up vote 6 down vote favorite
1

enter image description here

What violation caused this suspension? May I know the reason?

share
This can not be true !!! – Dilaton Jul 10 '12 at 18:03
@Dilaton: I don't understand. Can you elaborate more? – Click Me Jul 10 '12 at 18:08
8  
This can not be true !!! Has physics SE now gone mad ?! Are amazingly good and knowledgable contributors now harassed or even thrown out just because they are too blatantly outspoken (but honest and seriously devoted to physics)? Who will be next...? Ron is an awfully bright guy who gives very useful and very interesting answers, considering things from to me now points of view. He is very outspoken when pointing out wrong things written but at the same time very self-critical too. – Dilaton Jul 10 '12 at 18:19
3  
And in contrast to what some other ill meaning people said about him he never attacked people but just pointed out physics errors in their posts or thinking. So, if I'm no longer allowed to learn from Ron's contributions Physics SE is not that good a place as I thought ... :-( – Dilaton Jul 10 '12 at 18:23
@Dilaton: Oh, I see. I did not know that. Thank for commenting. – Click Me Jul 10 '12 at 18:24
1  
You are welcom @Higgs Boson. I think what some people elsewhere in the SE network and now here obviously too picks about Ron is his outspokenness when pointing out errors when he sees them in the physics reasoning of people. But things that are wrong should be called wrong and corrected such that other people can learn physics from this site ... – Dilaton Jul 10 '12 at 18:31
@Dilaton: Can you show me one example of his outspokenness because I am not so active in this site? Thank you in advance. – Click Me Jul 10 '12 at 18:33
1  
Nah, dont now. If what somebody writes is nonsense from a physics point of view and he sees it he calls the particular statement nonsense but he does NOT insult others. For some people this is already too much and they can not tolerate it :-/ – Dilaton Jul 10 '12 at 18:40
@Dilaton: I see. I get a clearer picture now. Thank you. – Click Me Jul 10 '12 at 18:50
7  
@HiggsBoson: Dilaton has probably not seen the things that we (moderators) have seen which caused this suspension to be issued. Since it has already been brought up by Ron and dmckee in the answers and comments, I will repeat that the reason for the suspension was the line in the FAQ "Civility is required at all times; rudeness will not be tolerated." As a matter of policy, we usually do not discuss the details of suspensions, though. – David Zaslavsky♦ Jul 11 '12 at 1:41
4  
@DavidZaslavsky: I prefer it if you did discuss, because I don't agree with your arguments, and I dislike the very idea of "civility" in a forum. I believe that direct rudeness is the only way to keep a forum from degenerating into political nonsense with no scientific content. Without rudeness, there is no science, see Galileo's Simplicio character. I also think the only ballsy thing I said in the whole exchange was "Einstein didn't know half the things I do." but considering that Einstein died in 1955, and more than half the things one knows were discovered past that date, it's accurate. – Ron Maimon Jul 11 '12 at 2:26
4  
@DavidZaslavsky I've seen the discussion thread that motivated the suspension. If I remember correctly, the last comment of Ron in that thread was a statement saying that the exchange wasn't a war and that he would happily upvote future answers by Sachin if they are correct. Ron is sometimes unnecessarily hostile, but the attacks in that thread were mostly one-sided. – mmc Jul 11 '12 at 14:12
4  
@DavidZaslavsky Don't misunderstand me, I know that being a moderator is a very hard and ungrateful job. You are second-guessed by everyone and have to do a lot of boring cleanup work that no one appreciates. But I fear a "successful Physics.SE" full of low-quality questions and answers way more than a bit of occasional rudeness. – mmc Jul 11 '12 at 14:17
2  
@mmc: Aside from math (where there is a more or less objective standard of proof) Essentially only physics operates without human politics getting in the way. This is a potentially unstable situation, and one must be wary of change and rules-enforcement. When that change comes, for sure I will be the first to be banned and removed, it is always so. I had a suspicion that Sachin Shenkar with the trolling answers and absurdly rude behavior was a sockpuppet, but I thought it would be good to give him the benefit of the doubt. I didn't say anything rude, because I didn't want to drive him away. – Ron Maimon Jul 11 '12 at 17:22

closed as too localized by David Zaslavsky♦ Sep 17 '12 at 17:51

This question is unlikely to help any future visitors; it is only relevant to a small geographic area, a specific moment in time, or an extraordinarily narrow situation that is not generally applicable to the worldwide audience of the internet. For help making this question more broadly applicable, see the FAQ.

