| Revision as of 06:44, 23 July 2013 editජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,594 editsm Notification: You've got mail (TW)← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:46, 23 July 2013 edit undoජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,594 edits ←Replaced content with '__NOINDEX__ DONEZO'Next edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| __NOINDEX__ | __NOINDEX__ | ||
| DONEZO | |||
| ==Agreement== | |||
| Terms: | |||
| Coren will: | |||
| (a) rename this account to 'Previously ScienceApologist' with no redirects from the old name. | |||
| (b) disclose, on the new account user page, previous accounts | |||
| (c) <nowiki>__NOINDEX__</nowiki> the lot | |||
| I will: | |||
| (a) stay away from Misplaced Pages entirely for no less than six months (that means IP editing included) | |||
| (b) not apply for an <nowiki>{{unblock}}</nowiki> for six months | |||
| (c) agree to this on the new user talk page. | |||
| ] (]) 19:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks you, and all done. — ] <sup>]</sup> 20:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :I will note that I support SA's future unblock/unban request, ] (]) 18:56, 5 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| :As will I. — ] (]) 20:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == BASC appeal made == | |||
| There is an appeal into ]. Interested readers are invited to comment. I propose to be active on Misplaced Pages in the following ways: | |||
| #To control my online presence and avoid the malicious linking to this account that is being done by certain bad actors off-Misplaced Pages. | |||
| #To make posts to ] about issues that are brought to my attention concerning inaccuracies regarding pseudoscience and fringe science on Misplaced Pages. | |||
| Comments are welcome. The appeal may or may not be acted upon in time. The subcommittee usually deliberates for a while before making any decision, and I have not received word from them on their position. | |||
| ] (]) 13:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Question''' I believe your contributions to FTN could be quite valuable indeed. However I wonder if your presence there might potentially create problems. Assuming your block was modified and you were restricted to article Talk and noticeboard contributions only, what steps would you take to avoid being drawn into disruptive Wikidrama with the dozens of folks you've had conflicts with in the past and their sympathizers? - ] (]) 19:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Answer''' If my presence causes problems, do you think such is solely my fault? There have been claims made by detractors that I scared off "neutral editors" from helping out in various topics, but the diffs indicating as much are a bit hard to come by. To answer your direct question: I think passing the buck has the ability to lessen personality conflicts somewhat. You can ask IRWolfie- about our collaborations in the last six months if that intrigues you more. If you're looking for a project, LuckyLouie, I note that the ] article is still pretty shoddy. A whole section on Uruguay? really? ;) ] (]) 20:00, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, I find many of the UFO articles are burdened with fringecruft and pro-UFO slant from years ago when UFO fans were the only ones maintaining them, but I'm gradually working from the edges of the smaller articles inward to the larger ones. - ] (]) 20:29, 16 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| * I fully support SA's request. I've had discussions with him on a number of topics in this area, and his line of thinking is very similar to my own. SAs original topic ban for fringe/pseudoscience appears to have been on rather dubious grounds; no issue with content just about "civility" in a discussion in which it appears SA was correct on the issues). For that reason, I don't see what purpose adding additional restrictions to article space would have since there has never been a problem with edits to articles as far as I can make out, ] (]) 00:51, 17 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Daryl Bem == | |||
| {{articlelinks|Daryl Bem}} | |||
| Does somebody want to mention that the journal in which Bem published is now publishing a null results paper that followed Bem's procedures and found no evidence for psi? . | |||
| Perhaps this should be spun out owing to the BLP-ness of this particular setting. The "controversy" ought to be discussed somewhere in this reference work, doncha think? No? | |||
| ] (]) 21:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| == Unblock == | |||
| {{unblock-un reviewed | 1=nearlynewnotreallynew | reason=Can I get an administrator to unblock me per WP:SILENCE or at least ping someone on arbcom who can at least acknowledge that they received my e-mail to BASC? One of the things I need to do is change my username to break some links in various pages that are harassing me off-wiki. jps (talk) 14:15, 19 July 2013 (UTC) | decline=This does not address the reason for your block, that is, block evasion. Unblock requests are not tools for communication by proxy - presumably you can e-mail whoever you wish to contact yourself. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 10:41, 20 July 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| == Unblock (II) == | |||
| {{unblock-un reviewed | 1= nearlynewnotreallynew | reason= I believe that I have fulfilled the requirements of WP:OFFER. I believe that any administrator who wants to take responsibility can unblock me if they choose. jps (talk) 03:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC) | decline=Per Tim, below. <span style="font-family:Calibri;font-size:14px"><b><font color="#4682B4">]</font></b></span> <sup>(<font color="#99BADD">]</font>)</sup> 13:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| :You mean...{{8ball}} {{confirmed}}: | |||
| :*{{checkuser|Previously ScienceApologist}} | |||
| :*{{checkuser|Mj12hoaxwriter}} | |||
| :*{{checkuser|Eliminatesoapboxing}} | |||
| :*...and a number of IP edits? | |||
| :This is at least the second time you claim to have followed ] when in fact you have been recently evading the block. ] (]) 05:39, 22 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| {{helpme}} | |||
| My dear arbitrator, | |||
| What am I to do here? Do I deny that these are my accounts? Do I analyze their contributions and decide whether they are worthwhile? Do I demand a jury of my peers? What would you do in such a situation? To whom does one turn in one's hour of need? | |||
| Let's say the Magic 8 ball template that confirmed with such alacrity was incorrect. Does one have a chance to defend oneself against its magic? Past experience tells me, "No, one does not." | |||
| But even let's say the Magic 8 ball template that confirmed with such alacrity was correct. Is the crime of the edits listed above so abhorrent, so disdainful, so evil that it demands that no request made by me, the person who controls this account, should be considered? | |||
| Does the organization of pseudonymous internet users have any obligation whatsoever to people who donated time and effort to this website? Should I simply start a new account, declare my old account, and see what happens? Is that what you're suggesting? Because I'm happy to do that too. | |||
| There is no guidance here. There is no attempt to deal with the ''substance'' of my requests. I am open to suggestions as to how to get someone to actually consider what I'm saying rather than attempting to prove me the evil one. | |||
| I will not take "Just do as we say for six months" as a suggestion because, according to me, I did do what you guys said for six months. For six months I made no edits to Misplaced Pages, not even with IP. Yet, somehow there is magic evidence that I did. No one informed me until this very moment that such was the case. I had no way of preparing myself for this eventuality. Just a rude notice of checkuser confirmations and a declaration that this is a "second time I claimed to follow ]" with no real analysis of what the "first time" entailed (is there a diff?). No option for appeal. Apparently, you have ways of refusing the basic human decency of a straightforward conversation. | |||
| So, my dear arbitrator, if you were blocked from a website that you had last been an active member of years(!) ago and they steadfastly refused to let you change the identifying information on the account because, they claimed, you were violating their rules. And if you tried your damnedest and couldn't live up their expectations, what is the appropriate course of action? What would you do? | |||
| ] (]) 04:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
| ==You've got mail!== | |||
| {{you've got mail|subject=|ts=06:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)}} | |||
| ] (]) 06:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:46, 23 July 2013
DONEZO