User talk:Askahrc

Welcome!

Hello, Askahrc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edit to Vlad III the Impaler

I reverted it because you introduced bad grammar into the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

So I did... The Cap'n (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, overcats on Ignatius Pell

Greetings, the enthusiasm is great, but most of the categories you've added to Ignatius Pell don't actually exist, or aren't formatted right and thus don't like. The best way to figure out what cats to add is to find an article for a similar figure and copy/modify his cats. Also, if you want to see if a given cat exists, if you type, say "Category:Pirates" into the Search bar, it'll list out what items match that beginning ("Pirates by country", "Pirates executed in the 1800s", etc.) Do note that for cats the capitalisation does matter. Further, articles should go into the most specific applicable cats. For example, an article about a Buddhist temple in Foak District, Thailand doesn't go into "Buddhism" and "Thailand", it goes into "Buddhist temples in Thailand" and "Buildings and structures in Foak District". So Pell would not go in the basic cat "Piracy", he would go into things like (making up examples) "Pirates of the 1780s", "Pirates of the British Empire", etc. Just make sure that such a category actually exists before you add it. Feel free to write me with any questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, that's very helpful! I've cut down the cats to those relating more specifically to the topic. This is my first original article, so I've been missing some of the little touchs I always took for granted. Much obliged. The Cap'n (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No original research

You aren't allowed to invent a term such as "fringe scientist" and apply it to articles without references, see WP:NOR. Thanks. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right about the references; I don't know if that term has been used extensively enough to be applied. That said, I didn't make up the term fringe scientist, we have an article about it here on WP.

Editing a closed AE complaint

Hello Askahrc. Please undo this edit. It does not make sense to add material to a closed discussion. Anyone reading it in the future may assume your comment was ignored, while in fact it was merely too late. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Tried to edit it but someone deleted by comment already... The Cap'n (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake Talk

It would be very helpful, IMHO, if you could post some sort of opinion (ANY opinion) HERE. The Sheldrake talk page is short of people who know how to express opinions politely and helpfully. Anything at all from such a person could serve as an example to others. Lou Sander (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Lou Sander's notice to you. Thank you.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

the section is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Lou_Sander -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Issues with the Sheldrake Page

If anyone else is uncomfortable with the tone of the work on the Rupert Sheldrake page, please drop me a line. I've been uneasy with the antagonistic dynamic that's developed there and would like to hear what others' opinions on it are, as well as see whether we can come up with some sort of resolution. I look forward to hearing from you! The Cap'n (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

AN/I notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Consensus by exhaustion at Rupert Sheldrake.

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience and fringe science. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

This is a warning: Please note that your contributions are disruptive and if they continue on the Rupert Sheldrake page you will face blocking or banning. You wouldn't be the first. 134.139.22.141 (talk)

Did Another Editor Get Blocked/Banned On This Cursed Page?:

- No because it was the same editor who got banned in the first instance. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Gee, your interest in this article and the fate of User:Tumbleman seem a little familiar. Do I smell yet another sock? We've seen ridiculous wastes of time like your Sheldrake-fanboy arbitration request before. It's never worked before and still doesn't, because you pseudoscience folks are all the same: you troll and BS your way through, too ignorant to be aware of WP:ROPE. How many of you people do we need to ban before you leave and make your own page WhackoWiki? 134.139.22.141 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, 134.139.22.141, are you trying to prove my point about inappropriate threats? Feel free to call for a CheckUser on my account, but if you think my style is identical to Tumbleman, then I'm afraid I'm not the ignorant one. The Cap'n (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry, I am on the keen lookout for Tumbleman (talk · contribs)/PhilosophyFellow (talk · contribs)'s latest sock, and Vzaak (talk · contribs)} is very good at getting diffs. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:00, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

link-syntax bug

Hello, there was a small bug in your sandbox-page, which I fixed there just now. I'll let you propagate the same fix (or a variation that was what you intended) to your actual Arb request. HTH. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it! The Cap'n (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Request for arbitration rejected

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. The arbitrators felt that the already imposed discretionary sanctions were adequate to deal with current issues. Failure by users to edit constructively or comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should be brought up at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for further potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Disclaimer About Offsite Contribution

I recently contributed a statement on Tumbleman's website about the problem with online pressure, bias and abusive practices on Wikipedia. I am posting this notice here to clarify that while I have deep concerns with the way Tumbleman and many others were isolated and blocked from WP, I do not intend to discredit, disparage or disrespect the work that is being done on Wikipedia. I think that there is an issue that needs to be dealt with regarding the silencing of minority editors, but I feel strongly that it is an issue that can be (relatively easily) fixed and WP will be the better for it.