6 Answers

up vote 10 down vote accepted

Well, I've read quite a bit of speculation and misinformation in the comments here, and in Dilaton's MSO thread, so please allow me to set the record straight:

We try hard to avoid discussing suspensions publicly. The intention is to remove a member from the site temporarily to give them and the moderators time to correct whatever behavior was causing problems. Nothing good comes of attaching a permanent stigma to someone for what might well have been a fleeting problem. As dmckee notes, moderators are instructed not to reveal the details of the suspension publicly.

I should note that moderators don't have a "ban" button. All suspensions are temporary, and can be for as little as a day. When you do happen upon a suspended user, it's probably worth your time to click the link provided and read the rationale for having a suspension feature at all:

When users exhibit a pattern of either …

No effort to learn and improve over time

[...OR...]

Disruptive behavior

[...]

… these problem behaviors have to be dealt with. When they aren’t, it takes up excessive moderator time that could be used for something more productive — and, even worse, these behaviors begin to actively turn people away from our community, stunting its growth and harming everyone.

It's not about public humiliation, it's not about driving folks from our midst. It's the exact opposite: a last-ditch effort to put a stop to poisonous, disruptive behavior.

We - the moderators, and the staff of Stack Exchange Inc. - take suspension pretty seriously. All site moderators are copied on the private messages sent to or from suspended users, as are those of us on the Community team at SE. If a suspension is unwarranted, any of us can and will step in to lift it.

Finally, a reminder: don't feed trolls. If you encounter someone who is obviously uninterested in learning, repeatedly posting answers or comments simply to push an agenda or get a rise out of others, post a good answer that corrects any misinformation, down-vote and/or flag the trollish posts for moderator attention, and walk away. Nothing can be gained from stooping to the level of someone setting out to cause disruption and mayhem; there's an old saying: "Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty, but the pig will like it."

