User talk:ජපස

I have a simple two to three step process for refactoring comments that seem to anyone to be uncivil:

1. You need to provide a specific reference to specific wording. A diff or link is a good start, but you need to quote exactly what part of the wording is uncivil and why. Is it an adjective? A particular phrase? etc. (For example, "I thought it was uncivil when you said 'there are dozens of isochron methods' here.")
2. You will need to be abundantly clear as to how the exact wording is perceived by you to be uncivil towards you personally and why you consider it to be uncivil. (For example, "When I was being persecuted in the Maltese riots of 1988, the favored phrase of the police as they shot us with their water cannons was 'There are dozens of isochron methods!' The phrase still haunts me to this day.")
3. Provide an alternative wording that provides the same information without the perceived incivility. This is not a necessary step, but would be helpful. (For example, "Instead of saying that phrase, could you just say 'Scientists use a large number of radioisotope ratios to allow them to date rocks.'? This phrase does not carry the loaded baggage that I associate with the wording you wrote but seems to have the same meaning.")

Once you provide at least information relating to the first two steps, I will usually immediately refactor. The third step is optional.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

ANI Notice

You were mentioned in an ANI posting at WP:ANI#ScienceApologist continuing misconduct. I wouldn't take it with a grain of salt, IMO. seicer | talk | contribs 01:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Alien Interbreeding

When you return we can get started on this article based on the information provided here [1]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking forward to your return. In the meantime some major article expansion is underway... [2]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I added a citation needed tag here [3]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you've been gone I've had to revert the above massive addition to Ashtar and voted to delete some author/abductee. These are tough times, you know how much I love that kind of thing. When are you going to be back in action? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not for a while if the arbcom has its way. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Although I guess that means the exopolitics article I created will be safe for a while? Do you have a link to your tribunal? It's too bad there isn't a way to disappear for a while and come back quietly in a new form... Or did you try that and get busted??? I get the impression you tend to leave large footprints. Have you tried slippers? Anyway, I hope you're enjoying your break. Be good. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

David Talbott

Re: David Talbott -- sempre vigilance. See the latest version of his page and the RfD discussion. Editor Davesmith_au is a most tenacious defender of his "hero", but not as NPOV as he expects others to be. Phaedrus7 (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

• I have posted a response to these baseless assertions here Davesmith au (talk) 04:57, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Davesmith_au is clearly in a COI situation. Yet one can see why he jumps in and defends the article against the attacks of ScienceApologist, who feels he has a license to add unsourced bad stuff to bios of people with pseudoscientific ideas. If SA would back off and respect NPOV, then Davesmith might back off, too. We had the bio in decent shape for a while, I thought, then SA came in and started trashing it (see a dozen or so edits starting here). Dicklyon (talk) 04:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

To Davesmith_au's objection to the comment that Talbott is his "hero", I offer the sage poetic couplet from Robert "Bobby" Burns: "O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us!" And in a more colloquial vein: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck. If Davesmith_au had so much as a scintilla of scientific literacy and interdisciplinary acumen, he would realize in an instant that Talbott's ideas are "crackpot" in the first order and not worth all the effort beyond accuracy he is expending in their defense. Talbott is wrong about the "polar configuration" because, as students of the origin of religion know full well, the first gods were not planets as he insists. In Mesopotamia, the early head of the pantheon, Enlil (whose name means "Lord Plow" or "Lord Earth"), was never associated with a planet, but with part of the constellation we call Draco and the Pole of the Ecliptic, a position in the sky that has no meaning in Talbott's "Saturn Thesis", whose fixation is the Pole of the Equator; and when Talbott was confronted with this fact in a footnote in his book The Saturn Myth (p. 342, n. 60), concerning a reference to Peter Jensen's book, he merely stated "I certainly cannot accept" this, as was cited in the version prior to Dicklyon's drastic revision. If Davesmith_au were as objective an editor as his frequent invocation of NPOV would indicate, then he would have at least cited the criticisms of Ashton, Rose and James in his edits to Talbott's entry, references he cannot plead ignorance of considering they were cited in the long version shortened by Dicklyon. 128.252.173.64 (talk) 21:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Phaedrus7 (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Correction: I hasten to correct an error in stating the meaning of the name Enlil earlier. The name Enlil actually means "Lord Wind", not "Lord Plow" or "Lord Earth". These latter translations apply to Enlil's son Ninurta, wh early on was assimilated to planet Saturn and in later times in Assyria to planet Mars, when the planetary association was traded with Nergal. Such theological associations were arbitrary in the service of astrology, since the Mesopotamians also had technical, or astronomical, names for the planets besides the names of major deities. Thus Saturn, besides being associated with Ninurta, had the astronomical name "Lu-Bat Sag-Us", i.e., the steady planet. It is the origin of these technical names that Morris Jastrow, Jr., was discussing when he noted that Saturn was named some unspecified time after Jupiter and Venus had been given special names, during which time Saturn was lumped together with Mars and Mercury as mere "Lu Bats" whose identity was inferred from context. Such an anonymous identity for Saturn is totally incompatible with Talbott's insistence on the primordial importance of planet Saturn. And while I am at it making corrections, let me point out that Jensen in 1890 identified god Anu with the "Pole of the Ecliptic" and god Enlil with the "Pole of the Equator", but soon thereafter Assyriologists decided that the identifications should be switched so that Enlil became identified with the "Pole of the Ecliptic". This change does not negate the essential fact that our ancestors in the 3rd millennium B.C.E. had identified both the "Pole of the Equator" and the "Pole of the Ecliptic", a realization that totally eviscerates Talbott's "Saturn Myth" fantasy in which the "Pole of the Equator" reigned supreme in its solitude. Phaedrus7 (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

• A response to this is here. And why continue to snot up ScienceApologist's talk page when he's not here to wipe the snot? The appropriate place would be your talk page or mine, not that of a third party who is not even here. Whilst SA and I have our differences, this strange behavior of yours is highly inappropriate. Davesmith au (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Exopolitics

I was thinking about this not so long back, after the article was kept at AFD... the no consensus close is a bit iffy, and it probably should be looked over at DRV, but I'm failing to think of a reason why. Could you try and think of one? You're a bit more articulate (if a bit rude at times) with dealing with fringe concepts. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Quote mining

Since you've contributed to it in the past, I thought you might want to look in once more on the article's present state and current RfC. arimareiji (talk) 14:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!

