenly stopped editing when it's contributions were exposed as pseudo-science.  Activity then shifted to Sadi Carnot.  The use of multiple accounts to avoid scrutiny is a form of disruptive sockpuppetry. Be on the lookout for additional socks. - Jehochman  Talk 19:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Refactored live links to the spammed sites above, we don't want this page being locked up after blacklisting. MER-C 04:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Cross-wiki spamming
This is much, much worse than we first thought. The problem is not confined to the English Wikipedia. I ran a all-wiki spamsearch on the domains



and this was what I found:

Can someone take these to the global spam blacklist please? MER-C 02:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh dear. Tsk, tsk.  I've report this to m:WM:SPAM, and I feel confident that our friends there will take care of it. - Jehochman  Talk 03:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Only some 20 links to "humanthermodynamics.com" exist outside enwiki, and I am quite convinced not all of them were added by the same user. Perhaps not so much of a problem compared to what you have here :-( /SvNH 03:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The three sites are now (globally) blacklisted and most of the links outside enwiki removed. /SvNH 19:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Community ban
Folks, User:Sadi Carnot has been indefinitely blocked. As requested by User:Coren User:Kww, this will be considered a community ban if no administrator is willing to unblock. - Jehochman Talk 20:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, let me point out that I did not request a ban, simply pointed out a problematic editor; although I fully support it. &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not going to unblock him at this time. I want to look into it further and also hear from him. Above I was merely pointing out that in the past he has had lots of good edits to mainstream articles such as Entropy. He also sorted out a major problem with Energy and related articles. I was not even aware of his interest in fringe science but I have worked with him in the past on mainstream science. He is a little difficult to work with, but lots of editors are. I think he needs to be told to stick to mainstream science. --Bduke 21:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the use of multiple accounts is very problematic. If you look at the sheer volume of self-promotional links and POV pushing, this looks like a determined COI editor who does a few good edits to establish cover. Of course, as I said above, if the editor is willing to admit mistakes and agree on editing restrictions and mentorship to avoid further problems, I am open to him returning. However, I think it would be a serious mistake to let him edit again before we have those assurances.- Jehochman Talk 21:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I oppose this, let's leave him blocked for a couple of week and maybe he'll cool down. VoL†ro/\/Force 21:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He's been engaged in a two-year campaign to push his fringe theories, spam his own website, and twist a large number of articles. This isn't a simple edit war. - Jehochman  Talk 21:33, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Voltron has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned user. His opinion does not count.- Jehochman  Talk 23:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse ban per extensive evidence of cross-wiki spamming above. This is one of the worst cases of x-wiki spamming I have ever seen. MER-C 02:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It turned out that some of the links were added by unrelated users, so this isn't as bad as I first thought. Still endorse, as spammers aren't welcome here. MER-C 07:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks like the droppings of our friend spread to other wikis by well-intended transwiki, not because he went there himself. The damage, however, is still just as real.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse ban - socking, spamming, original fringe research pov pushing (if not warring). --Rocksanddirt 04:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose ban. Sadi Carnot certainly appears to have been a very naughty boy in his recent attempts at autopromotion, but he has also made made legitimate edits in the field of thermodynamics, particularly to entropy. As such, an indefinite block as a "disruption only account" is inappropriate.
 * The user page is currently tagged with sockpuppeteer. The "confirmed sockpuppet" Wavesmikey has edited exactly three times in 2007, all of those on 7 March. Other than this single occasion, the account has been inactive since December 2005. The only suspected sockpuppet of Sadi Carnot is an IP address which only ever edited on 24 May 2007. Hence, the allegation that Sadi Carnot is a disruptive sockpuppeteer has no basis in evidence.
 * This case stinks of a witch hunt: given the obvious weakness of the current block, I am taking the unusual step of lifting it with immediate effect, so that at least this user has the chance to comment should he so wish. Obviously, this does not imply any condonement of spamming one's own book. Physchim62 (talk) 15:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to do that. Should this user return to old ways, you will be responsible for the resulting damage. We didn't say that he had never made a productive edit.  The situation is that the vast majority of what he's done has been spamming, COI editing and POV pushing.   Have you read the above evidence, or did you unblock because WP:IDONTLIKEIT?
 * Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that there's been a "witch hunt", such as an indication that those presenting evidence have an axe to grind? I think it's exceptionally rude to allege bad faith against others without evidence. - Jehochman Talk 16:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I must point out that the "good" edits to entropy appear very suspicious to my eyes. I don't know quite enough to tell you for a fact that they are wrong, but they read off, and "mysteriously" match the vapid original research that can be found on his site.  Expert attention needed. &mdash; Coren (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason he's marked for sockpuppetry is that he changed accounts after the first one was caught spamming. Using multiple identities to evade detection is considered disruptive sockpuppetry.  The fact that he did it before indicates that he may do it again, so this information is highly relevant.  It also demonstrates bad faith rather than a simple misunderstanding. - Jehochman  Talk 16:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse ban - there's been a longstanding struggle at entropy related articles to rein in his historical obsessions and fixation about entropy being disorder. Made more difficult by him continually claiming expert knowledge then turning out to be misunderstanding what he's claiming .. 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 &ne; disorder and that the entropy = disorder equation was born of ignorance.  In essense, he has held the article captive to his lack of understanding.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  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.   Orange Marlin  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)
 * comment Based on a quick look at the edits by "Sadi Carnot" there is still a large amount of material this person added to Wikipedia without citation of reliable sources. Some of the content remaining from this editor looks like Uncyclopedia material. Is there anything like a special wikiproject to review all the edits from this user (including puppet accounts)? --JWSchmidt 03:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We've reported this to the relevant WikiProjects, and also WP:COIN. That should encourage a wide variety of people to review the articles.  If you do a linksearch on his website, there are still tons of articles where that spam needs to be removed. - Jehochman  Talk 03:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I just nuked about two-thirds of the remaining mainspace spamlinks on en. The ones in references and the ones cross-wiki still remain. MER-C 09:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Project Participation