share
4  
I will remember the nice proverb "Never wrestle with a pig. You'll both get dirty, but the pig will like it.". Thanks. – Click Me Jul 12 '12 at 17:39
3  
Unlike Higgs Boson, I don't think anybody is hopeless, and I don't mind getting dirty. In a forum with scientific content, it is important to make sure that suspensions are not issued for "generating noise", or "generating conflict", but for commercial spam, completely incomprehensible comments, vote fraud, and the like. Conflict is the heart of science, and without it there can be no honesty. I am aware that you either disagree with this philosophy, perhaps secretly agree and publically disagree, or perhaps you don't care, but wish to make no waves. I am asking you to keep the site valuable. – Ron Maimon Jul 12 '12 at 18:18
2  
@Shog9: The user that was trolling wouldn't be considered trolling in a non-scientific context--- he was just using rhetorical points, and that's not fruitful. For example, when I said "flip B in a magnet and all the electrons flip", he answered "All the electrons can't flip, that violates exclusion!" That's true, it's just obviously a rhetorical point, since it is clear that it is not all the electrons that are flipped, only the magnetic ones. It is important to say "No, please don't do rhetoric, try to honestly respond to what the person is saying", this is scientific discourse. – Ron Maimon Jul 12 '12 at 18:21
6  
This isn't a forum for discussion and debate, a fact which you've been informed of several times before, @Ron. Granted, this can make it a poor fit for topics where answers can't be proven correct, but regardless my advice stands: post your correct answer or comment, and walk away. Don't engage in lengthy debates in comments. If a moderator has to step in to settle a dispute, chances are they'll treat all parties involved as at-fault. – Shog9♦ Jul 12 '12 at 18:22
2  
I didn't mind the one or two abusive or personal comments, I can handle being insulted, I have a big enough ego. But I wanted to make sure that a contributor who knows some physics will be more careful in answering, since some of his answers were fine, although sketchy, only about half were random stabs in the dark. The bad answers were the ones I commented on. The issue of suspension is serious, as politics kills science very,very easily. – Ron Maimon Jul 12 '12 at 18:24
2  
@Shog9: The debates are most important in topics where answers can be proven correct. The physics "debates" are usually short back and forth which establish the facts of the matter, and then a bad answer gets deleted, or fixed. I understand the symmetry stuff, and this is why I wasn't too upset about the suspension, but one should be careful in preserving accuracy in the forum, and this doesn't happen if there is even a hint of having to be nice. The niceness rules are applied to stop people from saying "this and so is factually wrong" much more often than they are applied to "You suck!". – Ron Maimon Jul 12 '12 at 18:26
1  
@RonMaimon: I am sorry. I quoted the proverb because I like it. No intent to hurt you. – Click Me Jul 12 '12 at 19:20
@RonMaimon: May I request to delete my question and the available answers to close this case as I have already got the reason from you and moderators? – Click Me Jul 12 '12 at 19:28
@HiggsBoson You can delete your own question yourself (it will then only be visible to high rep users) or you can ask the moderators to close it such that no new answers can be posted, but comments could then still be added.But to wait and see what Ron intends is a fair idea I think. – Dilaton Jul 12 '12 at 21:09
2  
@Dilaton: I am not allowed to delete my question until all answers are deleted. :-) – Click Me Jul 13 '12 at 4:47
I still don't know exactly what caused the suspension. But why do you want to close the question? To me it is exposing some problematic issues, and the answers and discussions help things rather than hurt. Maybe that's not so. – Ron Maimon Jul 13 '12 at 7:57
@HiggsBoson Oh sorry you are right, even though I bump into this feature from time to time I forgot it again. Now it seems Ron prefers the question and the discussion to stay here (as I already guessed) so we should keep it. – Dilaton Jul 13 '12 at 8:35
2  
@RonMaimon: OK. I will follow your and moderator's direction whatever it is. I hope it will end with a good result. – Click Me Jul 13 '12 at 8:37
up vote 14 down vote

No, you may not. At least not from us.

This is a matter of privacy for the affected person. The suspended account-holder was contacted by email and by notification.

The affected individual can bring the matter up on meta after the suspension expires or they may contact the team directly and they will investigate what the moderation team has done.

share
2  
Hi, I'm here, there's no privacy. What pissed you off? I wasn't trying to make a ruckus, but Shekhar's answers were randomly composed, and I was trying to lead him away from the dark side, just by pointing out what was wrong, and asking him to not say gibberish that sounds persuasive, or score rhetorical points, but to think about the physics. I might have gone overboard somewhere, but please link the comment, or copy it, so I know how not to annoy you. – Ron Maimon Jul 10 '12 at 19:52
5  
"there's no privacy" Well, I expected that you would be willing to talk, but Stack Exchange policy is that moderators do not answer other user on these question. – dmckee♦ Jul 10 '12 at 21:20
4  
"What pissed you off?" Your comments generate more comment flags than all other users combined. Most we dismiss as over-reactions, but the consequence is that we keep looking at long, long comment threads full of acrimonious debate. David Z. has written to you about it in the past and in this instance I felt that you were goading the other party (who has also come under scrutiny from the moderators). For what it is worth, I intend to leave handling flags on your material to other mods for a while. – dmckee♦ Jul 10 '12 at 21:26
4  
I was pulling his chain just a little, but to make it clear that people here know the physics, people here aren't swayed by rhetoric, and that there is no point in trying to fake it. Newcomers often think that we are talking high-falutin' without any real content, because the discussions sound dense to the newbies. These things always generate flags and heat, and that's why nobody else likes to do it. I don't mind, I kind of like conflict, it demonstrates to me that free expression is still alive. I would like a specific comment, really, so I know what to avoid. – Ron Maimon Jul 10 '12 at 22:00
3  
Ron, you push the rhetoric more than anyone else I've ever seen. That is why people call you out on harsh tone. You shout down people that disagree with you, very regularly. – Jerry Schirmer Sep 13 '12 at 8:53
up vote 7 down vote

The thing that makes me pretty angry about Ron's behaviour is that he does not distinguish between common consensus belief and his own private research--this makes evaluating his claims hard for a third party not familar with physics. I'm not going to make a definitive statement on his private conclusions, but they are decidedly non-orthodox, and a layperson is not necessarily clear on this. This is magnified by the fact that the non-orthodox views are supported by what an academic would consider to be wildly insufficient claims to support the strength of the provided arguments. Saying "Newtonian physics supports the theory of planetary motion" requires different evidence than "all string theorists are stupid idiots who deserve no attention."