New York City Meetup—Museum Extravanganza Next: February 6-7, at the Met Museum and the Brooklyn Museum Last: 01//2008

Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list.
This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Help with dealing a cultic subject?

Hi,

I recently developed Hannes Vanaküla, based mostly on recent months' media coverage of the man. Unfortunately, as so often happens with cult circles, a follower of his has shown up, and is making disturbing assertions on the topic of WP:BLP. Unfortunately, I'm not really familiar with BLP issues on Wikipedia.

Could you take a look, and make suggestions on making sure that any legitimate concerns that might arise are covered? I know there is no point in dealing with the irrational concerns, but this kind of people are sometimes rather active in getting admins involved.

Thanks in advance. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 15:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Article on Andy Tomlinson

I've been contacted by Michael Strobel about an article he wrote about me the copy of which I have now read. It all seems factual and accurate. I know he is trying to improve the quality of the current article which has been flagged for improvements. What amazed me when I looked at the discussion page is why constructive critism on his submitted article was not given and it was simply dismissed. To simply say the Scientific and Medical Newtork (SMN) in which some of my articles have been published is "a journal article looks to me like an unindexed, low-impact field journal designed to make pseudoscientists feel better" is way off the mark. I wonder what image Wikipedia would create if this came to the attention of the SMN chairman Prof John Clarke, or the board of directors including Prof Bernard Carr, Dr. Oliver Robinson, or Professor Marilyn Monk let alone the thousands of professionals and scientist that belong to it. Is this the image Wikipedia wants at a time its seeking funds? I think you need to back down or let your colleague editors be the judge of the acceptance of his article. Andy Tomlinson (talk) 20:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You possibly should have a read of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policies (see WP:COI for more information). Ta Shot info (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Guidelines and Policies

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy

Wikipedia is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines are descriptive, not prescriptive. They represent an evolving community consensus for how to improve the encyclopedia and are not a code of law. A procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Similarly, do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy to violate the principles of the policy (see Wikipedia's guideline on gaming the system). If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures

I found this in WP:NOT, make of it what you will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GundamMerc (talk • contribs) 13:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Another sock? They've already made edits that have had to be oversighted. Verbal chat 14:36, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Reversed burden of proof problem - help needed

I wonder if you are able to comment on the following principle, relevant to the Ayn Rand dispute - see the talk page, and see WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Ayn_Rand. The problem is as follows: William Vallicella, who is a recognised Kant scholar, has published something in a blog post about Rand having completely misunderstood Kant. Someone has objected that while Vallicella is a recognised Kant scholar, he has not published on Rand in reliable sources (a blog post not being considered RS), and so the citation cannot be allowed.

This is the reverse burden of proof problem - it is hard to find scientific sources that discuss pseudoscience. In such cases I believe it is legitimate to source from non-promotional descriptions of pseudoscience that can only be obtained from second- and third-party sources and not peer-reviewed.

The dispute also has affinities with the special pleading problem - that pseudoscientists (or in this case, pseudoacademics) can object that the academics are not expert in the pseudoacademic subject. This is of course an absurd argument, and if allowed unchallenged, would open the floodgate - any advocate of any fringe view could object that the advocates of scientific method simply didn't understand the pseudoscientific 'theory' being advanced.

I appreciate you are not an expert on philosophy (at least I assume not). But this has little to do with philosophy, and everything to do with the need to establish a precedent in Wikipedia policy. Because science is generally silent about pseudoscience, it is difficult to reliably source scientific views on pseudoscience. In such a case, we should be allowed to source views of established scientists or academics or scholars, from any available sources (giving precedence to reliable independent sources where possible).

Principle: if an established scientist, scholar or academic has made statements about a pseudoscientific or pseudo-academic subject, then whatever the source of that statement, it should be allowed as a reliable source, if no other sources are available. Peter Damian (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a good principle. I think I'm going to add it to my user page. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Peter, I'm not planning on joining the ArbCom, but I'm willing to make a statement supporting your common-sense and necessary proposal. (Don't we already have a guideline like this?) kwami (talk) 02:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Tyrannosaur meat

What was that link you sent me refuting the Discover magazine story about fresh tyrannosaur meat that my Fundamentalist friend adores? --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 16:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Reacting to Galileo

It's hard to say how any of us would have reacted to Galileo, had we been alive at the time. However, I don't think you can quite put Galileo into the same class as pseudoscientists of today, because Galileo typically worked from readily reproducible evidence. Galileo's views were pretty convincing to anyone else who pointed a telescope at the sky. Mountains on the Moon, the moons of Jupiter, sunspots, etc. - there would have been no real debate over whether these things existed if everyone at the time agreed on some rules of evidence, and looked through the telescope rather than to the Bible. Modern pseudoscience differs from Galileo's proto-science in that pseudoscientific claims are in general irreproducible, or in some cases readily shown to be fraudulent or delusional with a satisfying scientific explanation of the mechanism of delusion (e.g., dowsing and the Ideo motor response). In any case, if we agree that there is in fact one objective reality, and science is a process of finding successively more accurate approximations of it, then scientific revolutions should keep getting harder to come by. For example, will the Periodic Table of the Elements ever be replaced by something completely different? That gets harder to imagine each year, as more and more evidence accumulates to support the existing mainstream theory. Galileo worked at a time when humans were collectively so much more ignorant than we are today that it's hard to compare the two eras fairly. There is also some selection bias when singling out Galileo - no doubt he was far outnumbered at the time by crackpots nobody remembers today, because their ideas didn't work. --Teratornis (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Time tests all ideas. Galileo was an excellent scientist, if he was a rather rude guy. Still, WP:CBALL is worth considering. I use Galileo as a shocker-example: one meant to make a point to the people who complain. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interdimensional hypothesis (2nd nomination)

You might consider rewriting the first sentence of your deletion rationale to omit the parenthetical and the word bizarre. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:49, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Would really like your opinion

I'm at a loss here. It's a long thread, so I've just linked the latest section. Some pearls include:

I am frankly tired of watching anti-fringe editors take articles like homeopathy, alternative medicine, and parapsychology and pack them solid with terms like 'purported', ' unverified', 'pseudoscientific', 'disputed', 'unaccepted' and etc., in a painstaking effort to make the topics look as defunct as possible.

and

Then there is the whole false presumption that "science" and all other knowledge is like some kind of universal monolith where almost everyone is in universal agreement, and the few who dare disagree with "mainstream" hypotheses, deserve to be run out, tarred and feathered. Remember science is paid for by governments, and a lot of it has been spent on very silly things. It was a lot harder to maintain this useful illusion of a monolith in the 1930s, when you had Nazi scientists, Soviet scientists, Western scientists and Chinese scientists, and each of these had their own "mainstream" and "fringe", but many of the things they were researching were almost as silly as some of the things being researched today.

