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: 16:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 14:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC).
- Jobstbrandt ( talk · contribs · logs)
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
User User:Jobstbrandt has made multiple edits to various technical articles, namely desmodromic and brake fade which contain huge amounts of uncited information, original research, and potentially, some mild personal attacks when confronted with these.
Several other users have attempted coaching and helping, as the information Jobstbrandt posts sounds legitimate but it cannot be posted without sourced cited.
Desired outcome
I would like Jobstbrandt to continue editing, but to scrupulously cite his information, refrain from posting his original research and to take the time to actually read the Wikipedia Help info on adding information (such as WP:REF). I feel that his misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies is the basis of this dispute and his replies (or non-replies) to repeated requests for him to cite his work and to not post original research. Furthermore, it seems he is taking these attempts at policy enforcement personally and has made several "marginal" comments in his replies or further posts which I consider uncivil. I feel if he understood how Wikipedia works and is managed that he would be a good contributor.
Description
Multiple edits to various technical/engineering automotive related articles which are unsourced or "smell" like original research. Unresponsive to requests to cite, fact bombing, serial edits to articles making it hard to manage updates/edits, and churlish responses to attempts at guidance.
Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
- Sample of unsourced edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Desmodromic_valve&diff=next&oldid=102842018
- Sample of unsourced edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Desmodromic_valve&diff=next&oldid=102845508 (i.e. This conclusion escaped discovery until computer modeling showed that limiting stresses were for beginning and end of the valve stroke.
- Sample of unsourced edits/OR: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Desmodromic_valve&diff=next&oldid=103054871 (i.e. The highest cam contact stress with flat tappets occurs at full lift when turning at zero speed (engine cranking) and diminishes with increasing speed, while the desmodromic cam has essentially no load at zero speed, because, in the absence of springs, its load is entirely inertial and increases with speed, its greatest acceleration occurring at its smaller contact radii. Acceleration forces for both types of cams increase with the square of velocity as in the relationship (F = ma) "a" being acceleration that is governed by the rate of change "v" rotational velocity.
- Civility : http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Desmodromic_valve&diff=103226759&oldid=103177153 (i.e. "mental blindness" added after multiple users tried to get Jobstbrandt to source edits)
- Sample of unsourced edits/OR: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brake_fade&diff=109618907&oldid=109615082
- Civility: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brake_fade&diff=109674024&oldid=109672022
- Restoring edits which are removed for appropriateness (ie. photobucket.com links) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brake_fade&diff=next&oldid=110996047
Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jobstbrandt#Unsourced_OR
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jobstbrandt#.22Fact-bombing.22
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jobstbrandt#Edits_to_Desmodromic
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jobstbrandt (his user page with responses to some of the requests for citations)
- Talk:Brake fade
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
- Comment - I really went out of my way on Talk:Brake fade to try to get Jobst to stop WP:DE and contribute to the article. Jobst responded by trying every WP:DE trick he could think of from edit warring, to fact-bombing, to speedy delete the article cause he didn't like it, to repeated prods, to AfD. However, and as I have said repeatedly, I think that he is knowledgable (at least on the subject of drum brake fade) and can be a good editor if he can understand and follow the rules here. I am just not sure that can occur. -- Justanother 18:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Other users who endorse this summary
- Seasalt 02:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC) I saw the edits, and drew the attention of others to them being uncertain how to proceed. This valve technology material may be private research and not be published. It sounds reasonable but I could not verify it. Agree with above. Seasalt 02:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
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:
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.
{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.}
This user has clearly failed to cite his contributions to Wikipedia, but I only see one instance in which they are incivil - the "mental blindness" comment - and I do not see disruption. I would suggest that the user be firmly told to source his contributions in the future, and if chooses not to, a 12 hour block would get the point across. If after that he continues to ignore or violate relevant policies, take it to arbitration.
Users who endorse this summary:
- KazakhPol 20:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- -- Hooperbloob 07:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Seasalt 02:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
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.
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: 16:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 14:27, 10 July 2024 (UTC).
- Jobstbrandt ( talk · contribs · logs)
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
User User:Jobstbrandt has made multiple edits to various technical articles, namely desmodromic and brake fade which contain huge amounts of uncited information, original research, and potentially, some mild personal attacks when confronted with these.
