Talk:Time Cube

Previous discussions:

Also see Talk:Gene Ray.
External link: Time Cube forum (http://graveyardofthegods.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=21)
See Talk:Time Cube/Delete for three past VFD discussions on whether this article should have been deleted.

Contents

1 RfC

2 This continues to be utterly hopeless

3 External Links

4 Suggestions? RfC? Poll? Help?

5 Writing the poll

5.1 Time Cube Guy's replies

6 Unprotect

7 Poll: Request for Arbitration

7.1 Comments
7.2 Moved

8 Forum link

9 Note to 211.28

RfC

I came here to survey the situtation from the RfC. It looks too me like we are dealing with a simple troll. Let's just leave the page protected for a little longer until things die down. —Sean κ. + 04:50, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

He's been modifying the rewrite of this article as well, though. --brian0918 ™ 04:55, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

He's been "working" on this article for over six months now, possibly more like a year (a little hard to tell with his ever-shifting IP address). I think he genuinely believes this stuff, which puts him more in the class of Plautus Satire IMO. I'm quite willing to leave the page sit as is for a while but I suspect as soon as it's unprotected he'll be back writing the same stuff again. Bryan 05:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, that's unfortunate, but it will probably always be the case given the subject. Look at the poor bloke who tried to argue with one of them on the subject of -1*-1=1. This new person is clearly violating WP policy, so surely their IP can be banned? —Sean κ. + 17:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The problem is he is using a different IP everytime, so we'd have to block the subnet. Would it really matter if we did? Even if he's blocked for a day, he'll still come back, and we could never block the entire subnet indefinitely. --brian0918 ™ 22:53, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not a great solution, but I'm inclined to agree. The number of people who had a go at making this a decent article, argued their case, then gave up in bafflement while 218.28.xx.xxx stuck at it is amazing. Perhaps we could have a List of wikipedians who got sick of reverting Time Cube by way of commemoration. Anilocra (hi!) 15:03, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

At least he's focusing all his efforts on just this one very limited topic. Perhaps for the time being we could accept a long-term protection, with edits being proposed on talk: and committed by admins? Hardly ideal, but after a while the anon may go away and protection can come off again. The anon seems to be edit-warring now on the /proposed trimmed article, and protecting that one too would be silly. Bryan 15:28, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

In computer security, there's an idea of a "honeypot", which is a computer that you allow hackers to hack into, in order to trap them. Perhaps Wikipedia should have a "crockpot" ("crankpot"?), which is a page we let trolls edit to their hearts content, without letting anyone else see it. —Sean κ. + 16:48, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that previously 211.28.*.* had been vandalising the GTM, UTC, and other time zone pages, and looking to expand. He got confronted there and knocked down because the Time Cube page didn't provide the grounding for what he wanted included - at which point the Time Cube page got more of his attentions and started expanding again. Anon believes Time Cube is a theory of everything, and hence relevent to everything. Given enough time (s)he'll try to have content about Time Cube on every Wikipedia page. You'll do better to just stem it at the source here. Permanently protect the page and have admins do the edits. The page is not bad as it stands - just expand the bullet point quotes a little and I think you'll be done - of course that involves actually understanding what the quotes mean enough to expand on them - which is rather hard to do, especially without resorting to personal interpretations (which is precisely what anon is guilty of). I thought the claim (somewhere above) that the whole thing was a cunning absurdist joke by Gene Ray was interesting, and seemed as complete and and interesting an interpretation as any other.

At least he's sticking to a relatively small number of reverts per day, it's allowing some work to be done on the /proposed subpage. Bryan 05:51, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To clarify: My contributions are not vandalism, and nor am I impeding progress on the /proposed subpage. I have responded to the comments thereon in the cases where I have opposed other users' changes. Indeed, this is more than can be said for those users who have decided, unjustifiedly and unconditionally, to revert every contribution I make.

This continues to be utterly hopeless

As our esteemed colleague 211.28 continues to counter every attempt at presenting a clear and balanced view with his tireless efforts to fill our articles with his polemics and ever more bizarre details of his philosophy, there will be no way to achieve an article of encyclopedic standards as long as he is allowed to contribute. The history of this and other articles shows clearly that he has unlimited time and an unlimitedly unfavorable view of criticism of his ideas. As I have noted before, arguing with him is futile and has already wasted an enormous amount of our time. I would like to warn everybody not to enter any arguments with him, it has been hopelessly useless for two years now and there is no indication of any change of attitude on his part. It does not matter what motivates him, the fact remains that he will continue to rewrite these articles to suit his propagandistic objectives not matter how much you discuss with him. Methinks the only feasible solution is to keep the article protected until he goes away, unpleasant as that may be. Kosebamse 10:46, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I still have faith that somehow, 211.28 is simply ignorant to the fact that he is a troll, and does not realize his actions are equivalent to spraypainting his message on Mount Rushmore and getting annoyed when it's cleaned off. Perhaps there is still some good in him, and he can be turned from the dark side. Unfortunately, until he stops cowardly hopping from IP to IP, we will never be able to have any sort of meaningful contact with this vandal. —Sean κ. + 13:22, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, we now have an edit war in the proposed article, and a discussion in HTML comments is hardly a viable means of doing things. All the "justifications" provided are pretty poor, but it just isn't worth my time going through and trying to rebut them - 211.28 will just provide more similarly weak justifications, slowly changing the definitions and points of reference until the arguer gives up. That seems to be the consistent pattern of all the archived discussion pages. Lock the page semi-permanently.

Sorry about starting the HTML comment thing, I had thought it would be a clever way to create a clean-looking proposal while still providing explanations for why I'd snipped various parts out. Should have known it'd turn into endlessly-expanding argument. I'm going to go into the proposed new version now and try snipping out those comments outright and see if that helps. Bryan 03:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure that he is a troll. Sure, if he walks like a troll, talks like a troll, etc, - but there remains a possibility that he honestly believes that time is cubic and whatnot. Another possibility is that he pursues some dadaistic attempt at making Wikipedia look silly. Be that as it may, he's in effect acting like a troll in that his only Wikipedia contributions consist of attracting protest and wasting the time of fair-minded contributors, and extremely efficiently so. We can not really blame him for holding his views, or for wasting our time with endless and fruitless discussions, but his blatant disregard of the overwhelming majority opinion, and his persistent and sneaky way of infusing his crap into articles again and again, are totally unacceptable. Kosebamse 18:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I share your suspicion, I suspect he honestly believes that what he's writing is correct and all of us are wrong. As you say, though, that doesn't excuse or change the behavior that's the end result of that. How about we muddle along for a few more days getting the /proposed subpage in shape, and then I start transferring pieces of it into the main article while it's still protected? I realize this is a breach of protocol, but under the circumstances I don't see the main article being unprotected any time soon. Bryan 03:26, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Go for it. --brian0918 ™ 03:27, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would rather not do that. The article is okay as it stands (actually far better than it has been for I don't know how long), and rewriting an article while it's protected will be much frowned upon. While every sensible Wikipedian will agree about the factual side of the matter, a breach of procedure will expose you to accusations of censorship, double standards etc. It might be reasonable to get the matter as such formally clarified by the community: "What is to be done when a persistent anonymous monomaniac does not stop rewriting an article against overwhelming majority opinion?" Kosebamse 04:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I'll hold off then. The clean versions will always be accessible in the histories of these pages no matter how much anon reverts, and as I told him a few weeks back there's no great hurry to make Wikipedia "finished". Bryan 05:37, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wow, you go away for a little while and everything changes. I suggest we actually try a poll or something as to how to best deal with the issue. Given the fact that the "proposed" page isn't even stable I don't see that unprotecting the page any time soon will be useful, and I agree with Kosebamse that editing a page under protection isn't ging to be a good idea unless we have something resembling a larger consensus on the issue. I don't think the proposed page is really that much better than what we have now - it still needs a lot of work really: the whole "criticism and reaction" section is rather underdeveloped and needs some serious editing. Cheradenine 23:35, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Removed troll food

External Links

The link to Uncyclopedia's Newtonian Physics article should probably be removed now that this article has changed. ettlz 17:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions? RfC? Poll? Help?