Thanks for your time. Ben (talk) 09:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science

The above-linked Arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published.

ScienceApologist is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months. ScienceApologist is free to edit the talk pages of such articles. Pcarbonn is admonished for needlessly stoking the fires of disputes in the area of fringe science, and is encouraged to direct his efforts elsewhere.

All editors in the disputed area are warned that further disruptive editing in the disputed area will be viewed dimly by the Committee, and may lead to further sanctions being imposed. Editors in the disputed area are encouraged to seek to engage in formal mediation to help establish consensus when coverage of fringe science in an article or group of articles is under dispute. While mediation is not binding, editors are further encouraged to abide by the results of mediation (and other dispute resolution).

For the Arbitration Committee, Gazimoff 00:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Pathetic. My condolences for the time you've been lead to waste on the useless eight. Perhaps you should have gamed Wikipedia and gone on Wikibreak like the ArbCom's favourite kookery cheerleader? Nevard (talk) 00:44, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A real shame. I'm disappointed by this decision, which will lead to an increase in the presence of pseudo-scientific crap. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 00:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

A real pity :( --Enric Naval (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

But, with every cloud there's a silver lining, or something. Someone like me who has observed from the sidelines for a bit, wondering exactly what fringe science is, appreciates the nice definition given by Arbcom, namely --"In this ruling, the term "fringe science" refers to matters which purport to be science, or use its trappings and terminology but are not usually regarded as such by the general scientific community; and to matters which do not claim to be scientific but nevertheless make claims that are normally considered within the purview of science". That's made it pretty clear that '"....not usually regarded as (science) by the general scientific community...." is a particularly good guideline for future edits to fringe science articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.152.176.181 (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's something- on the other hand, the most effective action taking against those promoting killer pseudoscience on sensitive articles has been taken by individual principled admins. If my experience with the pedophilia promotion articles is anything to go on, ArbCom usurping judgement just means drawn out mock court drama where the nuts get to continue promoting their lies in an article with 'Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration/' at the front, and decent users are only wasting their time by 'contributing'. If the pseudoscience pushers are to be policed properly, the only proceedings should be "I have blocked MartinPhi. See [1] [2] [3]". Nevard (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I wonder which fringe science articles might have contributions from editors who feel that with Science Apologist muzzled for 6 months it is open season to use Wikipedia to promote fringe science? Is there a notice board where such articles are tracked? Edison (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It's difficult to have a website be primarily an encyclopedia and also primarily a Swiss finishing school for young ladies—you have to choose one. IMO the ArbCom has made the wrong choice here. Bishonen | talk 12:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC).

Yes a rather poorly thought out decision. What else should we have expected from ArbCom? Verbal chat 15:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

@ Edison: yes, the Fringe theories/Noticeboard.

I am most curious how this ruling will be interpreted next time some fringe promoter shows up on, for instance, Redshift; it is a Featured high-importance physics article. I do not know what role if any ScienceApologist played in getting it there, but they have certainly been instrumental in keeping the crap material ignored by the astrophysics community from overrunning it. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) Just adding another voice of friendship and support, SA. Wikipedia's norms are evolving, and it appears that more people than not want to (a) improve scientific coverage, and (b) improve collegiality. I realize that some believe these two are to some degree mutually incompatible, but I disagree. I think there are good reasons to believe we can have both, and certainly good reasons to try to make it real; it's nice to see some of the commenters above who habitually act from this "good quadrant" of +science, +collegiality, which imo is the sort of thing for which one awards barnstars and so on. Just offering some thoughts and a virtual beverage; that's about it. Happy editing, and best wishes to you. --Middle 8 (talk) 17:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Nil illegitimi carborandum. Keep up the good fight! Rhinoracer (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't help but feel that ArbCom have made a decision which is not in the best interests of the encyclopaedia. —BillC ^talk 00:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh well, just stick to the "rules" and lets see which way the cards fall. Shot info (talk) 02:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the others here. The block was not in the best interest of Wikipedia as a whole, but it certainly could have gone a lot worse than it did. Your efforts are definitely strongly appreciated, and I look forward to when the block is lifted. DreamGuy (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Religion

Have you seen this? I'd be interested as to your thoughts. Cheers, Verbal chat 21:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Commented. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:AE complaint

Hi SA, sorry to disturb your Wikibreak, but I've filed a case about your conduct at WP:AE, here. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

AE

It might be useful for you to run proposed AE actions past either myself or Durova before filing them. Hipocrite (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Word to the wise

You are not permitted to edit Cold fusion, even to correct spelling errors. Please don't. Hipocrite (talk) 00:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm practicing civil disobedience. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm drafting a comment to WP:AE about your and Abd's violations. Please don't take it personally. Hipocrite (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I won't. I think it's time for a test case. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. You know where I sit, but civil disobedience isn't really if you don't get arrested, I guess. I cannot support your violations of your ridiculous but legitimate ban. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:ScienceApologist. Hipocrite (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

That's right. Civil disobedience is disobeying with the intent to expose the flaws inherent in the system. The person who gets arrested for civil disobedience argues through breaking the law that their crime was no crime because the law itself is unjust. You have been a valiant defender of me, and I do appreciate it. Bans are legitimate only inasmuch as the community has abandoned WP:IAR, which, I believe, they have. What I believe this will comes down to is punishing people for correcting misspellings. If not, well then, I will go on correcting misspellings and articles will be better for it! It is something with which the community has to come to terms. We are at a crossroad in revealing what happens when the good members of the community stop standing up for what is right. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

All this over a typo. right, I think carrots rather than sticks are what's required. I will create a to-do list...Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Enigmatic, but I'll take whatever comes. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Treatment of schizophrenia for starters, that Treatment of depression one, just from my vocational neck of the woods..oh hang on, well, we can ask whether folks think it is at all fringey or not. Something basic, like mercury or arsenic with an accurate review of risk literature...shit, I dunno...Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:45, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Argh, meant Mercury_(element) - is the environemtal stuff sensible? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:47, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Treatment of schizophrenia - no - "Alternative approaches" includes "claim that schizophrenia can be treated effectively with nutrients like niacin and vitamins C and B6, omega-3 EFAs (fish oil) along with various minerals and amino acids."
• Treatment of depression - no - Treatment_of_depression#Acupuncture need I say more?
• mercury - no - Project Mercury is believed to be a fraud by people who deny the moon landing.
• arsenic - no - Arsenicum album.
• Mercury_(element) - no - "Since the 1930s some vaccines have contained the preservative thiomersal, which is metabolized or degraded to ethyl mercury. Although it was widely speculated that this mercury-based preservative can cause or trigger autism in children, scientific studies showed no evidence supporting any such link."

