Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Licorne

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 16:56, 17 February 2006), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 14:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC).

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

Statement of the dispute[edit]

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

Description[edit]

User:Licorne, also editing from at least two non-account IP addresses (see below), has engaged in a one-man campaign to inject a very narrow POV into articles relating to Albert Einstein. The user apparently believes that Albert Einstein was a plagiarist, and that Henri Poincaré, Hendrik Lorentz, and David Hilbert should be given the credit for the discovery of special relativity and general relativity. This has been going on for several months, involved at least half a dozen editors, and created probably a small manuscript's worth of talk pages trying to resolve problems stemming from this single user.

The content question is acknowledged by all to be complicated, and were it raised by itself it would not be a problem, as normal content-dispute methods would serve it well (and indeed, in response to this user's activities, a much more nuanced approach, more heavily bolstered with citations, has been taken in the articles in question — perhaps the only benefit from persistent POV pushers, in my experience). However the user has not been editing in good faith. They have been engaged in a very insidious form of POV pushing, as outlined below, on a very intellectually dishonest — purposely misleading, I would argue — level, and has additionally engaged in numerous instances of attacks and badgering of editors, as well as a refusal to abide by WP:NOR.

The following three accounts are most certainly the same user. They have the same editing style down to characteristic punctuation, the same POV pushing, refer to previous comments made by themselves, have identified themselves with the same information[1], and have furthermore never denied being the same accounts when asked. Only recently was the User:Licorne account created.

It is in my opinion that the evidence below shows quite clearly that the user has engaged in editing practices again and again which have violated WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:NPA. There have been instances in which the behavior of other editors towards User:Licorne have been sometimes less than pleasant themselves (i.e., he has been labeled "psychotic" by one editor, and I have accused him of dishonesty a number of times), though I think in general it must be said that the response has been overly accomodating and patient, given the continued behavior of the user. --Fastfission 17:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of disputed behavior[edit]

POV pushing[edit]

Promoting minority sources as consensus opinions[edit]
  • Relying on self-published work by Christopher Jon Bjerknes (non-academic, revisionist historian, Holocaust denier), promoting it as mainstream and worthy of inclusion [2].
  • When a mainstream source disagrees with his POV, he proclaims it biased for a variety of reasons, always ad hominem.[3] [4] [5] [6]
Quoting out of context[edit]
  • First promoted Kip Thorne's book as authoritative source on subject [7], insisting that it is "categorical" in saying Hilbert had priority over Einstein [8][9], and giving what is claimed to be quotes from Thorne illustrating the position taken [10]
  • Then it turns out that Thorne's quotes were taken out of context, and that Thorne actually concludes the exact opposite of this.[11]
  • Instead of admitting any error, insists that Thorne's final conclusion was out of professional pressure [12], that he "made mistakes"[13], or that it was somehow related to his wife[14].
  • Now the Kip Thorne quote is actually in the article as a footnote, but because it is the complete quote, rather than the one taken out of context, he insists it should be removed as inaccurate. [15][16][17]
  • Beyond quoting out of context - it now appears Licorne is willing to fabricate quotes. See this this: [18] and following discussion.--Pallen 04:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotes Whittaker as crediting Poincare with the theory of relativity [19]. This might be an honest mistake, though it is difficult not to notice that Whittaker credits Poincare and Lorentz with the theory [20]. This is consistent with his POV that Poincare gets all the credit. For example here he returns to a statement that he, Harald88 and e4mmcaro had discussed far too much already [21], (i.e. Poincare gets all the credit as usual). BTW, I can't seem to get the link to the archive page where there is a long discussion started by Harald88 "When were the correct LT first written?", which is where we had exhausted the issue. E4mmacro 12:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Badgering and insults[edit]

Editing diffs have not been looked up for all of these (it has proven to be very time consuming given the volume of them), but if any of them are specifically doubted/challenged one can get them without too much difficulty. Some were later in whole or in part removed by admins enforcing WP:NPA, and in some instances the user himself later removed them in whole or in part. Most of them come from Talk:Henri Poincaré and Talk:Albert Einstein. --Fastfission 17:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Towards User:E4mmacro (Michael Macrossan)[edit]
Insults[edit]

To Michael Macrossan: Wipe your nose ... 69.22.98.162 21:28, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is Michael Macrossan who is censoring Wikipedia, because he can supply no sources for his arguments, just like the Inquisition ! 69.22.98.162 22:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

To Daniel: Can you please REMOVE Macrossan from this page before he does any more damage ? -He is a madman. 69.22.98.162 04:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

SHAME on you Michael Macrossan ! -- I have produced three published world experts against whom you can produce no counter-arguments, so you propose mob rule and a lynching ! Shame on you ! 66.194.104.5 22:38, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

