| Revision as of 07:52, 16 January 2011 editClosedmouth (talk | contribs)148,166 edits →Unblock to add enforcer: done← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:05, 21 January 2011 edit undoTimotheus Canens (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators38,430 editsm →Blocked indefinitely: section linkNext edit → | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
| }); | }); | ||
| /*** END WIKIBREAK ENFORCER ***/ | /*** END WIKIBREAK ENFORCER ***/ | ||
| == Result of your appeal == | |||
| As the closing administrator at Arbitration Enforcement, I hereby notify you of the following result of your recent request: | |||
| ::The appeal by JPS (formerly known as ScienceApologist) is unsuccessful. The one year topic ban stands as enacted. | |||
| If you wish to further appeal this decision, you may contact the ]. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">]</span><sup>]</sup> 07:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Blocked indefinitely == | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] To enforce an ] decision, you have been '''] indefinitely''' from editing. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the ] and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. <hr/><p><small>'''Notice to administrators:''' In a <span class="plainlinks"></span>, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as ] or ]). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the ]. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."</small></div><!-- Template:uw-aeblock --> | |||
| I have mulled this over for the past several days, trying to convince myself that there's some better alternative, but I could think of none. | |||
| You have declared your intent to edit "through anonymous, untraceable, unblocked proxies" to fix what you perceive to be "egregious errors", presumably in articles that are within the scope of your topic ban, namely, pseudoscience and fringe science. Doing so not only directly violates your topic ban imposed by Sandstein, but also directly violates the placed on you by {{user|FT2}} in December 2008 and an ] from 2007. | |||
| Nor is this your first time doing this. Abusive sockpuppetry is what led to the one-account restriction in the Martinphi-ScienceApologist case in the first place. Editing while logged out - exactly the same thing you have declared your intent to do here - is what caused FT2 to impose that restriction on you. | |||
| In 2009, dealing with a similar situation after the closure of the ] case, arbitrator Coren , {{cquote|ScienceApologist would do well to remember that the topic ban was implemented as a last resort to allow an otherwise good editor to continue contributing in areas where he is not so prone to cause disruption and drama— and that absent serious intent to correct the behavioral problems the only recourse left to the committee is the regrettable option of excluding him from participation entirely. I am dismayed and disappointed by his stated intent to ignore the restriction and am forced to remind him that this will inevitably result in a complete ban unless he changes tack immediately.}} | |||
| Almost two years later, I'm frankly very dismayed to see you still resorting to essentially the same tactics that got you banned two years ago. | |||
| Enough is enough. I'm blocking this account indefinitely, the first year of which block is made under the authority of ] and subject to the normal restrictions on reversal noted in the template above; furthermore, under the same authority, I'm extending your topic ban indefinitely. This block will be lifted, and the topic ban reset to its original expiration date, when and if you provide credible reassurances that you will not engage in tactics designed to circumvent, evade, or game your topic ban. ] (]) 04:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 05:05, 21 January 2011
I have a simple two to three step process for refactoring comments that seem to anyone to be uncivil:
- You need to provide a specific reference to specific wording. A diff or link is a good start, but you need to quote exactly what part of the wording is uncivil and why. Is it an adjective? A particular phrase? etc. (For example, "I thought it was uncivil when you said 'there are dozens of isochron methods' here.")
- You will need to be abundantly clear as to how the exact wording is perceived by you to be uncivil towards you personally and why you consider it to be uncivil. (For example, "When I was being persecuted in the Maltese riots of 1988, the favored phrase of the police as they shot us with their water cannons was 'There are dozens of isochron methods!' The phrase still haunts me to this day.")
- Provide an alternative wording that provides the same information without the perceived incivility. This is not a necessary step, but would be helpful. (For example, "Instead of saying that phrase, could you just say 'Scientists use a large number of radioisotope ratios to allow them to date rocks.'? This phrase does not carry the loaded baggage that I associate with the wording you wrote but seems to have the same meaning.")
- Once you provide at least information relating to the first two steps, I will usually immediately refactor. The third step is optional.
|
This user is block free - (see my block log here!). |
Vanguard Editor
and is entitled to display this
Unobtainium
Editor Star
with the
Neutronium Superstar hologram.