Considering that stackexchange is not a forum that is suited to extensive citation, this is a problem--there's no natural system for citation, and the detail of your answer is as much as you want it to be, and the veracity of it is only as great as the people voting on it, which can be heavily influenced by a play to the audience.

share
1  
...that is another reason why I think a little bit of physics discussion should be allowed here; to clarify what is well supported common consensus and which (non-orthodox) views still need further evidence before they are accepted. Who said "all string theorists are stupid idiots who deserve no attention" here on physics SE? A post containing such a comment should be flagged as offensive ... – Dilaton Sep 13 '12 at 9:36
I agree. I like Ron's answers generally, but it's difficult sometimes to tell the difference between his views that are mainstream and those that are his pet theories which end up misleading people. – Physiks lover Sep 14 '12 at 14:09
up vote 3 down vote

This was a ridiculous suspension--- it was to do with the back and forth between me and Sachin Shekhar over the last two days, where the other fellow said some insulting things (like "you don't know anything!" "Who the heck are you" blah blah) and I responded to try to get him to answer questions properly and not troll. I never insulted him, but I did say he was factually wrong here and there a few times.

Then both me and this trolling user were suspended for 24hrs. I imagine it was an issue of symmetry, why suspend one party be suspended and not the other? But I don't think a single comment of mine was inappropriate, although perhaps a few of the other guy's were (but they didn't bother me, and I would prefer if there was no administrative action against him). I renounce any privacy to anything--- what could possibly be private here? All the comments are up for all to see (none have been deleted).

Here's the email I got from dmckee:

Hello,

I'm writing in reference to your Physics - Stack Exchange account:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/users/4864/ron-maimon

This account has been involved in several extended and acrimonious discussions in the comments recently. It seem that the style of interaction you employ in the comments invites conflict; often through sly implications that the other party is too stupid of ignorant to bother with. I am treating this as a violation of the "Be nice" injunction in the FAQ.

I am issuing a one day suspension so that all parties to the most recent instance can cool down, and will be removing many comments.

Regards, dmckee Physics - Stack Exchange moderator

As a comment to the above, I never make any implication, neither sly nor direct, that the party is too ignorant to bother with--- that would only be the case if I didn't say anything at all. I just wanted to make sure that Shekhar knew that people here don't just put up random gibberish, but they read and understand what they write, and they are careful, and I asked him to do the same. I don't think I made any comment at all that disparaged him, beyond saying "what you wrote in these answer is wrong, please fix it or delete the answer". I told him that he is capable to contributing honestly, and urged him to do so.

