Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:03, 10 August 2013

Standing invitation to unblock

This is a request that any administrator who wants to please unblock me in the spirit of WP:IAR and owing to the fact that this is not an arbcom block but merely a block by User:Timotheus Canens or User:Jpgordon, Wikipedians who seem to believe that indefinite blocks ought to be punitive instead of preventative since neither has submitted evidence that any of the claimed edits they wish to connect to my person were actually harmful to the encyclopedia. I quote from Misplaced Pages:Block#Evasion_of_blocks about when administrators are supposed to extend blocks. Apparently they "may extend the duration of the block if the user engages in further blockable behavior while evading the block." According to the wording, if there is no blockable offense committed while evading the block, the original block cannot be extended. I submit that there is no evidence that there has been any "blockable behavior while evading the block" done by any accounts or claimed IPs that checkusers are associating with my editing (of course, much of this evidence is private and on the basis of UA and IP evidence that the checkusers hold close to their chests, but even still, I find nothing wrong with any of the edits that have been made by any of the claimed "block evasion" accounts).

Thanks.

jps (talk) 18:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Can I utilize the Template:Second Chance option? I was never given this opportunity that I can recall. Just trying to see what my options could possibly be. Feels like I'm in a Joseph Heller novel. jps (talk) 20:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You have the largest block log I have ever seen; 24 blocks, not counting variations, changes and extensions. You were told that the last block, after a number of last chances, was forever. And that's it.--Anthony Bradbury 21:46, 25 July 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.

• If the Eliminatesoapboxing account was SA's, the account edited for one day, and made one article edit and some talk page edits. That was 2 months ago. It appears SA has been indefinitely blocked for trying to circumvent a 3 month block 4 years ago, so what utility does this block have? If SA is unblocked, there is considerably more for him to lose if he does sock. So unblocking is more likely to reduce any potential socking. Note that I do not believe anyone has regarded any of SA's edits as problematic, and the most beneficial situation to the encyclopedia is if he is unblocked, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

One of our best editors when it comes to taking on entrenched fringe POV's on esoteric subjects. There should be an ARBCOM decision or at least a clear policy reason for blocking someone so dedicated and helpful to the encyclopedia. — kwami (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• Anthony. SA is not community banned. An admin can not permanently ban an editor by stating he gets no more unblock requests. Any admin can overturn this block. Can you cite any reason, beyond being punitive, as to why your decline makes sense? (there are editors with much longer block logs by the way) IRWolfie- (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• SA and I have some history, but I'm not entirely opposed to allowing him another chance. At the same time, I hope that such chance would not be taken as a license to continue old habits. The idea is to really try to not approach Misplaced Pages as a battleground, use high-quality references whenever possible, and really try to follow WP:NPOV. II | (t - c) 06:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I appreciate the support, II. Though I took issue with some of your advocacy and positions on issues related to water fluoridation and alternative health, I also noted that you were one of those advocates who was most open to looking at high-quality sources and considering that you could be wrong. I am generally a fan of high-quality sources, you may recall. Yes, Robert Todd Carroll is an excellent source on issues relating to pseudoscience.
  • The consideration of "old habits" in the context of Misplaced Pages has generally been one of personality clashes. These may or may not continue, but I haven't been active on Misplaced Pages for years and notice that many of my old nemeses on Misplaced Pages are either gone or neutered. It is unsurprising to me that you have remained since you were one of the fringe advocates who was most open to looking into the idea that your position might be wrong.
  • As to "NPOV", the main issue with the way that policy is (ab)used at Misplaced Pages is the contention that there is such a thing as "NPOV editors" and "non-NPOV editors". The fact is that everybody approaches Misplaced Pages with a bias or a hidden agenda. "Following WP:NPOV" means, primarily, that in the text of Misplaced Pages there is no attempt to assert opinions as fact NOR facts as opinion.
  • jps (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
    • That's not really a promising response, and I hope admins who consider your request bear it in mind. (Bearing in mind that I still think there's a need for your type of work here and your return is likely a net positive.) It's theoretically true that people have agendas, but to go around imputing motives and hidden agendas to everyone around you is socially dysfunctional. And while your nemeses may seem to have disappeared, you'll likely find that they have simply been replaced. The prevailing mood around here is that the drama needs to be contained, not further inflamed. I advocate few strong or broad positions, but nuances are easily misunderstood and mischaracterized. II | (t - c) 01:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Aw, shucks, II. At the end of the day while people want to avoid "drama", what they really want is a reference work of which they can be proud. In 2006, that meant marginalizing creationists. In 2009, it meant marginalizing global warming denialists. In 2013, I assume it may mean marginalizing others. Mind you, this marginalization is not intentional. It's simply a matter of the fact that most people advocating for positions that are marginal aren't going to have very good sourcing or command of material. jps (talk) 03:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:RfArb