User:Sadi Carnot is listed as a participant in WikiProject Engineering and WikiProject Chemical and Bio Engineering (any maybe more). Should he be deleted from these lists or placed in an "inactive section" (if it exists for that project)? Let me know and I can make the change for the two Projects listed. --CheMechanical 03:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I suppose you could remove him from the lists for the duration of the block or ban. It would helpful to notify those projects of what we've discovered: a pattern of pushing fringe theories, spamming, and subtle vandalism.  The projects should check to see whether  has damaged any of their articles. They should also watch for similar behavior coming from other accounts, as those could be sockpuppets.  - Jehochman  Talk 03:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since I just joined these projects this afternoon and thought about it a little more, I'm reluctant to outright delete his user name at this point. I would be willing to add a NPOV (factual) notice with a link back to this incident.  What link should I use so that it can be seen even if archived?--CheMechanical 03:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ✅ I added notices on both project pages linking back to here with a note that followup has been requested by Admins.  I don't know how to make the link permanent, but I figure something is better than nothing if the integrity of his contributions in these areas is in question.  I don't know how (yet) to find out what other projects he was involved in, so someone else will have to track these down and notify those projects.--CheMechanical 04:47, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: I just found User:Sadi_Carnot's list of projects at User:Sadi_Carnot/Miscellaneous and he's shown as being a member of only two WikiProjects...the one's I've already identified. No harm in anyone else double-checking just in case.--CheMechanical 06:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I left messages at both of the concerned projects' talk pages. MER-C 06:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice job. Merci, MER-C.--CheMechanical 19:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have informed the Chemistry and Physics WikiProjects. --Bduke 07:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Unblocked
I noticed on reviewing this case (I endorse the ban for the record) that he was unblocked about an hour ago. Orderinchaos 16:50, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * unblocked the user for unclear reasons, and in spite of a consensus that the user should be community banned. Nontheless, I have twice offered to endorse the unblock if Physchim62 would accept responsibility for Sadi Carnot's further actions by agreeing to mentor and monitor him.  Thus far, Physchim62 has not confirmed my offer, but I am still hopefully he might.   If there is no acceptance of responsibility by Physchim62 or another trusted user, I think the block may needs to be restored in order to protect the encyclopedia from Sadi Carnot's long term campaign to spam his website and push his fringe theories.  How do we do we resolve this impasse?  - Jehochman  Talk 18:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that you and Physchim have had that conversation now. It might be a good idea to try and get people with a background in editing articles in these areas to comment on this, rather than admins, and get a conclusive verdict that the human thermochemistry thing is, shall we say, not appropriate here. There is definitely article clean-up that needs to be done, and maybe after that has been done, an RfC could be opened on the editing pattern it reveals. Carcharoth 19:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There was serious COI editing and spamming going on here, not a content dispute. The content questions have largely been resolved: Sadi Carnot's interlinked pseudoscience articles were nominated for deletion and deleted. From above:"Besides Georgi Gladyshev, Human molecule, Human chemistry, Interpersonal chemistry, Heat and affinity which seem to be the core of his garden; he makes large numbers of sometimes subtle vandalism to many articles related to thermodynamics using his own website as source to justify them." There's no need for an RFC; we already have established a consensus that it's bunkum.   Two years ago Wavesmikey was exposed for pushing pseudoscience.  He abandoned the account and returned as Sadi Carnot to cause further mayhem.   We need to prevent this person from wasting any more of our time.  There are two paths:  (1) mentorship and supervision, or (2) community ban. We should not provide another chance to game us.  - Jehochman  Talk 19:10, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * My two monetary subunits: As far as I'm concerned, SC has caused vast amounts of damage to WP already; what little of it that isn't obviously garbage is suspect enough that I'd remove it preemptively (keeping open the option of adding it back after it has been verified with sources unrelated to SC).  I think it's imperative that no further damage be done.  It will take a long time to ferret out and clean up two year's worth of this already.  Whether an outright ban is the only way to achieve this is disputable (although it is arguably the simplest), but in all cases SC should be prevented from re-adding material taken (directly or indirectly) from his original research back in.  Maybe a topical bad would also be adequate?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh sure, I agree that the content is not suitable for Wikipedia. I'm just adverse to using stronger language about the content. I do think that more than just one diff should be provided as evidence. It shouldn't be difficult to provide a list of diffs of references to that website spread over time, contributed by this user. And I thought there was a COI noticeboard for this sort of thing, anyway? Yes, we have Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and Fringe theories/Noticeboard. I'd be happier if this was dealt with there, or at the very least noted over there, for the record. Carcharoth 19:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to go to a family function now (Gak!) but I'll be back in a couple of hours and I'll ferret out a number of diffs to show exactly what I mean. &mdash; Coren (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And I've been reading the AfDs. This doesn't look good. The one you originally mentioned, where you made an embarassing mistake, was chilling to read, especially this one and this one. I'm going to notify those editors of this discussion. Carcharoth 21:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've left notes at the COI and fringe theory noticeboards. Carcharoth 19:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think that the link to his own website quoted above from a talk page is a problem. He was hosting copies of Clausius's original papers in his website, and just linked to them so that others could read them without having to dust them of the library shelves (of course, if you like conspiracy theories, you can assume that he modified Clausius's before posting them in his website...). --Itub 09:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's indispensable that we avoid wheel warring over this; it's not like SC has not already caused enough damage (directly or indirectly).  I know this recommendation will feel sorta sucky, but perhaps we should involve WP:ARB sooner rather than later?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Hm.  Refresh before edit (keeping up on ANI takes a long time!).  I see now that things are resolving nicely without escalation.  Phew.  :-) &mdash; Coren (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Listing the AfDs might also help: Someone also needs to find the traces left behind in other articles. For instance, there is still a redlink in Chemical affinity to one of the deleted articles. Elective Affinities has a cite error in the references section, probably caused by removing a named ref but not other refs using that name. I've added "what links here" for the above deleted articles. Finally, an example of talk page discussion is here. From what I can tell, there are lots of old 19th and 18th century sources used to build a case for a modern theory. There might well be some interesting science history in there is the fringe theories can be weeded out, but that would require sources from science historians. Carcharoth 20:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Heat and affinity WLH
 * Interpersonal chemistry, see Articles for deletion/Heat and affinity WLH
 * Articles for deletion/Human chemistry WLH
 * Human molecule deleted redirect WLH
 * Articles for deletion/Georgi Gladyshev WLH
