Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Douglas Cotton/Archive

04 March 2014

 * Suspected sockpuppets




 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Douglas Cotton has made several attempts to edit articles on the second law of thermodynamics and related matters, attempts that I have undone. For example here and here. It seems possible also that the edit made under the name 121.216.236.243 here was made by Douglas Cotton, because of the likeness of the edit to the next that he made. He has a special interest in the question of temperature homogeneity in a system subject to a gravity field. He is at present promoting in other forums a book that he says he has written and will be published in April, with much about that subject in it. The present concern is with an inappropriate edit by editor 138.130.65.37, which follows shortly in time after an edit by Douglas Cotton that was good faith but not good enough for the lead where it was posted. The presently concerning inappropriate edit is closely related to Douglas Cotton's concerns, in ways that may not be immediately apparent to someone not familiar with the subject matter. Douglas Cotton has a very well marked history of posting on blogs on these matters, and when he is banned from them, he repeatedly comes up with a new name that evades the ban, for example by signing himself "D o u g  C o t t o n". It is my considered opinion that Douglas Cotton's concern about temperature homogeneity is properly described as fringe science, and it is evident from his writing that he regards himself as researching this subject, and entitled to bring his work to the attention of others, even when banned from doing so. The subject matter of Douglas Cotton's concern about temperature homogeneity is dealt with in Wikipedia at Thermal equilibrium. That section presents the well established and thoroughly reliably sourced orthodoxy on this matter, and Douglas Cotton wishes to overthrow that orthodoxy on the basis of an argument by Loschmidt, and some experiments of fringe accuracy conducted more recently. I think that wish is the motive for Douglas Cotton's editing Wikipedia recently. Chjoaygame (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Chjoaygame (talk) 11:49, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The following seems strong evidence that Douglas Cotton and editor 138.130.65.37 are closely linked or the same person. On the page User talk:Douglas Cotton there is entered this, which is very closely related to the inappropriate edit by editor 138.130.65.37.Chjoaygame (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

You are wrong in assuming Loschmidt's gravitationally induced thermal gradient does not evolve spontaneously in a gravitational field. It is the isentropic state of maximum entropy with no further unbalanced energy potentials. You cannot explain why the Venus surface temperature rises by 5 degrees spread over the course of its 4-month-long day with any radiative forcing conjecture or greenhouse philosophy. The Venus surface receives barely 10% of the direct Solar radiation that Earth's surface receives. It would need over 16200 W/m^2 if radiation were heating the surface. Then, during sunlit hours it would need an extra 450W/m^2 to raise the temperature from about 732K to 737K. On Earth, if isothermal conditions were supposedly existing without water vapor and other greenhouse gases, then the sensitivity to water vapor would be about 10 degrees per 1% atmospheric content. But there is no evidence that a region with 1% above it is 30 degrees colder than another region at similar altitude and latitude with 4% above it. The surface layer of Earth's oceans may be consider only 1cm thick, or even if 10cm thick it is still very transparent to insolation. But a black or grey body does not transmit radiation, and the surface layer absorbs less than 1% of that incident solar radiation. So the S-B calculations are totally incorrect and planetary surface temperatures cannot be calculated using such.

This is where the error crept in in 1985 ...

"Coombes and Laue concluded that answer (1) is the correct one and answer (2) is wrong. They reached this conclusion after finding that statement (2a) is wrong, i.e., the average kinetic energy of all molecules does not decrease with the height even though the kinetic energy of each individual molecule does decrease with height.

These authors give at first a qualitative explanation of this fact by noting that since both the kinetic energy of the molecules and the number density of molecules decrease with height, the average molecular kinetic energy does not necessarily decrease with height."

This is absurd. They had the mean kinetic energy decreasing in each molecule, but then they divided again by the number. Try calculating a mean by dividing twice by the number of elements. A glaring error. The Loschmidt effect has NOT been debunked by this nonsense.


 * Velasco, S., Román, F.L., White, J.A. (1996). On a paradox concerning the temperature distribution of an ideal gas in a gravitational field, Eur. J. Phys., 17: 43–44.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas Cotton (talk • contribs) 12:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * It's very possible that Douglas Cotton and the two IPs are the same editor. But those IPs were not used in any inappropriate manner. There seems to be no claim of sockpuppetry here, only a content dispute about fringe science matters. I'm closing this case because there is no action needed. --  At am a  頭 21:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for this prompt response. Yes, it is possible that this was merely unskilled formatting by Douglas Cotton, who is new here and may have posted inadvertently without signing in to his account. Yes, I accept that the case can be closed because there is no action needed. Let's hope it does not in future become necessary for me to ask again. Thank you for your care in this.Chjoaygame (talk) 00:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

09 January 2016

 * Suspected sockpuppets


 * User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
 * Editor interaction utility

Chjoaygame (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Is this the right place for my reply? If so, thank you for your care in this. Doug Cotton has been active in a fair number of internet fora, and banned in some of those, and he has a recognizable concern and style, with which I have become more or less familiar. He is concerned with atmospheric physics, with reference to climate change. He has a fixed belief that, in thermodynamic equilibrium, in a tall vessel in a vertical gravitational field, there is a non-zero vertical temperature gradient, hotter at the bottom. This view has been proposed by some reputable scientists, but has been comprehensively investigated by more reputable scientists, and is mostly regarded as fringe science, and false: the established view is that in the case of equilibrium, there is zero temperature gradient. It is agreed that in non-equilibrium situations, for example in the earth's atmosphere, it can happen that there is a non-zero temperature gradient. Doug, in good faith, habitually posts his view that there is a non-zero gradient in the equilibrium case. He believes that such is dictated by the second law of thermodynamics. The presently cited diffs are examples. If this explanation is inadequate, I am willing to try to do better.Chjoaygame (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As it happens, Douglas Cotton has now posted here with another IP address, 101.191.93.203.Chjoaygame (talk) 14:01, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Looking back, I feel fairly confident that another IP address from which Douglas Cotton has posted, for example here, is 121.217.80.138.Chjoaygame (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I added much more IPs that belong to the same person.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  22:45, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Comments by other users
''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.''

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

 * - What you have to do is to explain me the similarity between Douglas Cotton and this IP. I don't know anything about Douglas Cotton, and so I don't understand those diffs that you provided.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  12:27, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All those IPs probably belong to Douglas Cotton, but there is nothing we can do. He is hopping from one IP to another and the ranges are very large, so blocking is not possible. I'm closing this case.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  18:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Please hold off for a bit before archiving this one. I've e-mailed the Functionaries list, just to see if there might possibly be something we can do to stop this misbehaviour from reoccurring.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * , I suppose we could easily semi-protect the talk page. I just removed two chunks of chatter via WP:DENY. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm watching Second law of thermodynamics now.  The last IP disruption on the talk page happened over a week ago, but if the same pattern of disruptive editing reoccurs, I'll semi-protect the article and the talk page (unless someone else gets to it first).  I would still love to see some way to catch this person if he shows up on some other page, though I realize that may not be possible.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * We share this ongoing frustration. Sorry, I was still on my second cup of coffee when I offered an admin to do something an admin can do. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2016 (UTC)