Please do not mistake my acknowledgement of another's point of view as evidence that I am a sockpuppet, proxy, pseudoscientist or abuser of WP policies; I am not. I am, however, planning to do everything I can to ensure Wikipedia remains a civil, open, free and neutral encyclopedia. The Cap'n (talk)

Discretionary sanctions notification

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience and fringe science. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, Callanecc. Have I done anything inappropriate or is this a general heads up? The Cap'n (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Just a heads up. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Home again, home again...

Hello again, dear Wikipedians. I've got a new work schedule and anticipate having much more time to pursue my WP addiction, allowing me to actually dig into some of these tricky pages I've been wanting to work on. May His noodly appendage give me strength... The Cap'n (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

RE: "No."

I tried to post an update of what I'd found out after I dug into both the Tumbleman issue and the various editors who have been blocked (in my opinion without proper consideration) under suspicion of being sockpuppets of his. I posted it onto the Tumbleman talk page, since it concerned that case (after erroneously posting to the archive I was reading, I acknowledge).

It was not a puff piece for Tumbleman, indeed I described how I had confirmed his use of multiple accounts and included all his confirmed aliases to allow further policing to get more accurate policing of any actual sockpuppeting. My main point was describing my concern over innocent editors who have been blocked under suspicion of being Tumbleman, but at this point do not appear to be. I was as transparent as possible in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety, and explained why I was posting it.

The response was a blanket revert with the explanation "No."

I'm not sure why the editor in question felt compelled to do so, what makes them think they have arbitrary policing authority over public talk pages, or what offense they felt I had committed. I am not promoting a blocked user nor acting as a proxy (the data I included was hardly complimentary to Tumbleman); I'm including information on my own examination of a case that has been the basis for many blocks and informing editors that this basis may need to be more carefully scrutinized to avoid losing innocent editors to the hunt for Tumbleman. The Cap'n (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe just post it here. We shouldn't lose your good thinking, and we shouldn't tolerate bullying, even by owners of a group of pages. Lou Sander (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Lou Sander, I think I will. I appreciate the feedback! The Cap'n (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Tumbleman Sockpuppets and Collateral Losses

NOTE: I tried to post this to the Tumbleman Talk Page, but it was promptly removed without explanation (obviously not by the page’s owner). I’m not interested in starting a revert war. Therefore I’m reposting my comments here, as they contain interactions I’d like to be transparent about and information that I feel is highly pertinent to how editors are treated going forward. These are my thoughts and conclusions, except where I explicitly reference the opinion of someone else. When I do, I am bringing up information relevant to these concerns, not serving as a proxy to air their grievances.

There are a few issues about these recurring sockpuppeting claims that I'd like to address and examine. Does anyone have any proof Tumbleman has had more than one account active on Wikipedia at the same time? As far as I can tell, the records show that he has not; the disputed charge of sockpuppeting was not the reason he was blocked. The reason I ask is that under the assumption that Tumbleman has countless aliases a large number of users have had sanction threatened or levied against them. Since his blocking an unreasonable number of editors have been accused of secretly being Tumbleman and blocked, in many cases with only cursory, arbitrary or biased evidence. As I've mentioned before, I've noticed that most editors who argue for similar purposes as Tumbleman end up getting slammed with warnings, sanctions or blocks. I strongly feel the chilling effect this has had on certain WP articles is more disruptive than anything Tumbleman or these other editors did (what exactly did they do that was so disruptive again?). I've been trying to look into the situation whenever I can and reached out to Tumbleman to get his perspective, as I noted on my talk page. I also reached out to several of the editors who were accused of being socks for Tumbleman, and the ones I’ve contacted appeared to be clearly separate people.