 * New AfD involved with this case: Articles for deletion/Crystallization (love) WLH GlassCobra 20:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I am unable to tell to what extent the contributions are an elaborate joke, and to what extent there are are desire to integrate a fringe "theory". There remains some basis.  Gladyshev's original work in physical chemistry is real and orthodox, although not particularly important and most not in itself justifying an article. Goethe's Elective Affinities is famous enough, though I think some of the statements in our article on it may be over-interpretation. The general topic of chemical analogs for human relations is probably worth an article, though likely Gladyschev would not appear in it. There are other examples besides Sadi of people doing this sort of editing, and the difficulties in sorting things out afterwards are immense. I'd say that Sadi might some day make useful contributions here, but I would like to see some real sign of repentance and maturity before re-admitting him. DGG (talk) 23:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If the guy was in high school I would be looking for developing maturity, but near as I can determine, he's 35 and really does have a double major in ChE and EE.  He does not have a net presence I can locate outside of his fringe promotion operation.  Keith Henson 23:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This doesn't seem like a complicated case at all. This user has engaged in repeated self-promotion and disrutption. A few handfuls of arguably positive edits doesn't go anywhere near outweighing how bad this editor has been. And as Keith observed directly, change seems very unlikely. JoshuaZ 01:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Were I an admin, I would have restored the ban at this point. While I originally felt a ban might have been a bit heavy handed, if understandable, the further we go down the rabbit hole the worse things are revealed to be.  Now that other&mdash; serious&mdash; contributors to articles damaged by SC have begun to chime in and confirm what my gut feeling was telling me (I only have a few undergrad physics courses under my belt, so I am far from an expert) it has become apparent that presuming that all contributions from that editor are tainted is the only reasonable course.  Having that damaged caused with obvious deliberation and over the course of over two years convinces me that this must be stopped now, and definitely.  There is no doubt that this is willful, and a ban is the only way we can be certain that future socks (I am convinced there will be many to come) can be blocked on sight.   &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If I was an administrator (or at least I want to be), I would ban him indefinitely. The ban needs to be reinstated for good. Greg Jones II 01:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't see much point in banning him. He hasn't edited at all since Human chemistry got deleted, and I have my doubts that he would edit much again anyway. I think he got the message that his work here is not appreciated. I think Sadi Carnot did make many good contributions when he restricted himself to history. Although his writing style tends to be essay-like, the facts in articles such as History of quantum mechanics and History of the molecule seem generally correct. --Itub 08:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The point in banning him is to make the block against future socks automatic. Just as Wavesmikey disappeared and Sadi Carnot rose to take his place, you can bet that some other identity will begin using novellas as references in science article in the near future.Kww 13:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadi Carnot reblocked
I really don't understand why User:Physchim62 overturned the block in the face of such overwhelming and near unanimous community support for the block. My reading of the above discussion is that the community suppors the proposal and that, at this point, Physchim62 is the only person actually opposed to the block. Therefore, I have reinstated User:Jehochman's indefinite block of User:Sadi Carnot. I also support and endorse the community ban proposal. Sarah 03:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * When I overturned the ban, the community support was not "overwhelming" or "near unanimous", especially discounting the comment of two users with obvious axes to grind against Sadi Carnot. The ban has no basis in blocking policy and is based on the scantiest of evidence. I will not wheel war to remove the block once again, but nor do I feel that admins should act like robots in the face of community hysteria. Physchim62 (talk) 11:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I have had a lengthy discussion with Physchim62 about this on IRC. He agrees that Sadi Carnot is a problematic advocate of crackpottery, but feels that the extent to which SC has also been a useful contributor (on such material as the history of science) is such that it would be, and was, inappropriate to indef block him WITHOUT WARNING. Indeed, SC had not hitherto been warned or otherwise told to stop. So here is what we're going to do. I am going to unblock Sadi Carnot, conditionally: the condition being that he not do ANYTHING else pertaining to his own publications. PC62 has agreed to supervise SC's contribs (should SC in fact choose to return to the project - he may have Left Us Unappreciative Philistines after the AfD of "Human Chemistry" ten days ago), and has also agreed to re-block SC himself should SC misbehave again. DS 22:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (e/c) For the record, I'm not sure holding that conversation on IRC was the best idea. I'm rather attached to the transparency of the wiki.  Nevertheless, I am not going to argue further for a ban.  I don't feel strongly about it, and I especially don't doubt PC62's desire and ability to rein SC in.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Time to arbitrate this. Durova Charge! 23:22, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I have filed a request for arbitration. - Jehochman Talk 00:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Georgi Gladyshev
I see that article has been recreated after it was deleted per the AfD (and then deleted again). Could an admin check the history to see what users recreated it? It may turn out to be a sock (or not) but it deserves a look. &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems to have been . I suggest you ask him, and invite him to comment here, because this could be perfectly innocent. - Jehochman  Talk 02:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So I have. His editing seems to be mostly related to viral pathology (eeew!) and I see no obvious crossovers with SC.  This is almost certainly innocent, but I'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The conversation is taking place on my talk page. WAS 4.250 03:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I see no reason to think that WAS 4.250 is related to SC, or that the recreation of the article was anything but a good faith attempt to salvage a deleted article by rewriting it. &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I can vouch completely for WAS 4.250, this is a serious editor with a strong focus on influenza. Their edits are constructive and accurate. Tim Vickers 16:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Witch hunt
Some people have objected to my use of the phrase "witch hunt". I apologise. This is not a witch hunt, this is many people who are normally reasonable but who suddenly start running around crying "burn the witch, burn the witch" or something equivalent.
 * Sadi Carnot is not a "disruption only account"; at least two other posters—members of WP:CHEM—plus myself, have mentioned his useful, good-faith edits to thermodynamics articles. These were also mentioned on Articles for deletion/Human chemistry.
 * There is no evidence that Sadi Carnot has used multiple accounts simultaneously to create controversy. He may have changed user name in December 2005—that is, before the current system of changes came about—but this is perfectly permissible. Hence, he is not a sockpuppeteer, disruptive or otherwise.
 * Wavesmikey's edits were not "exposed as pseudoscience", nor even as spamming (there was a single complaint about a single inappropriate link): Human chemistry was not "unmasked as a hoax", it failed AfD for rather more mundane reasons, particularly WP:SYNTH.
 * Keith Henson has a axe to grind with Sadi Carnot over Henson's referencing of his own work at Capture bonding, as Jehochman is well aware. Kww called for Sadi Carnot to be indefinitely blocked at least three times during the AfD discussion of human chemistry, without ever being able to come up with the slightest reason under blocking policy why this would be justified.


