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)

Thank you for your comments, (talk), I appreciate your thoughtful and considered feedback. I have noticed several of the factors you mentioned above, and hope that I have made clear (if not I will here) that my comments off-site are limited to discussing what I see as an issue of improving WP, not promoting/endorsing any one person and certainly not a product. While I don't agree with everything about the way the Tumbleman case was handled, and definitely don't agree with the behavior that's come after it, I also acknowledge the problems Tumbleman represented. I don't accept and don't expect others to take at face value the word of someone that I myself only agreed to speak to in return for divulging prior accounts, but I also see no logical sense to someone admitting to a number of accounts that were banned but declaring other banned accounts to be unaffiliated. None of them are coming back online, he'd have nothing to gain by lying, so I felt that lent at least an air of legitimacy to the scenario.

Again, at its core my argument is not that Tumbleman be reinstated, but that we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater regarding edits on the Sheldrake page. I put forward this information because I feel it makes the case that there's at least some evidence worth some consideration that several of the banned editors were innocent. If even 1 was not actually a sock/proxy, then future policies need to be reassessed.

Again, thank you for your points. The Cap'n (talk) 03:41, 25 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)

Case Files #1 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.

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)

Case Files #2 2232014

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)

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 inappropriately POV examples, then why are you claiming peremptorily 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)

Relatively, yes. Certain editors have been banned, others have taken the hints that have been dropped by the banning of others. Taking hints is a very good personal attribute to have. The "exodus of frustrated editors" simply does not exist. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Askahrc, this is silly. Your off-wiki antics [[2]] have done wonders to ensure that no one assumes you to be operating in good faith anymore. You can’t just pal around with a known troll like Viharo and still expect people to give you the benefit of the doubt. The benefit of the doubt is for people who haven’t dispelled all doubt.

While I can’t defend Vzaak (as I’ve accused him of having an ownership issue myself), Barney’s behavior seems to be a perfectly appropriate response to your sympathizing with a scumbag like Tumbleman. You should leave the fringe articles alone unless you’re absolutely determined to martyr yourself in the name of morphic resonance. Would you really like to get your name on Tom Butler’s list of shame?

I will now translate that into pirate because you apparently get off on that sort of thing:

Well tickle me dick-hole and shit on a stick! I know of a troll who’s one hell of a dick!

He got himself banned for the spouting of lies, now it’s User:Vzaak that this troll doth despise.

This wretched tumble-troll hath not an iota of shame, so he seeks to recruit those who feel much the same.

He sends forth his minions to do his foul bidding, and it’s from Wikipedia that his minions need ridding.

So if thou doth enjoy editing here then it’s the arbitration enforcement noticeboard that thou has to fear.

For pseudoscience can be so labeled without further ado, so the one who’s being disruptive is in fact you.

Your cavorting with a troll will not soon be forgot, so your fringe-pushing efforts will all be for naught.

So, please stop pushing fringe and being a prick, just step away from the horse and put down the stick.

Yarrr!!!

Seriously though, you should leave the Sheldrake page alone. The forces of reason won “the battle for Rupert Sheldrake’s Wikipedia page” and it’s time for you to accept that. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I apologize, Barney the barney barney, for making light of competency issues above. I don't appreciate it when people do that, and generally try to observe WP:CIVIL. After reviewing your confusion about the rules regarding posting to archived conversations, I see that what I took for belligerence was actually just a lack of knowledge. I should have assumed good faith. Even veterans like you have areas of ignorance, and I can't castigate someone who honestly didn't understand that what they were doing was wrong. If there's ever anything in the future you're not sure of, please feel free to ask. Maybe I can help, maybe I can't, but I'm happy to try. The Cap'n (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

As for 76.107.171.90 (talk), I honestly don't know what to say to your threatening, vulgarity-ridden diatribe, but I'll give it a shot.