share
3  
That dmckee suspended you too (and not only the other guy as he should) even though you did nothing wrong can probably be blamed to the fact that he was upset about or in a bad mood because of something else... In chat dmckee admitted that he is aware of the fact that his moderator actions can be very unreasonable when he is in a bad mood ... ;-). He should really avoid coming to physics.SE when annoyed about something (or at least not take moderator actions) under such circumstances ... But the "everyday dmckee" is a nice guy and moderator too I think. – Dilaton Jul 10 '12 at 19:46
1  
@Dilaton: I am not too upset, but I was suprised. I had other things to do yesterday anyway. – Ron Maimon Jul 10 '12 at 19:49
1  
Yeah ok Ron ;-). What since a long time now worries me a bit is that moderators generally have huge powers to do drastic things unilaterally: It would be much better if at least two mods had to agree on closing/deleting posts (questions and answers), suspending/deleting users, etc ... In this case, the (bad or upset) mood of a single person could not have such a huge impact. Maybe I`ll bring this up in the next chat session, just as something that should generally be (re?)considered. – Dilaton Jul 10 '12 at 20:03
2  
So I still think that such (and maybe other) drastic moderator actions should not be unilaterally executable by one person only. It would be better if for example a minimum number of votes from mods and "high enough reputation useres" for example were needed to take the "stronger" moderator actions. This would make the things less dependent on the moods, opinions, worldview, of a single person. – Dilaton Jul 10 '12 at 21:10
3  
@Dilaton: Deleted content can be viewed by other community members, but only those that have earned a certain reputation level. This is a helpful level of review for more than just moderator actions, the community can delete as well without mod intervention. As for suspentions, they are always public, but the reasons for them are usually private. However those actions are extensively reviewed by the SE crew as well as all site moderators. It's never purely unilateral, there is always review and cooperation. – Caleb Jul 10 '12 at 21:46
4  
@Caleb: This suspension was complete nonsense. If this sort of thing is to continue, I will have to stop contributing (obviously, I will be suspended), but for now, I suppose the politics on this site is not impossibly stifling, although in your forum of Christianity, it is. In general, I find that in any political situation, a person like me is the first to go, since I am anti-political. This anti-politics is an such advantage in doing science, that one has to advertise the stance, despite the fact that it is deterimental to one's social standing. I can't view deleted comments by the way. – Ron Maimon Jul 11 '12 at 2:35
3  
@Dilaton: The people there are not physicists, they are politicians, and they use political decision making, which means that it is pointless to engage them. You shouldn't use stack overflow, it is a miracle that we have an enclave in physics isolated from their policy and politics. From what I understand, it won't last long, and perhaps one should set up a separate site. – Ron Maimon Jul 11 '12 at 17:02
3  
@RonMaimon If you by "politicians" you mean "technical people who work together" then yes they/we are politicians. Just because you don't go out of your way to be an asshole to everyone you meet doesn't mean that you are being too political. There's also space for civil discourse and collective decision making. – JNK Jul 11 '12 at 17:10
3  
@JNK: There is no such space in science. It doesn't work. This is how politicians justify killing science. The only way to do science is the way I describe. You have to ignore human politics, because it is full of little "thetans" that stick to you and prevent original correct ideas from coming out. You can choose the "thetans" or you can ignore it, in the first case you are ignorant, but a good politician, in the second case you have knowledge but suck balls at politics. The only people I know who could do both at once were Einstein and Feynman. – Ron Maimon Jul 11 '12 at 17:37
2  
But what I`ve learned from the answers I got there is that the SE network is PER DEFINITION not intended to be such a nice place to learn stuff, help each other, etc as I first thought. Physics SE I liked a lot so far, but I`ll see how it pans out in the futere. If too many good people I care about get too often suspended, banned, or otherwise chased away an alternative site would be a good idea. But the barrier to ask questions should then not be set that high as it was on TP.SE ... – Dilaton Jul 11 '12 at 18:09
5  
@RonMaimon I reject your notion that the only "real" way to pursue scientific knowledge is by being a jerk, which is essentially what you are saying. I think you are confusing "polite" with "political". Contradicting the status quo is one thing, but going out of your way to be an ass is another. – JNK Jul 11 '12 at 18:18
3  
@Dilaton: The professional barrier in academic fields is designed to keep politicians out. Sometimes it also keeps honest people out too, unfortunately, since it takes forever to learn to navigate the discourse. It is possible to set up an internet community without politics problems, but it requires that it have no civility rules, detailed content rules, or anything else that can be exploited by politicians to get people banned. – Ron Maimon Jul 11 '12 at 18:24
3  
@JNK: You can reject it all you want, it's still true. Polite== Political, the two are the same concept. If you are polite, you cannot be honest, and you cannot do science. It has never been done before, it will never be done in the future. That's why science has anonymous refereeing with a negative component, and hostile questions at seminars. I say it, I will repeat it, and I will never change my mind. You must go out of your way to be an ass, it is a sacrament of science, otherwise you will not be able to oppose those things that stand in the way of progress. – Ron Maimon Jul 11 '12 at 18:29
3  
@Dilaton: The only example I know of a good site with no politics is math.overflow, which has reasonable policy and no political component, but a rather high technical requirement and so tends to be rather closed in terms of membership. It's separate from stackexchange for a reason-- the math guys know how to keep politics at bay, or rather, they have their own political system, which is a form of mathematician socialism, where if you prove enough theorems you are automatically guaranteed a voice. Physicists don't have quantifiable theorem units, but more nebulous things, it's harder. – Ron Maimon Jul 12 '12 at 4:49
3  
@RonMaimon Good for the mathematiciens to have such a site, they need it :-). Now the physicist should find a similar solution. You could try to find out where most of the TP people have gone and join them, they should like your contributions ... ;-) – Dilaton Jul 12 '12 at 7:03
show 12 more comments
up vote -2 down vote