Perhaps he can edit articles about Pokemon! Hipocrite (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

More --> Sodium_dodecyl_sulfate and Sodium laureth sulfate --> these need any more bolstering or fact checking?...I was frying up some food a while ago...in a teflon (Polytetrafluoroethylene) frying pan...can I be made more anxious or relieved by the article?? The lead doesn't help me here...Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Aerosol teflon does seem to kill birds [4]. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The plot thickens! Spelling corrections must be okay... Right? Or maybe not. Civil disobedience? I love it. I think it's a losing argument, but intriguing. I suspect a ban is a ban. More interesting to me is Casliber's note that science stuff is okay. So if it's not fringey you're in the clear I think? You just can't mess with exopolitics thank goodness. What about science fiction? Can you start with the newer Star Trek stuff and work backwards? I tend to favor the classics. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Am I safe from my microwave oven....how's the safety on this? Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• User:Anonymous Dissident has been trying to get quark Featured...how do you think he's going? Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ditto User:RJHall with electron...Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Aluminium !!!! aargh, I am getting smelly as I am too scared to used underarm deodorant!! also my aluminium potsn adn pans...hang on all those beverage cans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Gosh, seeing as it's Friday I was about to tuck into a fish dinner when I noted methylmercury...now I am worried....Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What does this mean?

"Topic bans and other measures are open to community review. The community is free to modify sanctions, such as extending a topic ban or replacing a topic ban with mentoring and editing restrictions."

I'm available to mentor you. I'd like to start by having you read certain Star Wars related materials, followed by a brief introduction to holistic medicine, and daily yoga. Isn't the success of placebos and the psychological role (positive outlook, mental health etc.) in promoting good physical outcomes well established?

I think a karmic rebirth is all that's needed here. Which isn't that far removed from civil disobedience if you just think of Gandhi. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:09, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As a member of the community, I have reviewed this stupidity topic ban and I say we modify the topic ban to time served and apologise to SA. Verbal chat 07:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever happens happens. If the community doesn't want to enforce a topic ban, is it really a topic ban? Anyway, I'd love to have ChildofMidnight mentor me. What a twist! ScienceApologist (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What is "community review"? Are Verbal's findings binding? I've tried to mentor a couple of editors, but they always turn out to be sock puppets or up to no good. I hope it's not my influence. Maybe Verbal can mentor you?

Have you ever checked out how many new articles are never patrolled at all? I wonder about all the time and discussion that goes on over contentious issues when there is so much basic editing sourcing etc. that needs to be done. I think arb com should make more rapid decisions, but I guess that's not how it all works. Wouldn't a series of short immediate remedies be more effective than months long hearings followed up with sweeping enforcements that are overly broad? I don't know. It's all interesting in a surreal kind of way. I don't really have the attention span to read through all of the comments that made up your various hearings and explore the diffs involved, but I guess your methods weren't well received by arb com? Even so, consensus seems to shift frequently and sometimes rapidly here, so I guess the outcome could be just the opposite (perhaps as a result of Verbal's review?) in no time. Anyway, be good. Maybe working on straight science articles would provide a nice break? Or are you going to do more copy-editing/ sit-ins? ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I work where I'm interested, as should most people. This is, after all, a volunteer-run enterprise. The attempts of the *ahem* otherwise-inclined to prevent be from editing where I am most interested have succeeded in making a lot of drama out of the activity, but as yesterdays nonsense showed, I don't think the community has the stomach to truly topic ban me in the sense that they didn't want to block me for correcting spelling. In the end, every sustained foil I have had has been pushed to the wayside, and I'm still here. So that's something. I'm here, I think, because on most substantive content issues I tend to be on the side of the best sources whereas my opponents tend to have other allegiances. So I will remain and become more and more of a fixture of this absurdity. I will continue to edit fringe science articles to improve them to protest the idiocy of arbcom as an object-lesson in how irrelevant and out-of-touch they are. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Without going into the detail, I would guess that my one line review, calling the decision stupid, will not change much. It was a parody based on the quote above about "community review". Verbal chat 19:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Elonka

Geez, SA, that one wasn't a good idea. Prodding Elonka, currently a redirect to Elonka Dunin, under the rationale that the connection between the title and the article redirected to is "obscure" and unlikely for anyone to be thinking of when they type it in is pretty bizarre. So I deprodded that.

If your argument is that it's a name used by more than one person and thus should have some sort of article about the name and not just automatically redirect to a specific person, I could see that argument... though I don't know how much info could even be drug up on that particular name. If you object to the idea that Elonka Dunin made the redirect herself to point to a Wikipedia article about herself, well, yeah it does seem like inappropriate behavior, but the whole vanity thing is several years old and if she was going to get into trouble over it it would have happened long ago.

My advice to you is simply to pick your battles and not to give any ammo to your enemies to use against you more than would be the natural result of good faith editing here (because, face it, obviously some people will try to turn anything into something to complain about). Just like someone got community banned for not being able to drop his obsession with you, I'm sure Elonka and her cult of personality would love to try to use that action to get you blocked. If you think it needed to be done, post a notice about it somewhere and convince someone else to do it, but don't do it yourself.

In fact, really,that goes for editing articles too. Being banned from actually editing articles probably won't have any real effect on you at all if you work with it. Post on talk pages. Dig stuff up and let other editors who support the same causes you do know about it. Find the sources, make the arguments, document the abuses, and you'll end up having way more impact on the encyclopedia then if you try to slug it out individually. What you want to do is parlay the goodwill you've built up for yourself among the people who agree with you into a leadership position, albeit an unofficial one. Don't even bother with anything that could let anyone think you're being petty. Wikiproject: Science Apology sort of thing, over "oh no, SA is back fighting with people again".

