User talk:ජපස: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:30, 15 February 2008

Current Block

Having finally completed consideration of the report closed here, I've blocked you for 96 hours. Thatcher had specifically warned you against some of the language used in the reported edit less than a week prior.

Before I could find that you assumed bad faith, I had to check more of the history than just the complaint. Having read the history of Cold fusion, the mediation page, and the ArbComm case, it is clear to be that you did assume bad faith. This behavior has to stop.

You also were incivil. I wish to offer you further advice on how to avoid being incivil. I'm sure that you have heard "comment on the content, not the contributor" before. I'm saying it again, because you aren't doing it. Be more specific say "this change was appropriate because...". Good completions where the ellipsis are would be things like "sources X, Y, and Z each say 'quote from the sources'" or "we don't have any sources to support the alternative". References to POV are not good completions for the ellipsis. GRBerry 20:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another day, another changing bar. This admin has now removed at least two NPOV supporters on Wikipedia. Perhaps not his intention, but definitely the effect of his advocacy. He started with Adam Cuerden and now has moved on to me. Just as before, there was a failure in providing adequate and timely justification and evaluation of situations, and as a result a sympathetic ear has yet again been lent to the vocal minority of POV-pushers complaining about vague and ever-changing notions of "civility" and "good faith". Rather, Wikipedia administrators continue to enforce vaguely defined behavior guidelines rather than focusing on content guidelines.

It is clear that User:Ronnotel made an edit that had the effect of POV-pushing in favor of cold fusion. It is also clear he was not involved in the mediation conversation and swooped in with the effect of tip the balance on a mediation page in favor of his POV. User:Seicer is having a hard time controling the situation, and this is the sad result. This is the very reason I said that we shouldn't do a mediation in the first place. This is also why I will not involve myself in mediation in the future given the terrible track record I have witnessed for its (non)success. GRBerry has assured us that he has "read" the Cold fusion pages and from that it is somehow "clear" that I'm "assuming" bad faith. There are so many ill-defined terms in that last sentence, that I'll leave it to the reader to figure out what he means by it. I am particularly amused by his offer of "advice". It is more than ironic that this user is not practicing what he preaches by commenting on me instead of my contributions. Indeed, my comments to the user in question were simply advice. References to another user's POV are relevant and manifestly not assumptive when the person makes an edit without being involved in talk space and has a proven track record of supporting a particular POV. If it was a policy never to refer to another person's POV, then why, praytell, is there an WP:NPOV policy at all? Just get rid of it and rely completely on WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF.

It's clear that this had led to playing the game and supporting the community rather than writing a verifiable, reliable, and neutral encyclopedia. What a sham(e).

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC) modified by agreement by PouponOnToast (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SA, I've been very tolerant of your continued use of uncivil terms to unfairly taint my behavior. However, it has now been determined by two neutral parties, GRBerry and Seicer, that I have not been POV Pushing on Cold fusion. Either substantiate your charges with diffs or kindly stop making them. Ronnotel (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that PouponOnToast (talk · contribs) heavily edited ScienceApologist (talk · contribs)'s comments to reflect his own values, per what he authored on my talk page. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear oh dear, ScienceApologist, you're so hilariously incorrigable! lol--feline1 (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, feline1. It's always nice to see you out for a laugh. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After Seicer had reverted PouponOnToast's edit, the latter once again refactored SA's comment (diff). SA's original comment can be found here. Avb 22:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking out for me, AvB, but I think PoP has my best interests in mind. He has my permission to edit any and all comments I make on this wiki that anyone can edit. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's also been forum shopping in SA's defense, and has been blocked twice in the past few days. I've already brought this to an administrator's attention. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should consider refactoring this. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shortening to roughly 48 hours from original block (unless I miscalculated; that is my intent) at emailed request of the mediator. GRBerry 14:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, shucks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) 14:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, I've been in extensive discussions with SA and feel that my comments were a weighted factor in the blocking of SA for 96h originally. That was not my intent. I wanted the revert warring and pointless character attacks to stop. In the future, as mediator, I will step back and let others handle the situation and recuse myself from further discussions in regards to SA's actions in relation to CF, as it could lead to possible conflicts of interest. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to mention that the current condition of Cold fusion is indeed sad, presenting it as a disputed effect, instead of as a famous mistake. Short history reads like a very simple computer program:

100 Chemist (never physicist) takes more precise measurement with newer tool and finds excess energy in a process in his lab.