To Macrossan: Aren't you embarrassed - you pretend to be an intellectual but can produce no counter-arguments - you are like the MEDIEVAL WITCH BURNERS OF THE INQUISITION, now aren't you ! 66.194.104.5 23:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan, you cannot count ? ? 69.22.98.146 20:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Mavrossan is funny, why is he so pig headed ? 69.22.98.146 21:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I see Macrossan has no real comment here, interesting. 69.22.98.146 21:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Change it ? -- You mean CENSOR it. -- Thank God it is protected from you Macrossan. 69.22.98.146 14:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan has a history of disappearing when he is out of arguments. 69.22.98.146 13:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean Macrossan, you didn't understand a word he said. 69.22.98.146 02:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan you are incompetent to write on Physics matters. Licorne 13:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan, Why does a Common Fact Frighten you so? - - Coward CAN'T answer.Licorne 05:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Macrossan has a well established history of disappearing when he has no answers. Licorne 05:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)"

Whenever Macrossan is stuck he goes a hiding. -- 69.22.98.146 22:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Taunts that Macrossan is pouting, crying

IQ insult

Calling e4mmacro a liar

Badgering[edit]

Put it all back, Michael Macrossan, I am waiting.... 69.22.98.162 23:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

To Michael Macrossan: You vandalized this page, now Go back to the original Table of Contents how it was. 69.22.98.162 05:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to have to repeat this again, understood, Macrossan ? 69.22.98.162 12:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

To Macrossan: NEVER AGAIN insert YOUR debate of 1906 vs 1905 into wikipedia

Tatoo it to your forehead Macrossan. 69.22.98.162 20:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To Michael Macrossan: WHY does a simple fact that can be found in every bookstore in America frighten you so ? --Licorne 03:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Insult and badgering combined[edit]

To Macrossan … do NOT add it to the article -- it is something just in YOUR little mind. 69.22.98.162 13:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To Macrossan: … it is ONLY disputed in YOUR little mind, so do NOT insert it into wikipedia … WHO are YOU to dispute Whittaker. -- Stop vandalizing Wikipedia.69.22.98.162 13:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Towards others[edit]

The significance and validity of relativity was firmly established by then (after the eclipse there was worldwide acclaim), so it was absolutely controversy over Priority. - If you're still losing sleep over it Get up off your ass and go look through editions you will find it. I'm not your secretary. Licorne 04:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC) [22][reply]

Wait till Harald returns, he is the only person halfway intelligent there amoungst you all. Licorne 22:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[23][reply]

In response to this very RFC: Oh, fastfizzy, did I hurt your feelings ? -- 69.22.98.146 20:53, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[24][reply]

In response to a comment about which edition of Encyclopedia Britannica he uses: "....you can't even read English anymore right in the Britannica - You are binded by your tears." [25]

"I am the teacher, you are the ignorant student". [26]

"So Stop sending me your incompetent messages, you do not exist, understand ? !"[27]

"You have all been asses, as is."[28]

"You are beneath me. I have no wish to speak to a lay person."[29]

Original research[edit]

Exact diffs have not been compiled, but an even cursory look at Talk:Albert Einstein and Talk:Henri Poincaré will reveal the following habit:

  • Often insists on evidence from primary sources, never provided by the user, often in languages other than English (see esp. the "MEINER THEORIE" parts of Talk:Albert Einstein), and then insists that these should be used in preference to synthetic and well-respected secondary accounts.
  • Often cites his own apparent ability as a someone with a "PhD in physics from UCLA" as giving him exclusive input onto these topics.
  • Often attempts to argue over very specific points in the articles themselves, providing his interpretations as being more valid than those of secondary sources, and belittles other editors when they disagree.

--Fastfission 17:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable policies[edit]

  1. Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View
  2. Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks
  3. Wikipedia:No Original Research
  4. Wikipedia:Civility

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

All three accounts have been contacted by multiple users on both their user pages and in article talk pages in the past regarding their POV-pushing and their personal attacks.

--Fastfission 17:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to this RFC[edit]

User has been notified and asked to respond, by a number of editors, to this RFC.[47][48][49] The responses have as of this posting so far been:

--Fastfission 21:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After the above was posted, Licorne wrote his reply to this RFC as:

  • Thank you ladies and gentlemen, I am really quite flattered by all the attention. Licorne 23:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[53][reply]

User was informed about what the RFC was, and the probable consequences of ignoring it.[54]

Users certifying the basis for this dispute[edit]

{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Fastfission 17:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Jitse Niesen (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Paul August ☎ 20:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I could not get Licorne to refain from personal attacks or to declare whether he or she is the anonymous disputant. The Rod (☎ Smith) 20:26, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Alvestrand 23:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other users who endorse this summary[edit]

