Nice and clean here. Much easier to deal with. Sometimes you gotta clean house. SageRad ( talk) 15:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Some things I've snapped up during my unwilling meandering through management - not that I always manage to follow them:
...just in case it applies sometimes ;-). -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 15:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Sage, I just re-read WP:Harassment and I thought you might be interested in the following. It states The prohibition against harassment applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to harass a user with a history of inept or disruptive behavior as it is to harass any other user. Wikipedia encourages a civil community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Harassment is contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia. All the best.DrChrissy (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey Sage, I hope cleaning up here has helped clear up your headspace as well. Sorry to keep pestering you, but are you still interested in helping me work on Efficient energy use? I keep asking because I have a hard time finding other editors who are even willing to look at my work in the first place. Either way, I do hope your cleaning house here is an indication that you're gonna stick around.-- FacultiesIntact ( talk) 22:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of oldest living people. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
You have been reported at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement for violation of your topic ban from the Genetically Modified Organism Arbcom case. Edward321 ( talk) 01:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
This is absolutely ridiculous. I'm observing the topic ban to a ridiculous degree. I have not edited anything about GMOs or agrochemicals at all since the topic ban. Period. I'm not stupid. I know that violating my topic ban would be suicide. Someone obviously spent a lot of time trying to compile a case. Looks like enemies have it out for me. I'm editing with integrity and not touching the areas from which i am topic banned. I don't have time to waste on this and i'm not even going to grace this case with any point-by-point rebuttal. It's clear this is a witch hunt trying to find an excuse to get me blocked. SageRad ( talk) 10:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
But, just to be safe, none of the diffs provided show me discussing GMOs or agrochemicals at all -- because i have not. And when Kingofaces writes:
SageRad has also been commenting directly at ANI on a discussion on GMOs
he's actually speaking of a conversation that begins with:
Editor KingOfAces casts aspersions Kingofaces43 is casting very serious aspersions, and here - where he essential frames everybody participating in a OR noticeboard discussion as a climate change denier, among his common theme as fringe.
In other words -- it's not "a discussion on GMOs" -- it's a discussion on meta-level aspects of Wikipedia culture, mainly about the use of "fringe" as an aspersion, and how we deal with name-calling, and all that. It is not a discussion on GMOs, and his trying to frame it as such is a lie.
And once again, what Kingofaces calls:
They also responded directly to me at WP:FTN when I asked for more eyes on this GMO discussion
links actually to this diff which has nothing to do with GMOs. Again, a lie.
And most of his issue seems to be that i have opinions and speak against a McCarthyism sort of dynamic that i see going on. Ironically, this very case here is another such incident within that dynamic. I should not have to be wasting my time on this.
As for DuPont -- my edits on that company (and Dow who have merged with them, hence [1]) have been about the chemical PFOA (like this edit [2]) which is not an agrochemical. It's a Teflon additive that did pollute water in West Virginia and in the Ohio River. That's not at all under my topic ban. And i also edited about Styrofoam [3] to correct a trade name. Styrofoam is made by Dow but Thermacol is made by another company. I also made the same change at Polystyrene to correct that trade name -- again, another chemical also made by Dow ( my edit).
Seriously, my edit to Charles Eisenstein [4] ??????? This is out of control. So he's a wonderful thinker, author of Sacred Economics and a social change agent in the world. He probably wrote something about GMOs sometime, but i've never read it, and it's not his main thing, not what he's known for. You're really stretching. This is looking like McCarthyism, sort of proving my point, the actual point for which this case appears to have been brought against me.
So, even though i said i wouldn't, i just went through all the diffs provided, and as i know, they do not show me editing anything at all about GMOs or agrochemicals. I know this because my conscience is clear. I have not edited anything about GMOs or agrochemicals at all since the topic ban. I ask for this case to be summarily dropped, as it's onerous and seems to be intended to "get me" for being outspoken on cultural issues within Wikipedia. Good day. SageRad ( talk) 11:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Word. I guess i spoke too much of what's real here on Wikipedia and too many people are pissed off at me and so want to use a weasel argument to say that i violated the topic ban that was wrong to begin with, but which i absolutely did not violate at all.
I'm topic banned from editing about GMOs and agrochemicals -- and i have not. And there has been a clarification that states that i can make basic non-related edits about companies that may also produce such things, which would be under discretionary sanctions. And yet they're trying to make it out as if i've broken my topic ban so they have an excuse to block me for whatever length of time -- it's a McCarthyist thing. Really it is.
Here's the case they're making against me. It's so empty it's sad and yet they're gonna perhaps block me because of it. It's another travesty and sham. This place has no integrity. Wonder if it ever did. I bet back around the beginning there was probably some integrity here but since i've been editing i ain't seen it.
SageRad ( talk) 17:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
And... shit gets worse and worse... and one editor calls anyone who writes a word in my defense "the peanut gallery" and everyone thinks that's okay -- and meanwhile there's conservative people changing other people's comments on the essay that some people say "should die".... there's such bullshit here on Wikipedia -- how can anyone get any editing done. I'm just wanting to improve articles like
ExxonMobil climate change controversy and
Experimental evolution and
Zika virus and
Buffalo hunting and answer Legobot calls like
Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach which i've done, and much more... the real work of Wikipedia ... and yet i'm in this stupid drama with people holding a knife to my throat and all these drama-makers trying to find ways to get me banned from Wikipedia -- because i speak honestly and see much.
SageRad (
talk) 11:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
It's time for everyone to listen to some Bach and take a chill pill. SageRad ( talk) 11:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
In dif you confessed to editing in a WP:POINTy way. You should not make POINTy edits. Jytdog ( talk) 17:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I accused you of nothing. I corrected your assertion that WP:POINT only applies to articles. I never said you were being disruptive, never even checked. HighInBC 20:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point".
The bolded text is the definition of POINTY - protesting what he sees as a bullshitty argument by proposing another one, "just to show it can be done" (i.e. to make a point) - not because what he proposed is actually what he wanted. This kind of tactic is something that we humans resort to when we are frustrated; but it is unhelpful and disruptive, and is why POINTy was written. Jytdog ( talk) 16:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)All these comments are gamy. I countered a linked list rhetoric devide with a linked list rhetoric device just to show it can be done. Many sources that say it's a fad are also B-grade and POV-laden sources. There isn't a genuine and unbiased attempt at discerning the reality here. There's rhetoric and POV pushing. Like i said, you can't build a good house when there's a constant high wind blowing. There's not an atmosphere here in which a real dialogue can be had to determine the best way to write this article. There's a constant wind blowing.
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:China. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Since you voted on the (more recent) RfC on Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach, you may be interested in the current discussion on it on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Marlindale ( talk) 20:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Second RfC closed Feb. 22, now what? Marlindale ( talk) 01:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Zionism. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Time Person of the Year. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954). Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lord Uxbridge's leg. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Your opinion at the Bach talk page RfC has recently been hatted. The RfC is about to close if you can revive your strong comment there. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris ( talk) 16:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
spirale of justice |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of people who have opened the Olympic Games. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:My Old Kentucky Home. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
This is not appropriate behaviour on an article talk pages. The article talk page is for discussing the article, not for discussing other editors. If you think there are concerns about another editors behaviour then you can leave the a polite message on their talk page, or if very serious then you can post at a noticeboard. Be sure you have evidence to back up your claims if you intend to make them. HighInBC 21:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of South America. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:British colonial campaigns. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Time Person of the Year. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
SageRad, I understand your recent comments. I don't agree but perhaps that is a matter of perspective. As you may be aware the editor in question and I have had a less than ideal working relationship. Around March 2nd I was happy to be done with the ExxonMobil articles and was already discussing some Ford Pinto fuel tank controversy edits on the article talk page. The editor in question followed me to that page (and the Chrysler article) and proceeded to try to put an anti-corporate spin on things. Note the editor had never worked in the auto topic space before but suddenly discovered an interest after looking at my edit history. The interest was even added to his home page! In both the Pinto and Chrysler cases the editor's engagement resulted in a great deal of article disruption (see the talk pages and 250+ edits to the Pinto article in just 5 days). I'm not the only one who questioned the motives. Look at the characterization of the editors who didn't agree here, "fanboyz" [7] These are largely the same editors (me included) that are involved here [8]. Given the recent auto topic related edit warring, bludgeoning and refusal to engage in productive talk page discussion I think people can be forgiven for not assuming good faith. Especially when one editor, seemingly on a quest to jam pet content into several topics (see his earlier efforts with Pinto material in non-Pinto articles) into a topic that was not political since its inception a decade past. I don't think the involved editors would disagree with my comments. That said, you are right that I probably went too far in my frustration in dealing with the editor. Springee ( talk) 11:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cayman Islands. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Armenian Genocide. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:CinemaScope. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Grange, Broadhembury. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm MjolnirPants. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.I strongly suggest you reconsider your strike. DrChrissy (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil (my emphasis); deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.I note that your opening sentence to this thread was a concern about incivility. I really do suggest you reverse your striking. DrChrissy (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism, or if the comment is on your own user talk page.SageRad's comments were neither vandalism or trolling. DrChrissy (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
You made this allegation that i made an uncivil comment but you don't tell what comment or who removed it -- please fill in these gaps of information.I have already answered that question.
Hey buddy, i didn't like you saying "pro-fringe editors" -- that tripped my wire as an aspersion and it's what made me use the term "McCarthyist" .....Substituting sarcasm for a valid point doesn't get you anywhere.
you see how it's all relative?No. Because you're grasping at straws to defend your actions instead of owning up to them like a responsible adult. "Pro-fringe" is not an insult. "McCarthyist" is. You already know this. However, it's clear now that you won't listen to civil advice, so in the future, you can expect templating and ANI discussions from me in response to this sort of behavior. I'd rather you simply calm down, because I do have some respect for you as an editor, but that's entirely up to you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Notice I pinged them. No reply. SageRad ( talk) 13:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
It is not uncivil to speak about a pattern of railroading and agenda pushing where it does actually exist. It's speaking about reality. Of course those who feel the guilt of being part of said railroading would not want it spoken. That's part of the agenda and the bias, not to want it named. But it's quite important to speak about what is happening in Wikipedia because there is a big problem here. SageRad ( talk) 18:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello SageRad,
The AfD on 'State Crimes Against Democracy' was decided and the article has been deleted, but the closing admin was very kind in his response to my query about the basis of his decision.
User_talk:Sandstein#State_Crimes_Against_Democracy
Quote:
I'm thinking that I talked too much at the delete discussion, I won't do that again. I'm a new editor here, my specific goals are to create articles and links related to Roman influences on Christianity, and regarding Lanierite theory of Shakespeare authorship. I was recently scolded & warned by Bishonen for activities on a Shakespeare talk section, and was curious what kind of person Bishonen was, and thus I clicked on the link to her 'delete' opinion on SCAD. I would've thought that SCAD would be a shoe-in for GNG and I was, frankly, stunned at the vehemence of opposition to the article.
Both my intended topics are regarded as 'fringe' around here, and I'm not sure what (if anything) to do about that. It also seems to me that the information in the SCAD article should be on Wiki; I wonder if the article could be reframed around the broader topic of criminality by states or elite individuals, and given a new title? JerryRussell ( talk) 17:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Or, Sandstein's comment seems to leave the door wide open for a deletion review. It might be interesting to find out a broader cross-section of admin opinion about this. JerryRussell ( talk) 17:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Potato chip. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Falklands War. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:European migrant crisis. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chris Kyle. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Constitution of Medina. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rothschild family. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of Gibraltar. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Order of the Netherlands Lion. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Sage, you cannot make those edits, because you are still topic-banned. I feel badly about telling you this, but it's the way things are. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a request at AE regarding your breach of your topic ban. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 23:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:North Yemen Civil War. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
This block was imposed after a request for enforcement here. -- Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 11:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
@
Only in death: I noticed you have edited (removed material) from this talk page twice in the last 4 days. I suggest you re-read
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines which states Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.
DrChrissy
(talk) 17:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against persons who edit Wikipedia for the purpose of attacking another person who edits Wikipedia is never acceptable. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any person who edits Wikipedia through the posting of external links is not permitted. Harassment in this context may include but is not limited to linking to offsite personal attacks, privacy violations, and/or threats of physical violence. This is not to be confused with legitimate critique.-- explain how i violated that. Explain how what i posted was personal attack and not simply legitimate critique, which is expressly allowed by the guideline. Explain how what you did was correct and what i posted was a violation, if you really mean that in good faith. Otherwise apologize. SageRad ( talk) 20:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
It's called systemic bias, it's called ideological agenda pushing, and it's taken hold of Wikipedia like a metastatic cancer. See the above section of my talk page for an example. Look into the edit history of this page to see what was removed. Wikipedia, we have a problem. SageRad ( talk) 20:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Toxic abusive manipulators have taken over Wikipedia. It's seriously bad. People are noticing. People are saying it. People are also being attacked for saying it -- just like here on my talk page. SageRad ( talk) 22:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Skyring Pete, you are not welcome on my talk page ever. Do not ever post anything on my talk page. I see you as a hostile and toxic person and do not want you to post anything here. I believe that is my right within Wikipedia rules. SageRad ( talk) 22:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Sage - your language and hostility above are understandable, but very out of character for you. I agree with the message you are trying to get across, but you might consider editing the language you have used. Are you OK? Feel free to email me if you want to. DrChrissy (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I can see topic bans sometimes being enacted for good reasons, when an editor is continually disruptive. But they have come to be used for ideological purging of editors who are not liked by other editors who have the power by Wikipedia having come to be occupied by people sharing the ideology. When integrity and adherence to the principles of Wikipedia (NPOV and RS especially) goes out the window or gets entirely distorted, then Wikipedia is owned and occupied by a particular agenda interest group and they maintain power by finding ways to expel others, by any means possible. It is not ok. It's blatantly clear to those who have seen the daily interactions and the outcomes of many decisions. It's clear who is here for the true reasons of editing an encyclopedia to the ideals of the encyclopedia, and who is here to bend the encyclopedia in a particular direction. The bias is astounding to those who have been in the trenches and seen what goes on. It's sickening. SageRad ( talk) 12:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
By the way, the link i posted originally that caused this most recent flaring of the immune system of the occupiers of Wikipedia was to a blog called "Wikipedia we have a problem". Does the mentioning of such a blog that speaks to dynamics in Wikipedia constitute a Wikipedia "crime" or "personal attack"? I don't think so. I think that is legitimate critique. It's really telling when people want to erase critique. I did human rights work in Nepal during the civil war or insurgency there, and it was striking how the King wanted to shut down critique to the point that he shut down the entire Internet and all cell phones in the country. He censored newspapers. They wrote articles about dirty socks instead of the government, but everyone knew of what they were speaking. And the King did not last much longer. You can only clamp down so much before you get bucked off the horse. People need to be able to speak freely about dynamics going on, and not shut down when they do so. It's not a "personal attack" to speak to the authoritarian dynamic going on here that has been enacted and enabled. It's not wrong to point out that someone is acting abusively or in a controlling way or without integrity of dialog. If you cannot speak to that and resolve it then the problem is simply more hidden but even worse. SageRad ( talk) 12:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Assault rifle. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Iraq War. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The bias that i see within Wikipedia, in arbitration cases, in article talk pages, and in the banter of admins and arbitrators, is astounding and so blatant.
There is a continuing polarization that is causing content to be more and more polarized. It's akin to a takeover, and it is in part intentional. There is indeed a "Skeptic" movement to cause Wikipedia to move more in line with the ideology of the "Skeptic" movement, and they engage in meat-puppeting, in the form of recruiting people of their ideology to take up Wikipedia editing in order to change and maintain the changed content to move it more in line with their ideological beliefs.
It is insidious in that they pretend to be one with science -- they claim that what they believe is "science" and that it's neutral and unbiased. But that is a huge misrepresentation, because they actually take a single approach to science on certain topics and exclude other science that is not in line with their beliefs. They generally have a simplistic and reductionist view of science, not seeing the ecological and sociological dimensions of many subjects.
They also have a heavy-handed way of bullying and speaking with condescension and dripping with a nasty slimy toxicity that is holographic with the fact that they generally defend the products of the chemical industry, including chemicals which are toxic to living things. They move in groups and support one another, and having the numbers, they can knock others out, one by one, in topic bans and various other mechanisms, as well as just making editing so unpleasant that people who have other points of view simply drop out in frustration and futility. People who really want to improve articles and restore some balance and NPOV.
They pretend to be "neutral" and they pretend that they are defending "science" and that they are NPOV but they are asdtoundingly blind of self-deluding or lying about this, because they push a particularly biased interpretation of science and exclude other good solid science that is not in line with their general agenda.
Others have written about them in blogs like "The Ethical Skeptic" and "Wikipedia We Have A Problem" much more lucidly and in more detail than i have. It's seriously affecting Wikipedia very badly.
SageRad ( talk) 12:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Laser brain
(talk) 19:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
I absolutely did not speak of anything that is covered by my topic ban. And yet I was blocked for violating a topic ban. Can you explain this? Ridiculous. It seems like certain people just don't want any critique of any bias with in Wikipedia. I spoke about bias in the most general terms and that's what I meant. It was not some sort of coded language and you cannot assume what I was meaning because you don't have telepathy, and you would be wrong anyway. I was speaking on the most General level of a systemic virus within Wikipedia and how it is manifested. And the Very fact that I was banned because of doing so is one more piece of evidence that it is true. Touchy? SageRad ( talk) 13:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
You had better buy it because there is no other authority about what my words meant than myself. I know what i was writing about. I did not mention at all anything within the purview of my single topic ban, which is very specific (and is wrongly imposed in itself as part of the problem). I spoke to a general pattern of bias within Wikipedia that includes a great many topic areas. My single specific mention of "toxic chemicals" was about things that i am "allowed" to speak of. This is extensive and ugly admin overreach here. I have responded to you by email to demand dropping of this block, as well. I demand it because it was wrong and you over-reached here. I spoke of a general pervasive "Skeptic" ideological pushing within Wikipedia. You cannot assume what i meant based on your preconceptions. That's the nature of the problem in itself. You're illustrating an aspect of the very thing i was talking about here, Laser_brain. Poetically, i was blocked unjustly for saying that people are being blocked unjustly according to an ideological pattern. And so it continues to be illustrated clearly. SageRad ( talk) 11:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I have written 3 emails explaining that i did not even speak of anything that is in the scope of my topic ban and you are stating that you are not going to respond to them or to lift my block. You did not respond to them. I will keep communication here from now on, Laser_brain.
I did not "go off the rails" as you put it. I would call your use of this phrase to be casting an aspersion as it clearly implies that i am crazy and amok. I am not. I see a clear bias within Wikipedia and i am speaking to it lucidly. There is a biased power structure that has been manifested by a swarm attack for an ideological movement and this is documented at many sources and there is copious evidence for this agenda being enacted. There is an "establishment" that has occupied the power structures of Wikipedia and the situation continues to become more polarized (as well as more blatantly obvious).
I spoke to this, and your response is to threaten further repression of my speech, by blocking access to my own talk page, which is currently the only place where i can even speak now because of your block.
I do not need to "clear my head" -- my head is quite clear. I clearly see the situation within Wikipedia based on my past 15 months of participation. I see the landscape and the bias at all levels and the abuses of power. It's holographic and systemic, and it's hostile to curation of knowledge content with neutrality. I speak to this and the result is further repression of my ability to speak. That in itself is yet another piece of evidence in support of the hypothesis that there is systemic bias within Wikipedia. Hostility to hearing critique, even if it's mostly wrong, as the good Jimbo recommended on his talk page, is a sign of something rotten in the state of Denmark. Methinks thou protest too much. SageRad ( talk) 14:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I started this section on Jimbo's talk page, and i was summarily blocked from editing for one month (anything but my own talk page) by Laser_brain.
I did not speak about anything within my "topic ban" -- which is unjust in itself and part of the problem -- but i did not flout my topic ban -- and yet i was blocked from editing for one month for speaking of a general ideological bias pattern in Wikipedia -- which illustrates further the actual problem of ideological agenda pushing and flogging of people for speaking to that bias. People on the "winning side" are free to accuse anyone they don't like of being an "activist" or "having an agenda" or bring "fringe" but them moment you speak of a bias in the other direction, you get tarred and feathered and lynched.
I am not going to appeal to the very authority who banned me to begin with in such a badly biased and unjust way. Sure, ask the fox to guard the henhouse after he eats a chicken.... yeah right.
I'm going to point out the extensive holographic bias within all levels of Wikipedia, from biased application of the word "aspersions" to the blocking of people for speaking of the bias that is screaming in Wikipedia. This has to end. SageRad ( talk) 12:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
When a person perceives a problem of power abuse, and then speaks about it, and then gets immediately silenced and eliminated for speaking about it, that is a sign of a deep abusive problem. An abusive relationship has this characteristic -- you don't speak about the problem, for it's taboo and it is a sin to speak of it. You pretend everything is ok and try to appease your abuser. You try to survive. If you speak directly about it, the abuser will punish you with worse and worse abuse. That's what's happening here. I have been blocked for one month for speaking about a problem and there are many in positions of power who don't want that spoken. Silencing and gaslighting are very real things. Even here.
SageRad (
talk) 12:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
If anyone is reading this, and cares, please note that i am blocked from commenting on that conversation at Jimbo's page but that has not been clearly noted there yet, so it could appear odd that i started that convo an didn't partake anymore. A note to that effect there could be helpful.
SageRad (
talk) 12:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
THE ABSOLUTE BULLYING AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY ABUSIVE TREATMENT OF DrChrissy at Jimbo's talk page is really really bad, and if i can put myself into DrChrissy's shoes and empathize, it feels like a serious bullying and psychological attacking of that editor. Please, someone, speak up against that, as it is really ugly and cruel, and this cruelty should NOT be allowed in Wikipedia -- if civility means anything at all. This is all part and parcel of the holographic toxic atmosphere from this takeover by toxic people, this horrible horrible atmosphere that really does hurt people. Seriously, it's harmful to people and to the content as well. It's a cancer in Wikipedia. It's got to be addressed. SageRad ( talk) 12:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Jusdafax, i am very concerned about bullying and harassing and psychological abuse of DrChrissy at Jimbo's talk page -- i don't know what can be done but do you see that happening too? Is it clear to you that there's a toxic thing going on? Needing help and perspective. SageRad ( talk) 12:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Horrible, blatant biased agenda pushing continues within Wikipedia every hour of every day, and those who speak about it get blocked and banned and harassed and some end up leaving in frustration and others are forcefully blocked (like me) and the false story is told that people like me are the agenda pushers but it's the very exact opposite. SageRad ( talk) 13:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
A discussion that i started on Jimbo's talk page titled "Wikipedia we have a problem" was archive here. I record this for easy reference to that discussion. Note that promptly after i began that dialog, i was summarily blocked from editing on Wikipedia for one month (except for my own talk page) for allegedly violating my topic ban, which i did not do. I maintain that my topic ban is 100% unjust and yet i know that to break it would be grounds for a block there, so i did not. And yet i was blocked anyway, unjustly, on a false basis. My topic ban is to not speak about GMOs and agrochemicals. I spoke of neither. I did mention as one example of bias articles about "toxic chemicals" but this is not the subject of my topic ban even if there might be overlap in a Venn diagram in someone's mind, but i have edited and seen bias in articles about PCBs and PFOA and other toxic chemicals that are products of the chemical industry but explicitly NOT covered by my topic ban. There was not other basis for the block and it was based on another person believing they could attribute my words in ways that they were not meant or spoken, and it was ridiculous. And you can see the editor who blocked me above showing the same impunity and disregard of justice and reality. Wikipedia, we have a problem, and we are not to speak of it, just like in an abusive relationship the worst sin is to speak about the abuse. SageRad ( talk) 16:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I am blocked so i cannot comment here but i'll provide some thoughts.
It's not "nice" to say "fuck off" and generally is very uncivil, but you still need to look at the context. It's not cuss words along that defines civil versus uncivil. It's more about integrity of dialog, and general respect for others, especially when there is disagreement about some topic. It's about being able to keep to the topic ("the comment not the commenter") and not to go ad hominem.
However, after a long history with any specific person, then one may see patterns and they ought to be able to speak to it. If i see that one editor consistently ignores reasonable dialog, or uses straw man argumentation, or otherwise abuses dialog or does personal attacks, then i would call this out. I would speak my reckoning about that person's actions, based on my observations of their history, in a place where it is appropriate to show bad behavior.
I would not use that, however, to try to slander a person in a new context where they have not yet acted badly. Every person deserves the respect of some amount of good faith in a new conversation. But history does remain in the minds of the people who interact.
When someone who has been consistently hostile to me for as long as i've been editing, comes to my talk page and adds a comment that they truly know is meant to torment me or to be abusive then i may tell them simply to "fuck off" -- or in a better moment "Leave my talk page. You are not welcome here." Some people though, who continue to push and push even when told that they are not welcome to do so, and who continue to cast aspersions over and over, may trigger a "fuck off" response from even the most normaly polite person.
I am a very polite person in every situation, and i start every interaction with respect for others. I assume good faith until i see reasons to suspect otherwise.
Huge problems arise when there is not good enforcement of civility from the get-go. Problems build up between people who are getting away with abuse with impunity. The people who are abused endlessly then may reach a breaking point. It's not symmetrical. It's related to gaslighting, and also to blaming the victim, to simply respond when the abused party reaches a breaking point and uses a cuss word or speaks strongly. That's the way abusive power dynamics go, so often.
In the discussion there on Jimbo's page, i think that Cassianto is indeed not very civil to people and could work to temper their interactions. It's not the best example of what i'm talking about. But it's not okay to simply say "every use of a cuss word is incivil" -- you need to see the context deeply. That takes work. Sorry, but it takes work. Wikipedia needs a huge dose of integrity, and everyone needs to be willing to do the work or get out.
DrChrissy -- you may be interested in my take on this. Dr._Blofeld, i respect your comments there. I cannot comment there to tell you this, so i ping you here. Especially your comment:
I agree with Jimbo on " We are here to build an encyclopedia - nasty behavior to others is damaging to that effort.", but nasty behaviour goes beyond uttering expletives, some of the worst offenders I can think of on here are the ones who typically don't resort to direct personal attacks, but go about the site harrassing people and bringing a vendetta to multiple articles, psychological bullying on here really. That can be the most damaging I think. And they get away with it because they're "civil" in terms of abiding by NPA. Personally I'd rather somebody swear at me than spend weeks/months pursuing some issue and wearing me down by obsessively going on about it, or infobox warring!
In fact, i would say that many people are not actually "civil" but that the judging of what is a "personal attack" is often done too simplistically and also with great prejudicial bias. There are indeed people ideologically warring here, and they will not hesitate for a second to nail someone to a cross for a single unkind word, whereas they will happily overlook endless snide and nasty attacks by others who are "on their team" ideologically. It's a huge pervasive systemic problem in Wikipedia. It needs to be admitted and addressed.
SageRad ( talk) 17:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the DRN regarding the use of Harriet Hall's blog post in the Michael Greger article. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Michael Greger. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 04:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
<removed WP:BLP violating personal attack on a living person, further instances of this will result in reporting you to ANI. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)>
Sagerad,
If you haven’t already taken a look at wikipediocracy, that site may be a better forum for your criticism of wikipedia than Jimbo’s talk page. Commenters on wikipediocracy are more amenable to recognizing a distinction between Skeptic movement editors and neutral science and evidence-based editors, and are significantly less likely to try to see you banned. Dialectric ( talk) 21:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
DrChrissy, i appreciate the tip. Upon reading that section, i most resonate with your plea to others to speak up against incivility... if few people speak up then it goes on and on. The critical mass is already such that the incivil crowd rules the roost. I appreciate Tryptofish's perspective as well, and the metaphor of the workplace, but if we have an ideal of being able to discuss in a civil way but cannot then this place is broken -- and it is broken -- so the thing to do is state clearly that it's broken. Otherwise it's functioning in a broken way producing broken content. Let us stay human. We are all different in our temperaments and points of view, but if we are civil and if we together stand up to bullying and those who are uncivil with impunity, then we can make something of this place, which was and can again be a place where differing points of view resolve through civil discussion into an NPOV-approaching melding of the human supermind. My best to you both, and stay human. That's why i like Jimbo's page, actually -- it's a place that feels more human than other areas that are more highly policed. For whatever flaws he may have, Jimmy Wales is a real human with a lot of integrity, i think, and his talk page seems a less formal place for us to speak more easily -- even though i've been blocked for a month last time i posted there. Best to you both. SageRad ( talk) 21:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
What policy allows another user to edit my comments? What policy prohibits this? I seem to recall that policy generally prohibits one editor from editing the comments of another editor on talk pages. SageRad ( talk) 13:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
As i said elsewhere, i'm bowing out of conflict. I've no taste or desire to be in conflict here, as it's harmful to the spirit to be enmeshed in a toxic ecology. I will note the blatant inequities as they appear, but i will bow out because i do not wish to be embroiled in the dramas. But note that this is distortive to content, because those who eschew conflict will leave those who create and maintain the conflict to control the content, thereby resulting in a Machiavellian rule of those willing to be toxic to others for the sake of a prize, which often is a specific angle to content in articles. SageRad ( talk) 14:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Diesel engine. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
You have climbed the Reichstag twice now at Jimbo's talk page with regard to your concern about WP being overtaken by skeptics.
You created significant disruption at the Talk:Paleolithic diet page carrying out your campaign, which took up a significant amount of time and yielded almost no changes to the article's content.
You have now opened a section at Talk:Michael Greger to continue your campaign, raising drama about how Harriet A. Hall is defined there. I am not going through another Paleo experience with you.
If you continue to abuse article Talk pages in the course of carrying out your campaign - which is a clear violation of WP:SOAPBOX and is disruptive behavior, I will move to have you topic banned from discussing "skepticism" in WP, perhaps with a focus on content about health, as that is what unites the two articles I noted above.
This is just letting you know what the future holds, should you continue to do this. Jytdog ( talk) 19:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC) (added wiggle to allow going broader, via redaction Jytdog ( talk) 19:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC))
Jytdog, those are your opinions, which i disagree with 100%. Your words here are interpretations that are highly mistaken. It also has the flavor of threat, intimidation, and personal attack. Your interpretations above are extremely off-base.
SageRad ( talk) 19:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Note that despite your continual use of personal attacks against me, i don't come to your talk page, except when you recently edited my comments on a talk page. I don't come with my interpretations to your talk page to accuse you of things in this way. I simply respond to comments in the place where they are made. I don't come at you like this or threaten to get you kicked off Wikipedia or other such things. You do often irk me, Jytdog, but look at the asymmetry of the actions of the two of us. I do try to refrain from any personal attacks even though i receive them from you quite often. I am looking at general patterns within Wikipedia. I am not into making accusations against any specific people. I'm looking at how the project is broken and how it might be fixed, but not waging a battle against specific editors. Please do try to lighten up and be less litigious.
SageRad (
talk) 19:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
( talk page watcher) I looked at the Geiger page, and I see nothing wrong with the use of the word "skeptic". (No, I don't want to get involved in that page.) But that said, @ Jytdog: please lighten up. I think the warnings here are excessive. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Look at what you actually wrote when you opened the "Problem with 'skeptic' as a title" section in this dif. What actual content change did you even want? (Who knows? Not stated)--- well duh, i wanted the "title" of "skeptic" removed because it's not valid as a title in Wikivoice. So... there's your question answered with a most obvious answer.
What did I do? I fixed it, here. That is clueful editing. It is solving a problem using good writing and good sources.Well you did not fix it with adding two sources because they did not show what you claim them to show, as i point out here in the dialog. Really, anyone can read the dialog and see your unwillingness to listen to others there. And, even when informed that the sources did not show what you claimed you failed to remove the sources or to admit it. You're the obstinate one, the one who won't listen to others, the one who is wasting others' time here.
So look at the above comments. I can take your entire comment and desconstruct it, and it would take 4 times the length of your comment to do so. You seem to have perfected an art of attack and your dialog lacks the integrity to stick to a single point and carry it through, or even to return to anything i ever say and actually admit when you're wrong. Look in the mirror, Jytdog. You're being disruptive here, you're making this a toxic environment here, you're not showing integrity of dialog here, you're all the things of which you're accusing me. I could run circles around your comment there in any court where there is fair judgment and integrity. Please stop wasting my time and leave me alone, and please if you do encounter me in dialog in a talk page, stick to the content, and act with integrity. Please don't misrepresent sources, and if you're corrected on blatant errors of misrepresentation of sources, please have the grace to admit it and correct your error. Please.... please.... SageRad ( talk) 08:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
On a human level please understand that we have limited energy as human beings. I have a newborn and i have carpal tunnel. Every word i type has a cost in pain and time away from the most important thing. So i say in all earnestness, PLEASE RESPECT PEOPLE JYTDOG! Do not harass people. Do not come at people repeatedly with this attitude. This is really damaging to Wikipedia and to people who are subjected to it. SageRad ( talk) 08:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, behaviors like this are what drive away good editors from Wikipedia. SageRad ( talk) 08:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog and Capeo, please find something else to do than harangue this user on his own talk page. If you feel compelled to seek sanctions against SageRad for whatever reasons, you are aware of the appropriate venues for doing so. -- Laser brain (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism in 21st-century France. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 14 September 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)
I read many of your thought-posts & reply-posts @ Jimbo's Talk and think you're very smart, self-aware & honest. Like all big orgs w/o inspired leadership, WP is dysfunctional at best; abusive/corrupt at worst. How many years are needed to evolve to something better than 1984 + Stanford Prison Experiment + Lord of the Flies? Funny to see how long WP holds onto ANI, a most primitive example of mob rule belonging to the days of Christ. With so many popular & thoughtless title memes rattling in heads (e.g. "NOTHERE", "BOOMERANG", "OTHERTHINGSEXIST") to fuel close-mindedness/stereotype/ignorance/unfairness/illogic/stake-burnings ... perhaps Rip Van Winkle was ahead of his time!? You're right the best editors don't find the abuse worth it to stay and continue to give their best. (WP's shame. WP needs radical re-org & inspired leadership, else mass & inertia spells rotten eggs.) Best of luck. IHTS ( talk) 02:00, 17 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.)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cedar Fire (2003). Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Noticed your edit on the PCB article. I think it was rightfully reverted for being primary but it got me curious. There are reviews out there [10], [11], [12] . I haven't looked at them in depth, and they seem to mainly conclude that more research is needed, but it might be worthwhile to bring it up on talk for discussion. Capeo ( talk) 15:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:ISIL territorial claims. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Have you studied control theory? In control theory feedback has a different meaning, as does control. The signal that is fed back for comparison. That function is missing in a thermostat. The controller does the comparison against the set point and uses a calculation to make a calculated adjustment to the controlled variable. A thermostat doesn't do any calculating or adjusting; it either turns something on or off. Phmoreno ( talk) 17:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
This is off topic for the RSN, so there's no point in continuing it there.
You say that i guarantee you to condescend to me by "things like you just said above" -- meaning what exactly?Meaning what I said above. I can't simply toss up a link and my signature when you ask a question, as I could do for editors who engage me on my level of knowledge, or which they could do for me. Instead, I have to not only explain that the link contains the answer, but explain to you in my own words what that answer is, because you either can't or won't read the link. You offer up behavioral evidence that your purported motive of not understanding what makes the claim that Cleopatra was black a fringe claim is false. Indeed, your attitude strongly indicates that your actual motive is to pick another fight (something which you do with some regularity).
The short answer to your questions is that it's not a mainstream theory. That is the definition of fringe. If only a few historians (or no serious historians) believe it, it's fringe.
The long answer is: a fringe theory is any theory which doesn't have any significant expert acceptance. More specifically, the term "fringe" is often used to refer to those subsets of the former which contain postulates which defy established knowledge, or which make predictions which are not confirmed by observation. In this case, the theory that Cleopatra was black is still a fringe theory, because it was highly unlikely that a person of black ancestry could find themselves in a position to rule Egypt (postulates that defy established knowledge), and because we have a decent amount of information on her pedigree (part of the Ptolemaic dynasty), which we know was Greek (an prediction which is not confirmed by observation). Finally, it fits the broader definition because it's not widely accepted.
On a more personal note, I have to say that I really don't understand why you're still editing Wikipedia. I can't say that I've ever seen you say anything good about the site. Indeed, without exception, every time you've addressed the subject of WP as a whole in my experience, it's been from a position of complaining about it. Specifically, you complain that it encourages skepticism and discourages credulity. Well, if WP is so wrong, and has such a different mindset from your own, why are you here? The web is full of wikis that document all sorts of things without the strict policies of WP. Based on what you say constantly, you would be happier there. And by this point, I'm sure you're aware that at least a few Wikipedians would be relieved not to have to continue to see your comments here. I'm a little incredulous that I'm sitting here actively discouraging someone from editing WP, but in your case, being here just seems to make you (and some others, myself not included) miserable. Life is too short for that. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
You see, here's the crux of the matter:
SageRad ( talk) 01:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's the real problem:
This whole obvious thing is a problem. It's very I know it when I see it. I don't think "it's obvious" makes the cut in Wikipedia policy because editors are explicitly not experts and our opinions don't matter, and in fact are prohibited by WP:OR. We need sources to ascertain facts and judgments. Personal reckonings about content are not admissible. SageRad ( talk) 16:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
LOL You just accused me of OR for thinking. That's priceless. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Enjoy this bowl of strawberries, a balanced part of a Fad Diet®! Safehaven86 ( talk) 19:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC) |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:AlMaghrib Institute. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The edit summary was simple and blatant personal attack, and he damn well knows it. Kindly self-revert as the article is under 1RR. Collect ( talk) 12:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Leninism. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ruger Mini-14. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
It has been more than a year since have been notified about this, so I am providing you a fresh notice.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 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 that 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.This follows on my comments above at
User_talk:SageRad#WP:SOAPBOX, and is spurred by your comments on the section you have opened:
Truth of Toxins. Doing everything I can to give you fair warning.
Jytdog (
talk) 18:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC) (redact
Jytdog (
talk) 19:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC))
So, what's gonna happen is you're going to drop your threats because i simply spoke on a talk page!!!!! And you're hopefully gonna say you're sorry and it was an over-reaction.
If people cannot discuss reliable sources on talk pages without people coming to their use talk page and making threats of actions to sanction them simply for speaking about sources about the content -- then what is a talk page for? I was not "soapbox"-ing and i was describing a source as i read it, and quoting the abstract in fact. So... if you have other readings of the source, speak it -- as you did -- but don't come here swinging a large chain in a threatening manner. As i recall -- you have been warned before about doing that here, Jytdog. Recall that? SageRad ( talk) 13:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Red Shirts (Southern United States). Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I was reading your comments on the Misophonia page. As well, I have reviewed all of the "talk" page in the past, as well as edits. It seems as though jytdog has been controlling edits for the time being - and has removed several sources, adding others. I cannot determine why these were done. Since there seems to be a conflict with Jytdog and changing information from random news sources. Should I review the page? Will there be further fighting involved? What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbsenceOfSound ( talk • contribs) 01:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
This page is so negative! Let's cheer it up! :)
AbsenceOfSound (
talk) 08:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey SageRad, it's nice to see you around Wiki again.
So far, we're the only two supporting votes for my proposal to re-define "fringe". Shall we put our support behind Staszek's proposal to clarify and build on the existing definition instead? From now on, "fringe" is synonymous with: creative, avant-garde, and innovative! It's the opposite of stodgy old mainstream, and only occasionally related to bogus crazy stuff.
As to changing the definition, I suspect we're outliers among the wider Wiki editor population, and we'd be facing a major uphill battle. I was disappointed but not surprised at the limited support for my proposal. Time to "drop the stick", I think. JerryRussell ( talk) 23:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I suggest you rephrase this to focus on content, not contributor. Jytdog ( talk) 14:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Both of you: again? I've looked at it (sigh), and here is what I want to say:
@Sage: What specifically is objectionable in your talk page comment is where you said: "... seem to be pushing a cause to make the article absolutely not state that misophonia is a thing that exists. It seems Jytdog's mission is to make sure that the article absolutely will not speak of misophonia because he does not think it is known to exist. I say that is wrong according to..." There is no need to frame it as "pushing a cause" or as a "mission". You could just as well have said something like 'It seems that the effect of those edits is to...' I think that Jytdog is entitled to want you to have focused less on him.
@Jytdog: I looked at your (many) edit summaries, and you did indeed give reasons. But I also have problems with these three edit summaries: [13], [14], and [15]. Per people who live in glass houses, you are on shaky ground when you ask other editors, in turn, to speak considerately back to you. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll go strike some text from Talk:Misophonia but i would really like to understand this.
So let's agree that it's against rules to impute motives to edits or groups of edits then? Is that the rule? I'm not sure it is but let's not get into where it might say this in policy, but let's say that's the rule here that i've supposedly violated, right?
In that case, didn't Jytdog's very section title on that talk page violate the rule as well? And his comment's text too? The section title was "Promotional/advocacy editing" -- doesn't this contain an imputation of motive to editing by others? First sentence of his comment: "I unwatched this for a while. I checked it over and sure enough a bunch of promotional/advocacy editing has crept back in."
And then he makes a string of 27 edits in less than an hour, reversing a lot of work by others (which may have some problems, but that's on a case by case basis and doesn't validate large-scale hacking away)... and then i am not allowed to characterize those edits (which have a fairly well characterizable quality to them, and some of which state motivations and reasons in the edit summaries themselves)....
I'm trying to understand why something is said to be alright by another editor and then not alright for me to similarly characterize a group of edits and speak to them with some critical voice.
Where is this stuff codified? Or is it all interpretive under the rubric of a pretty basic NPA policy? SageRad ( talk) 21:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Please, someone clarify this for me. Either say it's bunk or explain it in simple terms. I would like to be able to talk about the content and the development of the article like an adult, with other adults, without being told to "SHUT UP" in so many words at every single juncture. Who knew? Same bad editing environment even in an article on misophonia. Why? Why can't people simply edit without this drama? Jeesh. Fed up. SageRad ( talk) 21:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SageRad. Jytdog ( talk) 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Surrender (military). Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I reverted your deletion of most of your statement. Once you've made a statement and others have responded to it, you should not remove it as it causes a great deal of confusion in the discussion, with people answering questions that are no longer there. You may strike them if you like, but don't remove them. Dennis Brorwn - 2¢ 23:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
23:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Here's what I can tell yoCTu about the process. You are free to add to your statement and to strike through parts of it, if you want to revise what you said. I think that you had best accept that you are looking at some kind of editing restriction, and you should focus on avoiding having that restriction be excessive. Focus on showing that you understand why there is a complaint against you, and that at least some parts of it are reasonable, and on demonstrating that you can be a good editor going forward. The way it works is that uninvolved admins (so far, Bishonen) comment on what they think the best solution would be, and the tendency is to be somewhat strict, because the goal is to stop the dispute for good. If the admins agree on what to do, then they will do it – or an admin who wants to go it alone can go it alone. That can happen at any time, once you have posted your statement, so there is a real possibility that it can happen very soon and very abruptly. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah look I'd rather commit suicide that have any more editing restrictions. I understand exactly what is happening here and that is JY T-Dog has collected a huge diatribe against me through some months or whatever and then posted them here and I'm not going to subject myself to this stupid drama in this f****** cosplay Dungeons & Dragons fantasy world. SageRad ( talk) 13:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah so goodbye. Thanks for all the fish.
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of France. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States involvement in regime change. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@ SageRad: I've been in a very similar situation to you - in a different topic area in Medicine, the Morgellons article, with the same editor as you also. Didn't go as far as AE. As with you it was just for being honest and forthright on the talk page. I've had previous experiences like this and when they threatened AE I knew to stop, there is nothing more you can do at that point. I know from my own experience how scary and stressful it can be. You say to yourself "it's just wikipedia" but at that point you've got quite involved in it, got to really care about the quality of wikipedia articles, and it can be very distressing indeed to be threatened to be banned when all you are doing is trying to help here.
I'd just like to offer my sympathy especially as you talk about preferring to commit suicide - I hope that is just a metaphor and you didn't actually do it - saw that your user page says DEAD at the top, again I hope it is just a metaphor. Do contact me via email if you want support / sympathy / comparing experiences. You can message me via the messaging link on my user page or else you can email me at support@robertinventor.com - I'm a software developer and that's a public email address, so no problem sharing it here. Robert Walker ( talk) 06:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Extended discussion
|
---|
Just to say, I haven't been prohibited from contributing to the talk page discussions of the Morgellons article. I just had an editor who threatened to take me to AE if I continued to talk there and put forward my views there - not an admin. I haave other reasons why I don't want a ban, even a minor one. Because of that I was unable to defend myself against the allegations that what I said on the talk page was against MEDRS - I'd be taken for AE immediately for doing so and I know how easy it is to get topic banned.
The other editor actually said that he was about to take me to AE and only stopped after I hid my comments critical of his views on my own talk page and agreed not to continue to present my views on that article anywhere on wikipedia including my own talk page here. I came here after a friend off wiki who follows events in AE noticed that the same editor who threatened me had actually taken @ SageRad: to admin for similar behaviour, just being forthright and honest on a talk page, at least that is how we see it. I wanted to offer sympathy, as I said, because I know how scary this can be. That is all there is to it. I have given up on doing anything about the Morgellons article. Anyone who cares about it can make their own mind up about whether it is biased and if they think it is will probably look elsewhere. So it's not a big deal really, just wanted to improve wikipedia. Robert Walker ( talk) 19:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
|
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Diego Maradona. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:National Hockey League. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian financial crisis (2014–present). Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collegiate School (New York City). Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, SageRad. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Popular election. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Sage, I hope you are well. It's been a month since we put the AE review of your actions on hold to give you more time to respond. I'm planning to re-open it tomorrow, if somebody else hasn't already done so by then. You yourself are welcome to re-open it at any time: just remove the {{hat}} and {{hab}} templates top and bottom. If you have a new response to make, please do so by 26 November, UTC, to make sure it gets taken into account by admins. If you don't, the review will go on without you. Feel free to either remove your previous responses or leave them in, just as you like. I've also sent you a reminder by e-mail, in case you're not watching this page. Bishonen | talk 11:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC).