Tumbleman argued that he felt his indefinite block was the result of harassment by Vzaak and others who worked to damage his personal credibility and silence dissenting positions on the Sheldrake article. He acknowledged to me that he did not accept his blocking as just and has created new Wikipedia accounts when his previous accounts got banned so he could continue contributing to Wikipedia. He insisted that none of his accounts have done any disruptive editing and asked admins to peruse his activity to prove as much.

Out of respect for WP policies I requested that Tumbleman create no new accounts or contribute on WP except through transparant avenues (appeals, etc), to which he agreed out of a belief that upon closer review his blocking would eventually be reversed. Since he is going to refrain from editing anyway, I asked him to list every account he has had on WP so that we can determine how many editors have been unjustly blocked after accusations of being a sockpuppet and identify a pattern for CheckUser. He lists the following as the only accounts he has used: 'The Tumbleman', 'Philosophy Fellow', 'Halfman Halfthing' and 'No more scary monsters'. He states he has not performed any IP edits. I think it’s obvious that he has nothing to gain from admitting to some blocked accounts and denying other blocked accounts, so the conclusion is that those blocked as Tumbleman socks other than the above were wrongly blocked, including Oh Boy Chicken Again, Shaynekori, Alfonzo Green and Barleybannocks.

Aside from the question of Tumbleman's blocking in the first place, it's clear that there's a serious problem with the fact that a large number of innocent editors have been blocked as collateral damage in the search for someone who was never clearly abusive. As I've said from the beginning, it's better for WP to give the benefit of the doubt to any given editor as opposed to robbing the community of whatever knowledge and insight they may possess. I'm not proposing blanket amnesties, but this is an issue that's going to need to be addressed for future editors. By all means we need to look out for sock/meatpuppetry, but the priority has got to be maintaining an environment where people feel free to contribute without fearing they're going to be accused of something.

As a postscript, I read in the archives that Tumbleman's IP is based in Los Angeles, so I felt it pertinent to point out that I live in the greater Los Angeles area (which is home to 18 million people, more than 3 times that of the entire nation of Ireland). Given the level of suspicion other Angelenos have received, I welcome any CheckUser reports to make it clear that I am not yet another sock (a deep cover sock… waiting for 5+ years before I began trolling/proxying). The Cap'n (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey again Capn, not to discourage your efforts, but one conceivable flaw in your logic (especially your sock-counting) is that you are taking Tumbleman's on-wiki and off-wiki statements at face value. This is of course, policy for User:Tumbleman and their on-wiki statements, per WP:AGF.

  But to my eyes, the off-wiki site (which I must 100% assume is in no way connected to User:Tumbleman per AGF) has the single sole primary purpose of promoting the person's consulting business, and in particular, of selling their new software-package, which you will see mentioned prominently — and incongruously — in their volumnious tale. Obviously, this software-package has nothing to do with fairness on wikipedia, nor Sheldrake for that matter; it sticks out like a sore thumb.

  Your participation or non-participation in any off-wiki activity (or on-wiki per WP:REQUIRED) ought of course be based on your own best judgment, but I did want to make sure you considered the fact that the owner of the website has fully admitted to have a) been trolling for years both on-wiki && off-wiki b) has for years been pushing same exact said software package as the end-goal of said trolling and c) is in particular trying to troll skeptic websites such as the Randi forums with the explicit goal of riling skeptics up, as a means to personally profit.

  ((u|David in DC)), one of our finest editors here on wikipedia in general and at the Sheldrake page in particular, an impeccable stickler for WP:BLP as well as all other WP:PG, was particularly horrified at this sort of involuntary psychological experimentation,[1] using unwitting wikipedians as foils. Now, per WP:AGF my firm and unshakable belief is that, were User:Tumbleman to ever return, they would no longer engage in trolling, and no longer attempt to rile up content-opponents as fodder for off-wiki badsites. In other words, there would no longer be any strong stench of WP:SPIP whatsoever, in all of Tumbleman's future on-wiki activities. Ahem.