I don't "pal around" with anyone other than my actual pals, and listening to the arguments of people under discussion isn't collaboration, it's getting an informed opinion. Setting that aside, your entire justification for assuming my bad faith is that I have spoken with Tumbleman and also have concerns (different concerns, by the way, or have you bothered to read the discussion?) with behavior on the Sheldrake page. I have voluntarily disclosed every exchange I've had with this person in the name of transparency (which all echo points I've made on WP itself), and yet you claim that these very declarations make me inherently untrustworthy? Double check that logic, friend.

Then there are the three, count 'em three, separate threats you made stating that if I continued editing the Sheldrake page or critiquing behavior therein, I'd "martyr myself in the name of morphic resonance," or add myself to Tom Butlers list of banned editors, etc. Let me get this straight; you're saying that my arguing that dissenting editors get harassed/banned is complete hogwash, then you proceed to harass me with threats of banning if I continue to dissent? Gotcha. Brilliant argument.

Also, your statement that your side "won the battle for Rupert Sheldrake's Wikipedia page" is a perfect indication of what I'm concerned about. There are no sides here, 76.107.171.90 (talk), just collaborative editors with different ideas on how best to proceed. Finally, please don't presume to declare my personal views on these WP topics, it's presumptuous and ignorant. I can edit Vlad the Impaler without agreeing with his behavior and I can weigh in on abuses on the Sheldrake page without being a believer in his ideas.

P.S. It takes more than base profanity and poorly constructed rhymes to talk like a pirate. Don't bother trying, you don't have what it takes. I've known pirates, and you, sir, are no pirate. The Cap'n (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

What’s the matter Askahrc? Don’t like your own medicine? It’s not so cute when I talk like a pirate now is it?

Predictably, you’re feeling desperate to convince yourself that you’re “the victim” of a coordinated effort to silence “intellectual dissents” or “free thinkers” or “non-conformists” or whatever the fuck you call yourself. Or perhaps you have chosen to cower behind WP:BLP? You wouldn’t be the first “BLP-warrior” to try to excuse their fringe-pushing by claiming to protect a pseudoscientist’s “human dignity”. [[3]] And in your increasingly desperate attempts to convince yourself that you’re being “victimized” you have decided to claim that you’re being threatened.

You aren’t being threatened Askahrc. I have no intention of taking any action against you. I don’t have a reason to do so as there are others who will more than happily take you to WP:AE or WP:ANI. I am simply telling you that you’ve come to a point where you need to decide if you really want to commit “Wikipedia suicide”. If you persist in your fringe-pushing behavior then the decision to ban or block you was your own. Is getting yourself blocked really going to make you feel better Askahrc? Is it something that you feel you need to do to gratify your delusions of victimization? Dude, look at what you’ve done. You started pushing fringe on Sheldrake, and when you lost that fight you went to WP:AN/I where you were soundly (and rightly) defeated again. You’re not the victim of anything when you were, in fact, pushing fringe.

You are also misrepresenting WP:battle. WP:battle suggests that one should not approach editing as a battle, but once a battle has erupted we are not required to deny that it has occurred or that there are opposing sides.

You’re also making one of the clumsiest straw man arguments I’ve ever had the misfortune of witnessing. You suggest that you aren’t being dishonest because you have disclosed your interactions with Tumbleman. I’m not accusing you of being dishonest about that. I’m accusing you of having an agenda that conflicts with Wikipedia policy and I’m basing that accusation on your own words. I’m also making it clear that people hold grudges. If you post pro-fringe rants on Tumbleman’s website then Barney is justified in viewing you with suspicion.

Oh and “you, sir, are no pirate” has to be one of the lamest insults in the history of lameness. You’re damn right I don’t “have what it takes” to be a pirate. I lack the moral corruption, poor personal hygiene, and the willingness to associate with lowlifes that it takes to be a seagoing bandit. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, 76.107.171.90 (talk), you're such a charmer. As far as my own medicine, I don't mind piratical language (which I've yet to see), but I don't particularly respect or appreciate crass insults by people who don't understand what they're talking about.

