Misplaced Pages

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot  09:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

COI

Hello, Didymus Judas Thomas. We welcome your contributions to Misplaced Pages, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Misplaced Pages, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Misplaced Pages's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

• Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
• Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
• Avoid linking to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles (see Misplaced Pages:Spam).
• Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Misplaced Pages's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Misplaced Pages when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.--John (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't apply to me. Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Didymud Judas Thomas 1/20/2013

Talkback

Guerillero | My Talk 23:41, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

From your ongoing commentary in the AN/I thread about you it's quite clear that you fail WP:COMPETENCE. Ironholds (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Didymus Judas Thomas (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Arbitration request e-mailed 1/24/2013 & cannot follow instructions while blocked: "You are required to place a notice on the user talk page of each person whom you identify as a party in the request."

Decline reason:

We'll not unblock for this. --jpgordon 23:48, 24 January 2013 (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.

• WP:NICETRY "Before a block is imposed, efforts should be made to educate users about Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines, and to warn them when their behavior conflicts with these." (Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy: WP:BP Blocking: Preliminary: Education and warnings.)

In my humble opinion, WP editors & administrators did not follow the above policy. Thus, the indefinite block violates the blocking policy.

Because of this, in my humble opinion, the indefinite block falls under the category of: "Purpose and goals: When blocking may not be used: Blocks should not be punitive: 1. in retaliation against users; 3. as punishment against users; 4. or where there is no current conduct issue of concern." WP:BLOCK#NOTPUNITIVE

1/19/13 Editor grievance blocked by Guerillero without allowing me opportunity to comment. Later unblocked without advising me. (See below link re: Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:NPOV.

1/18/13 filed editor conduct grievance (1/19/13 WP time).

1/23/13 indefinite block by Ironholds without allowing me to comment. (See below link re: Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:NPOV.

"Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators." (Misplaced Pages:Blocking policy: WP:BP)

"The block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption (i.e., that the block violates blocking policy)" because as I posted numerous times (See above link re: Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#WP:NPOV), I did not post anything on the Article in question once my Article content dispute on the Dispute resolution noticeboard (See below) was filed 1/16/13. WP:NICETRY 1/16/13 filed Article content dispute on Dispute resolution noticeboard (Filing ignored / removed)

Therefore, I was not engaged in "abuse of editing."

In my humble opinion; as stated in my Arbitration, editors & administrators engaged in: "Anyone who just complains without foundation, refusing to join the discussion, should simply be rejected and ignored." (WP:SOP Statement of principles from Misplaced Pages founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.)

Editors & administrators did not explain WP:NPOV when I repeatedly requested they do so.

In my humble opinion; as stated in my Arbitration, editors & administrators did "not" engage in "good faith" in eleven WP policies, statements of principles, core principles, & founding principles, including: Resolve disputes calmly, through civil discussion, consensus-building, neutral point of view, thoughtful, diplomatic honesty, politeness, objectively and without bias, & realistically. (WP:DR, WP:SOP 1., WP:SOP 7., WP:SOP 8., WP:SR, 1., "Founding principles: 1.," "Founding principles: 6.," WP:NPOVFAQ "Balancing different views/Giving "equal validity," WP:NPOVFAQ "Balancing different views/Religion:," WP:NPOVFAQ "Balancing different views/Pseudoscience:")

Therefore, I was not engaged in "abuse of editing."

Editors claimed WP:MEDRS was coequal with WP:NPOV but refused to explain WP:NPOV "The principles upon which this 'policy' is based cannot be superseded by 'other policies.'" They refused to respond as to what "policies" WP:NPOV supersedes if it doesn't supersede WP:MEDRS.

WP:NPOV versus WP:MEDRS is "not" the correct reason for them to claim. The correct claim is WP:NPOV versus WP:NPOVFAQ "Balancing different views/Pseudoscience: If we're going to represent the sum total of encyclopedic knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view, and to explain how scientists have received or criticized pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly."

The indefinite block should be reversed for the above reasons.

"Indefinite blocks are usually applied when there is significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy." (Indefinite blocks WP:INDEF)

"Tell us why you are here. Say how you intend to help contribute to the encyclopedia after you are unblocked. See here for some ideas about what you could do." WP:NICETRY

I have actually researched the issues & am trying to get WP to abide by its (WP:SOP "Statement of principles from Misplaced Pages founder Jimbo Wales, as updated by the community since then. 7.")

"Due and undue weight: Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.

"The relative prominence of each viewpoint among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public is not relevant and should not be considered,". WP:NPOV "History of NPOV:" (Content # 6, Note 3)

I am in "good faith" concerned that certain WP editors & administrators do not have the appropriate skills or knowledge to deal with WP issues re the above.

It is suspected that the operator of this account has abusively used one or more accounts. (Account information: block log · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed socks) Categories: Misplaced Pages sockpuppeteers

Really? Thank you very much. Didymus Judas Thomas 1/28//2013

If it makes you feel better, I think most of us are probably watching your talk page at this point. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

• Doesn't bother me in the least. Would you like me to post my Arbitration request here since it would be public anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.68.43 (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think administrators may have concluded that you are already familiar with policy. In fact, you seem to do nothing but cite policy... —Tom Morris (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

It appears that you have been using IP socks; I have reported this here. dci | TALK 23:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)