Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.I am surprised this has not been brought to your attention before now. Guy ( Help!) 23:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I did as directed, started the dispute resolution process, and notified the main other party in the dispute on the articles Talk page. I have returned to the dispute after 3 days and find that a moderator has volunteered, there has been brief discussion only along the lines of the other side of the dispute and the dispute closed, and it is difficult for me to read it even. This is a very controversial article and any dispute needs to proceed slowly and carefully, I would suggest. To me that means that both parties initially agreeing on the moderator. I don't agree on the one that very quickly showed up. Is there a list of moderators available. It seems like it might be a difficult thing to achieve, agreement on a moderator. But without that is their any point?
Jed Stuart (
talk) 06:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Tell me all about it. 12:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sea Lions. Thank you. Guy Macon ( talk) 14:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
moved from User talk:Begoon
You are supporting the view that the TI view should not be given any weight in the electronic harassment article. Have you read the Washington Post article cited "Mind Games"? That clearly gives some credibility to the view that there may be something in the claims of TIs. Many other reliable source articles also put forward the TI claims. And they state the psychiatric opinion as that, an opinion. They do not adopt it as a fact. That is what the article should do in my opinion. Follow the reliable secondary sources. I request that you reconsider closing of that topic. There were many people there who thought the same as I. That issue is not over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jed Stuart ( talk • contribs) 05:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Electronic Harassment NPOV". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 September 2016.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 06:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed Topic ban of user:Jed Stuart from editing articles related to conspiracy theories. Thank you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Electronic Harassment NPOV, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 19:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Per this ANI discussion, I have topic banned you indefinitely from all pages and discussions related to electronic harassment and/or conspiracy theories. Please click on the "topic banned" link to see what such a ban entails, and please feel free to post on my page if anything is unclear to you, or if you wish to protest the ban. Bishonen | talk 11:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC).
A topic ban means you leave the topic alone. Completely. You do not comment on it. You do not engage in further debate. You do not pass Go and you do not collect $200. This [1] vilates your topic ban. Don't do that. If you do, you will end up blocked. Guy ( Help!) 08:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Possible logged-out editing to evade topic ban. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Your attempt to re-litigate a 2016 ANI discussion where there was wholehearted support for your topic ban is disruptive. Please stop. Now. -- NeilN talk to me 04:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, users are unequivocally allowed to remove stuff from their own page. Reverting MjolnirPants on his page is disruptive in itself. Bishonen | talk 11:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC).
"The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission."The very first of those exceptions is:
"Personal talk page cleanup: See the section § User talk pages for more details.", where you will find:
"users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user."(my bold). Hope that helps you to understand why Bishonen found your revert disruptive. In any event, wikilawyering about this now is unlikely to be productive, and I concur with NeilN's sound advice to drop the attempt at re-litigation completely. -- Begoon 04:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
(I posted this request on Mjolnir's Talk page but he immediately deleted it, so I am posting it here and notifying all the other editors involved in the TBAN and based on these unfounded accusations, and which I was denied a response to.)
I request an apology for personal_attacks in:
In that you have made three serious accusations to do with my behavior, ability, and character, all entirely lacking evidence.
Firstly in your opening remark you falsely describe the dispute that I started at Talk:Electronic harassment as being over 'whether to portray the mind controlling of so-called "targeted individuals" by the US government as a real or delusional phenomenon' concluding 'one user, Jed Stuart has dissented. Strongly and vociferously, for several months.... he has continued to assert his argument that we present this as a real phenomenon.' That is entirely untrue. Although I do believe that there is a real phenomena of covert targeting by electronic means being described by people claiming to be targeted, I have never attempted to get the article to say that as there are no reliable sources for such a belief. Also, I have never said that I believe it is done by the US Government. I have studied the evidence you put forward and can't find any basis for your accusation.
What the evidence does reveal though is that I was attempting to put the case that the NPOV include the view that some believe that such forms of harassment 'might be real', using the Washington Post article 'Mind games' which has already been accepted as a reference. This is an entirely different proposition to saying that they 'are real'. I was attempting to have the medical opinion that TIs are delusional be stated as an opinion and not the truth of the matter. Many others have come to the article who also believe so, including the people who created it in the first place. Although not representing any organization or other individuals holding this view, I was attempting to find a way to give it a place in the article and thereby reduce the level of regular protest vandalism, and general aggravation. That I was not attempting to have the article 'present this as a real phenomenon' is supported by the actual edits I attempted to make to the article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Electronic_harassment&diff=prev&oldid=720012443
which was quickly reverted, and
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Electronic_harassment&diff=prev&oldid=721961965
now edited out.
Secondly, you portray me as a "targeted individual". I have never said that I am a TI. I described myself as a supporter of TIs, not as one. This is discrediting as it lumps me in with the many people who are claiming to be TIs, and who engage in protest vandalism of the article, which I don't support.