I hope you take this as the construction criticism it was intended to be. DreamGuy (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, but I'm no longer playing Wikipedia politics. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you play politics. I sure don't play politics either. I'm suggesting you take a whistleblower and unofficial leadership role on Wikipedia outside of the stupid politics. The way you've been doing it clearly won't work, and if you seriously want to accomplish your goals instead of just pissing certain people off, then you need a new strategy. Transcend the stupidity, don't get stuck mud wrestling it. DreamGuy (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to be a leader at all. I'm not at all convinced that the way I've been doing it clearly won't work. It is important to piss off people who are problematic. Otherwise they stick around and make the entire endeavor problematic. I don't feel that I'm wrestling anything. I'm actually perfectly happy. If what I'm doing improves the encyclopedia, then it improves the encyclopedia. If it doesn't, then, it's a wiki and someone will change it. That's all. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah well, I can always count on this page for a chuckle anyway. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then let me not play politics. Stop this retaliatory action against editors you oppose, or your account could be further restricted or blocked. SirFozzie (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep useful contribution that... Shot info (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, SirFozzie, you just played politics. You can try again, but it'll cost you an ante! ScienceApologist (talk) 03:04, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, hey, your strategy got Martinphi banned, so all the more power to you. Having that guy gone is one of the biggest steps forward this place has had. DreamGuy (talk) 14:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Again

Please know that I support your goals but I'm not a fan of civil disobedience. Again, it's not really disobediant untill you are arrested, so neither you nor I should mind that I've reported your Atropia Beladonna edit to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:ScienceApologist_and_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FFringe_science_on_Atropa_belladonna. Please don't take offence, as I really do support you. Hipocrite (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I encourage your reporting. I do not believe that this article, which is not categorized under any of the "fringe science" categories is a fringe science article. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What if SciAp put up a page in his user space with a list of articles requiring attention, and recommendations for editing? Then people could read them and decide on their own what to do. I've disagreed with him in the past, so no one could call me a meat puppet if from time to time I were to follow up on his recommendations.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What a funny idea. I like it! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I could call it: User:ScienceApologist/Stickin' it to the arbcom or User:ScienceApologist/Call for meatpuppetry or User:ScienceApologist/Evading Fringe Science topic ban. What do you all recommend? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I like "User:ScienceApologist/Work1," for extra added irony. Hipocrite (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Was thinking of User:ScienceApologist/I Am Spartacus :-) --Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Bah, you can always say that it's the same thing that was recommended to User:Peter Damian (to make recommendations in his own talk page), and he wasn't even topic banned, he was fully banned. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

'kay all, ignore my ill-considered idea. SciAp, just keep posting to the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, which is the best thing since sliced bread anyway. And when you can't do that anymore, send messages in bottles. Heck just send the bottle (Old Bushmill's preferred) and don't bother opening it, make the medium the message!--Goodmorningworld (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I would love to make the medium the message. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a public page with a list of some of the craziest anti-science ideas out there. Join in. Despite certain POV-warriors belief that I'm somehow on an Arbcom restriction, I am not, and even if I were, I wouldn't give a damn. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Clarification..

Making you aware of the following clarification:

(copied from the ArbCom page as well as AE)

Since there could be some lingering confusion on the topic ban of ScienceApologist, which reads as follows, I have clarified the restriction as an ArbCom Enforcement action:

The restriction: 3.1) ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) is banned from editing any article relating to fringe science topics, broadly construed, for a period of six months. ScienceApologist is free to edit the talk pages of such articles.

Passed 8 to 3 with 1 abstention, 00:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The clarification: Violations of this topic ban include making edits concerning fringe science topics, even to articles that would not be considered fringe science topics. SirFozzie (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if this is FT2 Mk.2 operating for the ArbCom without the consent of the ArbCom? Shot info (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As I said, it's an AE action, not an ArbCom action. I've already kicked it up stairs, at least one ArbCom member is aware of the action I've taken. SirFozzie (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, one was all that was needed last time...and he isn't around too much anymore :-) Shot info (talk) 01:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, if you think I'm being overbearing or what have you, you can seek consensus to have it overturned, or have ArbCom review the clarification I've made? SirFozzie (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I thought that editors in high places would have learnt something from FT2's errors of judgement and sought ArbCom clarification prior to speaking for them. I'm not going to comment on whether or not your clarification is warranted or not, but you are presuming to expand ArbCom's decision, which isn't for you to make. Shot info (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Restrictions and blocks can be implemented by any standing administrator, and can only be overturned upon appeal to ArbCom. seicer | talk | contribs 01:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input - nice to see that you don't let bygones be bygones Seicer Shot info (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I find this all incredibly humorous. The ship of fools sails! Now, let me get back to that list that the arbitrator User:Casliber has given me. I hope I don't upset anyone by telling them that their microwave oven isn't dangerous. This is going to get rich real fast. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Dammit, my reheated food is all cold and hot in different places....Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. Food that lacks thermal equilibrium certainly qualifies. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Not taking the bait

Regarding this:

You have been reported to WP:AE for violations of the Pseudoscience Arbitration. Please look here. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

my reply, cross-posted from my talk page: Obviously a WP:POINT violation, and dismissed as such.[5] Your approach continues to be heavy on the heat (drama) and short on the light (anything having to do with calm exchange of ideas). Obviously, you're intent on continuing the behavior that got you topic-banned in hopes that the community will decide to embrace you, but you offer a false choice between poor content and being an asshole. You need to develop more constructive ways of dealing with people with whom you disagree. Driving us all off with a stick isn't going to work, dude. You're certainly not going to succeed in driving me off. All I need to do is edit as I usually do; you can file all the petty complaints that you want, but no one's buying into them. So, as long as I don't bait you and don't get roped in by your attempts to bait me, I think I'll be acting in the best interest of the project. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

In an environment where content is everything - what do you think should "win"? Shot info (talk) 10:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What should win is what generates the best content. We agree on that, obviously. Where we diverge is on how best to do that. My view is that a civil editing environment does so better than an incivil, overdramatic and WP:POINT-ish one. So I contend that the choice you present is a false one, and I can prove it.

As an analogy, consider gun control. If the goal is a safe society, then there is no question that gun ownership (especially of handguns) should be heavily restricted; it's well-known in the reality-based community than when you control for demographic factors, societies with heavier gun restriction are safer. That's why doctors and scientists argue for gun control as a public health issue. Similarly, the data on WP back up my contention: if you look at editors who generate good content (which could be measured in any number of ways), the large majority of them do not get repeatedly sanctioned for gross incivility, disruption, etc. as SA has. That's a fact. If you're a fan of a reality-based approach, then I presume you will find my logic appealing. The idea that good content is generatable only if one embraces SA's tactics is a religious belief that comes under WP:FANATIC. --Middle 8 (talk) 11:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't really care about your analogy. What you need to focus on is the generation of content. You keep expressing that others should concentrate less on the heat and more of the light, but you seem to be focusing on the "heat" part rather than the "light" yourself. If you didn't then other's behaviour wouldn't phase you and you wouldn't need to generate analogies now would you? Shot info (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, generation of content was the entire focus of my reply. That's what you asked about, after all. Since I prefer light to heat, I have no choice but to object, from time to time, when I see too much heat being generated.