  In any case, the current issues are deeper than one particular unfortunate person, and their variety of socks. As you say, and I fully agree, the priority has got to be maintaining (or... creating perhaps) an editing-environment where anybody can edit (aka fulfilling the JimboVision™). As every pirate knows, however, the key to a long and successful career is simple: concentrate on what matters most. If we are trying to create an edit-environment that follows pillar two, and pillar four, then what matters most? I would suggest that bans are not the solution to bans. Hope this helps, and thanks for improving wikipedia. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Entirely fair assessment of your views

Well, I think it's an entirely fair assessment of your views.

IMHO, you're a self-appointed WP:BLP warrior who's fighting to stop Wikipedia libelling people. While this is superficially honourable, your self-viewing yourself as a BLP warrior means you elevate yourself and your views above everyone else and theirs. This isn't helpful, nor is it productive.

This is an entirely fair summary:

• Smith (aliases have been used for BLP purposes) says "cats are can time-travel" (replace "cats" and "time-travel" with any other bizarre and unsupported claims). This is the central claim in his best-selling book "How Cats Time-Travel".
• A Wikipedia editor writes "Smith claims cats can time-travel" [citation to several of Mr Smith's books]. If he's good he applies WP:FRINGE.
• Meanwhile, Mr self-appointed BLP warrior comes along, reads this, and realises that the claim "cats can time-travel" is only supported by vague anecdotes ("Mrs Jones says her cat disappears for days on end!") - and is entirely unsupported by modern understandings of physics and biology. It is a claim that is utterly stupid.
• Mr Self-appointed BLP Warrior brain logically leaps from "Smith claims cats can time-travel" to "Smith makes the stupid claims that cats can time-travel", and then just for good luck, a little further to "Smith is stupid".
• But oh no!!! Wikipedia can't say "Smith is stupid". Therefore Mr BLP warrior concludes that original quotation should be removed!

No doubt you view yourself as a complete genius for this "application" of knowledge. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't consider myself above anyone else, as evidenced by my consistent calls for consensus, moderate edits and respectful behavior. If that makes me a BLP Warrior, what does it mean if you don't provide any compromise/alternatives, resist any changes without explaining why and call people names without understanding what they're arguing? As I mentioned on your talk page, I don't know who or what you're responding to, but it's not any argument I've made. You've been calling me these names for awhile, so I'll break this down for you through your own summary:

• Smith (aliases have been used for BLP purposes) says "cats are can time-travel" (replace "cats" and "time-travel" with any other bizarre and unsupported claims). This is the central claim in his best-selling book "How Cats Time-Travel". I assume you're referencing the Sheldrake statement on telepathy in the lead.
• A Wikipedia editor writes "Smith claims cats can time-travel" [citation to several of Mr Smith's books]. If he's good he applies WP:FRINGE. There are numerous paraphrases and accurate quotes about inherent memory and connections to telepathy in the article. The quote in question was not one of them, as evidenced by the fact that the entire block of text it comes from is presented a little lower on the page, indicating the quote was referencing Sheldrake's perception by his peers, not a definition of his hypothesis.
• Meanwhile, Mr self-appointed BLP warrior comes along, reads this, and realises that the claim "cats can time-travel" is only supported by vague anecdotes ("Mrs Jones says her cat disappears for days on end!") - and is entirely unsupported by modern understandings of physics and biology. It is a claim that is utterly stupid. I don't care whether or not Sheldrake's hypothesis is scientifically feasible or not. Whether I believe in telepathy or not is irrelevant, though a quick perusal of my profile should have made that obvious. This is a biography page, not a critique of a hypothesis in Scientific American.
• Mr Self-appointed BLP Warrior brain logically leaps from "Smith claims cats can time-travel" to "Smith makes the stupid claims that cats can time-travel", and then just for good luck, a little further to "Smith is stupid". No, actually. My brain logically leaped to "Huh, right here Quote A is presented as saying X, but a little further down the page Quote A is presented as saying Y. Quote A = Y includes the full context, while A=X is only a snippet, so it's logical that A=Y.
• But oh no!!! Wikipedia can't say "Smith is stupid". Therefore Mr BLP warrior concludes that original quotation should be removed! My conclusion, in point of fact, was to keep Quote A = Y in its entirety further down the page, then find Quote B that actually DOES say X to replace it. I didn't remove information, I only increased it, including the original quote and introducing another that fit the original intent better. To make it simple, I edited it so that Quote A=Y, and Quote B=X.

I am fighting against libel, and I won't apologize for that. But I'm also fighting for accurate citations in an encyclopedic entry, NPOV, civility, collaborative editing and an avoidance of stagnation-through-wikilawyering. With that in mind, call me whatever you want. The Cap'n (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Cap'n's Log 2152014

This little narrative is a work of fiction, designed to amuse (mostly myself) and reference WP issues I care about in a allegorical light. To those who get easily upset at such things, I'm not talking about you and I do not think there are actually murderous conspiracies diabolically plotting against innocent editors. That gives people too much credit.

I reached the third floor landing, leaving the ominously creaking stairs behind as I walked into the hall toward my office. I passed the elevator on my way. You could always tell when a newcomer arrived; they were the only ones brave or foolish enough to get in that rattling deathtrap. I had checked the most recent inspection notice on the elevator once, just out of curiosity, which convinced me to avoid using it ever again. I didn’t think it was right to make anything that elderly lug me up and down floors.

I came to the glass door that had my name helpfully spelled out in gold letters: THE CAP’N, PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR. I figured it would be useful in case anyone was worried they were in a supermarket instead of a rundown private eye’s office. The door squeaked appropriately when I opened it. It used to open quiet as a mouse, but I’d worked hard to damage that door until it squeaked. Everything else in the building was so decrepit it seemed offensive to have one object that worked perfectly. God knows I don’t.

“Mornin’, Cap’n,” muttered my receptionist as I walked in. She didn’t look up from her typing, her eyes fixed on her work. I say her work because I know I didn’t have enough business to keep her so busy.

“Morning, Sinebot,” I said. We never added the “good.” How often was it, really?

“Any news?” I asked as I hung up my coat and hat.

She held up a file folder, her lips pursed as she looked at me for the first time. I sighed. “Who was it this time?”

“Barleybannocks,” she said. I took the folder silently, shaking my head.

I walked into my private office and closed the door. I sank into my worn leather chair, breathing in the familiar smell of dust and disappointment. I set the folder on my desk, started to open it and thought better of it. Opening a drawer, I pulled out a bottle of Irish whiskey and poured more than a healthy dose into the stout crystal glass that was the only thing on my desk that seemed well-used.

“Here’s to you, Barleybannocks,” I said, draining the glass. Somehow it refilled itself. Damned strange how that works when you’re drinking by yourself.

I opened the file and reviewed the case. It was the same MO as the others. An editor had started to work on the Rupert Sheldrake article, apparently unaware of the danger that lurked there. The Sheldrake page was like running with the bulls. Sure, you got to hang with big, important beasts, but if you go left when they want to go right, they’ll run you into the ground. Or straight off of Wikipedia, as the case may be.

I flipped through the pages, looking for patterns and finding too many to ignore. An editor who thought the article was biased toward skeptical activism? Check. Sources that challenged the dominant point of view? Check. A push for focusing on biographical perspectives rather than critiques of viewpoints? Double check.

Poor, sorry bastard. I knew what was coming even before I flipped to the pages detailing how Barleybannocks had been shuffled off this cyber coil. Those who ran the show on the Sheldrake page knew what they were doing, and they did it well. I wasn’t a fan of conspiracy theories, but even to a cynic there was an unavoidable pattern. Whether the skeptical editors were passing around secret messages or just following each other’s lead, the result was the same. A gag order on dissent for the Sheldrake article, and for the suckers that didn’t listen, the procedure followed the same steps as closely as a dance routine.

First would come blanket reverts and claims that his sources were irrelevant, then warnings to shut up or shove off. If he was still foolish enough to persist they’d put away the bats and bring out the big guns. They’d trot out claims that he was violating WP:FRINGE by disagreeing with them, then the whole gang would step forward and declare he was a menace and needed to be neutralized. If that didn’t work they’d break out the showstopper: announce that he was yet another sockpuppet of the Tumbleman and take him out. And I don’t mean on a date.

II

I pressed the button on the intercom.

“Sinebot,” I said into the musty microphone, “could you bring me the files on the Tumbleman case?”

“Again? If you say so, boss,” the intercom reluctantly squawked back.

I pushed the Barleybannocks file aside as the door creaked open and Sinebot staggered in carrying an armful of paperwork. She set down the mountainous file on my desk, which groaned in protest. It didn’t like to work that hard. Who did?

The well-worn cover sheet informed me in type that it contained the case files for THE TUMBLEMAN. Scrawled under that was a cheerful note in Sinebot’s handwriting that said LOST CAUSE.

“It’s been months, Cap’n,” she said. “You need to let the case go. He was probably guilty, anyway.”

“Maybe,” I said, “but of what? All anyone remembers now is the charge of sockpuppeting, but that wasn’t even what he was b locked for. He was kicked off for competency or trolling issues, though no one was ever able to prove any intent or abuse. Not to mention he was blocked from speaking in his own defense…”

“Boss, this case has been closed for ages. No one cares anymore, why do you?”

“Because this blocking stinks to high heaven,” I said, “and people do care. They care enough to use this case as a precedent and excuse to bump off anyone who crosses them. How many accounts need to take a dirt nap before I care? We’ve seen attacks on Oh Boy Chicken Again, Lou Sander, Iantresman, Shaynekori, Alfonzo Green and now Barleybannocks. All of them complain that something smells about the Sheldrake page, and all of them get stuffing knocked out of them shortly afterward. The ones throwing them out the window claim these folks are either all incompetent trolls or sockpuppets for Tumbleman. The question of whether that's actually accurate doesn’t seem to bother anyone. Like I said, it stinks.”

“Ever hear of Occam’s Razor, boss?”

“Yeah,” I said, frowning. “What about it?”

“If you keep turning your head looking for something that’s more complicated than necessary, you’ll cut your own throat.”

“I’m not sure that’s how that saying goes…”

“Well,” Sinebot said, shrugging, “that’s the way it is. There’s nothing you can do but plenty you can lose.”

With that philosophical finale she went back to the reception desk. I didn’t hear her shut my door, but I did hear her words echo in my mind.

“Nothing I can do…” I muttered. My glass miraculously filled itself again, so I shot its contents down to be polite. She was probably right. The wise thing to do would be to shut up, ignore the Sheldrake case and find other work.

I’ve been called many things, but wise isn’t one of them. An hour and eight phone calls later I found myself staring at a desk full of notes. The case was tricky, no doubt about it. The trouble was, . They’d hit him hard, and the evidence on that first job was shaky as a house of cards. But the problem lay in the fact he’d gotten back up after they told him to stay down. I could blame them for that first hit, but it was hard to argue he hadn’t defied them by coming back again and again.

Philosophy Fellow, Halfman Halfthing, No more scary monsters, each one a different alias he’d adopted after the previous had been blocked. I didn’t see any evidence of him using two at the same time, but there was no denying he didn’t accept his blocking lying down. Part of me respected that moxie. The other part counted the innocent editors who had been blocked with the excuse of possibly being another incarnation of Tumbleman. More innocents had fallen than Tumbleman aliases and I seemed to be the only sap who was bothered by the collateral damage. Well, maybe Tumbleman was, but no one was asking him.

I closed the file and sighed. Sinebot was right, it wasn’t worth getting involved. Tumbleman had brought about his own demise, there was nothing to be done now, even if there should or could’ve been once. I had no horse in this race and too much to lose if the skeptical gang took aim at my little operation. I had my dingy office, my nonexistent clients, my surly receptionist…

My phone jangled on my desk, loud and demanding. Like Pavlov’s dog, the clanging bell elicited an emotional response. I sure as hell wasn’t salivating, though.

The Cap'n (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

literary merit

Your story is pretty sucky.  :-)   ((Notice how I focus on the content, not the contributor?)) But the big question is, how does the story end. Or is this one of those infinite-series kinda novels, that drag on and on through the decades, each book more and more predictable. I do like the combination of sci-fi and film noir, though. Sci-noir, you should call it.  ;-)   That sinebot character is a hoot! — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, 74.192.84.101, I always like negative reviews the best. I particularly like the distinction between "you're a crappy writer" and "your writing is crappy." I think that point is just as useful and pointful (that's the opposite of pointless, right?) as the very subtle connection you are/aren't drawing with my recent ANI on hostile editors.

As far as how the story ends, that remains to be seen (I mean, stay tuned for more exciting installments!). That said, if I'm still writing this decades from now please tell our robot overlords to end my sad, inconclusive existence.

Finally, I'm actually rather fond of the term sci-noir, now. Though since this is current day cyber-noir might be more accurate. Less sexy, though... The Cap'n (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Are you the guy who used to edit encyclopedias under the name User:Ike Asimov? Lou Sander (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

No, this is the only account I've had since I began editing WP, other than a few IP contributions when I forgot to log in. Who's Ike Asimov? The Cap'n (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There was a prolific science and science fiction writer named Isaac Asimov. I was joking. Lou Sander (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Wow... that'll teach me to edit before work...  ;-) Actually a big fan of Asimov, I just thought some editor had used the name. The Cap'n (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Timewasting

It would be helpful if you could stop wasting people's time by flogging dead horses. I don't know what your motivation is, and I don't really care, but we've been there, done that. Move on please. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought I'd enunciated my motivation pretty clearly. I feel that there's still a problem present with conduct on the Sheldrake page (along with a few others). I'm not pushing for Tumbleman's reinstatement nor trying to defend him, I'm referencing him in a discussion of a problem that included him and persists today. So long as editors don't feel welcome on certain pages due to WP:OWN, I'm going to continue spending time that I don't consider wasted. The Cap'n (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

How about this then - there isn't a problem. There is needed a very deep understanding of the subtleties of how WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE interact, and you don't seem to realise that you don't have the basic competency level required. A fair assessment of Sheldrake's work is always going to include lots of criticism because his "work" has received lots of criticism from prominent mainstream sources. Attempts to change this either by (1) making him appear more mainstream by excluding his wackier ideas or (2) attempting to make him appear more mainstream by removing criticism/portraying criticism as unjustified or quantifying it as "only a few scientists" (3) attempting to give an impression of support which his work lacks. I'm not entirely sure which of these you're pushing, but none of them is a good idea.

Also, don't remove my comments on noticeboards especially when they relate particularly to yourself, your timewasting, and your self-appointment as a "BLP warrior". Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

First off, you are posting your comments to an archived conversation, which is against policy, AND posting your comments above an older comment by another editor. I don't care what you say about me, and feel free to shout it from the mountains, but don't do it there and don't violate core policies and fundamental decorum. If you can't understand why I reverted (and will revert) your edits than it appears I am not the one with a basic competency issue.

As to the arguments I'm supposedly making, if you yourself are not entirely sure what incorrect POV I'm "pushing" and are unable to come up with any abusive or inappropriatly POV examples, then why are you claiming preemptorily that I am making them? I've tried to make every one of my edits neutral, every one of my Talk comments reasonable and all of my input focused on NPOV consensus. I haven't tried to say Sheldrake should be portrayed as mainstream, I haven't tried to delete his criticisms, I haven't tried to include support that doesn't exist. In short, I haven't done any of the things you use to justify calling me incompetent, so what are you talking about? Seriously, what are you talking about? It seems like you're just copying/pasting from some other argument, with some other editor, about some other issues. Heads up, not everyone who disagrees with you is an interchangeable troll, proxy or moron.

Finally, as to "there isn't a problem." Right... That's why this page has been one of the most contentious on WP, has resulted in nearly a dozen sanctions, edit warring, a half dozen ANI's, AE's, etc, and an exodus of frustrated editors. Because it's going so smoothly... The Cap'n (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)