Ron's answers are always interesting. A bit of ego and edge makes science more fun. The suspension was unjust.

share
5  
Apart from this particular episode which I do not have any knowledge about. In general, good content doesn't justify (even slightly) improper behavior. – Alenanno Jul 11 '12 at 14:35
1  
I mean, I'm not saying we have to be always 100% serious and all. I do appreciate some witty remarks in the answer/comment as long as they are strictly related to the topic being treated. But engaging in flame wars is not just witty. Anyway, no hard feelings, keep taking care of your site. :) – Alenanno Jul 11 '12 at 14:38
2  
@Alenanno: I never do anything improper. I would prefer that people point to something improper before assuming it's there. This is why rules are stupid and rules-enforcement is of negative value. – Ron Maimon Jul 11 '12 at 16:59
6  
@Ron you think rules are stupid, you don't follow them, and then have the nerve to call it ridiculous when you are suspended for breaking rules. :S – Manishearth♦ Jul 11 '12 at 17:19
4  
@Manishearth: Just because I think they're stupid doesn't mean I break them. You don't have to break rules to get in trouble. You have to sense the politics involved here. One of dmckee's friends was removed from his post at OPERA because people were saying he was incompetent. I was saying this too. There are people who publish large-extra-dimension papers, and I say these people are incompetent. Incompetent people are only good at one thing--- politics. This is why I get in trouble, I don't break any rules. Rules are stupid because they are really political censorship tools underneath. – Ron Maimon Jul 11 '12 at 17:34
5  
Hmm... This is getting into conspiracy theory territory. Not cool. – Shog9♦ Jul 11 '12 at 17:56
2  
@Shog9: Hi Shog9! It's very cool. I don't think it's a conspiracy, that requires people coordinating consciously. It's the uncoordinated flow of "like" and "dislike" through large masses of people that isn't controlled by any person or small group of people. This is what drives politics, and this is what blocks science. – Ron Maimon Jul 11 '12 at 18:06
up vote -10 down vote

"I am treating this as a violation of the "Be nice" injunction in the FAQ". Well dmckee should be congratulated for doing the right thing, although I wish He left the comments on so I and others can have a laugh at Ron going mad at people muddying the intellectual atmosphere of the site.

Anyone have a link to the comments that were deleted?

share
Is this really worth a -6? – Physiks lover Jul 19 '12 at 23:30
1  
People are much more trigger-happy on meta. There's that, and the fact that most people probably disagree with just about everything you wrote, lol. – AlanSE Jul 20 '12 at 1:41
1  
I was actually pretty nice, which is why I was surprised that I was suspended. I figured it was to show the new user "see, we're even handed, we suspend long-time higher-rep users too." Which I thought was a reasonable thing, but the discussion were pretty tame. I didn't see any comments deleted at the time of suspension, but I can give you the gist of it SC: -1! You suck! This means war! ME: Please fix this answer, it is totally wrong because electrons are negative, and don't make up crap. SC: Ah ha! Positrons are positive! ME: This is disingenuous. Stop using rhetoric ... etc. – Ron Maimon Jul 21 '12 at 3:32
@RonMaimon I didn't see those types of comments and I can see why they're seen out of order lol. Which question was it? – Larry Harson Jul 21 '12 at 11:38

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged