User talk:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV)
Jump to: navigation, search


Reflecting on it further, I find the PVS research track record itself a lot more 'extraordinary' than the claim itself. Going through this literature I could find no explicit direct confirmation of the existence of this structure really independent of the discoverer. Neither a refutation. Every confirmation are 'indirect,' in that since they study the properties of this structure one can deduce it exists.

As I understand pathological science, it studies phenomena that might be real, but whose experimental validation is subject to unknown experimental conditions because the underlying principles are not well understood. So the scientists sometimes report positive, sometimes negative, and do not understand why either way. Or it could all be bunk. Only time and proper scientific process can really tell. LENR comes to mind.

But this PVS is not even pathological science. If these guys are right, it is here, independently of any experimental conditions. The presence of this thing in the body is not going to depend of, say, atmospheric pressure or the phases of the moon. At worst one must take care to follow the right operative procedure to avoid to inadvertently destruct this thing, or create artefacts. It's even all carefully explained and documented in their papers. If you do what they say and if they are right, this thing appears and is evidenced. So, it's binary.

But it seems that since 10 years by now that this scientific UFO flies in the scientific literature, no independent laboratory has cared to do that. If they would fail to replicate, I would expect them to publish a 'failure to replicate' report, so that the record could be set straight and we would not have to wonder.

That is pretty incredible. Even assuming your supposition is correct and the original description in The American Anatomist was not subjected to proper critical review, one would think that this should have attracted the attention of at least one specialist outside South-Korea that would have attempted to independently verify these claims and publish the results. That it wasn't done in 10 years shows in any case and independently of the validity of these claims deep dysfunctions in the scientific process. It is actually a source of worry, isn't it? Syl (talk) 10:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

The lack of notice by outsiders is fairly remarkable considering how obsessive the internet can be. Why no one has noticed this particular claim may have more to do with the current state of academic literature that has proliferated in the last 30 years. It may be that there is more in the Korean language, but I am not able to check that. jps (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you may very well be right. Syl (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, since you wondered about the 'stem cell angle' I think I understand how they came to that.
Currently we have a gaping hole in our understanding of developmental biology. Allow me to explain. From one side, we have by now a very precise description of how an embryo develops itself. From the other side, we have deciphered the DNA. When the Human Genome project begun, we thought that the development was completely controlled by the genes and the 'building program' was encoded in the DNA. But, contrary to these expectations, 15 years after completion of the DNA mapping, it does not compute. In fact, we know that there is simply not enough information encoded in the DNA to describe the development of an embryo. More information is encoded elsewhere, but we do not know where and how. Currently biologists are investing 'junk DNA,' which may be not so junk after all. Anyway a piece of the puzzle is clearly missing.
When you study embryology, it's blatantly obvious that the three-dimensional embryo's development seems to be driven along 'guiding lines,' especially at the histological level.
I suppose that when they discovered these ducts, they thought out a model where these primo-vessels would play the role of these guiding lines. One deduction of this model is that the specialized tissues may differentiate from these vessels. That would imply that these vessels contain loads of pluripotent undifferentiated cells - stem cells. Maybe even these vessels would continue to function at the end of the organism's growth as a kind of undifferentiated cell store for tissues regeneration.
From this hypothesis, they could derive a research program to validate it : look out for stem cells in these ducts in adult organisms.
Based on their publication record, they found them. Several time over, now.
I understand that you loath them, but objectively these guys are extremely smart. Either way. Syl (talk) 14:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Why do you think I loathe them or think them not smart? I have never said such a thing anywhere!
You insisted that it was 'acupuncturism' ? Syl (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
To me, "acupuncturism" is not a synonym for "subject to loathe" or "subject only believed by the stupid". jps (talk) 17:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
All right. I do not believe in acupuncture, myself. Syl (talk) 18:59, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Neither do I. But attributing belief in such to stupidity and loathing believers is not my game (in spite of what some that are around here may tell you). jps (talk) 19:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Before you stepped in the discussion, I was really wondering in which kind of Kindergarten I had landed. It seemed that no sane communication was possible. I felt pretty alone, and you may understand that I did not have appreciated to be faced with such a behaviour. I usually do _not_ participate in debates on Internet, as you might find out by a Google search. This time I thought the topic was significant enough to warrant that, but I also thought that Wikipedia would be a place where such debate would be thoughtful. Well...
Anyway, one of my objective was to really go to the bottom of this story. Increase my critical skills. Thanks to you I did learned. Thank you very much for that, Josh. Syl (talk) 16:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Also, one point to consider is geopolitical. Only 30 years ago, South-Korea was a considered a third-world country. Now it is classified as first-world country, and its standard of living is higher than mine. It is considered the most innovative country of the world. This is impressive and show they are far from being stupid. They have a generation of young well-educated scientists in their mid-thirties. They are eager for world-recognition, as the site of Nano Primo Research Center states. If they go for something, it's not for a scam but for the real thing - I do believe. Syl (talk) 15:15, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely, but this is also something that makes it difficult to sift the wheat from the chaff. To return to an old friend, cold fusion research occurs in India and seems to be governmentally-supported from time to time for similar sounding reasons. jps (talk) 15:55, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, they might be right to do that. You have no way to know. :-) Syl (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I am fed up now. I leave the debate : I think I have brought in everything I could. It was a pleasure to debate with somebody as smart as you. I do not expect to do that again, because I do not expect do anything on WP anymore. Syl (talk) 22:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Notice of ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. [1] Atsme📞📧 04:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of SPI case[edit]

