Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:46, 31 August 2005

Old stuff: , ,

Request for Arbitration against me

I have filed Request for Arbitration against you and your cabal. --DotSix 02:27, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. Banno 02:31, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Can I suggest again that you get an advocate? See Misplaced Pages:Association of Members' Advocates. As it stands, your request has a good chance of being dismissed out of hand, and we don't want that. Remove the personal attacks and add the required links to evidence. Have you read Misplaced Pages:Arbitration policy? Banno 02:52, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Oops. Too late. Banno 02:54, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Someone else has inserted the DotSix RfAr at the bottom of the page as a request for clarification. If his RfAr did not consist largely of insults, it would be either a reasonable reply or something that could be merged with the current case. Robert McClenon 17:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration of DotSix requires evidence in a new form

It looks like we have to add the evidence against DotSix a second time, in a different form at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/DotSix/Evidence. I have added some already. Scroll down to see the template they want us to use. They also want us to fill out the template at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/DotSix. I have already pasted in the stuff from the RfAr including your statement. Hope that is ok with you. --Nate Ladd 02:20, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll check it out. Banno 07:38, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Troll food

Since you not long ago counseled me to "stop feeding the troll," I was especially amused at the great "feast" you offered him today in the talk page of epistemology. I'm not being critical on either count, BTW. I understand the good sense behind your "don't feed the troll" admonitions, I just found myself, a sufferer from analytical exuberance, incapable of refraing from my subsequent comments. As to the feast you offered him today, let's hope it's somewhat akin to a farewell dinner. --Christofurio 02:27, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

That was quite hilarious, I don't think it was as much for that guy, as it was for the rest of the contributors. Just finished reading it, and I can feel my abdominal muscles. Thank you! --Gutza 20:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Like all overindulgence, it is to be regretted in the morning. It seemed like the right thing to do yesterday, but such outbreaks tend to scare off more than just their intended target. It has been pleasantly quiet over at epistemology, Truth, and knowledge since I wrote it though. Glad you enjoyed it. Banno 20:59, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think our cabal needs a name, guys. I suggest, "Cabal Of Rational Earthlings," or CORE for short. --Christofurio 14:15, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Philosophy

Thanks for the message; I've added my name to the list. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment; I'm hoping to do more rewriting, though I'm worried that edit wars might break out again. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:46, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the Wiki without an edit war, woudl it? (joke). Banno 20:23, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Leadoff Batter

Thanks for your kind words. I emailed about 6 members of the Arb Committee last night asking them to at least read the proposed injunction and it looks like it worked. 5 of them voted for it this morning.

When I was in grade school, if a kid was distracting others by making faces or goofing in some way, the teacher would punish him by making him stand at the front of the class and repeat the performance. Kids realized how stupid they looked so it was quite effective. Alford is in that position now and judging from his hysterical reaction he is finding the experience excruciating. --Nate Ladd 17:38, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Well done. Not long now.

No doubt you noticed the stuff on Getter? Now he decides to do some reading - but of course completely misunderstands, or more accurately misinterprets, the argument. ultimately, I feel sorry for the poor ignoramus. But I think we have been as fair to him as was possible given his attitude. incidentaly, I agree with the idea of giving him enough rope to hang himself - as was done in the RfC. Banno 21:36, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Once again, my sympathy for him misleads me. On checking the Gettier article, I find that he hasn't learned to read, but to copy-and-paste. Oh well. Banno 22:00, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I also thought at first that he was sincere-but-dense. But the more I know about him, especially Ancheta Wis's discovery of this Usenet history, I have become convinced that he just an insincere troll and that he pretends not to understand things that he actually does understand. He's been making this claim that belief and knowledge are actually disjoint sets for many years and many people refutted it long before he came to Misplaced Pages. He's known he was wrong for years, but he is incapable of admitting it; and knows that asserting his claim is an effective way of getting people to react to him, which is what he really wants. The proof is the way that he refuses to answer the questions you, me, and Christofurio have put to him. If he were sincere, he would stand up proudly and say "I dont' believe the sun exists." But he knows that would be reductio-ad-absurdum, so he dodges it so he won't have to admit he's wrong. I think he probably knows that Gettier does not support his claim. But he'll pretend not to understand that as long doing so enables him to get a rise out of others. --Nate Ladd 02:58, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't be at all surprised if he did the same thing with the accounts he created; that is, that he created the additional accounts, did not want to use them, could not face asking for them to be deleted, and so made up the elaborate and silly story that they are impostors because of his inability to admit error. Banno 06:55, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

His latest response to me in Talk:Epistemology was so juvenile I don't feel my usual chronic-arguer's impulse to reply. He has rebutted himself quite well. I'm glad, though, that I've earned one of his cutesy punning nicknames ("Christo Furious" -- how clever!) --Christofurio 19:41, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

DotSix

DotSix has been blocked under his IP 67.182.157.6, but has made six edits since then using 172.198.185.228 . He is taking ArbCom for a ride. Banno 21:08, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

Unlike 67.182.157.6, which seems to be fixed and used only by him, 172.198.185.228 is an AOL IP. We cannot block AOL IPs for more than 15 minutes. Since he is not doing any rapid-fire editing, any block would be futile (it would already have expired by the time of his next edit). The ArbCom is widely known for being really slow (which comes to no surprise considering the amount of stuff they have to deal with), so be patient. --cesarb 21:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the technical explanation. But the squeaky wheel gets the oil. I predict that DotSix's antics will force their hand. Banno 21:22, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

vprotected

I protected your user page (User:Banno) because DotSix was getting really obnoxious. If you want to edit it, feel free to ask for unprotection. --cesarb 18:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Banno 21:09, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

RFC

I have withdrawn my certification of the RFC against Bensaccount and moved it to "endorse". He has stopped pushing the scientific point of view and I'm willing to wipe the slate clean. if an RFC isn't "certified" by two editors it will be deleted. Whether you change your vote is up to you. I'm just informing of my change. FuelWagon 06:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, he hasn't been editing either. Obviously, the RFC got his attention. Now, if possible, I'd like to see him come back and edit according to policy. The only way to know if he can do that is for him to make some edits that follow NPOV. I'm willing to withdraw the RFC if that will act as an invitation for him to come back. If he continues to push SPOV, then another RFC will be called for. But he needs to come back before we know if that step would be needed. FuelWagon 13:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Image for deletion

This image has been nominated for deletion: Image:KnowlTruth.png UE (unencyclopedic) This image is obscurantist in that it conflates belief and knowledge, two entirely different things. See Gettier counterexamples to JTB notion--172.191.231.154 15:28, 31 August 2005 (UTC)