Hello, Bishonen, i've been not checking in here, taking that break. I was notified by your email this morning to check in.
As i noted in my response to your email, i have been aware that November 26th was the re-open date. I'd like to know what may be an expected timeline of action, and would also like to request for the complainant's statement to be reduced to the expected 500 words from it current excessive 1,500 words... and a chance to respond with clean slate, as in my previous troubled and panicked state i'd written a lot there, and then i'd like to have a few days to a week to respond before it gets decided upon.
I also note that i do not find the process inspiring of confidence. I find the charges themselves to be onerous, and a heavy burden for someone who is simply editing Wikipedia in spare time, as most people do... it's not my paid job, and i have other burdens. I really don't know if i can spend the time to be a defense lawyer on my own behalf to simply retain my editing username. It's pretty weird to me, and i'm surprised that it's not seen as onerous. It's the sort of thing that i'd hope boomerangs back to the plaintiff. People can't go around doing this to other people just because they disagree on something. It's not good. It's not right.
The whole thing is a vague / fuzzy / ideologically loaded charge and the plaintiff basically has a disagreement with my point of view on some things and therefore wants me topic banned. I did good and sober editing according to policies, and spoke in forums where that's expected. What does a person have to do to get onerous charges wiped away?
Anyway, let's see. I guess... I'm a busy person with a need to survive by working, and kids to raise. It's not my full time job to be here. But when i'm here, i'm totally WP:HERE and dedicated to the policies and ideals of Wikipedia. I feel a certain hostility and it's troubling. I feel a weird thing happening, and i spoke to it... in a forum where it's appropriate -- and then the same thing happened 10X larger with an ideological attempt to get me banned and punished... which is telling.
SageRad ( talk) 17:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Bishonen,
Tryptofish -- i was not aware that you'd expected i would use the month of break to write my defense. That could take 20 good hours if i really wanted to do it well. I'm a poor person, working all the time, and have two kids (one a newborn) and that is clearly an onerous burden. My simple position is that i am a good editor and follow policies, and i'm generally friendly to others when they are civil to me. But allowing an onerous and frivolous attack "lawsuit" upon another person is not what a good justice system does. Otherwise anyone could bring unending frivolous suits upon another editor. I am a good editor and i stand by my editing practice. Anyone with common sense can see through the attack modes of Jytdog's complaints, and see that he's upset that (1) i voice general observations about Wikipedia in appropriate forums like Jimbo's talk page, and (2) discuss article content in article talk pages. If that's against the rules then i missed reading those rules.
SageRad (
talk) 22:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
On further thought, i am considering retiring but would like to do so i in a graceful fashion, not with some AE case hanging over me, so it would be great if i could put together a real folio and slam dunk this one, even get it boomeranged back on the plaintiff for bringing an onerous an disruptive case against me, but i honestly don't have the time to do so. Honestly, it would take like i said 20 good hours to put that together. So i may just retire anyway, and hang up my hat. Ironically, it would further show the theory i outlined on Jimbo's page about how some editors emitting a toxicity can drive away other editors, thereby hurting the project by biasing point of view distribution. Anyway.
My ideal would be to hang this up and have my account simply sit inactive with no topic ban or other marks against me from this. But i don't have the time to give to a proper defense. My baby is more important. SageRad ( talk) 23:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Bishonen, well in an ideal world if i were wealthy, i would have been able to. But in reality i struggle to live, work all the time, and also spent weeks trying to get a new keyboard because my laptop was barely able to type. So... that's what happened. What can i say? In the end, the attack case by Jytdog is just that. A onerous attack case. He's out of line and deserves a boomerang for doing so. But that would take a wikilawyer with enough time to do it. I could do it if i had 20 hours but i don't... so... there you go. So... it's not been enough time for me. I haven't been able to do it, and having a newborn, it's much more important to be with the baby. Even now i'm borrowing time that i ought to be tending to the baby. That's real life. What's happened on Wikipedia is gamesmanship and agenda pushing attacking through frivolous AE actions with ideological overtones of dislike. "I don't like the things he's saying so we need to topic ban him from editing on health!" Without real basis... with a collection of diffs that pull the probable worst 40 diffs of thousands of my edits, and portray them in loaded and ingenuine ways, to make a case like a highly paid lawyer could make against anyone in the real world. It's not good. So... i need more time because i have a life here, and had bad luck in the past month as well as too much to do. What can i say? The case is frivolous. I could do it if i could have the resources to do it. I don't want to be in the position of being judged in this bad framing, in a system where any admin could arbitrarily close it in any way, with no timeline specified. But here we are. So... i simply need more time to do it right if i am going to do it, but i'd rather retire without bad disposition at present. That's where it leave me. This is the real world. SageRad ( talk) 23:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Bishonen, sorry for the edit conflicts before ... i did notice that you had implied i could erase text at AE (though i'd been told not to do so when i initially did it by another editor) and also you'd implied that the time was to write a defense and to calm down. I give you those things, and sorry to imply otherwise. But still, here i am, with no time to work center and then write a real defense at length, nor desire to pay that cost, which is a very high cost given the vague and ideological and extremely long complaint by the plaintiff here. The cost of a proper defense -- even if i am innocent of the charges -- is too high for me to afford right now. I need time. More time. Yes, sorry. Sorry that i'm poor, and got sick, and have a newborn, and had a keyboard breakdown that took weeks to get remedied. These things happen, in a world that is also constantly in motion. I'd like to be able to edit in a low key way on Wikipedia in spare time, but this level of required work is ridiculous to me for a voluntary encyclopedia project. So... i guess tomorrow i will go and erase / edit and see if i can write a defense that might be adequate to clear my username, and the go into a real semi-retirement. Now the baby's crying.
SageRad (
talk) 23:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
So Bishonen, what you're saying is tomorrow November 26th at 2200 UTC the veil will lift and the case will be active again, right? Jytdog, what do you say you reduce your complaint to a more manageable 500 words and 20 diffs as per the guidelines of the AE process so i could actually respond in a reasonable and less onerous amount of time given that real life has too many time demands as a working person with kids and other responsibilities? Or, even better, what do you say you drop the request altogether and we work toward peace and understanding and i pretty much subside from editing for a considerable length of time as i raise my newborn? SageRad ( talk) 00:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Bishonen, i've uncorked the genie at AE and wrote a response. It's about all i can do for now. Thanks for your help and sorry about my sometimes grumpiness with this process. I didn't ask for this but so it goes. I hope there are sober minds and hearts who can simply put this whole thing down. I've stated that i would make more effort to never impute any motives regarding other editors on content talk pages. I think that's the crux of what i have needed to learn. On the other hand, i think many others need to adhere to the same dang thing, and the near absence of rebuke when the motive impute goes the "other direction" is a glaring problem in Wikipedia--- and a much greater issue than mine. It's cast to the wind now. We'll see what kind of place Wikipedia is these days. Tryptofish thanks for your advice as well... I think i took about half of your advice. I wish to be a good person in dialog, and when it comes to discussion of content, i would be happy if everyone would keep it to the content and show integrity. But when it comes to forums like Jimbo's page, i think freedom to speak observations (even if totally wrong as they often are) is important for meta-level reflection about Wikipedia. Thanks for the advice and goodwill. SageRad ( talk) 16:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Wow, you're unbelievable Bishonen. [17] SageRad ( talk) 16:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I honestly do not even want to edit anymore. But i want to walk away without some slanderous censoring block like this. If you care about Wikipedia truly, and its ideals truly, it's unbelievable that you would come to a case like this and recommend a block instead of a boomerang. I have used the McCarthyism metaphor for very good reason. Ideological purging is the opposite of intellectual integrity. SageRad ( talk) 17:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I would really like to know, Bishonen, in your own words, in one or two sentences, what you see as the real crux of why i should be blocked from editing Wikipedia for a year. Please, if you are willing. Please state the core issue in brief. Why should i be blocked for one year and others not? What crime have i committed here? Have i "ruined" the article on the Paleo diet? How about Misophonia? How about the dozen or more articles i've created? How about adding sources on Locust? How about improving Field-effect transistor? How about working out issues on Race and intelligence? How about helping work out conflicts at James Watson? Really. I have done much good work and i do not deserve this. Especially as i have stated that i am totally willing to not speak to anyone's potential motivations on any article talk page. That's the crux here, isn't it? Isn't that the one thing i really did wrong on occasion? And isn't that something done so so so often by others when it's the "other direction" in terms of point of view? In the "dominant viewpoint" that's been crystallizing on Wikipedia? I would really appreciate (honestly) a simple and direct from-the-heart answer to this.
Pages created:
SageRad ( talk) 17:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
You find ways to silence all critics and you can make it appear that your ideology is the full reality and the consensus. SageRad ( talk) 17:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, SageRad, you predicted yesterday that you'd be blocked before the day was over, and it hasn't happened yet. I'm glad you're feeling more hopeful today. Your argument looks solid to me, and I agree that Jytdog has resorted to SYNTH and OR to make his point at misophonia. Best wishes, and I hope things go your way at AE. JerryRussell ( talk) 18:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't know who this was bit it was interesting, and then it was swiftly deleted: Thanks for this whoever you are. SageRad ( talk) 21:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold war (general term). Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, @ Bishonen:, this absolutely was an accident, and thanks for correcting it here -- my mistake and i'm sorry. Too much, too fast. I want to be able to edit calmly and well about content, not to be in this whirlwind of drama. SageRad ( talk) 22:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
(By the way the text i accidentally pasted was a quote from Jytdog that i wanted to address. It was not my own text. ) SageRad ( talk) 22:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
What does it mean when you are told that to provide evidence that is in a very good source that may perhaps be against what they call the establishment consensus around an article which simply means that some editors are so pushy that they will simply not question their own position, becomes a crime? It means there is an establishment of a party line here. There is an established house point of view on Wikipedia and if you cross it as I have done even in proper ways that would be completely the right way to edit Wikipedia, you will have your head cut off. And you will be told also to stop using metaphors. You will also be told you are the problem because you are the problem because you speak about what you do. That is what I'm talking about folks. It's time to read your Orwell, it's time to read your Kafka. No exaggeration, that's where we're at here in the virtual realm of Wikipedia. SageRad ( talk) 13:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
The Wordsmith
Talk to me 19:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
[18] by Guy states:
Given Sage's definition of integrity (which is synonymous with uncritical acceptance of his POV) I sincerely hope that will never happen.
And... this is not accurate, and it's a personal attack as well.
Integrity is real. It can be seen in dialog. Lack of it can also be seen.
Bob K31416, i hope you're not fooled by the sophistry and attack in Guy's comment.
Integrity is refreshing on Wikipedia, and is deeper than superficial civility. Civility is needed, but even moreso, integrity is needed.
It means to me:
By these standards, Guy's comment fails the test.
Obviously, my definition of integrity has nothing to do with whether another person accepts my POV. On the contrary, i love dialog with people of other points of view. It's useful and i learn from it ideally. However, far too often on Wikipedia, it goes straight to agenda pushing and insults and lacks integrity. And then the person who made it go that way often blames the other and uses this as fodder for long-term cases like the blocking that happened to me.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents on the topic, as i was just insulted on a forum where i cannot express these things.
SageRad ( talk) 15:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
You are free to:
...Contribute To and Edit our various sites or Projects.
Under the following conditions:
Responsibility – You take responsibility for your edits (since we only host your content). Civility – You support a civil environment and do not harass other users. Lawful Behavior – You do not violate copyright or other laws. No Harm – You do not harm our technology infrastructure.
So the Wikimedia foundation does promise a right to edit here, subject to these limits. The terms of service create a contract between Wikimedia Foundation and the users and editors of the site.
By contrast, the essay WP:NOJUSTICE states:
You have no rights here. Wikipedia is privately owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, which sets the terms of usage. Therefore editors have no legal right to edit it, no rights are being denied if users are blocked, and thinking in terms of a legal framework is counterproductive.
This seems to be clearly an error, and I believe the Terms of Use create the correct framework for editor's rights at Wikipedia. As a concrete example: I don't believe SageRad violated the terms of service, and I certainly don't believe that there was any due process to establish any such violation. Kangaroo courts don't work when it comes to evaluating compliance with legal frameworks, and we are dealing in a legal framework.
This is not a "legal threat", but rather a simple statement of my belief that SageRad's legal rights have been violated. I would like to compose a letter here to be sent to the legal department at Wikimedia Foundation, to get their views on the community process. JerryRussell ( talk) 16:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
The English-language Wikipedia does not have authority over the Meta-Wiki,.... DrChrissy (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. [survey 1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. [survey 2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about
this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this
privacy statement. Please visit our
frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.
Thank you! -- EGalvez (WMF) ( talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.
About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! -- EGalvez (WMF) ( talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
You will soon be unblocked. I want to give you a piece of advice, it is not an attack. If you will listen to it you will have a good time around here.
Wikipedia is mainly a venue for parroting mainstream science and mainstream scholarship (and perhaps mainstream press, for certain subjects). Editors are supposed to understand this, to wish this and be competent at doing this.
So supporting mainstream science and mainstream scholarship is required of all editors, failure to do this leads to losing disputes, being blocked and eventually banned. Strong adherence to mainstream science and mainstream scholarship is what made Wikipedia one of the greatest websites. So, dissent from mainstream science and mainstream scholarship will be perceived as an attack upon Wikipedia itself. If you want to win a dispute, you have to show that your claims are mainstream science or mainstream scholarship. If you cannot honestly do that, then refrain from making that particular claim. And remember, Wikipedia is just a mirror, mainstream science and mainstream scholarship exist outside of Wikipedia and cannot be changed through editing Wikipedia, Wikipedia merely reflects them. So if you want to change science/scholarship, you have to be a scientist or a scholar, Wikipedia is not the venue for doing that. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi SageRad! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over three years.
In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in three years or more.
You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:
{{
Frs user|{{subst:currentuser}}|limit}}
underneath the relevant heading(s), where limit is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.
Note that if you had a rename and left your old name on the FRS page, you may be receiving this message. If so, make sure your new account name is on the FRS list instead.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Nice and clean here. Much easier to deal with. Sometimes you gotta clean house. SageRad ( talk) 15:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Some things I've snapped up during my unwilling meandering through management - not that I always manage to follow them:
...just in case it applies sometimes ;-). -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 15:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Sage, I just re-read WP:Harassment and I thought you might be interested in the following. It states The prohibition against harassment applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to harass a user with a history of inept or disruptive behavior as it is to harass any other user. Wikipedia encourages a civil community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Harassment is contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia. All the best.DrChrissy (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Hey Sage, I hope cleaning up here has helped clear up your headspace as well. Sorry to keep pestering you, but are you still interested in helping me work on Efficient energy use? I keep asking because I have a hard time finding other editors who are even willing to look at my work in the first place. Either way, I do hope your cleaning house here is an indication that you're gonna stick around.-- FacultiesIntact ( talk) 22:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of oldest living people. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
You have been reported at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement for violation of your topic ban from the Genetically Modified Organism Arbcom case. Edward321 ( talk) 01:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
This is absolutely ridiculous. I'm observing the topic ban to a ridiculous degree. I have not edited anything about GMOs or agrochemicals at all since the topic ban. Period. I'm not stupid. I know that violating my topic ban would be suicide. Someone obviously spent a lot of time trying to compile a case. Looks like enemies have it out for me. I'm editing with integrity and not touching the areas from which i am topic banned. I don't have time to waste on this and i'm not even going to grace this case with any point-by-point rebuttal. It's clear this is a witch hunt trying to find an excuse to get me blocked. SageRad ( talk) 10:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
But, just to be safe, none of the diffs provided show me discussing GMOs or agrochemicals at all -- because i have not. And when Kingofaces writes:
SageRad has also been commenting directly at ANI on a discussion on GMOs
he's actually speaking of a conversation that begins with:
Editor KingOfAces casts aspersions Kingofaces43 is casting very serious aspersions, and here - where he essential frames everybody participating in a OR noticeboard discussion as a climate change denier, among his common theme as fringe.
In other words -- it's not "a discussion on GMOs" -- it's a discussion on meta-level aspects of Wikipedia culture, mainly about the use of "fringe" as an aspersion, and how we deal with name-calling, and all that. It is not a discussion on GMOs, and his trying to frame it as such is a lie.
And once again, what Kingofaces calls:
They also responded directly to me at WP:FTN when I asked for more eyes on this GMO discussion
links actually to this diff which has nothing to do with GMOs. Again, a lie.
And most of his issue seems to be that i have opinions and speak against a McCarthyism sort of dynamic that i see going on. Ironically, this very case here is another such incident within that dynamic. I should not have to be wasting my time on this.
As for DuPont -- my edits on that company (and Dow who have merged with them, hence [1]) have been about the chemical PFOA (like this edit [2]) which is not an agrochemical. It's a Teflon additive that did pollute water in West Virginia and in the Ohio River. That's not at all under my topic ban. And i also edited about Styrofoam [3] to correct a trade name. Styrofoam is made by Dow but Thermacol is made by another company. I also made the same change at Polystyrene to correct that trade name -- again, another chemical also made by Dow ( my edit).
Seriously, my edit to Charles Eisenstein [4] ??????? This is out of control. So he's a wonderful thinker, author of Sacred Economics and a social change agent in the world. He probably wrote something about GMOs sometime, but i've never read it, and it's not his main thing, not what he's known for. You're really stretching. This is looking like McCarthyism, sort of proving my point, the actual point for which this case appears to have been brought against me.
So, even though i said i wouldn't, i just went through all the diffs provided, and as i know, they do not show me editing anything at all about GMOs or agrochemicals. I know this because my conscience is clear. I have not edited anything about GMOs or agrochemicals at all since the topic ban. I ask for this case to be summarily dropped, as it's onerous and seems to be intended to "get me" for being outspoken on cultural issues within Wikipedia. Good day. SageRad ( talk) 11:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Word. I guess i spoke too much of what's real here on Wikipedia and too many people are pissed off at me and so want to use a weasel argument to say that i violated the topic ban that was wrong to begin with, but which i absolutely did not violate at all.
I'm topic banned from editing about GMOs and agrochemicals -- and i have not. And there has been a clarification that states that i can make basic non-related edits about companies that may also produce such things, which would be under discretionary sanctions. And yet they're trying to make it out as if i've broken my topic ban so they have an excuse to block me for whatever length of time -- it's a McCarthyist thing. Really it is.
Here's the case they're making against me. It's so empty it's sad and yet they're gonna perhaps block me because of it. It's another travesty and sham. This place has no integrity. Wonder if it ever did. I bet back around the beginning there was probably some integrity here but since i've been editing i ain't seen it.
SageRad ( talk) 17:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
And... shit gets worse and worse... and one editor calls anyone who writes a word in my defense "the peanut gallery" and everyone thinks that's okay -- and meanwhile there's conservative people changing other people's comments on the essay that some people say "should die".... there's such bullshit here on Wikipedia -- how can anyone get any editing done. I'm just wanting to improve articles like
ExxonMobil climate change controversy and
Experimental evolution and
Zika virus and
Buffalo hunting and answer Legobot calls like
Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach which i've done, and much more... the real work of Wikipedia ... and yet i'm in this stupid drama with people holding a knife to my throat and all these drama-makers trying to find ways to get me banned from Wikipedia -- because i speak honestly and see much.
SageRad (
talk) 11:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
It's time for everyone to listen to some Bach and take a chill pill. SageRad ( talk) 11:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of the oldest living state leaders. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
In dif you confessed to editing in a WP:POINTy way. You should not make POINTy edits. Jytdog ( talk) 17:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I accused you of nothing. I corrected your assertion that WP:POINT only applies to articles. I never said you were being disruptive, never even checked. HighInBC 20:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
However, just because someone is making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point. As a rule, editors engaging in "POINTy" behavior are making edits with which they do not actually agree, for the deliberate purpose of drawing attention and provoking opposition in the hopes of making other editors see their "point".
The bolded text is the definition of POINTY - protesting what he sees as a bullshitty argument by proposing another one, "just to show it can be done" (i.e. to make a point) - not because what he proposed is actually what he wanted. This kind of tactic is something that we humans resort to when we are frustrated; but it is unhelpful and disruptive, and is why POINTy was written. Jytdog ( talk) 16:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)All these comments are gamy. I countered a linked list rhetoric devide with a linked list rhetoric device just to show it can be done. Many sources that say it's a fad are also B-grade and POV-laden sources. There isn't a genuine and unbiased attempt at discerning the reality here. There's rhetoric and POV pushing. Like i said, you can't build a good house when there's a constant high wind blowing. There's not an atmosphere here in which a real dialogue can be had to determine the best way to write this article. There's a constant wind blowing.
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:China. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Since you voted on the (more recent) RfC on Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach, you may be interested in the current discussion on it on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. Marlindale ( talk) 20:00, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Second RfC closed Feb. 22, now what? Marlindale ( talk) 01:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of current state leaders by date of assumption of office. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Zionism. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Time Person of the Year. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1896–1954). Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lord Uxbridge's leg. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Your opinion at the Bach talk page RfC has recently been hatted. The RfC is about to close if you can revive your strong comment there. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris ( talk) 16:57, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
spirale of justice |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of people who have opened the Olympic Games. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:My Old Kentucky Home. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
This is not appropriate behaviour on an article talk pages. The article talk page is for discussing the article, not for discussing other editors. If you think there are concerns about another editors behaviour then you can leave the a polite message on their talk page, or if very serious then you can post at a noticeboard. Be sure you have evidence to back up your claims if you intend to make them. HighInBC 21:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of South America. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:British colonial campaigns. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of Ia Drang. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:1971 Bangladesh genocide. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Time Person of the Year. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Trump: The Art of the Deal. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
SageRad, I understand your recent comments. I don't agree but perhaps that is a matter of perspective. As you may be aware the editor in question and I have had a less than ideal working relationship. Around March 2nd I was happy to be done with the ExxonMobil articles and was already discussing some Ford Pinto fuel tank controversy edits on the article talk page. The editor in question followed me to that page (and the Chrysler article) and proceeded to try to put an anti-corporate spin on things. Note the editor had never worked in the auto topic space before but suddenly discovered an interest after looking at my edit history. The interest was even added to his home page! In both the Pinto and Chrysler cases the editor's engagement resulted in a great deal of article disruption (see the talk pages and 250+ edits to the Pinto article in just 5 days). I'm not the only one who questioned the motives. Look at the characterization of the editors who didn't agree here, "fanboyz" [7] These are largely the same editors (me included) that are involved here [8]. Given the recent auto topic related edit warring, bludgeoning and refusal to engage in productive talk page discussion I think people can be forgiven for not assuming good faith. Especially when one editor, seemingly on a quest to jam pet content into several topics (see his earlier efforts with Pinto material in non-Pinto articles) into a topic that was not political since its inception a decade past. I don't think the involved editors would disagree with my comments. That said, you are right that I probably went too far in my frustration in dealing with the editor. Springee ( talk) 11:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cayman Islands. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Armenian Genocide. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:CinemaScope. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Grange, Broadhembury. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm MjolnirPants. I noticed that you made a comment that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:53, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.I strongly suggest you reconsider your strike. DrChrissy (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. This generally does not extend to messages that are merely uncivil (my emphasis); deletions of simple invective are controversial. Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.I note that your opening sentence to this thread was a concern about incivility. I really do suggest you reverse your striking. DrChrissy (talk) 12:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
It is not normally appropriate to edit or remove another editor's comment. Exceptions include to remove obvious trolling or vandalism, or if the comment is on your own user talk page.SageRad's comments were neither vandalism or trolling. DrChrissy (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
You made this allegation that i made an uncivil comment but you don't tell what comment or who removed it -- please fill in these gaps of information.I have already answered that question.
Hey buddy, i didn't like you saying "pro-fringe editors" -- that tripped my wire as an aspersion and it's what made me use the term "McCarthyist" .....Substituting sarcasm for a valid point doesn't get you anywhere.
you see how it's all relative?No. Because you're grasping at straws to defend your actions instead of owning up to them like a responsible adult. "Pro-fringe" is not an insult. "McCarthyist" is. You already know this. However, it's clear now that you won't listen to civil advice, so in the future, you can expect templating and ANI discussions from me in response to this sort of behavior. I'd rather you simply calm down, because I do have some respect for you as an editor, but that's entirely up to you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Notice I pinged them. No reply. SageRad ( talk) 13:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
It is not uncivil to speak about a pattern of railroading and agenda pushing where it does actually exist. It's speaking about reality. Of course those who feel the guilt of being part of said railroading would not want it spoken. That's part of the agenda and the bias, not to want it named. But it's quite important to speak about what is happening in Wikipedia because there is a big problem here. SageRad ( talk) 18:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Korea-related articles. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello SageRad,
The AfD on 'State Crimes Against Democracy' was decided and the article has been deleted, but the closing admin was very kind in his response to my query about the basis of his decision.
User_talk:Sandstein#State_Crimes_Against_Democracy
Quote:
I'm thinking that I talked too much at the delete discussion, I won't do that again. I'm a new editor here, my specific goals are to create articles and links related to Roman influences on Christianity, and regarding Lanierite theory of Shakespeare authorship. I was recently scolded & warned by Bishonen for activities on a Shakespeare talk section, and was curious what kind of person Bishonen was, and thus I clicked on the link to her 'delete' opinion on SCAD. I would've thought that SCAD would be a shoe-in for GNG and I was, frankly, stunned at the vehemence of opposition to the article.
Both my intended topics are regarded as 'fringe' around here, and I'm not sure what (if anything) to do about that. It also seems to me that the information in the SCAD article should be on Wiki; I wonder if the article could be reframed around the broader topic of criminality by states or elite individuals, and given a new title? JerryRussell ( talk) 17:01, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
Or, Sandstein's comment seems to leave the door wide open for a deletion review. It might be interesting to find out a broader cross-section of admin opinion about this. JerryRussell ( talk) 17:14, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Potato chip. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Falklands War. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Arab–Israeli conflict. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:European migrant crisis. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chris Kyle. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Constitution of Medina. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rothschild family. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:History of Gibraltar. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Order of the Netherlands Lion. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Sage, you cannot make those edits, because you are still topic-banned. I feel badly about telling you this, but it's the way things are. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
There is a request at AE regarding your breach of your topic ban. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 23:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:North Yemen Civil War. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
This block was imposed after a request for enforcement here. -- Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 11:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
@
Only in death: I noticed you have edited (removed material) from this talk page twice in the last 4 days. I suggest you re-read
Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines which states Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request.
DrChrissy
(talk) 17:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Linking to off-site harassment, attacks, or privacy violations against persons who edit Wikipedia for the purpose of attacking another person who edits Wikipedia is never acceptable. Attacking, harassing, or violating the privacy of any person who edits Wikipedia through the posting of external links is not permitted. Harassment in this context may include but is not limited to linking to offsite personal attacks, privacy violations, and/or threats of physical violence. This is not to be confused with legitimate critique.-- explain how i violated that. Explain how what i posted was personal attack and not simply legitimate critique, which is expressly allowed by the guideline. Explain how what you did was correct and what i posted was a violation, if you really mean that in good faith. Otherwise apologize. SageRad ( talk) 20:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
It's called systemic bias, it's called ideological agenda pushing, and it's taken hold of Wikipedia like a metastatic cancer. See the above section of my talk page for an example. Look into the edit history of this page to see what was removed. Wikipedia, we have a problem. SageRad ( talk) 20:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Toxic abusive manipulators have taken over Wikipedia. It's seriously bad. People are noticing. People are saying it. People are also being attacked for saying it -- just like here on my talk page. SageRad ( talk) 22:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Skyring Pete, you are not welcome on my talk page ever. Do not ever post anything on my talk page. I see you as a hostile and toxic person and do not want you to post anything here. I believe that is my right within Wikipedia rules. SageRad ( talk) 22:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Sage - your language and hostility above are understandable, but very out of character for you. I agree with the message you are trying to get across, but you might consider editing the language you have used. Are you OK? Feel free to email me if you want to. DrChrissy (talk) 22:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I can see topic bans sometimes being enacted for good reasons, when an editor is continually disruptive. But they have come to be used for ideological purging of editors who are not liked by other editors who have the power by Wikipedia having come to be occupied by people sharing the ideology. When integrity and adherence to the principles of Wikipedia (NPOV and RS especially) goes out the window or gets entirely distorted, then Wikipedia is owned and occupied by a particular agenda interest group and they maintain power by finding ways to expel others, by any means possible. It is not ok. It's blatantly clear to those who have seen the daily interactions and the outcomes of many decisions. It's clear who is here for the true reasons of editing an encyclopedia to the ideals of the encyclopedia, and who is here to bend the encyclopedia in a particular direction. The bias is astounding to those who have been in the trenches and seen what goes on. It's sickening. SageRad ( talk) 12:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
By the way, the link i posted originally that caused this most recent flaring of the immune system of the occupiers of Wikipedia was to a blog called "Wikipedia we have a problem". Does the mentioning of such a blog that speaks to dynamics in Wikipedia constitute a Wikipedia "crime" or "personal attack"? I don't think so. I think that is legitimate critique. It's really telling when people want to erase critique. I did human rights work in Nepal during the civil war or insurgency there, and it was striking how the King wanted to shut down critique to the point that he shut down the entire Internet and all cell phones in the country. He censored newspapers. They wrote articles about dirty socks instead of the government, but everyone knew of what they were speaking. And the King did not last much longer. You can only clamp down so much before you get bucked off the horse. People need to be able to speak freely about dynamics going on, and not shut down when they do so. It's not a "personal attack" to speak to the authoritarian dynamic going on here that has been enacted and enabled. It's not wrong to point out that someone is acting abusively or in a controlling way or without integrity of dialog. If you cannot speak to that and resolve it then the problem is simply more hidden but even worse. SageRad ( talk) 12:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Assault rifle. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Iraq War. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The bias that i see within Wikipedia, in arbitration cases, in article talk pages, and in the banter of admins and arbitrators, is astounding and so blatant.
There is a continuing polarization that is causing content to be more and more polarized. It's akin to a takeover, and it is in part intentional. There is indeed a "Skeptic" movement to cause Wikipedia to move more in line with the ideology of the "Skeptic" movement, and they engage in meat-puppeting, in the form of recruiting people of their ideology to take up Wikipedia editing in order to change and maintain the changed content to move it more in line with their ideological beliefs.
It is insidious in that they pretend to be one with science -- they claim that what they believe is "science" and that it's neutral and unbiased. But that is a huge misrepresentation, because they actually take a single approach to science on certain topics and exclude other science that is not in line with their beliefs. They generally have a simplistic and reductionist view of science, not seeing the ecological and sociological dimensions of many subjects.
They also have a heavy-handed way of bullying and speaking with condescension and dripping with a nasty slimy toxicity that is holographic with the fact that they generally defend the products of the chemical industry, including chemicals which are toxic to living things. They move in groups and support one another, and having the numbers, they can knock others out, one by one, in topic bans and various other mechanisms, as well as just making editing so unpleasant that people who have other points of view simply drop out in frustration and futility. People who really want to improve articles and restore some balance and NPOV.
They pretend to be "neutral" and they pretend that they are defending "science" and that they are NPOV but they are asdtoundingly blind of self-deluding or lying about this, because they push a particularly biased interpretation of science and exclude other good solid science that is not in line with their general agenda.
Others have written about them in blogs like "The Ethical Skeptic" and "Wikipedia We Have A Problem" much more lucidly and in more detail than i have. It's seriously affecting Wikipedia very badly.
SageRad ( talk) 12:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Laser brain
(talk) 19:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
I absolutely did not speak of anything that is covered by my topic ban. And yet I was blocked for violating a topic ban. Can you explain this? Ridiculous. It seems like certain people just don't want any critique of any bias with in Wikipedia. I spoke about bias in the most general terms and that's what I meant. It was not some sort of coded language and you cannot assume what I was meaning because you don't have telepathy, and you would be wrong anyway. I was speaking on the most General level of a systemic virus within Wikipedia and how it is manifested. And the Very fact that I was banned because of doing so is one more piece of evidence that it is true. Touchy? SageRad ( talk) 13:07, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
You had better buy it because there is no other authority about what my words meant than myself. I know what i was writing about. I did not mention at all anything within the purview of my single topic ban, which is very specific (and is wrongly imposed in itself as part of the problem). I spoke to a general pattern of bias within Wikipedia that includes a great many topic areas. My single specific mention of "toxic chemicals" was about things that i am "allowed" to speak of. This is extensive and ugly admin overreach here. I have responded to you by email to demand dropping of this block, as well. I demand it because it was wrong and you over-reached here. I spoke of a general pervasive "Skeptic" ideological pushing within Wikipedia. You cannot assume what i meant based on your preconceptions. That's the nature of the problem in itself. You're illustrating an aspect of the very thing i was talking about here, Laser_brain. Poetically, i was blocked unjustly for saying that people are being blocked unjustly according to an ideological pattern. And so it continues to be illustrated clearly. SageRad ( talk) 11:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I have written 3 emails explaining that i did not even speak of anything that is in the scope of my topic ban and you are stating that you are not going to respond to them or to lift my block. You did not respond to them. I will keep communication here from now on, Laser_brain.
I did not "go off the rails" as you put it. I would call your use of this phrase to be casting an aspersion as it clearly implies that i am crazy and amok. I am not. I see a clear bias within Wikipedia and i am speaking to it lucidly. There is a biased power structure that has been manifested by a swarm attack for an ideological movement and this is documented at many sources and there is copious evidence for this agenda being enacted. There is an "establishment" that has occupied the power structures of Wikipedia and the situation continues to become more polarized (as well as more blatantly obvious).
I spoke to this, and your response is to threaten further repression of my speech, by blocking access to my own talk page, which is currently the only place where i can even speak now because of your block.
I do not need to "clear my head" -- my head is quite clear. I clearly see the situation within Wikipedia based on my past 15 months of participation. I see the landscape and the bias at all levels and the abuses of power. It's holographic and systemic, and it's hostile to curation of knowledge content with neutrality. I speak to this and the result is further repression of my ability to speak. That in itself is yet another piece of evidence in support of the hypothesis that there is systemic bias within Wikipedia. Hostility to hearing critique, even if it's mostly wrong, as the good Jimbo recommended on his talk page, is a sign of something rotten in the state of Denmark. Methinks thou protest too much. SageRad ( talk) 14:42, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I started this section on Jimbo's talk page, and i was summarily blocked from editing for one month (anything but my own talk page) by Laser_brain.
I did not speak about anything within my "topic ban" -- which is unjust in itself and part of the problem -- but i did not flout my topic ban -- and yet i was blocked from editing for one month for speaking of a general ideological bias pattern in Wikipedia -- which illustrates further the actual problem of ideological agenda pushing and flogging of people for speaking to that bias. People on the "winning side" are free to accuse anyone they don't like of being an "activist" or "having an agenda" or bring "fringe" but them moment you speak of a bias in the other direction, you get tarred and feathered and lynched.
I am not going to appeal to the very authority who banned me to begin with in such a badly biased and unjust way. Sure, ask the fox to guard the henhouse after he eats a chicken.... yeah right.
I'm going to point out the extensive holographic bias within all levels of Wikipedia, from biased application of the word "aspersions" to the blocking of people for speaking of the bias that is screaming in Wikipedia. This has to end. SageRad ( talk) 12:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
When a person perceives a problem of power abuse, and then speaks about it, and then gets immediately silenced and eliminated for speaking about it, that is a sign of a deep abusive problem. An abusive relationship has this characteristic -- you don't speak about the problem, for it's taboo and it is a sin to speak of it. You pretend everything is ok and try to appease your abuser. You try to survive. If you speak directly about it, the abuser will punish you with worse and worse abuse. That's what's happening here. I have been blocked for one month for speaking about a problem and there are many in positions of power who don't want that spoken. Silencing and gaslighting are very real things. Even here.
SageRad (
talk) 12:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
If anyone is reading this, and cares, please note that i am blocked from commenting on that conversation at Jimbo's page but that has not been clearly noted there yet, so it could appear odd that i started that convo an didn't partake anymore. A note to that effect there could be helpful.
SageRad (
talk) 12:13, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
THE ABSOLUTE BULLYING AND PSYCHOLOGICALLY ABUSIVE TREATMENT OF DrChrissy at Jimbo's talk page is really really bad, and if i can put myself into DrChrissy's shoes and empathize, it feels like a serious bullying and psychological attacking of that editor. Please, someone, speak up against that, as it is really ugly and cruel, and this cruelty should NOT be allowed in Wikipedia -- if civility means anything at all. This is all part and parcel of the holographic toxic atmosphere from this takeover by toxic people, this horrible horrible atmosphere that really does hurt people. Seriously, it's harmful to people and to the content as well. It's a cancer in Wikipedia. It's got to be addressed. SageRad ( talk) 12:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Jusdafax, i am very concerned about bullying and harassing and psychological abuse of DrChrissy at Jimbo's talk page -- i don't know what can be done but do you see that happening too? Is it clear to you that there's a toxic thing going on? Needing help and perspective. SageRad ( talk) 12:34, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Horrible, blatant biased agenda pushing continues within Wikipedia every hour of every day, and those who speak about it get blocked and banned and harassed and some end up leaving in frustration and others are forcefully blocked (like me) and the false story is told that people like me are the agenda pushers but it's the very exact opposite. SageRad ( talk) 13:21, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
A discussion that i started on Jimbo's talk page titled "Wikipedia we have a problem" was archive here. I record this for easy reference to that discussion. Note that promptly after i began that dialog, i was summarily blocked from editing on Wikipedia for one month (except for my own talk page) for allegedly violating my topic ban, which i did not do. I maintain that my topic ban is 100% unjust and yet i know that to break it would be grounds for a block there, so i did not. And yet i was blocked anyway, unjustly, on a false basis. My topic ban is to not speak about GMOs and agrochemicals. I spoke of neither. I did mention as one example of bias articles about "toxic chemicals" but this is not the subject of my topic ban even if there might be overlap in a Venn diagram in someone's mind, but i have edited and seen bias in articles about PCBs and PFOA and other toxic chemicals that are products of the chemical industry but explicitly NOT covered by my topic ban. There was not other basis for the block and it was based on another person believing they could attribute my words in ways that they were not meant or spoken, and it was ridiculous. And you can see the editor who blocked me above showing the same impunity and disregard of justice and reality. Wikipedia, we have a problem, and we are not to speak of it, just like in an abusive relationship the worst sin is to speak about the abuse. SageRad ( talk) 16:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I am blocked so i cannot comment here but i'll provide some thoughts.
It's not "nice" to say "fuck off" and generally is very uncivil, but you still need to look at the context. It's not cuss words along that defines civil versus uncivil. It's more about integrity of dialog, and general respect for others, especially when there is disagreement about some topic. It's about being able to keep to the topic ("the comment not the commenter") and not to go ad hominem.
However, after a long history with any specific person, then one may see patterns and they ought to be able to speak to it. If i see that one editor consistently ignores reasonable dialog, or uses straw man argumentation, or otherwise abuses dialog or does personal attacks, then i would call this out. I would speak my reckoning about that person's actions, based on my observations of their history, in a place where it is appropriate to show bad behavior.
I would not use that, however, to try to slander a person in a new context where they have not yet acted badly. Every person deserves the respect of some amount of good faith in a new conversation. But history does remain in the minds of the people who interact.
When someone who has been consistently hostile to me for as long as i've been editing, comes to my talk page and adds a comment that they truly know is meant to torment me or to be abusive then i may tell them simply to "fuck off" -- or in a better moment "Leave my talk page. You are not welcome here." Some people though, who continue to push and push even when told that they are not welcome to do so, and who continue to cast aspersions over and over, may trigger a "fuck off" response from even the most normaly polite person.
I am a very polite person in every situation, and i start every interaction with respect for others. I assume good faith until i see reasons to suspect otherwise.
Huge problems arise when there is not good enforcement of civility from the get-go. Problems build up between people who are getting away with abuse with impunity. The people who are abused endlessly then may reach a breaking point. It's not symmetrical. It's related to gaslighting, and also to blaming the victim, to simply respond when the abused party reaches a breaking point and uses a cuss word or speaks strongly. That's the way abusive power dynamics go, so often.
In the discussion there on Jimbo's page, i think that Cassianto is indeed not very civil to people and could work to temper their interactions. It's not the best example of what i'm talking about. But it's not okay to simply say "every use of a cuss word is incivil" -- you need to see the context deeply. That takes work. Sorry, but it takes work. Wikipedia needs a huge dose of integrity, and everyone needs to be willing to do the work or get out.
DrChrissy -- you may be interested in my take on this. Dr._Blofeld, i respect your comments there. I cannot comment there to tell you this, so i ping you here. Especially your comment:
I agree with Jimbo on " We are here to build an encyclopedia - nasty behavior to others is damaging to that effort.", but nasty behaviour goes beyond uttering expletives, some of the worst offenders I can think of on here are the ones who typically don't resort to direct personal attacks, but go about the site harrassing people and bringing a vendetta to multiple articles, psychological bullying on here really. That can be the most damaging I think. And they get away with it because they're "civil" in terms of abiding by NPA. Personally I'd rather somebody swear at me than spend weeks/months pursuing some issue and wearing me down by obsessively going on about it, or infobox warring!
In fact, i would say that many people are not actually "civil" but that the judging of what is a "personal attack" is often done too simplistically and also with great prejudicial bias. There are indeed people ideologically warring here, and they will not hesitate for a second to nail someone to a cross for a single unkind word, whereas they will happily overlook endless snide and nasty attacks by others who are "on their team" ideologically. It's a huge pervasive systemic problem in Wikipedia. It needs to be admitted and addressed.
SageRad ( talk) 17:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the DRN regarding the use of Harriet Hall's blog post in the Michael Greger article. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Michael Greger. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- Sammy1339 ( talk) 04:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
<removed WP:BLP violating personal attack on a living person, further instances of this will result in reporting you to ANI. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 14:00, 30 August 2016 (UTC)>
Sagerad,
If you haven’t already taken a look at wikipediocracy, that site may be a better forum for your criticism of wikipedia than Jimbo’s talk page. Commenters on wikipediocracy are more amenable to recognizing a distinction between Skeptic movement editors and neutral science and evidence-based editors, and are significantly less likely to try to see you banned. Dialectric ( talk) 21:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
DrChrissy, i appreciate the tip. Upon reading that section, i most resonate with your plea to others to speak up against incivility... if few people speak up then it goes on and on. The critical mass is already such that the incivil crowd rules the roost. I appreciate Tryptofish's perspective as well, and the metaphor of the workplace, but if we have an ideal of being able to discuss in a civil way but cannot then this place is broken -- and it is broken -- so the thing to do is state clearly that it's broken. Otherwise it's functioning in a broken way producing broken content. Let us stay human. We are all different in our temperaments and points of view, but if we are civil and if we together stand up to bullying and those who are uncivil with impunity, then we can make something of this place, which was and can again be a place where differing points of view resolve through civil discussion into an NPOV-approaching melding of the human supermind. My best to you both, and stay human. That's why i like Jimbo's page, actually -- it's a place that feels more human than other areas that are more highly policed. For whatever flaws he may have, Jimmy Wales is a real human with a lot of integrity, i think, and his talk page seems a less formal place for us to speak more easily -- even though i've been blocked for a month last time i posted there. Best to you both. SageRad ( talk) 21:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
What policy allows another user to edit my comments? What policy prohibits this? I seem to recall that policy generally prohibits one editor from editing the comments of another editor on talk pages. SageRad ( talk) 13:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
As i said elsewhere, i'm bowing out of conflict. I've no taste or desire to be in conflict here, as it's harmful to the spirit to be enmeshed in a toxic ecology. I will note the blatant inequities as they appear, but i will bow out because i do not wish to be embroiled in the dramas. But note that this is distortive to content, because those who eschew conflict will leave those who create and maintain the conflict to control the content, thereby resulting in a Machiavellian rule of those willing to be toxic to others for the sake of a prize, which often is a specific angle to content in articles. SageRad ( talk) 14:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Diesel engine. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
You have climbed the Reichstag twice now at Jimbo's talk page with regard to your concern about WP being overtaken by skeptics.
You created significant disruption at the Talk:Paleolithic diet page carrying out your campaign, which took up a significant amount of time and yielded almost no changes to the article's content.
You have now opened a section at Talk:Michael Greger to continue your campaign, raising drama about how Harriet A. Hall is defined there. I am not going through another Paleo experience with you.
If you continue to abuse article Talk pages in the course of carrying out your campaign - which is a clear violation of WP:SOAPBOX and is disruptive behavior, I will move to have you topic banned from discussing "skepticism" in WP, perhaps with a focus on content about health, as that is what unites the two articles I noted above.
This is just letting you know what the future holds, should you continue to do this. Jytdog ( talk) 19:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC) (added wiggle to allow going broader, via redaction Jytdog ( talk) 19:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC))
Jytdog, those are your opinions, which i disagree with 100%. Your words here are interpretations that are highly mistaken. It also has the flavor of threat, intimidation, and personal attack. Your interpretations above are extremely off-base.