I'm at a loss. What's the procedure from here? The article is locked, the proposed replacement subpage is facing a revert war, and now even the talk pages are getting fought over. The user causing the trouble is an anonymous troll (which is, I think, why he so desperately wants the link to the "Time Cube forum preserved - I looked and things have gotten quiet there recently... he needs fresh meat) who refuses to create a user account and uses a dial up account in Australia that causes his IP address to range over the whole 28.211.*.* subnet. Countless people have tried to have reasonable discussions with the anon user over a period of around 1.5 years. As yet not a single one of those discussions has resulted in anything other than a wide range of frustrated users who have given up in disgust, or frustration, or simply saw no point in continuing. Our anon user refuses mediation, let alone arbitration, but I now doubt that that would see the issue resolved anyway. I can't find any Wikipedia policy or procedure that would seem efficacious in this case. Permanently locking the article just isn't an option - as someone has pointed out the "Uncyclopedia: Newtonian Physics" link is no longer relevant, so that's at least one change that needs to be made. Does anyone have any good suggestions? Should we perhaps have a poll "What to do with the Time Cube page"? Cheradenine 22:08, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Could the case of User:Mr. Treason apply here? —Sean κ. + 23:40, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable solution. Is there an easy way to see if other non-time/troll edits have been made by his IP range? FWIW, there is another Aussie IP address that has made similar edits to the time articles. Not sure if that's the 28.211 user on proxy... -- Dave C. 23:53, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks like it could be instructive, but that was a considerably nastier user. Anon is quite reasonable in most respects, and certainly doesn't stoop to wild abuse and death threats - he is simply completely and utterly inflexible in his view, and seems to take great joy in baiting people into protracted discussions (try a google search for "cubehead" and "Time Cube" to see a number of the other forums and discussion boards this (it seems to be the same guy) has similarly baited). It may be worth creating User:Time_Cube_Guy and starting to fill in the requisite information - we can possible make an RfC on Time Cube Guy from there. Does this seem reasonable to people? Cheradenine 01:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps User:Cubehead. It's 211.28, btw.

Yes, we really need higher approval, permission to revert any changes by the range 211.28.*.* without consideration. We're on the track to doing it, we just need it to be condoned. —Sean κ. + 02:53, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should ask the Arbitration Committee? They're the last resort for dealing with problematic behavior, and that's where we seem to be at now. BTW, I vote for User:Time Cube Guy, since "Cubehead" sounds like it might be an insult. Bryan 03:43, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It looks like Treason is considered banned so that every contribution of his can be reverted. There is a difference in that Treason has threatened users while 211.28 merely wastes our time, makes articles get locked, insults people, and has never contributed the slightest productive edit. The history of the time cube and Gene Ray articles (as well as several others that he occasionally edits) shows clearly that he is not interested in improving them, but only in spamming them with his bizarre philosophy. It would seem reasonable to revert every contribution on sight, but to do that we would want to seek approval of the arbitration committee. Kosebamse 05:00, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My vote would be for 1. A poll, which would likely not result in anon's favor, and 2. (if possible) some sort of ban that would minimize the potential of excluding legitimate contributions from the ip range. This has gotten out of hand, and it seems abundantly clear that this anon is here simply as a troll, albeit a reasonably civil one (the "human blockhead android" comment notwithstanding). Mgw 06:56, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Writing the poll

The poll was moved to become active

You get the gist of it. The poll should be held in such a way that sock puppets and the many trolls who might sway the vote are not counted. Please make edits directly to the text above. —Sean κ. + 11:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think we should be aware that, if we do take this course of action, we might expect a backlash of vandalism from 211.28.*.*. This page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&hideminor=0&hideliu=1&hidebots=1&hidepatrolled=0&limit=500&days=30&limit=500) might help; I open it up and use my browser to search for "211.28". —Sean κ. + 11:16, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That seems a fair way of wording it. I agree with Sean κ. that we're likely to be pushing the problem elsewhere, given Time Cube Guy's persistence in the past. Anilocra - (hi!) 14:35, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I have created User:Time Cube Guy, so please check it and edit as you see fit, preferably adding your name. I think given the situation this looks like the best course of action. Cheradenine 14:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me too (William M. Connolley 19:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) popping in from RFC)

And me. Bryan 23:28, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Time Cube Guy's replies

Just go ahead and put up the proposed article. It's a pity that users are refusing to think rationally and to consider the justifications set forth. But the proposed article will pass as far as is concerned a compromise with the slash-and-burn obscurantists.

I would like to include on this talk page the link to the CubicAO forum. As I've stated, the link itself is unobtrusive; and, given its specific pertinence to the article's subject, it is likely to be of interest to readers. Plenty of Wikipedia articles contain external links to related websites and forums, so I see no problem with this talk page containing one.

I am unimpressed with the censorship proposal. The very fact that Wikipedia permits anonymous edits suggests that each contribution should be judged on its own merits, rather than the identity of its author. I am inflexible only in my firm support of rational thought; and as a Wikipedia user, it is surely my duty to fight for the NPOV, thus protecting the site from totalitarian control at the hands of Darth Sidious, and his henchman, Darth Vader. --[Anon]

I think you need to consider that users are thinking rationally, are considering the justifications you've put forth, and have simply found them to be insufficient, incoherent, or irrelevant. NPOV means having some respect for various points of view, not taking a position halfway between the majority view and that of a lone extremist with time on his hands. This point has been raised many times, and you continue to ignore it, and ignore the possibility that your justifications have been considered and rejected. I fully expect you to continue to ignore this, and attempt to bait another debate. I'm not interested in playing.