 * Referencing an article I wrote for a reviewed journal was never an issue, or at least I don't remember it being an issue and can't find that mentioned here: . The objection I had was Sadi stuffing a _simple_ evolutionary psychology article with what is (by EP standards) unrelated SSSM nonsense.  You might note that WP:COI states: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable . . . ."  Keith Henson 15:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[Back to Physchim62]

This is a routine case of WP:FRINGE and WP:COI. Wikipedia has tens of such cases every day and, most of the time, admins handle them without any difficulty. Instead, Sadi Carnot has been demonized to the point where one user is suggesting checking each one of his 8567 edits! The argument is itself a blatant violation of WP:SYNTH: the references cited simply do not support the conclusions being drawn from them.
 * There is no reason not to assume good faith on the part of Sadi Carnot, that is, there is no reason not to assume that he really believes the rather unusual theories which he expounds in his book.

I shouldn't need to remind people that witch-hunts invariably lead to inappropriate punishments being handed out. In this case, an indefinite block was issued without first performing a checkuser. Leaving aside the question of collateral blocks, surely if Sadi Carnot were as "dangerous" as some have hysterically pretended, a checkuser would be a useful piece of information... But no, the block was issued even though Sadi Carnot hadn't edited since the end of the AfD debate. An indefinite block, without warning, on a user who has been around for two years with a clean block record and 8537 edits to the encyclopedia! Do you see where paranoia gets us? Physchim62 (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Chances are blocking will turn out to be a moot point though as a bet Sadi/Libb/[real name deleted :-) ] will be back under another ID. Incidentally, I agree with you it is probable he really believes his "unusual theories."  But do you really want someone with a good faith belief in nonsense to be making 12 edits a day?