SageRad ( talk) 19:13, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Note that despite your continual use of personal attacks against me, i don't come to your talk page, except when you recently edited my comments on a talk page. I don't come with my interpretations to your talk page to accuse you of things in this way. I simply respond to comments in the place where they are made. I don't come at you like this or threaten to get you kicked off Wikipedia or other such things. You do often irk me, Jytdog, but look at the asymmetry of the actions of the two of us. I do try to refrain from any personal attacks even though i receive them from you quite often. I am looking at general patterns within Wikipedia. I am not into making accusations against any specific people. I'm looking at how the project is broken and how it might be fixed, but not waging a battle against specific editors. Please do try to lighten up and be less litigious.
SageRad (
talk) 19:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
( talk page watcher) I looked at the Geiger page, and I see nothing wrong with the use of the word "skeptic". (No, I don't want to get involved in that page.) But that said, @ Jytdog: please lighten up. I think the warnings here are excessive. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:44, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Look at what you actually wrote when you opened the "Problem with 'skeptic' as a title" section in this dif. What actual content change did you even want? (Who knows? Not stated)--- well duh, i wanted the "title" of "skeptic" removed because it's not valid as a title in Wikivoice. So... there's your question answered with a most obvious answer.
What did I do? I fixed it, here. That is clueful editing. It is solving a problem using good writing and good sources.Well you did not fix it with adding two sources because they did not show what you claim them to show, as i point out here in the dialog. Really, anyone can read the dialog and see your unwillingness to listen to others there. And, even when informed that the sources did not show what you claimed you failed to remove the sources or to admit it. You're the obstinate one, the one who won't listen to others, the one who is wasting others' time here.
So look at the above comments. I can take your entire comment and desconstruct it, and it would take 4 times the length of your comment to do so. You seem to have perfected an art of attack and your dialog lacks the integrity to stick to a single point and carry it through, or even to return to anything i ever say and actually admit when you're wrong. Look in the mirror, Jytdog. You're being disruptive here, you're making this a toxic environment here, you're not showing integrity of dialog here, you're all the things of which you're accusing me. I could run circles around your comment there in any court where there is fair judgment and integrity. Please stop wasting my time and leave me alone, and please if you do encounter me in dialog in a talk page, stick to the content, and act with integrity. Please don't misrepresent sources, and if you're corrected on blatant errors of misrepresentation of sources, please have the grace to admit it and correct your error. Please.... please.... SageRad ( talk) 08:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
On a human level please understand that we have limited energy as human beings. I have a newborn and i have carpal tunnel. Every word i type has a cost in pain and time away from the most important thing. So i say in all earnestness, PLEASE RESPECT PEOPLE JYTDOG! Do not harass people. Do not come at people repeatedly with this attitude. This is really damaging to Wikipedia and to people who are subjected to it. SageRad ( talk) 08:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, behaviors like this are what drive away good editors from Wikipedia. SageRad ( talk) 08:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog and Capeo, please find something else to do than harangue this user on his own talk page. If you feel compelled to seek sanctions against SageRad for whatever reasons, you are aware of the appropriate venues for doing so. -- Laser brain (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Antisemitism in 21st-century France. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 14 September 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)
I read many of your thought-posts & reply-posts @ Jimbo's Talk and think you're very smart, self-aware & honest. Like all big orgs w/o inspired leadership, WP is dysfunctional at best; abusive/corrupt at worst. How many years are needed to evolve to something better than 1984 + Stanford Prison Experiment + Lord of the Flies? Funny to see how long WP holds onto ANI, a most primitive example of mob rule belonging to the days of Christ. With so many popular & thoughtless title memes rattling in heads (e.g. "NOTHERE", "BOOMERANG", "OTHERTHINGSEXIST") to fuel close-mindedness/stereotype/ignorance/unfairness/illogic/stake-burnings ... perhaps Rip Van Winkle was ahead of his time!? You're right the best editors don't find the abuse worth it to stay and continue to give their best. (WP's shame. WP needs radical re-org & inspired leadership, else mass & inertia spells rotten eggs.) Best of luck. IHTS ( talk) 02:00, 17 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.)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cedar Fire (2003). Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Noticed your edit on the PCB article. I think it was rightfully reverted for being primary but it got me curious. There are reviews out there [10], [11], [12] . I haven't looked at them in depth, and they seem to mainly conclude that more research is needed, but it might be worthwhile to bring it up on talk for discussion. Capeo ( talk) 15:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:E Company, 506th Infantry Regiment (United States). Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:ISIL territorial claims. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Have you studied control theory? In control theory feedback has a different meaning, as does control. The signal that is fed back for comparison. That function is missing in a thermostat. The controller does the comparison against the set point and uses a calculation to make a calculated adjustment to the controlled variable. A thermostat doesn't do any calculating or adjusting; it either turns something on or off. Phmoreno ( talk) 17:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
This is off topic for the RSN, so there's no point in continuing it there.
You say that i guarantee you to condescend to me by "things like you just said above" -- meaning what exactly?Meaning what I said above. I can't simply toss up a link and my signature when you ask a question, as I could do for editors who engage me on my level of knowledge, or which they could do for me. Instead, I have to not only explain that the link contains the answer, but explain to you in my own words what that answer is, because you either can't or won't read the link. You offer up behavioral evidence that your purported motive of not understanding what makes the claim that Cleopatra was black a fringe claim is false. Indeed, your attitude strongly indicates that your actual motive is to pick another fight (something which you do with some regularity).
The short answer to your questions is that it's not a mainstream theory. That is the definition of fringe. If only a few historians (or no serious historians) believe it, it's fringe.
The long answer is: a fringe theory is any theory which doesn't have any significant expert acceptance. More specifically, the term "fringe" is often used to refer to those subsets of the former which contain postulates which defy established knowledge, or which make predictions which are not confirmed by observation. In this case, the theory that Cleopatra was black is still a fringe theory, because it was highly unlikely that a person of black ancestry could find themselves in a position to rule Egypt (postulates that defy established knowledge), and because we have a decent amount of information on her pedigree (part of the Ptolemaic dynasty), which we know was Greek (an prediction which is not confirmed by observation). Finally, it fits the broader definition because it's not widely accepted.
On a more personal note, I have to say that I really don't understand why you're still editing Wikipedia. I can't say that I've ever seen you say anything good about the site. Indeed, without exception, every time you've addressed the subject of WP as a whole in my experience, it's been from a position of complaining about it. Specifically, you complain that it encourages skepticism and discourages credulity. Well, if WP is so wrong, and has such a different mindset from your own, why are you here? The web is full of wikis that document all sorts of things without the strict policies of WP. Based on what you say constantly, you would be happier there. And by this point, I'm sure you're aware that at least a few Wikipedians would be relieved not to have to continue to see your comments here. I'm a little incredulous that I'm sitting here actively discouraging someone from editing WP, but in your case, being here just seems to make you (and some others, myself not included) miserable. Life is too short for that. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 00:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
You see, here's the crux of the matter:
SageRad ( talk) 01:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
Here's the real problem:
This whole obvious thing is a problem. It's very I know it when I see it. I don't think "it's obvious" makes the cut in Wikipedia policy because editors are explicitly not experts and our opinions don't matter, and in fact are prohibited by WP:OR. We need sources to ascertain facts and judgments. Personal reckonings about content are not admissible. SageRad ( talk) 16:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
LOL You just accused me of OR for thinking. That's priceless. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
Enjoy this bowl of strawberries, a balanced part of a Fad Diet®! Safehaven86 ( talk) 19:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC) |
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:AlMaghrib Institute. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The edit summary was simple and blatant personal attack, and he damn well knows it. Kindly self-revert as the article is under 1RR. Collect ( talk) 12:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Leninism. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Aquatic ape hypothesis. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ruger Mini-14. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
It has been more than a year since have been notified about this, so I am providing you a fresh notice.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 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 that 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.This follows on my comments above at
User_talk:SageRad#WP:SOAPBOX, and is spurred by your comments on the section you have opened:
Truth of Toxins. Doing everything I can to give you fair warning.
Jytdog (
talk) 18:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC) (redact
Jytdog (
talk) 19:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC))
So, what's gonna happen is you're going to drop your threats because i simply spoke on a talk page!!!!! And you're hopefully gonna say you're sorry and it was an over-reaction.
If people cannot discuss reliable sources on talk pages without people coming to their use talk page and making threats of actions to sanction them simply for speaking about sources about the content -- then what is a talk page for? I was not "soapbox"-ing and i was describing a source as i read it, and quoting the abstract in fact. So... if you have other readings of the source, speak it -- as you did -- but don't come here swinging a large chain in a threatening manner. As i recall -- you have been warned before about doing that here, Jytdog. Recall that? SageRad ( talk) 13:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Red Shirts (Southern United States). Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I was reading your comments on the Misophonia page. As well, I have reviewed all of the "talk" page in the past, as well as edits. It seems as though jytdog has been controlling edits for the time being - and has removed several sources, adding others. I cannot determine why these were done. Since there seems to be a conflict with Jytdog and changing information from random news sources. Should I review the page? Will there be further fighting involved? What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbsenceOfSound ( talk • contribs) 01:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
This page is so negative! Let's cheer it up! :)
AbsenceOfSound (
talk) 08:16, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hey SageRad, it's nice to see you around Wiki again.
So far, we're the only two supporting votes for my proposal to re-define "fringe". Shall we put our support behind Staszek's proposal to clarify and build on the existing definition instead? From now on, "fringe" is synonymous with: creative, avant-garde, and innovative! It's the opposite of stodgy old mainstream, and only occasionally related to bogus crazy stuff.
As to changing the definition, I suspect we're outliers among the wider Wiki editor population, and we'd be facing a major uphill battle. I was disappointed but not surprised at the limited support for my proposal. Time to "drop the stick", I think. JerryRussell ( talk) 23:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I suggest you rephrase this to focus on content, not contributor. Jytdog ( talk) 14:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Both of you: again? I've looked at it (sigh), and here is what I want to say:
@Sage: What specifically is objectionable in your talk page comment is where you said: "... seem to be pushing a cause to make the article absolutely not state that misophonia is a thing that exists. It seems Jytdog's mission is to make sure that the article absolutely will not speak of misophonia because he does not think it is known to exist. I say that is wrong according to..." There is no need to frame it as "pushing a cause" or as a "mission". You could just as well have said something like 'It seems that the effect of those edits is to...' I think that Jytdog is entitled to want you to have focused less on him.
@Jytdog: I looked at your (many) edit summaries, and you did indeed give reasons. But I also have problems with these three edit summaries: [13], [14], and [15]. Per people who live in glass houses, you are on shaky ground when you ask other editors, in turn, to speak considerately back to you. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll go strike some text from Talk:Misophonia but i would really like to understand this.
So let's agree that it's against rules to impute motives to edits or groups of edits then? Is that the rule? I'm not sure it is but let's not get into where it might say this in policy, but let's say that's the rule here that i've supposedly violated, right?
In that case, didn't Jytdog's very section title on that talk page violate the rule as well? And his comment's text too? The section title was "Promotional/advocacy editing" -- doesn't this contain an imputation of motive to editing by others? First sentence of his comment: "I unwatched this for a while. I checked it over and sure enough a bunch of promotional/advocacy editing has crept back in."
And then he makes a string of 27 edits in less than an hour, reversing a lot of work by others (which may have some problems, but that's on a case by case basis and doesn't validate large-scale hacking away)... and then i am not allowed to characterize those edits (which have a fairly well characterizable quality to them, and some of which state motivations and reasons in the edit summaries themselves)....
I'm trying to understand why something is said to be alright by another editor and then not alright for me to similarly characterize a group of edits and speak to them with some critical voice.
Where is this stuff codified? Or is it all interpretive under the rubric of a pretty basic NPA policy? SageRad ( talk) 21:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Please, someone clarify this for me. Either say it's bunk or explain it in simple terms. I would like to be able to talk about the content and the development of the article like an adult, with other adults, without being told to "SHUT UP" in so many words at every single juncture. Who knew? Same bad editing environment even in an article on misophonia. Why? Why can't people simply edit without this drama? Jeesh. Fed up. SageRad ( talk) 21:09, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#SageRad. Jytdog ( talk) 22:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Surrender (military). Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I reverted your deletion of most of your statement. Once you've made a statement and others have responded to it, you should not remove it as it causes a great deal of confusion in the discussion, with people answering questions that are no longer there. You may strike them if you like, but don't remove them. Dennis Brorwn - 2¢ 23:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
23:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Here's what I can tell yoCTu about the process. You are free to add to your statement and to strike through parts of it, if you want to revise what you said. I think that you had best accept that you are looking at some kind of editing restriction, and you should focus on avoiding having that restriction be excessive. Focus on showing that you understand why there is a complaint against you, and that at least some parts of it are reasonable, and on demonstrating that you can be a good editor going forward. The way it works is that uninvolved admins (so far, Bishonen) comment on what they think the best solution would be, and the tendency is to be somewhat strict, because the goal is to stop the dispute for good. If the admins agree on what to do, then they will do it – or an admin who wants to go it alone can go it alone. That can happen at any time, once you have posted your statement, so there is a real possibility that it can happen very soon and very abruptly. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah look I'd rather commit suicide that have any more editing restrictions. I understand exactly what is happening here and that is JY T-Dog has collected a huge diatribe against me through some months or whatever and then posted them here and I'm not going to subject myself to this stupid drama in this f****** cosplay Dungeons & Dragons fantasy world. SageRad ( talk) 13:43, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah so goodbye. Thanks for all the fish.
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Battle of France. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:United States involvement in regime change. Legobot ( talk) 04:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
@ SageRad: I've been in a very similar situation to you - in a different topic area in Medicine, the Morgellons article, with the same editor as you also. Didn't go as far as AE. As with you it was just for being honest and forthright on the talk page. I've had previous experiences like this and when they threatened AE I knew to stop, there is nothing more you can do at that point. I know from my own experience how scary and stressful it can be. You say to yourself "it's just wikipedia" but at that point you've got quite involved in it, got to really care about the quality of wikipedia articles, and it can be very distressing indeed to be threatened to be banned when all you are doing is trying to help here.
I'd just like to offer my sympathy especially as you talk about preferring to commit suicide - I hope that is just a metaphor and you didn't actually do it - saw that your user page says DEAD at the top, again I hope it is just a metaphor. Do contact me via email if you want support / sympathy / comparing experiences. You can message me via the messaging link on my user page or else you can email me at support@robertinventor.com - I'm a software developer and that's a public email address, so no problem sharing it here. Robert Walker ( talk) 06:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Extended discussion
|
---|
Just to say, I haven't been prohibited from contributing to the talk page discussions of the Morgellons article. I just had an editor who threatened to take me to AE if I continued to talk there and put forward my views there - not an admin. I haave other reasons why I don't want a ban, even a minor one. Because of that I was unable to defend myself against the allegations that what I said on the talk page was against MEDRS - I'd be taken for AE immediately for doing so and I know how easy it is to get topic banned.