I love how you completely ignore the substance of my reply and instead criticize me for giving a substantial reply at all. You seem to be suggesting that by doing so, I manifested an unhealthy interest in the subject matter. I believe that's called a "gotcha" game. As I said, I'm not taking bait, Shot -- I can see perfectly well where you're coming from. Over to you for the last word. Have fun. --Middle 8 (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

JFK put it best: "We are not here to curse the darkness; we are here to light a candle." Middle 8, you're no Jack Kennedy. DreamGuy (talk) 14:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Per previous

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:ScienceApologist_on_Creation_science.2C_Atropa_belladonna_in_violation_of_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FFringe_science per previous. Again, I support neither your ban nor your violations of it. Best of luck. Hipocrite (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Right

While my initial request did not involve you, you should be aware of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_for_clarification_:_Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration.2FFringe_science. Hipocrite (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

You said "I can't help it if we have braindead arbitrators who make rulings that are so stupid they're nearly impossible to enforce."

You are welcome to criticize the actions and decisions of other Wikipedians, but you must not resort to name calling when you do so. I know from your history that you are familiar with our no personal attacks policy so I won't be issuing another warning after this one. Chillum 16:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. It wasn't intended as a personal attack, but upon reading it now I see how it could be interpreted in such a way! I will refactor. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Arbcom case

I posted this. This is a courtesy notice, no response to me is necessary. --KP Botany (talk) 10:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours for violation of your topic ban at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science. Tiptoety ^talk 01:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

In particular, [6], [7], [8] and [9] are all direct violation. Given that you have been reminded specifically that editing around the spirit of the restriction by making minor or trivial edits in the banned topics was not acceptable, this block is entirely reasonable. — Coren ^(talk) 01:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an unjust block that is simply punitive and nothing more. Since there are plenty of ways to work around such blocks, I will simply and plainly work around it if I see an edit that I would like to make in the next 24 hours. I do not accept the authority of the administrator making the block nor the arbcom's insistence that the topic ban is reasonable in any way. All those watching this page should protest this block and the arbcom restriction on principle. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Three of the four edits look like typo corrections. And the fourth a ref improve. Looks like a very dubious block. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to law-enforcement-obsessed administrators like Tiptoey and blind-allegiance-to-arbcom-rulings-that-you-didn't-even-vote-for arbitrators like Coren. WP:IAR is meaningless to them as is WP:ENC. Yes, I am concluding bad faith here, but I'm not assuming it. Either they are too narrow-sighted to see that their support for this stupidity is preventing improvements made to the encyclopedia or they don't understand the ideals of WP:ENC. Either way, Wikipedia would certainly be better off if they just stayed out of my business, but oh well. Now I know that Tiptoey was monitoring my contributions just so he could have an excuse to block me for 24 hours. It's always good to know who is watching you! :) ScienceApologist (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed an example of someone looking for an excuse. There was not change of content at all. -- Fyslee (talk) 01:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

But see, they don't see it that way. To them, I'm just a nuisance who cannot be controlled. The appeal will probably be made to WP:POINT with the lack of understanding that in order to violate this adage one must actually be disrupting the encyclopedia. Apparently, the simple fact that I made the edits is disruptive enough. There is no attempt to think about content. It's solely babysitting. Sad, sad, sad. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Should the spelling corrections and the fixed link be reverted? This is absolute silliness. Those enforcing this block are needlessly disrupting the encyclopedia and causing unnecessary drama. There was no fringe science content involved here. This is boneheaded to the extreme. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Get used to it, Child. Having been under a similar lens before I have to tell you it will only get sillier! You could always file a motion to ammend the topic ban on my behalf so to avoid administrative blocks for trivial matters like this. The appropriate place for such activity is WP:RfArb. Doubt they will look kindly on it, but who knows? Maybe they'll see the light. Come to think of it, I might just do this myself as soon as I get out of the brig! ScienceApologist (talk) 01:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I posted on wp:ani#Dubious block. As I'm fairly personna non grata around here I don't know if it will do you any good. But this block is pure silliness. There's nothing controversial about spelling and you have my full support to correct as many spelling errors as you see fit. What a joke to block for such a thing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

seicer, as much as I dislike him, is right about one thing: only an appeal to arbcom can overturn this one. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A crackpot editor will take WP:IAR and WP:ENC to mean they should push their fringe ideas. However, when edits clearly follow WP:ENC to the rational observer, as in this case, that's a different matter. Although, SA, I get the feeling that if the ban were to make an exception for "minor" corrections, you'd do your best to just barely violate that ban too! kwami (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

My biggest beef is that none of the arbitrators voting for the topic ban actually bothered to consider what such a ban would entail. It gets to the point that they will have to defend the indefensible: blocking someone for adding wikilinks, fixing typos, and adding references to articles simply because they don't like the identity of the account who made the edits. That is what Wikipedia has come to. That's what you get when you build an admin corps out of people who revel in the Wikipedia:Punitive model. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a fairly common behavior modification strategy, really - a complete prohibition rather than a nuanced restriction, imposed to prevent an exhausting war of inches. The idea was to separate you from the topic, not to protect the topic but to end the disruptive dynamic. Allowing you to make some edits because you believe they improve the encyclopedia would invalidate the entire ban, because obviously you believe all or nearly all of your edits improve the encyclopedia. So if they want to stop the cycle they find disruptive, they really had no choice but to go whole hog on the ban - despite the sometimes strange consequences if you push the boundries. Avruch ^T 02:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I was not aware that arbcom was in the business of behavior modification. Maybe I should be sent to a deprogramming facility where I can be appropriately re-educated for reintroduction into the society. I hear your attempts to be an apologist for the punitive wonks at Wikipedia, but I'm not buying it. The long and the short of it is that there was nothing wrong with my actions except for the fact that I did them. It's not only "strange", it's absurdly Orwellian. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c X 2) SA, didn't you pretty much announce that you were going to IAR your way around what you felt was an unjust ruling? What other outcome did you think would occur? "I fought the law and the law won" The Clash I believe...