As for your statement about "whatever the fuck" I call myself, I call myself a reasonable editor who is able to provide diffs, examples and justification for my points, a better alternative to slinging profanity and personal insults like a 15 year old on a blog comment section. It's fascinating that you take up Barney's baseless "BLP-Warrior" claim (exactly how many times have I mentioned BLP?), then go on to denigrate me for caring about the "human dignity" of pseudoscientists. What exactly is the alternative? They're human, and any reasonable person should try to respect other humans who aren't engaged in rape and/or murder. The implications of your disdain for such a basic aspect of humanity is disturbing.

You keep calling me a pro-fringe pusher, but I'd love to see some diffs of unreasonable fringe positions I've taken. I have declared that I find the behavior of certain editors (yourself particularly included) to be unacceptable, but my issue has always been with keeping the page neutral and welcoming, not legitimizing fringe science. My "pro-fringe rant" that you mentioned had nothing to do with fringe issues, at all. It had to do with the increasingly hostile nature of editing on the Sheldrake page, which you illustrate beautifully. Try paying attention to what people are actually saying, kid, it'll make your arguments less silly.

I'm not a victim, nor have I claimed to be. I disagree with several people, but I'm looking for compromise and feel no hostility toward them (well, you & I won't be sharing a pint anytime soon...). I have to point out the ridiculousness of trying to claim 'I'm not threatening you, I'm just warning you that if you don't do what I say, someone will do bad things to you,' for comedic purposes if nothing else.

By the way, as a historian I'd be interested in seeing your copy of the History of Lameness, particularly if my statement is featured so prominently. I had no idea! Cheers. The Cap'n (talk) 07:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You’re new to this whole sophistry thing aren’t you?

When I said “try to excuse their fringe-pushing by claiming to protect a pseudoscientist’s “human dignity”” the implication was that fringe pushers hide behind the claim that they are enforcing BLP when they are actually pushing fringe. Not that BLP is a bad policy or that humans have no dignity. That’s another straw man on your part.

I also didn’t “take up Barney's baseless "BLP-Warrior" claim”. I listed it as one of the excuses that you might use to justify your behavior to yourself. I do not, in fact, know what goes on in your head so I judge you by your actions instead. For all I know your actions on Sheldrake might be motivated by noting other than the love of trolling.

I’ve already provided you with a diff of your anti-Wikipedia behavior. Here [[4]] it is again.

And once again, no, I’m not threatening you. You misunderstand my motivations entirely. When User:David in DC was pouting because he wasn’t getting his way on Sheldrake I went to him and asked him to “rejoin the mainstream”. When I mistakenly thought that your buddy User:74.192.84.101 might be willing to reconsider his position I went to his talk page and asked him to switch sides. And so I came here to talk to you in the hope that you might stop your disruption and become a productive editor once again. I can be strangely optimistic sometimes, and I like to think that people can change.

Askahrc, this is not the first IP I’ve edited under. I’ve actually been around for a while. When I was new I did see a veteran editor bully a newbie by falsely accusing them of fringe pushing. The veteran was apparently too damn lazy to actually read what the newbie was inserting into the article and he simply assumed that the newbie must be a fringe pusher. The veteran was more concerned about attacking people then about attacking the right people. So yes, sometimes Wikipedia has its problems. I’ve seen them happen. But that’s not the situation you’re in Askahrc. If you get yourself blocked for fringe pushing when you really were fringe pushing then it will mean nothing.

Think it over. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There's no use in spending my time replying to editors who post walls of insulting text then claim they're doing nothing but offering helpful advice. I'm done feeding you, 76.107.171.90 (talk). Feel free to claim that as a victory and post more vitriol below. The Cap'n (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I’m not “offering helpful advice”. I’m telling you to stop being a fringe pusher. I recognize the value of trying to turn an enemy into an ally. However, I gather from your “Case File” that you’ve already made your decision.