I think we need to have an arbitration. If kwami and IRWolfie- still are willing to support my unblock what we have is a disconnect between community members and the administration class. Unfortunately, the arbitrators are not neutral in this matter either, but I don't think we have another choice.

Unfortunately, the arbitration committee is not returning my calls so I will have to ask someone to make this request for me.

Arbitration Request

I hereby request arbitration on the question as to whether it is possible for myself to ever be unblocked and under what conditions. Initially, then-arbtirator User:Coren and I reached an agreement that I would not return to Misplaced Pages for six months after which time I could apply for an unblock. Presumably, the block is under his aegis, though technically, I believe the block was first made indefinite by User:Jpgordon as a punishment for block evasion. I applied for an unblock only to have User:Timotheus Canens declare that checkuser information unequivocally established that I edited (presumably by means of UA and IP evidence) the encyclopedia using various unnamed (due to privacy concerns) IPs and the accounts User:Eliminatesoapboxing and User:Mj12hoaxwriter. I was rather surprised by this as I had no recollection of starting or using these user accounts, but I know that checkuser decisions tend to be treated as infallible and owing to the fact that evidence cannot be presented in public or even shown to me due to privacy concerns, no defense on my part is even possible. I am de facto guilty even though I protest my innocence. I accept that this fluke of Misplaced Pages's enforcement is this way.

The problem is, I have nowhere else to go and issues relating to this website that do demand some attention including some sites that continue to link to the user page as a means of external harassment that I'm happy to share in private with the arbitrators. While I reject the option of trying to identify the members of my institution who may have used the same user agents and IP addresses as myself and started these user accounts, I think there may be another way to pose this question. Let's assume that these accounts were mine and done the edits and made the user accounts in question, there is an even more troubling aspect to this case. A question ought to be considered, "Did the edits that these accounts made cause harm to the encyclopedia?" I looked through the edits and cannot find a one I find objectionable.

I ask the committee to consider whether there are any ways out of this morass other than the typical "stay away for six months" arbitrary punishment. I cannot appeal to WP:OFFER over and over again at the risk of people getting worn out by the continued accusations of block evasion. I have no way of stopping others from using the same IPs and UAs at my institution. On the other hand, there might be a random six-month period where, magically, no one uses the computing facilities where I live and work to make any more edits to Misplaced Pages and then, I suppose, I might be able to find a willing administrator. But how am I to tell when that has happened without access to checkuser data? I am in a real Catch-22 situation here.

I think that four years of being disciplined and maligned by the administrative class at this website is enough. I only would ask for a Template:second chance that is given to other users who may use private IPs and UAs that are not subject to this business. I submit that there is not enough evidence available to show that I am so awful an actor that I should be permanently blocked from editing Misplaced Pages for the rest of time. I ask for a probationary period where I am unblocked and allowed to continue to do things that aren't problematic (e.g. change a username, request deletion of subpages in my userspace that I created, change my userpage, post information to WP:FTN, perhaps edit some articles like Lambda-CDM that are now out of date compared to Britannica. You get the drift). I hereby request to be unblocked to prove to the community that there is something here worth saving.