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. --Pallen 18:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. E4mmacro 20:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Frankly, I think this editor is incorrigible and this is just a prelude to arbitration. But I would love to be proved wrong. –Joke 20:56, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sceptre (Talk) 15:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Concur with both statements by Joke137. Robert McClenon 19:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I have more or less refrained from working on that page because User: Licorne in his various incarnations is insufferable. He seems to have a personal grudge against Einstein and pushes his POV into the article on every opportunity and against consensus. --Stephan Schulz 21:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. - Vsmith 03:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Lacatosias 08:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Fanatic, plain and simple.[reply]
  9. - John (Jwy) 20:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Seems so focussed on his issue that he is over-emphasizing the importance of this one item at the expense of other aspects of the articles he is working on (David Hilbert for example).[reply]
  10. CH 10:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC) (see extended comment below)[reply]
  11. Delta 21:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Per this case and his behaviour at David Hilbert. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 03:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. In engaging in discussions with this user, it is evident that they are not acting in good faith: misquoting, taking comments out of context, etc. This is sad, because all the present scholarship indicates that at core Lic. has a good point to make about Poincare's contributions to relativity. Lucidish 02:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Tailpig 05:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I think this editor is deliberately acting in bad faith, with tactical attacks on other usersBlnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. wvbaileyWvbailey 19:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response[edit]

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

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

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

View by McClenon[edit]

I have endorsed this RfC and agree that there is a problem. The content issues are complex, and could possibly be resolved by mediation if Licorne would refrain from insults and personal attacks. However, the personal attacks are a user conduct issue that make it difficult to resolve the content issues. If Licorne does not change his style, then, as Joke137 notes, he will probably have to be banned.

I have one comment to Fastfission which is not a criticism but a suggestion for how to avoid criticism for the appearance of conflict of interest. Fastfission initially blocked two of Licorme's IP addresses. There was no problem with doing that; they needed blocking. Now that Fastfission is a certifier of this dispute, he should allow other admins who are not certifiers to block if blocking is needed again.

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

  1. Robert McClenon 19:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ZacharyS 08:38, 27 February 2006 (UTC) - avoiding the appearance of impropriety is important.[reply]
  3. CH 02:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

View by Hillman[edit]

Until today, I have not been involved in this dispute, but I just read a goodly sampling of the edits which have been made by User:Licorne, and was very saddened by what I found.

The charges made by Licorne closely parallel very similar charges made by Christopher Jon Bjerknes, author of a (self-published?) book on Einstein which I can only characterize as a ugly and inflammatory smear. Bjerknes is known to have collaborated with certain other individuals in taking their "case" [sic] to various venues, including newsgroups, websites, and (allegedly) public appearances. Thus it is not unreasonable to suspect that someone who knows Bjerknes (or at least admires his views) is now taking his "case" [sic] to the WP.

Anyone not familiar with the long and hateful history of ad hominem attacks on Einstein might begin by reading John Stachel's review of Bjerknes's (self-published?) book Albert Einstein: The Incorrigible Plagiarist. (Stachel is a leading expert on Einstein in the mainstream history of science literature.) Even at glance it will be apparent that Bjerknes makes essentially the same charges that Licorne is pushing here at WP. Note that Stachel draws attention to Bjerknes's habit of quoting out of context, the same thing which several users (including myself) accuse Licorne of doing in his edits here at WP.

Stachel's review offers some historical context for Bjerknes's attacks on Einstein. Contemporary context is provided by articles on Albert Einstein, Henri Poincaré, and Corry Renn Stachel paper over at White Nationalist Wiki which appear very similar to the POV being pushed here by User:Licorne. Another editor, User:De kludde, who has supported Licorne's views in some talk page discussions, claims to have written at least one of these WNWiki articles, which should be read in their entirety by anyone with a strong stomach. I think it will be clear why I think some of the more inflammatory charges made by Bjerknes and repeated in the WNWiki articles raise ugly questions about the motivation of Licorne's attacks on Einstein.

All in all, it seems very strange to me that someone might hate with such passion an imperfect but overall rather nice man who died in 1955, ten years before Bjerknes was even born. CH 00:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. CH 06:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outside view[edit]

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

From what I have read of his "discussions" with other editors, I have come to the conclusion that he should not be allowed to edit anymore. His yelling and screaming with the capitalized text to "enhance" his point - it just looks very unprofessional. Cutting down on people, insulting them, and refusing to listen to other people's ideas gives me an extremely bad impression of him.Delta 21:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  1. Delta 21:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. E4mmacro 02:54, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Pallen 14:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. CH 02:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 04:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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

Comment from Licorne[edit]

Thank you ladies and gentlemen, I am really quite flattered by all the attention. Licorne 23:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Licorne&oldid=1064220548"