Just remember, throughout his trials and tribulations Science Apologist (currently User:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV) has received considerable support and sympathy from the community. But if everyone thinks that you had it coming then you’ll receive no sympathy at all if you get yourself blocked. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Case Files #3 2252014

“Yeah?” I answered the phone wearily.

“This the Cap’n?”

The voice was cool, casual and oblivious to pain. It was the voice of every dentist or car mechanic you’ve ever met.

“Sure, let’s say so.”

“You’ve been asking a lot of questions,” the voice continued, “questions that don’t concern you.” I sat up a little straighter. I like to keep proper posture when I’m being threatened. Good manners.

“If they didn’t concern me,” I said, “I wouldn’t be asking them, would I?”

The voice chuckled.

“What’re you, some New Age, Kool-Aid drinking true believer?”

I paused, glancing at the Flying Spaghetti Monster picture I had framed on the wall. It was next to a pile of letters from various faiths warning me of my impending damnation, loss of karma, or negative energy feedback loop.

“No,” I said, “not exactly.”

“Then it sounds like you oughtta find different questions to ask, pal. It won’t be good for you to keep walking down the path you’re on. Might take you into some bad neighborhoods.”

I laughed.

“Friend,” I said to the man who was not my friend, “you have no idea what kind of neighborhoods I’m used to.”

“Let me put it another way,” the voice continued, colder now. “If you keep asking about things that don’t concern you, folks might start to wonder why. They might look at the issues you’re bringing up and remember someone else who did the same thing. Someone who isn’t around anymore. I’m afraid they might even start to think you might be that same person, snooping where you aren’t welcome.”

“I’m not Tumbleman,” I said, growing irritated at the game, “and you know that or we wouldn’t be having this conversation.”

“Do I know that? I’m not sure. Maybe it would be safer to bump you off, just in case you are Tumbleman. You wouldn’t be the first, pal.”

I heard the phone creak as my knuckles whitened around it.

“And you wouldn’t be the first to try it on me,” I said, “or to try threatening folks to keep dissent silent.”

Another chuckle rasped over the phone.

“Well, the old tricks are the best tricks, they say. The point is, whatever neighborhoods you’re familiar with, you apparently don’t know the rules of this one. You challenge our evidence, you’re a threat. You try to argue with our point of view, you’re a threat. You try to overturn the way we do things, pal, you’re definitely a threat. And threats go the way of Tumbleman.”

“Because every threat is either Tumbleman in disguise or someone working for him? How convenient.”

“It is, isn’t it? Hm. What a coincidence.”

“Yeah,” I said, “what a coincidence.”

“Now,” continued the voice calmly, “you shouldn’t get the impression that you’re going up against some kind of organization. That’s not it at all. It’d be silly, paranoid even, to think we’re anything but unconnected individuals with no agenda.”

“Right,” I said, “you’re unconnected individuals who just happen to be in the same place at the same time, saying the same things and targeting the same people for the same reasons.”

“Glad we’re on the same page,” said the voice pleasantly. “Don’t ever come sniffing around this case again.”

The line went dead, as if to drive the point home one more time.

I hung the phone up slowly. My glass didn’t fill on its own this time, I had to reach over to the bottle, open it up and pour myself a double. I sipped it slowly, letting the smooth burn linger.

“Ever,” the voice had said. If only it hadn’t. That word and I have a complicated relationship. I usually hear it in the company of a “don’t,” and I traditionally end up telling both words to go to hell. I saw no reason to buck tradition.

I pressed the button on the intercom.

“Sinebot,” I said, “get me everything we’ve got on every case related to Rupert Sheldrake or Tumbleman. Forward all my calls, I’m hitting the streets. I’ve got work to do.”

I set out seven shots on my desk, one for my belly and six for my hip. It was likely to get unpleasant and while I didn’t intend on firing the first salvo, I’d be damned if I'd go down without getting in a retort.