110 Chemist is oblivous to the Cyclotron in the physics lab next door, which is the actual source of the excess energy.

120 Chemist announces Cold Fusion.

130 Media jump on it.

140 Physicists jump on chemist.

150 Pause a few years.

160 Jump to different chemical lab in different country. Set Chemist := new chemist.

999 GOTO 100.

I would love for every chemistry and chemical engineering major, as freshmen, to run that program by hand with paper and pencil, for 100 iterations, before they can get their degree. Or are allowed to touch a web browser. It's like circle-squarers in mathematics, for a new generation. This does make it easy for me to see where SA gets his energy, though. Measurable as increase in temperature :-) Pete St.John (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I would actually be quite content to going back to the Featured Article version, given that it had to have achieved some sort of consensus and was stable enough to be acceptable to all parties. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ScienceApologist for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Template:Do not delete Ronnotel (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, this should be rich. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It already is. Apparently I can be called names, but for me to demand an apology from said caller is incivil. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anti-Science POV warriors and the gang of useless admins are throwing accusations out like crazy. This is just pathetic. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ID

Hey. Have you ever verified your ID? I remember some discussion long ago, but I have no recollection if that was some troll or if it was you. Thanks. PouponOnToast (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whowouldathunk that such a little comment would result in such a ridiculous block and unblock and departure of my one true friend at Wikipedia? I'd like to declare right now that I myself am not a trolling fuck, though I have been accused of being so. Yeah, I have tried to keep quiet my identity ever since a group of crazed Velikovskians stormed the castle in Chicago. In short, I prefer it if people didn't use my IRL identity for such reasons, but I'm not extremely careful and little slips are okay. I'm proud of my activities at Wikipedia and encourage anyone who is interested in them to look through them and (privately) associate them with me if that makes them feel better. When and if it gets out of hand, I'll let the relevant users know. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misusing talk page

Do not misuse your talk page to post personal information about another editor, or otherwise attempt to out them. If you feel the need to investigate that sort of potential conflict of interest, please email the Arbitration Committee in confidence. Jehochman ^Talk 21:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a bit surreal; and surely I'm missing something; but has SA used his talk page recently to out another editor? The stuff above is about SA's identity, not some other editor's. I can understand you don't want to post a diff to some material that may violate privacy, but something somewhat more specific would be helpful and pertinent. We don't want to make vague insuinuations of unethical behaviour, even about SA, whose hide is wonderfully thick. They should clone him and skin the clones to make body armor for the 21st century. Pete St.John (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to draw attention to material that should not have been posted. SA should recognize what I am talking about and can email me for clarification if need be. Jehochman ^Talk 21:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to oversight the material. Posting it was not a grave offense, but was inappropriate. Fred Talk 22:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 21:54, 15 February 2008 edit Jehochman (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers 46,193 edits →‎Misusing talk page: reply ← Previous edit		Revision as of 22:30, 15 February 2008 edit undo Fred Bauder (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 46,115 edits Oversighting Next edit →
Line 82:		Line 82:

	:: I am not going to draw attention to material that should not have been posted. SA should recognize what I am talking about and can email me for clarification if need be. [[User:Jehochman\|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman\|Talk]]</sup> 21:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)		:: I am not going to draw attention to material that should not have been posted. SA should recognize what I am talking about and can email me for clarification if need be. [[User:Jehochman\|Jehochman]] <sup>[[User_talk:Jehochman\|Talk]]</sup> 21:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

			:::I'm going to oversight the material. Posting it was not a grave offense, but was inappropriate. [[User:Fred Bauder\|Fred]] [[User talk:Fred Bauder\|Talk]] 22:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)