I have opened an SPI investigation. link AlbinoFerret 20:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

My Apologies[edit]

I am sorry for any trouble I might have caused you. If I could fix it I would but I suspect any effort would just make things worse. (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

No worries. This just helps to highlight the problem, I think. jps (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Enfield Poltergeist shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - MrX 18:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Personal attack[edit]

Please stop making personal attacks as you did here: "People such as yourselves who believe in the reality of poltergeists are not competent enough to be editing Wikipedia. If you cannot answer a straightforward question about whether or not it has been showed that this hoax is a hoax, then I'm afraid you do not have the cognitive skills to be contributing to a reference site such as this."

You have been previously warned, several times, about making these kinds of comments in violation of WP:NPA. Combined with you recent edit warring, and notice board cross posting, your disruption has become very conspicuous. I suggest that join the rest of us in collaborating and stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior.- MrX 19:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Also noting this personal attack and blatant WP:CANVASSING. If you continue with this trajectory, I will raise it at ANI.- MrX 19:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Do you think that it was shown that the Enfield Poltergeist was a hoax? I'm still waiting for your answer to that question. I'm surprised it's so difficult for you to answer. See... because you said in one edit summary that you think this instance was a hoax, but somehow you don't think that the people who showed it was a hoax actually showed it was a hoax. Seems like pedantry in the extreme. Alternatively, you don't think it was shown to be a hoax. jps (talk) 20:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not about whether it's a hoax or not, it's about whether you're attacking and insulting other editors. Which you seem to be doing. I think it's a hoax, but if you keep insulting people and breaking the no personal attacks policy I will block you. It's against Wikipedia policy, it's damaging to the encyclopedia project, and is not OK. Is that clear? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Are you my dad? You're acting all paternalistic, Sir Admin. Pretty weird that you're not allowed to say that people who believe in poltergeists shouldn't be editing Wikipedia pages about poltergeists because, well, it probably indicates that they aren't very competent. And competency is required. Just because someone doesn't have cognitive skills to edit Wikipedia doesn't mean that they aren't worthwhile people. It is a judgment of their skill set. We can't literally be the encyclopedia that everyone edits, can we? No, I think we can't. That would be a recipe for disaster. Want to damage the encyclopedia? Let the poltergeist believers have free reign to explain how a poltergeist hoax case has not been shown to be a hoax. jps (talk) 20:35, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your further personal attack here [[2]] Ghughesarch (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack to offer an opinion that an editor shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Nor is it a personal attack to accuse a position that editor takes of being a denial of basic facts. Personal attacks are things like, "you are a terrible person". jps (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It is however a violation of the civility pillar to get in people's faces about it rather than just raise an AN or ANI investigation of their competence, or politely engage to see if you can gather proper evidence thereof. Even editors who fail WP:COMPETENCE are to be treated like human beings.
Regarding the first edit, the competence question is not what got you out on the thinnest ice. The reference to insufficient cognitive skills is what got you there. The pattern of how you approach the competence issue there and the second quote is not good but not borderline blockable. Insults such as insufficient cognitive skills are blockable.
I agree with you on the underlying facts as shown by the reference. I'll still block you if you keep insulting people. Because content problems can be fixed, and abusing users can't be. Please relax and deal with this in a more constructive manner. Insulting people degrades the conversation and hardens positions rather than solving problems.
Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
That was a bit better in your explanation. Here's my issue: I start out working on an article and get reverted. I try to explain why the revert is bad on talk and receive silence. I revert back and get reverted with claims that there is no consensus. I try to get other people involved and often am not successful. Of course, the other participants cry "CANVASS" when I try to get third-parties. This pattern is essentially the same over and over again. Sometimes mew participants enter but sometimes they don't. It's when I don't get new participants that problems come to a head like this. jps (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

On competence[edit]

WP:CIR is a wonderful essay, but apparently there is a large contingent of Wikipedians including our illustrious admin visitor above who think making direct appeals to it is a blockable offense. I think that this is a facile view of (in)civility and may be one of the reasons that the project suffers from so many fringe theory proponents dominating the discussions and, in some cases, the content on pages related to fringe theories. When I discuss the major issues with Wikipedia with people who are not intimately involved with this website as I am, most people dismiss them as being parochial concerns except when it comes to reliability. Then people acknowledge an issue, especially with obscure topics. The idea that most people have is that hobbyists and enthusiasts will be the ones writing the articles (and I think largely that this prejudice is probably correct) and while that may work for most subjects from movie trivia to mathematics, it fails spectacularly when it comes to the paranormal, ufology, alternative medicine, etc. So that's what we're dealing with here: a reliability problem brought on by the fact that Wikipedia suffers fools gladly. Or, to put it more charitably, there is no editorial control of content (the consensus model cannot work when you have fringe proponents propping each other up).

jps (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

James Hydrick[edit]

Sorry to bother you with this. On the Hydrick page there is the same IP who keep vandalizing the article, do you know how to report this person. A little angry (talk) 21:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

If it is an IP, the best thing to do is go to WP:RPP to ask for semi-protection which will prevent IP editing for a brief period of time. You can also report to the fringe theory noticeboard if there are issues with unwarranted promotion of fringe theories, but it doesn't seem to be the case here. I will ask for page protection. jps (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on the Hydrick article. I know you are probably busy but this has just been created Larry Dossey, and decent sources are rough going to find. A little angry (talk) 18:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Cold fusion[edit]

Cold fusion: You recently took away facts from the page 'Cold fusion' about Andrea Rossi, E-Cat, that Chreokee bought rights to it and have a 1 MW plant running. The fact that Andrea Rossi have a US patent is of great interest - why did you take this information away??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

First riddle me this: why are the Swedes so enamored with Rossi? jps (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
I do not represent a nation, I write to you as myself, do you represent a nation or some kind of community? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Who are you, My community is the academic community in astrophysics, mostly. jps (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

maybe u should stick with the astrophysics. cold fusion is clearly not ur topic of expertise... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:46:C51:8A00:187D:235E:1CA7:A08 (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

And who are you? Or did you just leave home and hop on your mobile? jps (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

a bit paranoid Mr. ScienceApologist? Maybe u stop worrying who is criticizing u but why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:46:C51:8A00:187D:235E:1CA7:A08 (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you criticizing me? I hadn't really noticed. I saw someone (you presumably) ask why I "took away facts" about the latest cold fusion scam. Now I am curious as to whether you might be someone we're discussing on the Talk:Energy Catalyzer page. That would indeed add an interesting wrinkle to our tale, wouldn't it? jps (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Hudn12, great that you're still around ! All of wiki is proud of you, keep up the good work, boy ! --Norscav (talk) 19:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Is this your new account? Do you know User:POVbrigand? jps (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The irony of it all is that you really think you are doing science a favor even though you are just rehashing people prooved wrong long time ago. Is a shame u can hide behind some anonymous identity cause self-appointed apologists like you are a unneccessary obstruction to scientific progress. But as always u will just go on with ur self-righteousness and still think you are helping wiki... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

If you think Wikipedia has any effect on scientific progress, I think you may want to take a step back and think about how scientific progress occurs. jps (talk) 11:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Do I understand you right in that you say you are only an obstruction to public progress instead of scientific? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:2E55:C96:582E:AD6D:D078:C99A (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

If you think that Wikipedia has any effect on public progress, I think you may want to take a step back and think about how public progress occurs. jps (talk) 12:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, now i get it. What you want to say is you are only holding back public opinion and people who are looking for facts on Wikipedia from being informed! Well good for you. Recognizing one’s shortcomings is the first step towards self-improvement! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:2E55:C96:582E:AD6D:D078:C99A (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure being better informed about a scam being perpetuated by a scam artist is what we need more of in this world. You may have noticed that arguments against inclusion, however, are being made rather eloquently by people other than myself on the article talk pages and none of them mention anything about holding back public opinion and people looking for facts on Wikipedia. It is a fact that I woke up at 7 am this morning. That fact does not belong in Wikipedia articlespace. In any case, I appreciate the compliment, regardless of how backhanded you intended it to be. jps (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Since you mention it: Can yo tell me one real world name of a person attacking Rossi on webpages?

I can, but I will not. That's in violation of WP:OUTING, and they take that shit really seriously here. jps (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

as you more than once came to realize... Talking to you reminds me of the first ELIZA program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:2E55:C96:582E:AD6D:D078:C99A (talk) 13:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Ouch! Since ELIZA doesn't have any machine learning capabilities, I guess that means you think that I'm just responding using a preprepared list of NLP protocols! I like you, anonymous friend. I wonder why you're so enamored with cold fusion. Does it speak to some part of your soul? jps (talk) 13:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

no, soul has got nothing to do with it. I am just convinced it works. As are more and more scientist. and i dont think its fair that a topic with such potential is treated by somebody who is not an expert in the matter... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:2E55:C96:582E:AD6D:D078:C99A (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

If by "more and more scientist" you mean a tiny handful of cranks, then I agree. And as soon as they persuade the scientific community of the merits of their claims, we will be all over it. Wikipedia follows the scientific community, it does not lead it. Guy (Help!) 13:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm always intrigued by the "more and more scientists" comments that are made by various supporters of the fringe. I think arguments such as that could be given a value on the crackpot index. You know, more and more scientists think that the Earth is flat, right? [3]. jps (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, if you're convinced it works, what are you doing wasting your time on Wikipedia? Go out and build yourself a cold fusion generator! Put your money where your mouth is at least. I hear that Rossi will still accept your money even with his new contracts! jps (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: your username is difficult to spell. Are you an an Extraterrestrial Face-smile.svg Lotje (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

As fast as you change your phone number, they keep publishing new phone books! jps (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Editor changing your log entries in WP:ARBPS[edit]

See User talk:StAnselm#Changing log entries after the fact. The editor is removing what he considers to be personal attacks from the log, but he hasn't notifiied anyone involved. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I left a comment. That's not right. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Unblock request[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock)

Request reason:

Hello. I'm not precisely sure why I was blocked. It is ostensibly because User:Spinningspark claims I'm "disruptively editing" in his block implementation, but I didn't receive a block message and the administrator is refusing to leave one. I'm don't think it is right when administrators refuse to discuss their blocks with their blockees. More problematically, I don't think it is right for an admin to block when they are in an editing dispute with a user, and as I had criticized his actions and understanding of the situation occurring at a WP:FRINGE theory article with which I have been dealing for months. By blocking me, this has shut the conversation down, sadly. When unblocked, I will refer this immediately to WP:AN or perhaps even open an arbitration case over a violation of WP:ADMINACCT and possibly WP:INVOLVED and perhaps request an arbcomm warning for problematic admin behavior. If anyone would like to start at WP:AN a more complete discussion if you feel uncomfortable unblocking, for example, I would be appreciative. Thanks! jps (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

User has agreed not to continue redirecting the article that led to the block SpinningSpark 19:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
  • Via WP:ADMINACCT, I'm asking Spinningspark to please explain the block with reasonable detail, ie: a few diffs. EdJohnston has already asked on his talk page and he refused, but there is no way an admin like myself (or anyone else) can properly review a request without having some idea of why the block was placed, and it is unreasonable to expect me to swim through every diff of jps. ie: I can't do my job if you don't do yours. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, User:Dennis Brown. In the meantime if there is anything you think I can do to improve the situation, please let me know. I was hoping to work a little more on articles and problems that are unrelated to my conflict with the administrator above. I promise not to touch their user talk page, the article page in question, or the section of WP:FTN where the page is being discussed, if that helps. I also understand that you probably don't want to wheelwar, so it's okay if you can't unblock until Spinningspark comes back, but that's obviously put me in a bind :( .jps (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I truly have no idea what is going on, and about to leave for a bit, so it may be another admin to review. Doesn't mean anyone will accept your request, but out of fairness, we need the info so we can at least review, the same as we would any other editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
User:Dennis Brown, if it helps, I leave a timeline of the dispute below. jps (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I have no idea why you've been blocked, but a refusal to explain a block should be grounds for desysopping. It's seriously disruptive, uncollaborative, and immature. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I think it is especially concerning after two other admins asked for explanations. If you'd like to start an ArbCom request, I'd be appreciative as I'm not sure whether there will be an unblock for me because other administrators might (rightly) be concerned about wheel-warring. jps (talk) 16:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The timeline given below is correct (without checking it thoroughly) but that is not my interpretation of events. I have had nothing to do with this article and am not pushing any POV. I picked it up from a CSD request to delete a redirect so that an inappropriate move could be undone. Looking into it a little deeper I found that the article had been moved to another title and then redirected from there to another article (Brans–Dicke theory). I then found the article had recently been the subject of an AfD and had been closed as no consensus. The closer made no mention of redirecting, but did suggest a further AfD if the article could not be cleaned up. This confusing series of moves and redirects seemed to me to be an attempt to circumvent the AfD result and delete the article by other means. By restoring the article I was merely reinstating the AfD consensus. Very possibly it ought to be deleted or redirected, but a new consensus needs to be found first, AfDs should not be overtuned by the backdoor in this way.
I considered it disruption to repeatedly insert this redirect, to continue to claim there was consensus for a redirect at the AfD after having it pointed out that is not in the close, and to disingenuously point to a thread at FTN as if there is a live debate there when in fact there are, so far, no others taking part at all. And is that an example of forum shopping by the way? As far as I am concerned, the only thing I have done wrong is I forgot to watchlist this page and missed for a few hours that a block appeal had been initiated. SpinningSpark 17:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@Spinningspark: Odd, you should be getting notifications when your account name is linked as it was many times on this page. Have you turned notifications off? If so, I would suggest you turn them back on since you are an administrator.
To speak to your argument, I definitely think an AfD is not appropriate here because the article does not need to be deleted, and it can be simply redirected. If you think that a "new consensus" needs to be found I think it is important to identify where you think the discussion should take place at least if not start it yourself. I explained above why I think a discussion on the moribund talkpage is not going to be particularly useful, and if I cannot get more input from FTN, it is highly likely that there isn't going to be much more in the way of useful discussions in less-watched locations. One possibility might be to start a discussion at WT:PHYSICS, but I've had mixed success there as well.
To be clear, AfDs are about deleting not only the visible content but the histories too. When I nominate a page for an AfD, it is always with this thought in mind and, over the course of the AfD, it became clear to me that this might not be necessary. Redirecting a page, then, keeps the history visible to all Wikipedia users which is technically a different procedural matter. That said, I think this is a topic on which reasonable people can disagree. I can point to many instances of AfDs that have been closed as keep in the past and then, quickly, turned into redirects. This is rather par for the course in certain areas and demanding that this not be the case is, in my opinion, failing to correctly distinguish between the is-ought problem in Wikipedia. To be abundantly clear, the possibility of the redirect was explicitly discussed in the AfD and left uncommented upon by the closer who left open the possibility of another AfD and, I would assume, any number of other attempts to fix problems with the article. The standard operating procedure in certain areas you are not used to frequenting might not be your preferred method of doing things, but it doesn't make it wrong and there is explicitly no policy against instating a redirect when it appears that this might be a good content solution.
Now, what should we do? Start a discussion on the talkpage? Would you like me to do that? I'm happy to oblige. There is the small matter of being blocked, however.
jps (talk) 17:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The first ping I have is from your post at 16:55. However, I should have watchlisted the page anyway and not relied on pings (which often don't work for a variety of reasons). I am at fault for that and apologise.
  • It is fine to boldly redirect an article. It is not fine to redirect it after an AfD discussion has come to a different result. That is deletion by the back door. You can challenge the close at WP:DRV if the close was improperly carried out (but not just because you don't like the result), or you could have asked the closer to amend their close to add a comment on the redirecting issue to make that clear whether or not there is consensus. You can open another AfD if you think the last one did not explore all the issues fully. You cannot simply ignore all that went before and implement your favourite solution regardless.
  • You say you don't want to take this to the article talk page, you don't want to take it back to AfD or DRV, you're not so sure about WT:PHYSICS, because those venues won't give you the result you want, so you are going to try FTN. That is definitely a bad case of forum shopping.
  • You suggest I should start a discussion, but I really don't care what happens to this article and have no proposals to make.
  • You ask [n]ow, what should we do? If the result you are looking for is for me to unblock you, then you should agree not to continue to attempt to redirect the article without consensus. SpinningSpark 18:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@Spinningspark: Of course I'm not going to try to redirect the article any more. You'd just block me again! jps (talk) 18:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Timeline of the dispute[edit]

And now I'm blocked. That's the entirety of the dispute.

jps (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

3RR violation[edit]

It was pointed out to me that technically User:Spinningspark is in violation of WP:3RR as of yesterday when he made four reverts in less than seven hours.

jps (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


I get the impression that people who don't deal with fringe theories have a different sense of how editing should occur. I think the AfD was pretty clear that a redirect was appropriate, but I can understand people who are not familiar with WP:FRINGE and the more technical nature of this article may be confused. The idea that there should be further "discussion" I think can be a reasonable dispute, and if a discussion is started I will be happy to participate. On the other hand, I don't understand the action of reverting while demanding discussion and then not starting a discussion themselves. That to me seems like it is just someone who hasn't carefully read the discussions that have already taken place (and indeed are taking place). In the case of this obscure article, talkpage discussions aren't likely to be fruitful, in my opinion, because there simply are not enough people who will be called in due to the obscurity of the page, so we have to have discussions at other venues such as a noticeboard or the AfD. If the admin wanted to have a discussion, he need only have started one explaining why he felt that the article shouldn't be a redirect (so far, no explanations opposed to the redirect have been offered that I can find).

I get the impression that there are cultural difference that occur here on Wikipedia:

  • Edit warring: in many situations if discussions can happen in edit summaries, that's easier. This is common practice on Wikipedia if it is perhaps frowned upon by some. I engage in this quite a bit, but I make a clear attempt not to abrogate WP:3RR or any editing restrictions. Some admins don't like this, but I have found that this works well when there are two highly-competent editors trying to quickly hash out their disagreements. To be sure, it would have been at this point that I would have started a discussion on the article talk page about Spinningspark's actions. Whether that would have helped or not, I cannot say.
  • Talk page discussions. In pages that are heavily watched and receive a lot of traffic, talkpage discussions make sense because you can get wide input. In situations where the articles are obscure and monitored by WP:SPAs, it makes more sense to have discussions at venues that are external and only bring discussions to talkpages after protracted disagreement. This may be unorthodox to many non-WP:FRINGE volunteers, but this technique works well in heading off useless thumb twiddling. Already, this page has been tagged since July with nothing done by anyone but me.

jps (talk) 13:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Can you supply a link to the exact AFD you were referring to? You talked about a consensus within the AFD, but I need to see exactly how that AFD was closed. Most of the time, it is the summary of the AFD that matters most, not individuals interpretations of the votes after the fact, which can vary from reader to reader. For the record, his reverts and such do appear to be admin actions, not editor actions (ie: it wasn't about his personal preference, it was about maintaining the encyclopedia), so I'm not seeing where WP:INVOLVED comes in, although there is much to read. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-creation cosmology. Scroll to the bottom of the page where you will see that a redirect option was supported by four different editors including the article creator and theory inventor (or, at least, he seems to think the redirect is worthy of consideration). Can you clarify what you mean by "admin action"? I thought admin action was only when someone uses their admin tools? Is there another means by which an action is "administrative" if the tools aren't used and, if so, how are we lowly non-admin editors supposed to know the difference? jps (talk) 13:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • To my eyes, the close as "no consensus" which as per WP:CLOSEAFD means no change to article status as result of the discussion. I suppose that could be argued as meaning that such a discussion defaults to keep, because nothing else received substantial enough support to be used as a decision, although sort of indicating further discussion might be called for. I guess it could be argued that unilateral action thereafter might be counted as disruptive, unless clear indicators, like a subsequent RfC or proposed move or merge are requested, which I don't see here. Personally, I don't think it necessarily grounds for a block, but I guess some might argue otherwise, particularly when the topic is related to a subject which is under DS. Even then, though, I think a week long block might be a bit excessive, as one could see the actions as not necessarily disruptive, but, maybe, boldly acting on an idea which had apparent support, if maybe not necessarily sufficient support. John Carter (talk) 16:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The topic is not under DS as far as I can tell. Further, I find it strange that an admin would block an account with whom they were in a dispute for one week without warning. That's heavy-handed, especially when the admin also reverts back to their preferred version. As for "move" or "merge" discussions, it seems to me that if someone thinks such a discussion should happen, they should start one. In particular, the admin argued that we should start a new AfD which is not necessary if we are going to keep the article as a redirect. It seems to me that this was a situation where the administrator didn't really take the time to understand what was occurring. Also, John, you thanked me for the initial edit, so clearly you must have thought it was a good idea. Is it now no longer a good idea because an administrator reverted it? jps (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
You're probably right in that. I saw Alice's comment in the AfD indicating it isn't pseusdoscience, although I'm not sure myself how to draw the distinction between pseudoscience and discredited science or philosophy. I guess it will be impossible to ever disprove a philosophical idea, because one can always create any number of extraordinary arguments to get around an apparent disproof. If it is only, basically, a pretty dubious philosophical idea of at best dubious notability and primarily written by someone with a fairly clear COI, it is hard to see that as being really disruptive. John Carter (talk) 16:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The idea is actually just one of many "extensions" of general relativity that are out there and as a mathematical idea it stands on its own. The claims of concordance with observations, however, are not established, but that's neither here nor there as we have an excellent place for such ideas at the parent article (which is what the discussion at the AfD actually established, in my opinion). The interesting thing here is that the author of the article in question, User:Garthbarber, actually seemed highly receptive to the idea of making the article into a redirect to Brans-Dicke theory and, in fact, did not revert the redirect though he had the opportunity to do so. jps (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Fallout discussion[edit]

  • I had a really brilliant unblock speech but Spinningspark ruined it by unblocking you. Let me share just a touch: To me, redirecting after a no consensus isn't a good idea but a single time is probably excusable under WP:BOLD. Edit warring after that single revert is the real problem WP:BRD comes into play, and this kind of warring is particularly problematic because you are erasing an article. I agree with the block, understand why jps thought he could redirect (the first time only), and glad to see the outcome. And like I thought, WP:INVOLVED was in no way breached here. Protecting the integrity of an article you don't edit doesn't make you involved as an editor, it can be done in an administrative capacity, even if you aren't an admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I fully agree with everything you said, and it is a much better closing statement than mine. SpinningSpark 19:42, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Dennis, I have to disagree with your take here. This is really simple: two editors were edit-warring over a redirect, and one of them (who happened to be an admin) blocked the other one. This block was categorically inappropriate and there was absolutely no "protecting the encyclopedia" justification for it. Redirect decisions are not made at AfD, to begin with; an article which is "kept" at AfD may subsequently be redirected, as that's a separate discussion. And as jps notes, there was some support for the redirect at the AfD, so this is not "disruptive editing". It was edit-warring, but if blocks are levied for edit-warring in this case, then both jps and User:Spinningspark should have been blocked, because they were both edit-warring.