The other editor actually said that he was about to take me to AE and only stopped after I hid my comments critical of his views on my own talk page and agreed not to continue to present my views on that article anywhere on wikipedia including my own talk page here. I came here after a friend off wiki who follows events in AE noticed that the same editor who threatened me had actually taken @ SageRad: to admin for similar behaviour, just being forthright and honest on a talk page, at least that is how we see it. I wanted to offer sympathy, as I said, because I know how scary this can be. That is all there is to it. I have given up on doing anything about the Morgellons article. Anyone who cares about it can make their own mind up about whether it is biased and if they think it is will probably look elsewhere. So it's not a big deal really, just wanted to improve wikipedia. Robert Walker ( talk) 19:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
|
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Diego Maradona. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:National Hockey League. Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Russian financial crisis (2014–present). Legobot ( talk) 04:29, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collegiate School (New York City). Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, SageRad. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Popular election. Legobot ( talk) 04:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Sage, I hope you are well. It's been a month since we put the AE review of your actions on hold to give you more time to respond. I'm planning to re-open it tomorrow, if somebody else hasn't already done so by then. You yourself are welcome to re-open it at any time: just remove the {{hat}} and {{hab}} templates top and bottom. If you have a new response to make, please do so by 26 November, UTC, to make sure it gets taken into account by admins. If you don't, the review will go on without you. Feel free to either remove your previous responses or leave them in, just as you like. I've also sent you a reminder by e-mail, in case you're not watching this page. Bishonen | talk 11:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC).
Hello, Bishonen, i've been not checking in here, taking that break. I was notified by your email this morning to check in.
As i noted in my response to your email, i have been aware that November 26th was the re-open date. I'd like to know what may be an expected timeline of action, and would also like to request for the complainant's statement to be reduced to the expected 500 words from it current excessive 1,500 words... and a chance to respond with clean slate, as in my previous troubled and panicked state i'd written a lot there, and then i'd like to have a few days to a week to respond before it gets decided upon.
I also note that i do not find the process inspiring of confidence. I find the charges themselves to be onerous, and a heavy burden for someone who is simply editing Wikipedia in spare time, as most people do... it's not my paid job, and i have other burdens. I really don't know if i can spend the time to be a defense lawyer on my own behalf to simply retain my editing username. It's pretty weird to me, and i'm surprised that it's not seen as onerous. It's the sort of thing that i'd hope boomerangs back to the plaintiff. People can't go around doing this to other people just because they disagree on something. It's not good. It's not right.
The whole thing is a vague / fuzzy / ideologically loaded charge and the plaintiff basically has a disagreement with my point of view on some things and therefore wants me topic banned. I did good and sober editing according to policies, and spoke in forums where that's expected. What does a person have to do to get onerous charges wiped away?
Anyway, let's see. I guess... I'm a busy person with a need to survive by working, and kids to raise. It's not my full time job to be here. But when i'm here, i'm totally WP:HERE and dedicated to the policies and ideals of Wikipedia. I feel a certain hostility and it's troubling. I feel a weird thing happening, and i spoke to it... in a forum where it's appropriate -- and then the same thing happened 10X larger with an ideological attempt to get me banned and punished... which is telling.
SageRad ( talk) 17:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Bishonen,
Tryptofish -- i was not aware that you'd expected i would use the month of break to write my defense. That could take 20 good hours if i really wanted to do it well. I'm a poor person, working all the time, and have two kids (one a newborn) and that is clearly an onerous burden. My simple position is that i am a good editor and follow policies, and i'm generally friendly to others when they are civil to me. But allowing an onerous and frivolous attack "lawsuit" upon another person is not what a good justice system does. Otherwise anyone could bring unending frivolous suits upon another editor. I am a good editor and i stand by my editing practice. Anyone with common sense can see through the attack modes of Jytdog's complaints, and see that he's upset that (1) i voice general observations about Wikipedia in appropriate forums like Jimbo's talk page, and (2) discuss article content in article talk pages. If that's against the rules then i missed reading those rules.
SageRad (
talk) 22:50, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
On further thought, i am considering retiring but would like to do so i in a graceful fashion, not with some AE case hanging over me, so it would be great if i could put together a real folio and slam dunk this one, even get it boomeranged back on the plaintiff for bringing an onerous an disruptive case against me, but i honestly don't have the time to do so. Honestly, it would take like i said 20 good hours to put that together. So i may just retire anyway, and hang up my hat. Ironically, it would further show the theory i outlined on Jimbo's page about how some editors emitting a toxicity can drive away other editors, thereby hurting the project by biasing point of view distribution. Anyway.
My ideal would be to hang this up and have my account simply sit inactive with no topic ban or other marks against me from this. But i don't have the time to give to a proper defense. My baby is more important. SageRad ( talk) 23:04, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Bishonen, well in an ideal world if i were wealthy, i would have been able to. But in reality i struggle to live, work all the time, and also spent weeks trying to get a new keyboard because my laptop was barely able to type. So... that's what happened. What can i say? In the end, the attack case by Jytdog is just that. A onerous attack case. He's out of line and deserves a boomerang for doing so. But that would take a wikilawyer with enough time to do it. I could do it if i had 20 hours but i don't... so... there you go. So... it's not been enough time for me. I haven't been able to do it, and having a newborn, it's much more important to be with the baby. Even now i'm borrowing time that i ought to be tending to the baby. That's real life. What's happened on Wikipedia is gamesmanship and agenda pushing attacking through frivolous AE actions with ideological overtones of dislike. "I don't like the things he's saying so we need to topic ban him from editing on health!" Without real basis... with a collection of diffs that pull the probable worst 40 diffs of thousands of my edits, and portray them in loaded and ingenuine ways, to make a case like a highly paid lawyer could make against anyone in the real world. It's not good. So... i need more time because i have a life here, and had bad luck in the past month as well as too much to do. What can i say? The case is frivolous. I could do it if i could have the resources to do it. I don't want to be in the position of being judged in this bad framing, in a system where any admin could arbitrarily close it in any way, with no timeline specified. But here we are. So... i simply need more time to do it right if i am going to do it, but i'd rather retire without bad disposition at present. That's where it leave me. This is the real world. SageRad ( talk) 23:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Bishonen, sorry for the edit conflicts before ... i did notice that you had implied i could erase text at AE (though i'd been told not to do so when i initially did it by another editor) and also you'd implied that the time was to write a defense and to calm down. I give you those things, and sorry to imply otherwise. But still, here i am, with no time to work center and then write a real defense at length, nor desire to pay that cost, which is a very high cost given the vague and ideological and extremely long complaint by the plaintiff here. The cost of a proper defense -- even if i am innocent of the charges -- is too high for me to afford right now. I need time. More time. Yes, sorry. Sorry that i'm poor, and got sick, and have a newborn, and had a keyboard breakdown that took weeks to get remedied. These things happen, in a world that is also constantly in motion. I'd like to be able to edit in a low key way on Wikipedia in spare time, but this level of required work is ridiculous to me for a voluntary encyclopedia project. So... i guess tomorrow i will go and erase / edit and see if i can write a defense that might be adequate to clear my username, and the go into a real semi-retirement. Now the baby's crying.
SageRad (
talk) 23:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
So Bishonen, what you're saying is tomorrow November 26th at 2200 UTC the veil will lift and the case will be active again, right? Jytdog, what do you say you reduce your complaint to a more manageable 500 words and 20 diffs as per the guidelines of the AE process so i could actually respond in a reasonable and less onerous amount of time given that real life has too many time demands as a working person with kids and other responsibilities? Or, even better, what do you say you drop the request altogether and we work toward peace and understanding and i pretty much subside from editing for a considerable length of time as i raise my newborn? SageRad ( talk) 00:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Bishonen, i've uncorked the genie at AE and wrote a response. It's about all i can do for now. Thanks for your help and sorry about my sometimes grumpiness with this process. I didn't ask for this but so it goes. I hope there are sober minds and hearts who can simply put this whole thing down. I've stated that i would make more effort to never impute any motives regarding other editors on content talk pages. I think that's the crux of what i have needed to learn. On the other hand, i think many others need to adhere to the same dang thing, and the near absence of rebuke when the motive impute goes the "other direction" is a glaring problem in Wikipedia--- and a much greater issue than mine. It's cast to the wind now. We'll see what kind of place Wikipedia is these days. Tryptofish thanks for your advice as well... I think i took about half of your advice. I wish to be a good person in dialog, and when it comes to discussion of content, i would be happy if everyone would keep it to the content and show integrity. But when it comes to forums like Jimbo's page, i think freedom to speak observations (even if totally wrong as they often are) is important for meta-level reflection about Wikipedia. Thanks for the advice and goodwill. SageRad ( talk) 16:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Wow, you're unbelievable Bishonen. [17] SageRad ( talk) 16:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I honestly do not even want to edit anymore. But i want to walk away without some slanderous censoring block like this. If you care about Wikipedia truly, and its ideals truly, it's unbelievable that you would come to a case like this and recommend a block instead of a boomerang. I have used the McCarthyism metaphor for very good reason. Ideological purging is the opposite of intellectual integrity. SageRad ( talk) 17:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I would really like to know, Bishonen, in your own words, in one or two sentences, what you see as the real crux of why i should be blocked from editing Wikipedia for a year. Please, if you are willing. Please state the core issue in brief. Why should i be blocked for one year and others not? What crime have i committed here? Have i "ruined" the article on the Paleo diet? How about Misophonia? How about the dozen or more articles i've created? How about adding sources on Locust? How about improving Field-effect transistor? How about working out issues on Race and intelligence? How about helping work out conflicts at James Watson? Really. I have done much good work and i do not deserve this. Especially as i have stated that i am totally willing to not speak to anyone's potential motivations on any article talk page. That's the crux here, isn't it? Isn't that the one thing i really did wrong on occasion? And isn't that something done so so so often by others when it's the "other direction" in terms of point of view? In the "dominant viewpoint" that's been crystallizing on Wikipedia? I would really appreciate (honestly) a simple and direct from-the-heart answer to this.
Pages created:
SageRad ( talk) 17:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
You find ways to silence all critics and you can make it appear that your ideology is the full reality and the consensus. SageRad ( talk) 17:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, SageRad, you predicted yesterday that you'd be blocked before the day was over, and it hasn't happened yet. I'm glad you're feeling more hopeful today. Your argument looks solid to me, and I agree that Jytdog has resorted to SYNTH and OR to make his point at misophonia. Best wishes, and I hope things go your way at AE. JerryRussell ( talk) 18:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't know who this was bit it was interesting, and then it was swiftly deleted: Thanks for this whoever you are. SageRad ( talk) 21:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cold war (general term). Legobot ( talk) 04:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, @ Bishonen:, this absolutely was an accident, and thanks for correcting it here -- my mistake and i'm sorry. Too much, too fast. I want to be able to edit calmly and well about content, not to be in this whirlwind of drama. SageRad ( talk) 22:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
(By the way the text i accidentally pasted was a quote from Jytdog that i wanted to address. It was not my own text. ) SageRad ( talk) 22:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
What does it mean when you are told that to provide evidence that is in a very good source that may perhaps be against what they call the establishment consensus around an article which simply means that some editors are so pushy that they will simply not question their own position, becomes a crime? It means there is an establishment of a party line here. There is an established house point of view on Wikipedia and if you cross it as I have done even in proper ways that would be completely the right way to edit Wikipedia, you will have your head cut off. And you will be told also to stop using metaphors. You will also be told you are the problem because you are the problem because you speak about what you do. That is what I'm talking about folks. It's time to read your Orwell, it's time to read your Kafka. No exaggeration, that's where we're at here in the virtual realm of Wikipedia. SageRad ( talk) 13:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
The Wordsmith
Talk to me 19:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
[18] by Guy states:
Given Sage's definition of integrity (which is synonymous with uncritical acceptance of his POV) I sincerely hope that will never happen.
And... this is not accurate, and it's a personal attack as well.
Integrity is real. It can be seen in dialog. Lack of it can also be seen.
Bob K31416, i hope you're not fooled by the sophistry and attack in Guy's comment.
Integrity is refreshing on Wikipedia, and is deeper than superficial civility. Civility is needed, but even moreso, integrity is needed.
It means to me:
By these standards, Guy's comment fails the test.
Obviously, my definition of integrity has nothing to do with whether another person accepts my POV. On the contrary, i love dialog with people of other points of view. It's useful and i learn from it ideally. However, far too often on Wikipedia, it goes straight to agenda pushing and insults and lacks integrity. And then the person who made it go that way often blames the other and uses this as fodder for long-term cases like the blocking that happened to me.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents on the topic, as i was just insulted on a forum where i cannot express these things.
SageRad ( talk) 15:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
You are free to:
...Contribute To and Edit our various sites or Projects.
Under the following conditions:
Responsibility – You take responsibility for your edits (since we only host your content). Civility – You support a civil environment and do not harass other users. Lawful Behavior – You do not violate copyright or other laws. No Harm – You do not harm our technology infrastructure.
So the Wikimedia foundation does promise a right to edit here, subject to these limits. The terms of service create a contract between Wikimedia Foundation and the users and editors of the site.
By contrast, the essay WP:NOJUSTICE states:
You have no rights here. Wikipedia is privately owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, which sets the terms of usage. Therefore editors have no legal right to edit it, no rights are being denied if users are blocked, and thinking in terms of a legal framework is counterproductive.
This seems to be clearly an error, and I believe the Terms of Use create the correct framework for editor's rights at Wikipedia. As a concrete example: I don't believe SageRad violated the terms of service, and I certainly don't believe that there was any due process to establish any such violation. Kangaroo courts don't work when it comes to evaluating compliance with legal frameworks, and we are dealing in a legal framework.
This is not a "legal threat", but rather a simple statement of my belief that SageRad's legal rights have been violated. I would like to compose a letter here to be sent to the legal department at Wikimedia Foundation, to get their views on the community process. JerryRussell ( talk) 16:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
The English-language Wikipedia does not have authority over the Meta-Wiki,.... DrChrissy (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. [survey 1] The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. [survey 2] The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.
You can find more information about
this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this
privacy statement. Please visit our
frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.
Thank you! -- EGalvez (WMF) ( talk) 19:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.
If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.
About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF) or surveys@wikimedia.org. About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! -- EGalvez (WMF) ( talk) 08:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!
You will soon be unblocked. I want to give you a piece of advice, it is not an attack. If you will listen to it you will have a good time around here.
Wikipedia is mainly a venue for parroting mainstream science and mainstream scholarship (and perhaps mainstream press, for certain subjects). Editors are supposed to understand this, to wish this and be competent at doing this.
So supporting mainstream science and mainstream scholarship is required of all editors, failure to do this leads to losing disputes, being blocked and eventually banned. Strong adherence to mainstream science and mainstream scholarship is what made Wikipedia one of the greatest websites. So, dissent from mainstream science and mainstream scholarship will be perceived as an attack upon Wikipedia itself. If you want to win a dispute, you have to show that your claims are mainstream science or mainstream scholarship. If you cannot honestly do that, then refrain from making that particular claim. And remember, Wikipedia is just a mirror, mainstream science and mainstream scholarship exist outside of Wikipedia and cannot be changed through editing Wikipedia, Wikipedia merely reflects them. So if you want to change science/scholarship, you have to be a scientist or a scholar, Wikipedia is not the venue for doing that. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 11:19, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi SageRad! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over three years.
In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in three years or more.
You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:
{{
Frs user|{{subst:currentuser}}|limit}}
underneath the relevant heading(s), where limit is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.
Note that if you had a rename and left your old name on the FRS page, you may be receiving this message. If so, make sure your new account name is on the FRS list instead.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)