The Cap'n (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if you are a Prairie Home Companion listener, but this reminds me so much of Guy Noir! I'm more of a fan of jaded PIs, taking on the world than pirates. It's because despite their world-weariness, they still try to do the right thing.

No doubt, this comment will result in some troll calling us "buddies" or "pals" but the fact is that our only commonality is being attacked by the same people. No doubt, some of the more belligerent ones (heck, they are all pretty belligerent) will take your mention of a revolver as a "death threat". Sigh. There seems to be little one can say once one is identified as the enemy that won't be judged harshly, whose words won't be twisted to use as evidence to push some POV or claim against the editor. With this "for us or against us" perspective, there is no allowance for a middle ground which is a shame, especially because editors who are so entrenched often work against the best interests of Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comparison, Liz ^{Read! Talk!}, I love Garrison Keillor! I removed that text you mentioned as you're right, if someone tried hard enough they might misconstrue a fictional allegory for something inappropriate and unintended.

The labeling as "the enemy" is a strange one for me, given how deeply fond of WP I've always been, and I've been fascinated by the base assumptions people jump to. I've never pushed for fringe materials to be added to the page, but because I've said I'm concerned with the conduct there I've been termed a pro-fringe pushing "free-thinker," BLP-warrior, anti-Wikipedian and worse. The experience has been thoroughly unpleasant, and I'm always struck by how abusive people act online who would never treat a person this poorly in real life.

I appreciate hearing from someone who isn't inherently hostile, and hope you don't get dumped on for commenting here. Take care and stay reasonable! The Cap'n (talk) 13:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I got involved because I saw there was a lot of activity on the Rupert Sheldrake article (it kept showing up at AN/I) so I went to the talk page, saw that some editors were being dismissed and bullied and spoke up for them. I just thought that their concerns should be heard, I didn't take a position on the content of the article because I simply don't care about Sheldrake, pro or con! But because of this, I got labeled as the enemy and a defender of trolls (which to some people is worse than being a troll!). So any comment I make on Sheldrake debate and its casualties gets a negative pushback. I moved on, of course, since I wasn't invested in the debate but I'm willing to share my bad experience on the talk page. I don't think I can get called worse than I've already been called (fingers crossed!). Too bad you took out that line, I thought it was very clever. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:51, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Good essay!

I have begun soliciting support for an alternative to Wikipedia. While it is not nearly as popular, Citizendium at least requires real names and has a little more realistic view of what a valid reference looks like. It will take time to develop, but I think it is possible to have a set of articles that say what frontier subjects are without making them look like the end of the world. Tom Butler (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Warning

Askahrc, it has been found that you used an IP address in order to harass other users and waste the community's time. You are strongly admonished for this behaviour and warned that if you are found to harass other users, waste the community's time or edit logged out or with another account in contravention of WP:SOCK you will be blocked for an extended period of time. In addition to this admonishment and warning the following sanctions now apply to you indefinitely:

• You must use the Askahrc account only (except with the explicit permission of the Arbitration Committee to use a different account or an IP address), when making any edit broadly related to pseudoscience or fringe science.
• You are not permitted to alert or notify any user that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for topics relating to pseudoscience or fringe science.

This warning and sanctions will be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorised for this topic area. You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the enforcement noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

AE request

There is an AE request concerning you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Askahrc. vzaak 17:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously?

So, apparently I spoke too soon in removing the SPI tag according to due process. Vzaak appears to be disgruntled that I wasn't banned for their SPI accusation and so is now admin-shopping an AE to try to get me banned... again. All this in response to my statement that they tend to react to disagreement with excessive hostility. Ah, irony... The Cap'n (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that sure went quick. While I will respect any admin decision, it's more than a little frustrating to have predicted what strategy would be used to silence oneself, then watch it implemented without being able to change it. You're one thorough sneak, Vzaak. I still wonder why it is you do what you do. The Cap'n (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a personal attack and also canvassing on your talk page. Second Quantization (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your concerns, Second Quantization, and here are 3 points in response:

• Saying someone's behaved in a sneaky manner is about the most benign 'personal attack' I've ever heard of, especially when Vzaak has called me incompetent, a proxy and a liar. If it's actually offensive I'll take it down; I didn't intend it as an insult and don't want to foster that impression.
• If the statement above was objectively inflammatory, can I expect to see similar warnings on 76's talk page for making profanity-laden rhymes taunting me about my impending blocking? Or for their numerous direct personal attacks on my intelligence, competence or "lameness?" Or on Barney's for calling me a BLP-warrior?
• How is it canvassing to make a comment about an AE that has an alert right above that comment? There's nothing in my comment that isn't included in the AE notification other than my opinion of it.

The Cap'n (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

It's kind of pointless, The Cap'n, you're on their radar. You can say the most benign remarks and they will be taken the wrong way. They have to have someone to target. I'm sorry you are in this position. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

If I had called you a little sneak Liz, would you have thought that was benign? Somehow I think not ... One rule for us, another for those you support. Second Quantization (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I have been called far worse than a sneak, and I've also seen worse terms used against Liz for simply speaking her mind about procedural decisions. The difference is that I try to assume good faith and shrug off all but the most outrageously insulting as simple issues of communication.

Also, who is this "us" you reference? I've heard this from Barney, 76, and seen it implied by Vzaak & many others. "Those (I) support" are editors in general, skeptical and fringe; I don't approve of monolithic opinions regardless of what they may be or whether I agree with them personally (note that no one's ever heard me legitimizing Sheldrake?). As much as folks have recently tried to paint me so, I don't represent a broader ideological movement. Do you? The Cap'n (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL! "A little sneak"? That is hard to be offended by except that it sounds like something you would call a child. In fact, that remark is more polite than you usually are to me, Second Quantization. I usually get a warning from you, little insults or a slap across the face (metaphorically speaking).

You know, I'm not "skeptical" or "fringe"....I've never edited any articles that are labeled "pseudoscience". All I've tried to do is speak up for people I think are being bullied. It doesn't mean I agree with their opinions or support the changes they want to make to articles. I just don't like to see Wikipedia's procedures used as a way to drive editors with certain points of view off of WP. Content disputes should be resolved on talk pages and in dispute resolution, not by bringing editors you disagree with to WP:AE and applying a hammer approach. And, you know, discretionary sanctions cover all editors working on certain topics, not just ones with particular opinions. That is a fact that seems to be frequently forgotten.

Sorry to address SQ on your talk page, The Cap'n, but I see no reason to bring my comments to their talk page. Glad to see you survived AE...I know it's unnerving to become the center of other people's conversation and find yourself scrutinized. Wikipedians are a judgy lot. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I do apologize for using language like "they" and "their" that implies some sort of unified effort and total agreement. While it's clear there is a group of editors who share a similar outlook on pseudoscience topics, you are individuals, not some anonymous group. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

"All I've tried to do is speak up for people I think are being bullied". From what I can see, you've only ever spoken up for people who have abused sock puppets and are caught out. When there is real bullying on wikipedia, you are nowhere to be seen. I'm not going to reply here further, but it's good to know I can call you a little sneak. Second Quantization (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad we established that's not a personal attack. Who says consensus is hard to come by on WP? The Cap'n (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

That's highly inaccurate, Second Quantization. For example, I spoke up for The Cap'n and he has not abused sock puppets. There is only one user that fits that description who comes to mind and I spoke up for Tumbleman before his account was blocked and he used alternate accounts. I didn't agree with his views, by the way, I just thought he was being treated poorly.

As for "when there is real bullying on wikipedia, you are nowhere to be seen", I'm sorry but it's hard to be everywhere on Wikipedia simultaneously, 24/7. Impossible, really. But I'm not trying to be a policewoman. I just speak up when I see bullying, where I happen to see it. So, I'll cover the areas I edit in, and maybe you can speak up for people on the other 99.9999999% portion of Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)