Thirdly, you say: Jed 'should not be editing any articles pertaining to conspiracy theories, as he has an extremely limited ability to separate fact from fiction with regards to them.' Another slur without any evidence. You conclude 'the chances of Jed ever doing anything productive outside his area of monomania are roughly zero, and for that eventuality we have the Standard offer.' I find this very offensive as, being the holder of a fringe view, I have had to be very careful how and where I mention it. I am not a "monomaniac", thanks. It is not my only activity in Wikipedia, although at the time of the ban you succeeded in instituting, it was taking up a lot of my time as I was having extreme difficulty in my attempts to get a sensible discussion going on the NPOV for the Electronic harassment article.
The fact that this is all a ridiculous beat up is proven by another editor coming to the article in February 2017, 5 months after I received the ban, and easily making most of the change that I was advocating, by removing the articles assertion that the experience of electronic harassment is definitely a delusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Electronic_harassment&diff=prev&oldid=766526480
This is in no way an attempt to start a discussion of the content of the EH article, or the dispute. It is just to establish that I was not doing what Mjolnir accused me of. I will deal with any fresh accusations also, but the old ones first, thanks. Jed Stuart ( talk) 04:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
@ MjolnirPants: @ Ad Orientem: @ Guy Macon: Error in Template:Reply to: Username not given. @ LuckyLouie: @ Capeo: @ Jayron32: @ Staszek Lem: @ Guy: @ Dbrodbeck: @ Johnuniq: @ Begoon: @ 2607:FB90:6820:CC85:184F:E7D7:3F25:52B2: @ Robert McClenon: @ Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: @ Bishonen: @ Muffled Pocketed: @ Thomas.W:@ 2607:FB90:2E02:BF29:9839:2299:DFF8:1EF9: @ Jbh: @ EdChem:
Request_for_an_apology_from_MjolnirPants.== January 2018 ==
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
NeilN
talk to me 04:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)You were told repeatedly to drop the stick. You didn't. More of the same will cause your talk page access to be revoked. Take this time to think about how to contribute here constructively. -- NeilN talk to me 04:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
So, first it seems I have to deal with whether I am a disruptive editor, or not. I don't think that my Request_for_an_apology_from_MjolnirPants. is disruptive editing, or part thereof. I prefer to attempt a resolution here. Anyone interested? Jed Stuart ( talk) 03:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.I am surprised this has not been brought to your attention before now. Guy ( Help!) 23:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I did as directed, started the dispute resolution process, and notified the main other party in the dispute on the articles Talk page. I have returned to the dispute after 3 days and find that a moderator has volunteered, there has been brief discussion only along the lines of the other side of the dispute and the dispute closed, and it is difficult for me to read it even. This is a very controversial article and any dispute needs to proceed slowly and carefully, I would suggest. To me that means that both parties initially agreeing on the moderator. I don't agree on the one that very quickly showed up. Is there a list of moderators available. It seems like it might be a difficult thing to achieve, agreement on a moderator. But without that is their any point?
Jed Stuart (
talk) 06:03, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Tell me all about it. 12:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sea Lions. Thank you. Guy Macon ( talk) 14:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
moved from User talk:Begoon
You are supporting the view that the TI view should not be given any weight in the electronic harassment article. Have you read the Washington Post article cited "Mind Games"? That clearly gives some credibility to the view that there may be something in the claims of TIs. Many other reliable source articles also put forward the TI claims. And they state the psychiatric opinion as that, an opinion. They do not adopt it as a fact. That is what the article should do in my opinion. Follow the reliable secondary sources. I request that you reconsider closing of that topic. There were many people there who thought the same as I. That issue is not over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jed Stuart ( talk • contribs) 05:32, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Electronic Harassment NPOV". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 23 September 2016.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 06:24, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed Topic ban of user:Jed Stuart from editing articles related to conspiracy theories. Thank you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning Electronic Harassment NPOV, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK) 19:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Per this ANI discussion, I have topic banned you indefinitely from all pages and discussions related to electronic harassment and/or conspiracy theories. Please click on the "topic banned" link to see what such a ban entails, and please feel free to post on my page if anything is unclear to you, or if you wish to protest the ban. Bishonen | talk 11:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC).
A topic ban means you leave the topic alone. Completely. You do not comment on it. You do not engage in further debate. You do not pass Go and you do not collect $200. This [1] vilates your topic ban. Don't do that. If you do, you will end up blocked. Guy ( Help!) 08:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Possible logged-out editing to evade topic ban. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Your attempt to re-litigate a 2016 ANI discussion where there was wholehearted support for your topic ban is disruptive. Please stop. Now. -- NeilN talk to me 04:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, users are unequivocally allowed to remove stuff from their own page. Reverting MjolnirPants on his page is disruptive in itself. Bishonen | talk 11:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC).