You could just as easily post your proposed changes, dead simple as they are, onto the relevant talk pages. Sure, it's a pretty dumb way of building the 'cyclo - but your approach hasn't worked all that well either, has it?

This is from someone who thinks that SA is on the right side, so please take it in that spirit. Less combative, more determined, consider your approach. Construct the conditions for others to fall into traps, rather than charge into the obvious ones that others set for yourself. Lots of people are on your side, but not all of them want to help run your flamethrower. Franamax (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I expected this to occur, Franamax. Believe me. I am not expressing surprise, but I am expressing outrage. Just because I think something is inevitable doesn't mean I think it to be defensible. Posting spelling corrections, reference improvements, and typo fixes to a talkpage is plain absurdity. I refuse to do it. My approach works prefectly fine, I think. This is a wiki and we collaborate to improve content. I have yet to have someone show me some example of a place where my "approach" hasn't "worked", but I'm willing to listen. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Y'know, I used to agree with Franamax, but staying ceaselessly genteel toward the loonies in the face of their incessant baiting, badgering, and provocation is too fatiguing to keep up indefinitely. I decided to gave up; SA chose another course. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it should be noted we're not talking about a disputed content in fringe articles. These were spelling corrections and a link fix. If SA edited fringe science content that would be another issue. But this is just silliness. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. SA is required to abide by a set of petty, irrational and humiliating restrictions enforced by a set of people who apparently have nothing better to do than watch his every move, hoping and praying for even the smallest excuse to kick him in the teeth. This is bullshit and I object to it. Reyk _YO! 04:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well yes, but SA has to abide by the same petty, irrational and humiliating restrictions that we all do. Just spelt out on the chalkboard and standing in the corner, 'cause he hasn't caught the drift yet. It is at least a "humbling" experience to work on Wikipedia, we're all required to find a way to work with others. That's just plain difficult. In SA's case, he's now gotten himself targeted by both fringe editors and video-game-shoot-first admins. And maybe worse, moderate and scientific editors now have serious questions about his approach. That just can't go on - right? Franamax (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're saying that I don't understand why adding an unequivocally beneficial reference and a couple of wikilinks to an article is a poor approach to editing an encyclopedia, you're spot on. By the way, you are not abiding by the same restrictions that are imposed upon me. You might like to try it out. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Good block. When people go out of their way to test the limits, it is good to show them the line. Chillum 04:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The line was intended to prevent disruption and editwarring, not improvements of totally neutral technical matters. The block punished a user who was improving the encyclopedia, because it was HE who was doing the improving, even while he was also respecting the spirit of the topic ban by not touching the actual content matter. The line you're talking about is a childish line made by someone who lacked the insight to distinguish between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, the latter of which SA upheld. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

But how to draw a line to prevent editwarring isn't the real issue. If it were, you would note that if you think this spelling debate is eternal, imagine how long we could debate whether an edit to a fringe article is minor or not. The real issue is whether fringe fighting should be an exception to most any rules that apply to others. Art LaPella (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

And um yeah Chillum, don't we have an unwritten rule about coming to blocked users talk pages to gloat? That sometimes qualifies as not good. Score one of course for the "civility uber alles" approach, after all it's the easiest factor for anyone to assess. (In this case, civility = strict obedience)

Not to excuse SA's overall approach, not to excuse SA's approach in this instance - but what is the point of your post? Do you seek to counsel SA? Do you offer advice? Or could the wiki be better served by you not having clicked "Save page"? Franamax (talk) 05:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

While the block is largely silly - it would be nice if ArbCom actually did state uneqivically that NO EDITs, none, nada, zip were allowed - that IAR is not policy in this situation - that the editor cannot improve the encyclopedia. Rather than (like normal) leaving it up to the Community (and the Communities Admins) to "(re)interpret" the mess. Arbs, you were elected recently for a change and yet you continue to just repeat what has happened previously. If you wish to make a change - do the obvious and change. If this means more work for you, tough, you put your hand up for the position. BTW, Chillum, pull your head in bud. Shot info (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have expected that "Editing around the spirit of the restriction by making minor or trivial edits in banned topic is a deliberately provocative maneuver of the kind that has been warned against in general. Such edits are not acceptable" is unequivocal. — Coren ^(talk) 12:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The block and [some of] those supporting it are being childish and pathetic, and damaging the project. Verbal chat 12:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I find flaunting ArbCom (see header at top), the numerous comments of resolve to do that, and the actions that did just that to be childish and pathetic. Your point being? seicer | talk | contribs 12:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Pet peave: It's flout. Not flaunt. I'd change the spelling, but I might see my block extended. ;) ScienceApologist (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Petite peeve: It's peeve, not peave. Cheers, --Goodmorningworld (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

SAs actions may be petulant, but the response has been childish and pathetic. That is my point. There has been no disruption, and last time I checked "improving wikipedia to make a point" wasn't against the rules. It is wonkery and score settling of the highest order, and those that respond with bans thinking SA is being pathetic are being at the very least equally pathetic; in my opinion more so and increasing the drama. This is entirely the result of a botched and ricockulous arbcom action. Verbal chat 12:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If adding wikilinks, correcting spelling, and adding references is petulant, sign me up! I thought that was what we were supposed to do at an encyclopedia. Oh well. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to ask the obvious question then. Why are you only fixing typos on pages on which you have been banned? The other 99% of the encyclopedia has typos, too, yet you chose to edit only those pages that would draw a response. Ronnotel (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I fix typos where I see them. The only "response" I'm seeing is from obsessed administrators and arbitrators who seem to have nothing better to do than monitor my contributions. You are included in that group, it seems. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

background to this block, comment, and suggestion for SA

We would be far better served reigning in Admins and an arbitration committee that can't differentiate between violations and spelling corrections. Blaming SA for the drama caused by the absurd actions of those involved in this block is silliness. Wasn't it you Abd who caused the most inane possible drama by making complaints about spelling corrections? And here you are again Taking issue with spelling corrections is disruptive and wasting time. This kind of rule toting, as if no one here is able to tell the difference between a content dispute and fixing things, is an unnecessary distraction from improving the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC) (REVISED AND CORRECTED)

Comment by, Abd, cold fusion promoter removed.