 * Jehochman states this better: "He did widespread damage by injecting subtle inaccuracies into many articles, and misrepresented what sources said.  By subtle I mean that a non-expert wouldn't know they were inaccurate. These are the most dangers types of vandalism." Keith Henson 15:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Physchim62. I just want to elaborate on why I don't think this block is justified by policy. Per WP:BLOCK, blocks are supposed to be preventive, not punitive. I don't see what's preventive about indefinitely blocking someone who hasn't even been editing since the controversy started and who IMO can still be assumed to be acting in good faith, although misguidedly. A more reasonable course of action would be to warn him, ask him not to add more links to his website and no more OR about his theories. If he decides to edit again, and violates the rules again, then one can think about preventive blocks. --Itub 12:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't give people endless chances. He was notified dozens of times, and chose to continue.  He did widespread damage by injecting subtle inaccuracies into many articles, and misrepresented what sources said.  By subtle I mean that a non-expert wouldn't know they were inaccurate. These are the most dangers types of vandalism. Additionally, he added spams link to his own website to more than 100 pages.  The block is exactly meant to be preventative.  It prevents him from doing further damage.  The ban, which is different from a block, allows us to immediately block and revert any contributions he makes using other accounts.  Policy has been followed to the letter and the spirit.  If you disagree, appeal to Arbcom. - Jehochman  Talk 13:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Notified dozens of times? By which definition of "notify" is that? The way I see it he never got a clear warning, and everything unraveled quickly after the AfD nomination of human chemistry. --Itub 13:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You're being tendentious. Starting two years ago with his former identity, various people have been telling Sadi Carnot that pseudo-science, non-reliable sources, misrepresenting references, and spamming his own website aren't allowed at Wikipedia. It's beyond the pale of rational discussion to suggest that he wasn't given fair notice. - Jehochman  Talk 13:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take that as a personal attack, thanks. Talk page discussions about original research, which were generally civil, are not warnings by any means. Calling original research vandalism doesn't help rational discussion either. --Itub 13:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree Sadi Carnot should be allowed to defend himself (and unblocked to do so if this is requested). A topic ban has been suggested. The problem is that this sort of editing pattern is the most difficult to spot and the most difficult to repair. I agree that checkuser would be useful here. What I'm not clear about is how long this has been going on for - for all of the two years? The thing that shocked me the most was stuff like this (the stuff is being removed there). This is the sort of thing that needs sources, and the sources were dubious or not provided. Talk:Heat is also of interest. Carcharoth 12:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking a bit further, the boson [bogus? Keith Henson 22:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC) - no, I meant boson - it might be bogus as well, but the boson definition of heat is one of those strange edits that someone pointed out that made me go "huh?" Carcharoth 02:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)]


 * I can see why you went "huh?" That's like hyper weird.  Keith Henson 03:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

definition of heat seems to start here (3 March 2006), but didn't enter the heat article until here (I think) on 28 June 2007. Possibly it was present in other articles related to the topic. The talk page post in March 2006 referred to a book by the Nobel Prize winning physicist Martinus J. G. Veltman. This makes it more, not less important, that Sadi Carnot's edits are verified. Presenting your own original research is one thing. Possibly distorting the research or ideas of others is another thing altogether. This sort of thing may be going on all the time, but firm action does need to be taken when it is called out. Carcharoth 13:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Physchim62, you are being little bit funny to apologize for for violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL and then to repeat the offense immediately. If you or Sadi Carnot or anybody else is unhappy with the result here, the correct path is to file an appeal with Arbcom.  You have a path forward; take it if you like. You can even email an arbitrator if you think this is an emergency situation. - Jehochman  Talk 12:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, you also have a path forward: you can unblock this user. Physchim62 (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Which hunt? Have you considered, Physchim62, that you might simply be mistaken about Sadi Carnot?  I don't think anyone here is calling him uncivil, or even unfriendly.  From your past interactions with him it is quickly evident that you are on friendly terms with him&mdash; and he does come across as a nice guy.  The facts are, however, that he has been semi-covertly weaving in material he knows will be considered unacceptable into a large number of articles over a period spanning well over two years.  When he was found out the first time he ducked under a rock, switched usernames then went right back at it. Nobody here doubts your good faith; or the fact that SC might be a friendly fellow...  but can you stop and consider for a moment the fact that you are on friendly terms with him just might color your evaluation of the situation? As it stands, he has caused a very great deal of damage to the 'pedia, and has already shown that when found out he comes back and starts all over.  That is why he should be banned.  Witchcraft notwithstanding.

&mdash; Coren (talk) 16:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If we do not ban Sadi Carnot than we are going to have an editor who's every contribution must be specifically checked by an expert on the subject to guard against the addition of more misinformation and distortions. This will be a hindrance to the project and a waste of everybody's time. If you can't trust what somebody writes at even a basic level, then why allow them to cause us more problems? Tim Vickers 16:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If I'm using strong terms, it's for a reason. I really, honestly, believe that you're all going mad in a particularly dangerous way. There is no reason to check all of Sadi Carnot's edits: the articles will be assessed, and re-edited accordingly, just as happens with much more serious questions of WP:UNDUE all over Wikipedia. Why make all of this fuss over an editor who has made many useful contributions to WP just because you think he's utterly crazy over one point? This editor is being specifically persecuted for his views: views that I myself would describe as bovine excrement, and which don't merit the attention which he tried to gain for them, but which have not prevented him from contributing usefully to Wikipedia in other, even related, areas. I stand by my statement that this is a witch hunt, although I will temper it by saying that I feel that most of the editors concerned have just been drawn along in the hysteria, rather than actually whipping it up. Physchim62 (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe you're acting in good faith, but that you've been misled, and your friendship with Sadi prevents you from seeing what the rest of us see. You and I are not going to agree on what to do here, and that's OK.  If you want to bring this case to Arbcom for review, I will support that.  Keep in mind that the block now belongs to Sarah and you can ask her if you want it undone.  I'm no longer involving myself in this case because I don't want to have a conflict with you. There are lots of other things to do at Wikipedia. - Jehochman  Talk 17:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If this were a content dispute, I would say that it is ripe for mediation, but unfortunately it is not. It involves admin powers and the responsability of different users, even of the "community" as a whole. ANI is obviously not the right forum to discuss these at great length, as it is designed for immediate problems. As such, I agree that ArbCom is probably the best way out of this problem: if someone else beats me to listing it, I will join, otherwise I will list it myself! Physchim62 (talk) 17:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Contributions?
Physchim62 (re Sadi) "but which have not prevented him from contributing usefully to Wikipedia in other, even related, areas."