"The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission."The very first of those exceptions is:
"Personal talk page cleanup: See the section § User talk pages for more details.", where you will find:
"users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. Users may also remove some content in archiving. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user."(my bold). Hope that helps you to understand why Bishonen found your revert disruptive. In any event, wikilawyering about this now is unlikely to be productive, and I concur with NeilN's sound advice to drop the attempt at re-litigation completely. -- Begoon 04:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
(I posted this request on Mjolnir's Talk page but he immediately deleted it, so I am posting it here and notifying all the other editors involved in the TBAN and based on these unfounded accusations, and which I was denied a response to.)
I request an apology for personal_attacks in:
In that you have made three serious accusations to do with my behavior, ability, and character, all entirely lacking evidence.
Firstly in your opening remark you falsely describe the dispute that I started at Talk:Electronic harassment as being over 'whether to portray the mind controlling of so-called "targeted individuals" by the US government as a real or delusional phenomenon' concluding 'one user, Jed Stuart has dissented. Strongly and vociferously, for several months.... he has continued to assert his argument that we present this as a real phenomenon.' That is entirely untrue. Although I do believe that there is a real phenomena of covert targeting by electronic means being described by people claiming to be targeted, I have never attempted to get the article to say that as there are no reliable sources for such a belief. Also, I have never said that I believe it is done by the US Government. I have studied the evidence you put forward and can't find any basis for your accusation.
What the evidence does reveal though is that I was attempting to put the case that the NPOV include the view that some believe that such forms of harassment 'might be real', using the Washington Post article 'Mind games' which has already been accepted as a reference. This is an entirely different proposition to saying that they 'are real'. I was attempting to have the medical opinion that TIs are delusional be stated as an opinion and not the truth of the matter. Many others have come to the article who also believe so, including the people who created it in the first place. Although not representing any organization or other individuals holding this view, I was attempting to find a way to give it a place in the article and thereby reduce the level of regular protest vandalism, and general aggravation. That I was not attempting to have the article 'present this as a real phenomenon' is supported by the actual edits I attempted to make to the article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Electronic_harassment&diff=prev&oldid=720012443
which was quickly reverted, and
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Electronic_harassment&diff=prev&oldid=721961965
now edited out.
Secondly, you portray me as a "targeted individual". I have never said that I am a TI. I described myself as a supporter of TIs, not as one. This is discrediting as it lumps me in with the many people who are claiming to be TIs, and who engage in protest vandalism of the article, which I don't support.
Thirdly, you say: Jed 'should not be editing any articles pertaining to conspiracy theories, as he has an extremely limited ability to separate fact from fiction with regards to them.' Another slur without any evidence. You conclude 'the chances of Jed ever doing anything productive outside his area of monomania are roughly zero, and for that eventuality we have the Standard offer.' I find this very offensive as, being the holder of a fringe view, I have had to be very careful how and where I mention it. I am not a "monomaniac", thanks. It is not my only activity in Wikipedia, although at the time of the ban you succeeded in instituting, it was taking up a lot of my time as I was having extreme difficulty in my attempts to get a sensible discussion going on the NPOV for the Electronic harassment article.
The fact that this is all a ridiculous beat up is proven by another editor coming to the article in February 2017, 5 months after I received the ban, and easily making most of the change that I was advocating, by removing the articles assertion that the experience of electronic harassment is definitely a delusion.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Electronic_harassment&diff=prev&oldid=766526480
This is in no way an attempt to start a discussion of the content of the EH article, or the dispute. It is just to establish that I was not doing what Mjolnir accused me of. I will deal with any fresh accusations also, but the old ones first, thanks. Jed Stuart ( talk) 04:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
@ MjolnirPants: @ Ad Orientem: @ Guy Macon: Error in Template:Reply to: Username not given. @ LuckyLouie: @ Capeo: @ Jayron32: @ Staszek Lem: @ Guy: @ Dbrodbeck: @ Johnuniq: @ Begoon: @ 2607:FB90:6820:CC85:184F:E7D7:3F25:52B2: @ Robert McClenon: @ Shock Brigade Harvester Boris: @ Bishonen: @ Muffled Pocketed: @ Thomas.W:@ 2607:FB90:2E02:BF29:9839:2299:DFF8:1EF9: @ Jbh: @ EdChem:
Request_for_an_apology_from_MjolnirPants.== January 2018 ==
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
NeilN
talk to me 04:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)You were told repeatedly to drop the stick. You didn't. More of the same will cause your talk page access to be revoked. Take this time to think about how to contribute here constructively. -- NeilN talk to me 04:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
So, first it seems I have to deal with whether I am a disruptive editor, or not. I don't think that my Request_for_an_apology_from_MjolnirPants. is disruptive editing, or part thereof. I prefer to attempt a resolution here. Anyone interested? Jed Stuart ( talk) 03:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)