Back in one year
I will be leaving for one year. This will be enforced by a self-blocking mechanism through a wikibreak enforcer.
I am quite disappointed that it had to come to this, but since I know that my enemies will game any edit I make to be somehow related to "fringe science" especially considering my normal modes of activity it's not worth the hassle of editing under this absurd and vindictive arbcom enforcement.
When I come back on January 15, 2012, I will be sanction free and return to editing with impunity.
If I happen to see egregious errors in the meantime, I'll be fixing them through anonymous, untraceable, unblocked proxies. They will not be traceable to this account, but I encourage those who dislike me to scour the edit histories carefully to look for my calling card.
I ask my talkpage watchers to remove the gloating by my enemies.
Peace,
jps (talk) 01:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Unblock to add enforcer
ජපස (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I want to add the wikibreak enforcer to vector.js Alternatively, could I ask an admin either unblock me, or just add this to vector.js:
Decline reason:
Done. Closedmouth (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
/*** BEGIN WIKIBREAK ENFORCER ***/
addOnloadHook(function() {
/*** Start editing here ***/
// When you want to end your break?
// no leading zeroes. (example: 7 - correct, 07 - incorrect)
var date = { year: 2012, month: 1, day: 16};
var time = { hours: 0, minutes: 0, seconds: 0 };
/*** Stop editing here ***/
var currentDate = new Date();
var enforcedBreakEnd = new Date(
date.year,date.month-1,date.day,time.hours,time.minutes,time.seconds);
if (currentDate <= enforcedBreakEnd) {
alert("Enforced wikibreak until "+enforcedBreakEnd.toLocaleString()
+ "\n(now is "+currentDate.toLocaleString()+")\n\nBye!");
location = "http://"+location.host+"/search/?title="
+ "Special:Userlogout&returnto=Main_Page";
}
});
/*** END WIKIBREAK ENFORCER ***/
Result of your appeal
As the closing administrator at Arbitration Enforcement, I hereby notify you of the following result of your recent request:
- The appeal by JPS (formerly known as ScienceApologist) is unsuccessful. The one year topic ban stands as enacted.
If you wish to further appeal this decision, you may contact the Arbitration Committee. The Wordsmith 07:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Blocked indefinitely
Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
I have mulled this over for the past several days, trying to convince myself that there's some better alternative, but I could think of none.
You have declared your intent to edit "through anonymous, untraceable, unblocked proxies" to fix what you perceive to be "egregious errors", presumably in articles that are within the scope of your topic ban, namely, pseudoscience and fringe science. Doing so not only directly violates your topic ban imposed by Sandstein, but also directly violates the restriction placed on you by FT2 (talk · contribs) in December 2008 and an arbitration remedy from 2007.
Nor is this your first time doing this. Abusive sockpuppetry is what led to the one-account restriction in the Martinphi-ScienceApologist case in the first place. Editing while logged out - exactly the same thing you have declared your intent to do here - is what caused FT2 to impose that restriction on you.
In 2009, dealing with a similar situation after the closure of the fringe science case, arbitrator Coren said,
| “ | ScienceApologist would do well to remember that the topic ban was implemented as a last resort to allow an otherwise good editor to continue contributing in areas where he is not so prone to cause disruption and drama— and that absent serious intent to correct the behavioral problems the only recourse left to the committee is the regrettable option of excluding him from participation entirely. I am dismayed and disappointed by his stated intent to ignore the restriction and am forced to remind him that this will inevitably result in a complete ban unless he changes tack immediately. | ” |
Almost two years later, I'm frankly very dismayed to see you still resorting to essentially the same tactics that got you banned two years ago.
Enough is enough. I'm blocking this account indefinitely, the first year of which block is made under the authority of WP:ARBPS#Discretionary sanctions and subject to the normal restrictions on reversal noted in the template above; furthermore, under the same authority, I'm extending your topic ban indefinitely. This block will be lifted, and the topic ban reset to its original expiration date, when and if you provide credible reassurances that you will not engage in tactics designed to circumvent, evade, or game your topic ban. T. Canens (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)