Several other users have attempted coaching and helping, as the information Jobstbrandt posts sounds legitimate but it cannot be posted without sourced cited.
Desired outcome
I would like Jobstbrandt to continue editing, but to scrupulously cite his information, refrain from posting his original research and to take the time to actually read the Wikipedia Help info on adding information (such as WP:REF). I feel that his misunderstanding of Wikipedia's policies is the basis of this dispute and his replies (or non-replies) to repeated requests for him to cite his work and to not post original research. Furthermore, it seems he is taking these attempts at policy enforcement personally and has made several "marginal" comments in his replies or further posts which I consider uncivil. I feel if he understood how Wikipedia works and is managed that he would be a good contributor.
Description
Multiple edits to various technical/engineering automotive related articles which are unsourced or "smell" like original research. Unresponsive to requests to cite, fact bombing, serial edits to articles making it hard to manage updates/edits, and churlish responses to attempts at guidance.
Evidence of disputed behavior
(Provide diffs. Links to entire articles aren't helpful unless the editor created the entire article. Edit histories also aren't helpful as they change as new edits are performed.)
- Sample of unsourced edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Desmodromic_valve&diff=next&oldid=102842018
- Sample of unsourced edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Desmodromic_valve&diff=next&oldid=102845508 (i.e. This conclusion escaped discovery until computer modeling showed that limiting stresses were for beginning and end of the valve stroke.
- Sample of unsourced edits/OR: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Desmodromic_valve&diff=next&oldid=103054871 (i.e. The highest cam contact stress with flat tappets occurs at full lift when turning at zero speed (engine cranking) and diminishes with increasing speed, while the desmodromic cam has essentially no load at zero speed, because, in the absence of springs, its load is entirely inertial and increases with speed, its greatest acceleration occurring at its smaller contact radii. Acceleration forces for both types of cams increase with the square of velocity as in the relationship (F = ma) "a" being acceleration that is governed by the rate of change "v" rotational velocity.
- Civility : http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Desmodromic_valve&diff=103226759&oldid=103177153 (i.e. "mental blindness" added after multiple users tried to get Jobstbrandt to source edits)
- Sample of unsourced edits/OR: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brake_fade&diff=109618907&oldid=109615082
- Civility: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brake_fade&diff=109674024&oldid=109672022
- Restoring edits which are removed for appropriateness (ie. photobucket.com links) http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brake_fade&diff=next&oldid=110996047
Applicable policies and guidelines
{list the policies and guidelines that apply to the disputed conduct}
Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute
(provide diffs and links)
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jobstbrandt#Unsourced_OR
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jobstbrandt#.22Fact-bombing.22
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jobstbrandt#Edits_to_Desmodromic
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jobstbrandt (his user page with responses to some of the requests for citations)
- Talk:Brake fade
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
{Users who tried and failed to resolve the dispute}
- Comment - I really went out of my way on Talk:Brake fade to try to get Jobst to stop WP:DE and contribute to the article. Jobst responded by trying every WP:DE trick he could think of from edit warring, to fact-bombing, to speedy delete the article cause he didn't like it, to repeated prods, to AfD. However, and as I have said repeatedly, I think that he is knowledgable (at least on the subject of drum brake fade) and can be a good editor if he can understand and follow the rules here. I am just not sure that can occur. -- Justanother 18:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Other users who endorse this summary
- Seasalt 02:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC) I saw the edits, and drew the attention of others to them being uncertain how to proceed. This valve technology material may be private research and not be published. It sounds reasonable but I could not verify it. Agree with above. Seasalt 02:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
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:
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.
{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.}
This user has clearly failed to cite his contributions to Wikipedia, but I only see one instance in which they are incivil - the "mental blindness" comment - and I do not see disruption. I would suggest that the user be firmly told to source his contributions in the future, and if chooses not to, a 12 hour block would get the point across. If after that he continues to ignore or violate relevant policies, take it to arbitration.
Users who endorse this summary:
- KazakhPol 20:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- -- Hooperbloob 07:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Seasalt 02:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
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.