I apologize for my mistake. I have revised my statement. I still think any support for those who act against editors making spelling corrections is disruptive, inane, ridiculous and pointy. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Abd is currently edit-warring a blocked and banned editors comments onto a talk page, so he's not really one to criticise! He's even using SAs behaviour in his justification (it doesn't wash though). He has a nice line in overly verbose posts, maybe he's related to Sir Humphrey. Verbal chat 21:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by, Abd, cold fusion promoter removed.

This is not the proper place for this kind of discussion. The last time I remember other editors discussing ScienceApologist's behaviour on his own talk page in a similar manner led to serious drama. Anyway, it's rude and very bad form. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Motion to sanction

Delightful!

Kids, this is what your friendly arbcom has come to:

1) ScienceApologist is banned from Wikipedia for three months for disruption, gaming and wikilawyering. The clock on his six-month topic ban restarts on his return and further instances of misbehaviour will be dealt with by longer bans. For the avoidance of any doubt, a topic ban means "entirely prohibited from editing articles within the topic". Requests by ScienceApologist for clarifications of whether articles are within scope are to be made by him to the Arbitration Committee by email.

Let's examine the rationale:

1. Disruption. I'm pretty confident that my actions since my talk ban have not been disruptive in the sense of WP:DE. I'm willing to be shown otherwise.
2. Gaming. If Wikipedia only weren't a WP:GAME, maybe I would be left alone to make spelling corrections? Who knows?
3. Wikilawyering. That's pretty rich considering the amount of wikilawyering that I've seen promulgated by arbcom. In fact, I think by invoking WP:IAR I'm pretty much doing the opposite of Wikilawyering. Civil disobedience is not really wikilawyering is it?

My favorite however is vague insinuation that I must get permission from the arbitration committee to determine which articles to edit. I'm wondering if I flood them with my watch list whether they would be happy to go through them with a fine-tooth comb and demarcate them all. Sounds like a real good use of the time for arbitrators who are already hopelessly backlogged. I might remind the gentle reader that I warned them that this was an absurd and ridiculous if not impossible task, but they simply ignored me. Now, guess what? Arbcom gets to decide content! They get to decide which articles are "fringe science" and which articles are not! Isn't that wonderful?

What to do? Well, if this goes through, I will be site-banned for three months. I find sockpuppetry to by childish, but there are ways to contribute legally while site-banned and not engage in that kind of behavior. However, I state right now that I fully and completely refuse to comply with the absurdity of the topic ban and am fully willing to accept the consequences of longer and longer site bans for making typographical edits and improving the encyclopedia. I see it has come to this: the committee looks to be unwilling to deal substantively with any issue in this area except to declare that I'm a bad egg. The content of my contributions are irrelevant to them.

Very well. I'm happy to see that we've finally gotten the honesty desired.

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Useless advice

You need to decide if you want to edit wikipedia. If you do, you'll have to do it within the rules, and part of that is accepting the authority of arbcomm. Since there are plenty of ways to work around such blocks, I will simply and plainly work around it if I see an edit that I would like to make in the next 24 hours. I do not accept the authority of the administrator making the block nor the arbcom's insistence that the topic ban is reasonable in any way - this won't work; don't do it William M. Connolley (talk) 23:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I respect you greatly, but I'm seriously considering now if I really want to edit Wikipedia. What's the point when you have people unconcerned about content and concerned more with the identity of those who made the edits? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Weeeeeelllllll this is all looking a bit pointy. If, for example, you just want to correct spelling errors, you can easily get a new account and edit anonymously under that, and if all you do is correct spelling errors like a good WP:GNOME then no-one could possibly suspect it was you. But my suspicion is that this sounds unappealing to you, because it looks rather to me that you don't want to just correct spelling errors while SA is blocked from fringe science, you want to demonstrate that arbcomm have shown poor/unenforceable/silly judgement or whatever. Oddly enough, arbcomm don't like that. And speaking as someone who rather likes Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan, and claims Lawful Good alignment, I have to defend the Law, and that includes respect for those enforcing the law. Communities cannot run on the strict letter of the law; there has to be common sense both on the part of the people enforcing it and on the part of those being enforced upon. Arbcomm have now removed any ambiguity as to how they expect their judgement to be interpreted. You could previously have fudged the line occasionally, but you have pushed them hard enough to force them into a strict interpretation. They have done it; live with it; stop kicking against the pricks [10] (that's Biblical, for those watching, not an attack on anyone) William M. Connolley (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was forbidden by another arbcom sanction to not get any anonymous accounts. I was to edit ONLY under this account. I actually would not mind at all going anonymous, but I know that there are checkusers who are liable to look at my account on a regular basis and be encouraged by certain other elements to go fishing for me. The last thing I want is another case where I get harassed in real life as before. I respect your hope for a justifiable civil good, but I feel subject myself to a weird sort of prisoner's dilemma. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, not sure I follow how your situation lends itself to a Pareto-suboptimal solution. Are you implying that your best, most rational response is to defect in some way? What sort of defection do you contemplate and why would it be a rationale response? Ronnotel (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Shockingly, some people think timely positive modification of the encyclopedia that anyone can edit is the ultimate goal. I know that may be hard to understand for people trying to win points and gain friends in the "game". ScienceApologist (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by, Abd, cold fusion promoter removed.

My God, you're tiresome. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

And the suggestion was just as insulting as the topic ban. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment by, Abd, cold fusion promoter removed.

You don't really take hints, do you? Would you prefer I explicitly requested that you did not offer me advice or comment on my talk page since it looks like all you do is act on cold fusion passions? ScienceApologist (talk) 02:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

The Real Explanation

I think we need a paradigm shift. It's not tragedy, it's comedy. Wikipedia is The Muppet Show and ScienceApologist is starring as MISS PIGGY. I think that explains everything. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 12:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I more picture him as one of the cackling old men (no personal attack intended and no suggestion of relation to his actual youthful vigor. Those are just my favorite characters and they always cut to the chase. I like when the one wakes up at the end and asks, "Is it over yet"? By the way my head hurts from trying to resolve your metaphor. Why Miss Piggy? Hmmm... ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

To quote from the WP article "nothing is going to stand in her way. She presents a public face of the soul of (feminine) charm, but can instantly fly into a violent rage whenever she thinks she's insulted or thwarted." For SA "charm" isn't quite the right word, but he could be such a useful guy if only .... SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

There is a lot of comedy in what has transpired up until now. Am I really agreeing with SamuelTheGhost? Anyway, I always admired Miss Piggy. She was very forthright and never backed down. However, I'd always been more of a fan of Statler and Waldorf, it's true. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:33, 12 March 2009 (UTC)