I have not seen what I consider useful contributions, but then I have not looked at more than a few of the 8500 edits he did.

Compare:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capture-bonding&oldid=47854434

with

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capture-bonding&oldid=125688241

For a starter, the EP concept of capture-bonding isn't abnormal psychology, indeed, nothing could be a more normal response in the human EEA (environment of evolutionary adaptiveness) to being captured than to socially reorient to your captors. But just considering the style, which of these two articles would be more useful (and readable) to someone trying to find out about the topic?

I will accept your judgment.

Keith Henson 19:04, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin needed
I think this discussion has run its course. Could an uninvolved admin decide the result of the community ban proposal and wrap this thread in archive tags? - Jehochman Talk 21:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Seconded. For the record, though I was bold and already added Sadi Carnot to WP:BU some time ago&mdash; if the decision goes against a ban then that should also be undone.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Regime change at wikipedia?
It used to be the case that you needed to be guilty of pretty severe vandalism to be banned. Sadi Carnot has been editing a few articles in a POV way and is otherwise known for his valuable contributions. This absolutely does not compare to the behavior of many other users (take e.g. the supporters of various pseudoscientific ideas) who are still tolerated on wikipedia. I'm not saying that they shouldn't be tolarated. However, either we ban all such users or we don't ban people for these reasons. Count Iblis 22:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstand the situation. Sadi Carnot has been spamming, COI editing, and promoting fringe theories through subtle vandalism across many articles for a long time.  This is not editing "a few articles in a POV way."  It's self-promotion and using Wikipedia as an advertising medium. You say "valuable contributions."  Please, supply a few example articles because I'm open to reviewing any evidence you can provide.  - Jehochman  Talk 02:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" "Repetitively and intentionally making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia will result in a block or permanent ban." Vandalism I do not understand how anyone can defend "Sadi Carnot" against a permanent ban from Wikimedia Foundation projects. --JWSchmidt 02:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * vandalism is defined as "addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". This is exactly what the problematic POV editors are not doing. They really believe in what they write. I think we should assume that Sadi Carnot believes that he made a positive contribution. However many other editors did not agree with his edits. This is not vandalism on his part as it was not his intention to damage wikipedia. This is just a content dispute. Annoying? perhaps, but we can deal with that as we deal with many worse cases every day. And in the articles were Sadi was involved in it was very straightforward to deal with because it all standard scientific stuff (chemistry, thermodynamics etc.).


 * Promoting fringe theories? Unfortunately there are many more editors who do this here on wikipedia. We don't ban people for such behavior unless they repeatedly violate 3RR rules, insult people on talk pages, etc. There used to be a problem with the Cold fusion article, there is a problem with the article on Heim Theory (a pseudoscientific theory), there are climate skeptic editors who repeatedly try to bring in their POV in the various articles on Global warming.


 * We can deal with these problematic editors, we don't ban them just because they write things that are extremely POV. COI? How would I know if some climate skeptic editor works for the oil industry? So, that's just a nonsensical guidline. How many times did we have to speedily delete a POV fork started by a well known climate skeptic editor here, I've lost the count. Did we ever ban someone for these reasons? No, unless perhaps in cases where someone's edits are really vandalism (e.g. you could create 40 new POV forks per hour or something like that). A well known skeptic has even repeatedly accused a climate scientists editor here who has made valuable contributions of COI and started various wike procedures against him. This was regarded as abuse of wiki policies, but did we ban him for that? No!


 * Did Carnot make some positive contributions? Of course he did. He was involved in many thermodynamics articles and also did positive things there. If Carnot is banned for the reasons given here, then I would think we should purge wikipedia of all these far more problematic POV editors. Count Iblis 03:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You like physics. My recent contributions include gamma ray burst  and gamma ray burst progenators .  I'm not an admin who hangs out at the board all day looking for somebody to ban. If you look at my initial responses on this thread, I was somewhat skeptical about the claims against Sadi.  That skepticism rapidly evaporated (like a small black hole), when I actually looked at the evidence. - Jehochman  Talk 03:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think a major part of the problem is misrepresentation of sources. Effectively, this is quoting paper A which says B, and claiming it says C. In some cases, this seems to have merged seamlessly with original research. eg. quote 18th century book on obscure chemical analogy and modern paper on physical chemistry, and use them both to support a novel theory advanced by the editor and some other people on a website, and use these other people as references for good measure. That is not just POV editing. It is intellectually dishonest and fraudulent. The case for COI is clear-cut as well. The editor has admitted to being the author of the book which had its article deleted. Anyway, this is an requests for arbitration, so we should be able to end this thread soon. Carcharoth 03:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "I think we should assume that Sadi Carnot believes that he made a positive contribution" <-- Red herring, anyone? I think "Sadi Carnot" knowingly made a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, knowingly perverting the NPOV philosophy to promote personal self-interest, using well-developed writing and research skills to trick non-experts. I think we should assume that "Sadi Carnot" is laughing at Wikipedia and Wikipedians who are willing to put up with such calculated disruption of the project. Being capable of making useful edits and making some useful edits do not compensate for hundreds of disruptive edits and such a blatant attempt to use Wikipedia for self-gain. --JWSchmidt 05:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You think "Sadi Carnot" knowingly made a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. That's where we disagree. Since I don't have the power to read minds, I assume nothing about Sadi's intentions. I am still assuming good faith. --Itub 06:38, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If someone is making bad edits, I don't know that intent matters all that much when compared to results. If some mental patient gets access to one of the asylum computers and writes "JEWS DID WTC!!!" over and over on World Trade Center, he may be honestly trying to contribute something he believes to be true... but it's still disruptive and unhelpful. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 13:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not saying that there are no problematic issues with the way Sadi has been editing. Things like misrepresenting sources, promoting your own work etc. is something that we see quite often. The POV editor in most cases really believes that some idea is somehow implied by the source while in fact it isn't. This is not really vandalism. In these cases what you do is you discuss the issue on the talk pages, the various wikiprojects etc. Usually you'll get a consensus there that the edits by the POV editor are not acceptable for the articles concerned. The problem is then almost solved, because any edits by the POV editor can be reverted. The consensus and 3RR rule makes sure that the problematic edits do not make it into the article.