    More to the point, this was as clear-cut a violation of WP:INVOLVED as you will ever see. For all the talk on Wikipedia about "admin abuse", this is what it looks like: an admin edit-warring and then blocking the other editor because he can. The improper block was then compounded by the failure to leave any sort of block message and the refusal to do so even when asked directly by a (truly) uninvolved admin.

    Everything about this block, from execution to post-block accountability, showed piss-poor administrative judgement, and if I'd seen it in real time I would have unblocked jps with a note in his block log indicating the the block was improper. In general ArbCom doesn't hear cases on the basis of a single bad block, but if this sort of abuse of admin tools is repeated then I would expect you'll have a tough time justifying it. MastCell Talk 19:52, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not correct that "redirect" decisions are not made at AfD. While it is true that it is not necessary to go to AfD to implement a redirect, redirect is a very common outcome of AfD discussions. It is even included as an option in the closing scripts. SpinningSpark 20:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
It is true that redirect or merge are legitimate outcomes of AfD discussions. That does not mean that if a discussion is closed no consensus one is precluded from redirecting or merging the article afterwards. I find it especially strange that this argument is made when the option to redirect was actively discussed in the AfD and not a single commentator spoke against it. Saying that it would be better to run through a WP:DRV or start yet another discussion seems to me to be needlessly WP:CREEPy. jps (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Actually, redirect decisions absolutely can be made at AFD, and the automated software for closing AFDs accomodates this well, and automates the process. You can I might disagree whether Spinningspark had the right as admin to revert or not, based on the outcome of the AFD, but to me, he was unquestionably acting as an admin, so was uninvolved. I think when we throw around WP:INVOLVED, we have to be careful and only include actions where the admin really had an interest in the article before the actions, and I don't see that here. I get what you are saying, I see the logic and willing to consider the perspective, but my gut says otherwise in this one case. An admin can revert BLPs multiple times and block without it being involved. Same with vandalism. If he is protecting the outcome of a AFD, can't the same be said? (And again, I believe the first edit by jps was fine here) He might be wrong about the action, but still not involved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I figured someone would quibble about that. Look, a "keep" verdict at AfD does not in any way mean that an article cannot subsequently be redirected. But perhaps I should have left it out, because it's only tangential to the central issue, which is abuse of the block button. Spinningspark, what's your justification for edit-warring over the redirect, blocking the other party without leaving any sort of rationale or block notice, and then immediately reverting to your preferred version?

Dennis, I don't think you're doing him any favors by justifying his behavior - if he thinks this is OK, he is going to get into more trouble down the line. This is absolutely not a BLP or vandalism issue—those are exceptions to the WP:INVOLVED provisions. Being convinced that you're right about an AfD interpretation is not an exception to WP:INVOLVED. MastCell Talk 20:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I see what you are saying, this isn't a common things after AFD, and (at least for me) not intuitive about what is "admin" and "editor" action when you arguably think you are doing it as admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Is it possible for us to go accept a model of Wikipedia where admin action literally means using admin tools? Moving over a redirect is arguably an admin action. Blocking certainly is as is page protection. "Reverting" shouldn't ever be considered an admin action, IMHO. jps (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
A recent Arb case actually made it clear that closing AE cases (no tools needed) is an admin action. There are some actions that require the tools, but you don't use them. Sometimes, it is a grey area. In this case, I see MastCell's take, and understand why SS thought he was doing it as an admin. You did revert 3 times. Had you only done the redirect once, we wouldn't be here. The question is about SS rather than you, to be honest. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Closing certain controversial discussions is, I guess, an admin action, but that's just about the only action that does not require the use of admin tools that I can point to which has been identified solidly as such. I reverted two times, incidentally. SS reverted four times. But he's an admin so, as a superuser, we just get to fret about whether his actions were really "admin actions" and therefore exempt from the rules the unwashed non-admin users must always follow without exception, right? jps (talk) 21:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Mastcell, I do not consider my actions edit warring (for exactly the reasons given by Dennis) and thus asking me to justify my edit warring is a non sequiter. In retrospect, not leaving a rationale on the talk page was a mistake. My thinking at the time was that I was dealing with an editor with a block history as long as your arm (and thus already knew perfectly well how to appeal) and was well known (as stated at his arb case) for edit warring, wikilawyering and contentious talk page posts. It seemed to me that he knew perfectly well why he had been blocked and any interaction would result in an attempt to grind me down with walls of text, and frankly, I have better things to do. I therefore chose to keep interaction to a minimum. As I said, this was a mistake, as it was inevitable that there would be an appeal and inevitable that administrators servicing the appeal would require a rationale from me. However, I don't think this was entirely out of order (although I would do it differently if it came around again). SpinningSpark 21:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Much as I suspected, you seem inclined to think that when you revert an edit it's not edit warring because you did not have "an interest in the article before the actions" (Dennis Brown's words, not yours, but apparently you agree with him). Interestingly, such tortured logic appears nowhere at WP:EDITWAR. Intent, impossible to judge on Wikipedia, should not matter. How am I to know that you aren't buddy-buddy with some fringe theorist who wants the page kept in its current regrettable state and are just doing a buddy a favor? I'm supposed to simply trust that you're acting without a care for the actual content just because you belong to that special class of users who has access to admin tools? jps (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
@Spinningspark: I'd urge you to take some time and reflect on your actions here. Anyone can place a bad block—I'm sure I've placed plenty of them—but your defense of your actions suggests that you don't have any idea of where the line is when it comes to edit-warring or involvement. If we really don't see eye-to-eye on this then I would encourage JPS to submit this case to ArbCom for review, because either my understanding of WP:INVOLVED is way off base, or yours is. ArbCom typically won't review a single bad block, but a bad block coupled with a complete lack of understanding of why it was bad probably warrants a case. And frankly, if this kind of block is acceptable, then you can all expect me to be hitting the block button a lot more in the future. And I'll expect Spinningspark and Dennis to defend me when I do. MastCell Talk 22:00, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring and Wikipedia culture[edit]

