User talk:Ubikwit

June 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The icing on the cake was presented in this diff [1]. You were basically handed a free pass in exchange for recognizing that consensus was against you, but you insisted on battling more. There is never a time when someone opens an ANI and they can close/reclose. When you come back, if you continue down this path, you are likely looking at a topic ban via discretionary sanctions, or an extremely long block, or both. You need to rethink your methods. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Dennis, are you following the discussion?

This comment was in an edit conflict with @Euryalus:'s comment on closing, but I'll post it here.

::NAEG, you have produced zero evidence in relation to your call for a BOOMERANG, and your comments on Talk threads that I have been involved with are less than consistent. What is your point about Prokaryotes? It seems that you see him as an adversary to your POV on climate change, but I can't say that I'm familiar with his editing. At any rate, perhaps you'd care to clarify your position related to the following.
Spumuq has been making a false claim of "conspiracy theory", which has been refuted, yet he persists while simultaneously refusing to open a thread at the FRINGE notice board. It is obviously a disruptive attempt at POV pushing based on making a false claim. I can't claim consensus in terms of numbers on the Talk page, partly due to NAEG's flip-flopping with respect to the presumed import of this comment, for which I thanked him, but the material has received support from other editors. Furthermore, the only objection NAEG made was met by the last edit I made to that article expanding the coverage by including material from another source., as per the last comment I left on the Talk page[2].

I don't intend to appeal the block.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 11:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the point about closing/reclosing, OK. But I don't understand what you are talking about regarding "recognizing that consensus was against you". Are you referring to the neoliberalism article?--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 11:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has not been «refuted» and it was on the Reliable sources noticeboard, stop lying about me, stop reverting other editors comments [3]. Spumuq (talq) 11:21, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ubikwit! I take great pride in fact people have a hard time pigeon-holing my views on climate change. That just tells me I'm doing a good job following WP:ARBCC#Principles. Thanks for the compliment! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, he is free to revert comments off his own talk page as long as they aren't administrative/block related during the block. And you others need to stop badgering him. My threshold for poking someone blocked on their own talk page is fairly low. If you can't engage constructively, go do something else. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Spumuq: That is a lie. You never opened a thread anywhere to contest any of the sources or to seek support for the false claim of a "conspiracy theory", which was refuted by three editors, and the material restored by one other editor.

@Dennis Brown: I told Spumuq he was not welcome to comment here. Could you please inform him that I have the right to do that, and make sure that he doesn't comment again? Thank you.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 11:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The block doesn't change the fact that if an editor asks another editor to not post on their talk page, they shouldn't, excepting official notifications. Lets not make a bigger issue of it than it is. Spumuq should avoid this page since he's been asked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ubikwit! I take great pride in fact people have a hard time pigeon-holing my views on climate change. That just tells me I'm doing a good job following WP:ARBCC#Principles. Thanks for the compliment! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:29, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@NewsAndEventsGuy: I'm not why that makes you happy, but you are entitled to your views, however obscurantist.

The problem I have with you is your flip-flopping, making it hard to take what you say at face value, which makes collaboration difficult.

e/c

Dennis, I thought the suggestion had been made that my recent actions had to do with my POV on the general topic, which is false, and that's all my last comment was intended to say. I apologize to everyone if I packaged it poorly. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your inconsistent statements on article Talk pages appear to belie some ulterior motive for some of the comments, making it impossible to collaborate, but I'm through interacting with you anyway. --Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 11:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Euryalus: I see the course of events here has caused you to change your vote in the Arbcom case.

Well, I didn't mean to flaunt the proceedings, and the edits I made to neolioberalism contained incremental improvements, in accordance with the discussion on the Talk page.

The false claim about a conspiracy theory was debunked, clearly, yet that was the repeated meme in the revert of the revised text that included the mention of "heterodoxy", and in a revised section that included another paragraph.

If my restoring the text including incremental improvements is deemed to be in a continuum with the previous edit war, then I have nothing to further to say about that. It seems that there may be a misunderstanding about that, but that's not clear. Regarding the revert of the re-opening of the closed thread on the basis of a claim of edit warring that was not related to the topic of the thread, the complaint was in the wrong place, and was simply aimed at provoking me as well as making a point. I'm not here to deal with such editors, and won't do so any further.

At any rate, I intend to maintain my account for personal research purposes, but don't intend to do much--if any--editing in the future.

Thanks.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 11:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little academic given the other votes, but worth saying it's not about the content, just the edit warring and incivility which undermines some otherwise reasonable points. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically, I've just closed the ANI thread per your recommendation that no further action is required on the matters raised. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the entanglements have been getting a little overwhelming on those articles.

It is time for me to disengage and concentrate on other matters, but it would have been desirable to avoid today's melee. I apologize for giving the impression that I was intentionally trying to flout the Arbcom case, as I wasn't, but I could have handled the interjection by Spumuq at AN/I in a more composed manner.--Ubikwit^連絡_{見学/迷惑} 15:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]