If after taking these measures it is found that the POV editor is repeatedly violating the fundamental wiki rules like 3RR, or creating POV forks very often etc. to get his ideas published on wikipedia then it can argued that a ban would be apppropriate.

This is basically the approach followed in the Global Warming article and it is highly successful. Over time, what you see is that the POV editors change their behavior. If they want to make a change to an article which they know would be regarded as suspicious by others, they use the talk page first to explain what they want to do. Count Iblis 14:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sadi Carnot has been using tactics to evade the normal controls on POV pushing. He's been at it for two years and has not changed his ways.  I've spent hours looking through his contributions.  The pattern is highly problematic.  I've dealt with a lot of POV pushers, and this case is exceptional in that he, unlike most, backs down when confronted, and just pushes his POV elsewhere.  This really looks like gaming.  What seals the deal for me is that he switched identites two years ago after one of his favorite pseudoscience articles was deleted.  That move was designed to avoid scrutiny.  He also befriends users and seeks to use those friendships as cover for his activities.  Whether the damage is intentional, or more likely just severely misguided doesn't matter.  Blocks and bans are designed to prevent damage, not to punish.  I am very concerned that Sadi will return again under a new identity after this case fades from memory.  You also need to consider how many good faith editors have been frustrated and pushed away by his tactics.  The fact that Dr. Jeckyll does good work doesn't excuse the behavior of Mr. Hyde.  You can't let such an editor roam free.  It's too dangerous. - Jehochman  Talk 14:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I support Jehochman in requesting examples of Sadi's positive contributions. Surely this would not be hard with a pool of 8500 edits.  So far I have seen none.  Also I can tell you first hand that 3RR does not always keep BS out of articles.  Keith Henson 14:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I just took a look at the entropy page. I don't think that Sadi's behavior there, see e.g. talk page was nonconstructive in any way. My opinion is that the the editors of the (bio) chemistry pages are to be blamed for what has happened. They failed to notice the POV pushing by Sadi. If Sadi is gone then tomorrow someone else can edit pages in this way. So, the only way to deal with the problem is to check the edits and use the procedures as I described above.


 * I really do not understand how a known issue that has existed for years was not dealt with. The fact that Sadi stoped using one account two years ago and started to use anoher account is simply irrelevant. He made certain POV edits and later the these POV edits reappeared. That is what matters and this should have been dealt with. Count Iblis 15:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment. If you look at the guy's site and Table of Contents, it's obvious that he knows his thermodynamics. Applying thermodynamics to human relationships might provide some useful insights, although I think that using it (apparently) to reinvent computer dating is less productive than say using it to try to knock some sense into illegal immigration policies which usually make futile kinetic interventions. The problem clearly is that he thinks that everything he publishes is notable and becomes a new topic or usage of a term to go into Wikipedia. I don't think that by usual standards his work would have to be excluded entirely - half the articles on Wikipedia are weighed down with "Cultural References" sections that are mostly a long list of ads for various pieces of intellectual property. I can see him getting a paragraph in one place, sentences in a few others ... it's just a shame this situation got so out of hand. 70.15.116.59 16:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Up thread there are people who say Sadi (in spite of a chemical engineering degree) did *not* know his thermodynamics. I admit it's been decades since I last looked deeply into thermodynamics so I have not looked into the quality of his edits in this area.  Keith Henson 17:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, he was accused of not knowing his particle physics, and who does? ;) 70.15.116.59 15:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 70.15.116.59 says Said was accused of not knowing his particle physics. That might be true, but under the heading "# Endorse ban" several screens up dave souza, 22:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC), •Jim62sch• 23:17, 21 October 2007 (UTC), OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC) and Tim Vickers 02:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC) all said Sadi did not understand entropy.  User:70.15.116.59 could, of course, be anyone--including Sadi.  Keith Henson 22:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * He was accused of not knowing that "entropy &ne; disorder and that the entropy = disorder equation was born of ignorance". If that's really true then someone should edit Entropy and Entropy (order and disorder) to explain it, because I always took the statistical definition of entropy to be a measurement of disorder and I don't see those articles disagreeing with me.  But admittedly it's not really relevant anyway - the statement that his edits were unproductive is what really matters. 70.15.116.59 05:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What's odd is that an administrator, Physchim62, knew about Sadi's editing problems, and did nothing to stop them. Warnings and a short block early on might have corrected the problem before it became so severe.  A good lesson is that early, firm intervention is a favor to the editor.  Coddling troubled editors only leads to more damage, and is not a service to the editor either, because they just get deeper and deeper into trouble until somebody finally has to take much stricter measures to stop them. Those crying for us to excuse Sadi should have done something before. - Jehochman  Talk 16:20, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That attitude is absurd. Some of those "crying to excuse Sadi" were completely unaware of his damaging editing patterns: running into him only in thermo articles, for instance.