There are often claims made here at Wikipedia that edit warring is double plus ungood. Here are my thoughts on this:

The bright-line rule for edit warring is WP:3RR. We should ask, "Why is it that it's only when you get to four reverts that the line is crossed? Why not three or two?" We do have WP:1RR options on some articles, why not all articles? I think there are good reasons for this.

  1. Much lauded talkpages don't always work. When you're dealing with a large number of edits or a large number of issues, starting discussions on talkpages for simple comments when you think the other editor has overlooked something basic is more-or-less a waste of time. Now, I realize that the prejudice at Wikipedia is to over-analyze everything, but sometimes you just want to have a quick back-and-forth. Absent a functional real-time chat utility on Wikipedia, allowing for one or two reverts to discuss a matter can be a good way to do this. This doesn't always work, and when it breaks down, of course talkpage action is the way to go. But when is this line crossed? 3RR seems as good a place to draw it as any other, and has the benefit of being easy to identify while also being clearly indicated in policy (unlike vague claims that edit warring can occur even without 3RR violations).
  2. There are different styles of editing. WP:BRD is a style of editing that some people despise. I think Wikipedia is a big enough place to accommodate it and other styles too. If people want to have a discussion through edit summaries at first and then go to the talkpage after something becomes intractable, why not allow it?
  3. Edit warring is often how intractable conflicts end up being resolved. Let's not kid ourselves. At the end of the day, if consensus is firmly in favor of one camp over another, it will be edit warring that wins the day for the camp that represents consensus. If you aren't aware that this is what goes on, I encourage you to think carefully about how the most controversial situations you've encountered on Wikipedia were resolved. I am willing to bet that a form of "edit warring" was part of the means by which the conflict was resolved. Since we have no effective means to branch or to fork the wiki repository when it comes to article space, the only way to maintain equilibrium is to allow for groups that have more numbers and more time revert to preferred versions. This is endorsed only when it happens only after much handwringing, but if we are being honest, we must admit that this is how Wikipedia actually functions.

We are allergic to edit warring at Wikipedia, I think, because people don't think reverts are "nice". There are some of us, though, that can revert their friends and lovers and find no problems at all if the back-and-forth results in a decision that goes against theirs. I don't think it is our place to say that this kind of edit style is "incorrect". As long as people are improving the encyclopedia, why should we preference one kind of editing style over another?

jps (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop Editing Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case[edit]

I believe you've just broken the page. Please stop editing it. --JustBerry (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. Errant [ breaks all templates. jps (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Resolved --JustBerry (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Still breaking... --JustBerry (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, what's up with this? I think this is a MediaWiki problem with brackets, actually. They didn't properly sanitize the code so it breaks the entire page. Arbcomm needs to move to page transclusion for case requests, IMHO. jps (talk) 14:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
I think I have it fixed now, it was a bracket issue. - McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened[edit]

You may opt-out of future notification regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Michael F. Corbin[edit]

FYI: Related to two Afd's that you opened in July (i.e. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paranet Continuum and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Corbin), Michael F. Corbin has been re-created. See related link. - Location (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case[edit]

You are receiving this message because you are on the notification list for this case. You may opt-out at any time The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:

  1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
  2. Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case