The link to the forum is largely irrelevant. It's preserved in one of the archives if people are truly interested. If they want to discuss Time Cube I'm sure they can find the forum on Google. I see no reason to provide fresh meat for your trolling efforts via Wikipedia however. Cheradenine 14:38, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Consider the following: "Relativity is false because it is incoherent and irrelevant and WHAT IF it's possible that people can rationally refute it but they haven't done so because they're 'not interested in playing'?". Is this rational? Answer: no, it is not. You need to actually refute my justifications, rather than just saying "oh it's possible that they are no good". The justifications continue to stand.

We don't have to do anything. The content on Wikipedia reflects popular opinion, not original research. Go away, troll. --brian0918 ™ 11:42, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The forum is an excellent resource for any free thinker interested in thinking rationally and exploring the Cubic Truth of the universe. As I have said, a link on this page is relevant and unobtrusive; and why force people to root around in the archives when it's perfectly reasonable to have a link here?

Unprotect

No meaningful dialog seems to have resulted from the long period of protection--rather, opinions seem to have solidified. I think it's been counter-productive and am therefore unprotecting. Protection really isn't supposed to go on anything like this long. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and have instated the proposed trimmed article. The discussions served to establish the view that the article required greater focus, and thus, moderate trimming. However, slash-and-burn advocates were unable to rationally justify their anti-Cubic religious beliefs, and are unfortunately now crusading against the Cubic Truth. They need to accept the NPOV policy, and learn to compromise with others.

Tony: Please take the parent comment as foreshadowing of the can of worms you are opening by unprotecting the page. —Sean κ. + 03:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see we're back to square one. :( To justify my revert of Timecube Guy's recent addition (edit summary - Weyes, it has already been comprehensively discussed, meaning that it may now be instated. However, feel free to contribute to the talk page any points you may have.), I'd point out that it was not the consensus version of the proposed trimmed article, but the version with which we are all wearily familiar. Anilocra - (hi!) 14:17, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In fact, most of it is the consensus version. Justification has clearly been provided for its content, so let's not get too carried away with the slash-and-burning.

What gets reverted to and the (apparently unfinished) "consensus" version of the proposed trimmed article are very different. Unless by consensus you mean "the consensus of everyone posting to this page from a 211.28.*.* based IP address" I don't see you have any justification for claiming a "consensus" version. I'm quite happy with what we have now to be honest - the only major differences between it and the proposed trimmed article are a little more explanation, and the inclusion of a "reactions and criticisms" section. It seems to me that the easiest way to retain NPOV in this apparently hotly disputed topic is to have a very spare article like the one now - it ventures no opinions, and remains very neutral.

Poll: Request for Arbitration

Comments

I think you're making this unnecessarily bloody. Just take this to a personal conduct RfC and if external parties agree that there's a serious problem consider asking arbcom to take it up. The opinion above, asking for the opinion of the community, looks more like an improperly formatted RfC than a request for arbitration (which would be settled by arbcom, not the community). Arbcom has the power to ban people from editing articles, but you have to try other methods first before you go to them. Take it to RfC if you haven't done so already. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moved

This section has been moved to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/211.28.*.*. Please deal with it as any proper RFC about user behavior. If RFC is unsuccesful, RFAr may be an option. R adiant _>|< 09:05, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Forum link

I don't see why we have the external link to the forum on this talk page. Surely this talk page is for discussion the article, it's associated "problems", and nothing more. I don't have any particularly strong feelings on whether it is in the article or not, but surely it shouldn't be ...up there (points up). Anilocra 13:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The forum is bunk. There is no actual discussion that goes on, merely trying to get people to argue with them by stating ridiculous things. —Sean κ. + 13:57, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really bothered, but in principle I think it's good to have links to potentially useful resources on the talk page, perhaps especially if they're not considered suitable for the article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Try reading through the forum... you'll see it contains nothing but mindless banter. I just don't see how it's useful. —Sean κ. + 14:06, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note to 211.28

This is just to notify 211.28 of the ongoing RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/211.28.*.*, as he has no user page or constant IP address and this is one of the pages that he visits frequently. The RfC has been mentioned above, but just to be sure. 211.28, you are invited to to present your position on the RfC page mentioned above. Kosebamse 14:00, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php/Talk:Time_Cube"