 * Everywhere on Wikipedia I'm seeing this - people expect all disputes to get settled by administrators, but getting administrator privileges seems to be a long kiss-the-ring ritual (for which only people who want to spend all their time mediating petty disputes need apply) and there aren't enough to do everything, let alone do it fast. So it takes three months to whitelist a Web page, articles go fully-protected so long that the Talk page comments are people asking each other why it's protected and how to edit it, and lists of suspected sockpuppets are kept by talk page comdent deleting vigilantes. 70.15.116.59 15:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Regime change continued

 * I have to say that there's some justice in Count Iblis's remark: the reason that Sadi's consistent POV insertion is considered so severe seems to be that it wasn't caught until now. This isn't necessarily because Sadi was intentionally deceiving others: normally crackpot theories are very obvious to pick out from the article. The authors don't really understand wikipedia policy, and are often unskilled at adding information to articles even if it's not a bunch of BS.  The fact that Sadi could seamlessly integrate his POV pushing into articles without raising the usual red flags isn't necessarily becuase he was trying to deceive, but because he is simply a better editor than most fringe-theory pushers.  Don't crucify him only because his sins were difficult to uncover. --Starwed 16:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That argument would be more convincing if "Sadi Carnot" was this editor's first username. But, he adopted that name after his former username was told that original research is not acceptable on wikipedia. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 17:17, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Starwed makes good points. The other thing Sadi did was gaming.  He could and did look up all kinds of material with only the remotest connection to the article and reference (wikify) the heck out of them.  That's what he did to the capture-bonding article.  The editors who supported him were looking at the form and not the substance which I don't think they understood.  It's a problem, and it's going to take some thought as to how to cope with it.  Keith Henson 17:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * New involved user joining discussion. I, like others, have been on good terms with Sadi and have often appreciated his edits and input. I understand Physchem's concerns about a witch hunt. I too think that it may be possible for Sadi to become a good editor. I agree with the major concern here that Sadi has so effectively gamed the system and gained the confidence of users like myself through good editing only to do horrible things below the radar. He has achieved this through the good will and credibility capital that he has gained through being apparently level headed and knowledgeable on many subjects. WP does not have good systems to control this sort of behavior as evidenced by the length and extent of Sadi's misbehavior. The only control is once it is caught to prevent it with a ban or close human supervision. I would suggest to Physchem and Itub, both of whom I have the up most respect for that the confidence that you have in him *may* be simply a result of you being used and by continuing to support Sadi he may be simply cashing in on the good will capital that he has built with you. We should be level headed and not be on a witch hunt or react emotionally to being deceived but neither should we refuse to believe that we have been played for the fool when the evidence points clearly in that direction. Confidence artists gain your confidence before burning you. That is what they do. The best ones will keep your confidence even after burning you.
 * I am willing to trust physchem's supervision *if* he is willing to check every one of Sadi's new references for substance and relevance to the article and statements at hand and Sadi must reference every edit (good faith is clearly not warranted). Sadi has spent 2 years building confidence. I do not think that it unreasonable for him to do the same thing again: spend 2 years building confidence to get out of hot water before perpetrating the same con again. Therefore the supervision must be forever. I would not be willing to go to such lengths myself. I suspect Sadi will not reappear although I will miss his positive contributions.--Nick Y. 18:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Nick Y. makes excellent points, but let me point up a problem. Sadi edited far and wide.  Unless Physchem is an incredible polymath, I doubt he would be able to pick up on all the BS a Sadi type editor introduces.  That's not knocking Physchem, I don't think there is anybody who could deal with the range.  Keith Henson 19:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Three arbitrators have decided to accept this so far and a case will probably open shortly. Let's bring this thread to a conclusion out of respect for the Committee and divert the relevant issues to some policy level discussions. There's a move to clarify the banning policy, and perhaps there ought to be a related discussion about complex long-term problems. Disruptive editing is designed to address that at the guideline level. Although perhaps some other venue such as a WP:AN thread would be more appropriate for a discussion about investigations. Those of us who dive deep into the site's rabbit holes are a relatively small group, and dynamics that look obvious to a wikisleuth can have a very different appearance to someone who doesn't frequent these situations. (Likewise, nobody bats .1000 when they investigate and a vast number of disruptive editors raise frivolous compaints). I've noticed that a well-referenced investigative report can be a great help, and I've often considered starting an index of the better reports to facilitate other sleuthing efforts. This type of thing goes into greater depth than a typical long term abuse report, more like User:Durova/Complex vandalism at Joan of Arc. Durova Charge! 19:10, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * think you misplaced a decimal point there, Durova; you do better than 1 in 10. More like .900 than .100. DGG (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I second what Durova says. Let's wait for the arbitration case to open. I do have replies to some of the recent comments here, but I'll wait to post them there, as I see no point in continuing the discussion here. --Itub 09:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Moved to subpage
Just thought I'd note that discussion should continue, and to disregard my edit summary of "archive". This is not an archive. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 02:50, 25 October 2007 (UTC)