That is all.

jps (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#ScienceApologist unblock request and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

RFAR request declined

ScienceApologist,

Just a quick courtesy notice to say that the committee declined the recent RFAr regarding the unblock of yourself. The general recommendation would seem to be an appeal to the community at WP:AN. Although Salvio suggested possibly going through WP:BASC, I would say that given two of the current members of BASC both suggested going through the community, this latter suggestion holds more weight.

For the Arbitration Committee

Seddon 13:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This may be the nicest formal communication I have ever received on this website. I mean this with all sincerity, Seddon. You should be set-up as an example on how to treat people with civility. jps (talk) 13:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I do my best. Seddon 15:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request:Daryl Bem

I mentioned this a few weeks ago, and the article text still remains rather sheepish, though perhaps that's on the basis of (justifiable) BLP-fear. Could someone post a comment to WP:FTN on my behalf on this matter?

Daryl Bem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does somebody want to mention that the journal in which Bem published is now publishing a null results paper that followed Bem's procedures and found no evidence for psi? .

Perhaps this should be spun out owing to the BLP-ness of this particular setting. The "controversy" ought to be discussed somewhere in this reference work, doncha think? No?

jps (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, User:LuckyLouie. It looks good, I think. jps (talk) 21:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN

Hi, "jps" (what?). I expect you're aware of the discussion about your block on WP:AN. If you want to comment there, please put your text here with an indication of where exactly it should go, and I'll be glad to move it for you. I' m sure there are others, too, who'll do it in case you've got something urgent while I'm asleep. Bishonen | talk 20:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC).

I don't think any of this deserves posting at WP:AN, it will just muddy the waters, likely. If people want to discuss these matters with me, maybe we should have a discussion here?

Thanks, Bish. I'm not sure any posting on my behalf is wise at this point. I will say, from here, "Thanks to all who are supporting my unblock." But I guess that's not exactly furthering the discussion. I'm not sure what can be written to convince the users who are either dead-set against my unblock or strongly committed to imposing the essentially arbitrary timeframe that User:Durova invented for use in her laudable essay that she composed back in 2009. This whole experience has convinced me that it would be useful for the law-and-order types to see exactly what it is like to be blackballed at this website. In any case, I now have a lot more sympathy for prisoners who appear before parole boards. Is this mooning the jury? I can't tell any more. jps (talk) 20:52, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I get it. I understand why Misplaced Pages functions in this rather punitive way. To be sure (ha!), I'm not at all sure what should be done about me. I'm in a weird position that any contribution that is attributed to me without an unblock is considered bad regardless of merits. I sorta get why. Since Misplaced Pages has no content standards, it can only enforce behavioral standards and that's the only way that things can be clear-cut. I was blocked a half a decade ago for violating a topic ban by correcting spelling errors at cold fusion. The claim was that these spelling corrections were WP:POINTy. I guess that makes sense if you follow the model that Misplaced Pages can only function on the basis of the rules that are set-up around social networking. That's, indeed, from whence most of the behavioral guidelines are derived.

I was blocked on the basis of a decision made by an administrator some four years ago. The block was designed to get me to stop editing. At that time, I did not stop editing. So that's set up the current cascade. Some may wish for me to throw myself on the mercy of the court for the edits of Eliminatesoapboxing. I don't exactly know what to do about this. Those edits reset the clock and set a precedent for future edits that might reset the clock in the same way. If I could guarantee that no one is using my IP and UAs, I'd take my lumps and come back in October. But I'm not sure what the alternative is supposed to be here. Is it really so hard for someone to put themselves in my shoes? Maybe no one else who is using my user agent or IP address will start a user account or edit Misplaced Pages in the next four months. In which case, I'll go again for WP:OFFER and bob's your uncle. But what if someone does do that and the checkuser declares another round of "you were bad because we don't want you editing and you did anyway"? At some point the community gets exhausted (read the response to the last half dozen unblock requests I made to see evidence of this). I'm a baddy and I will continue to be one until I'm unblocked. I will say this, that discussion at WP:AN is the closest thing I've seen on wiki to a reasonable discussion of the parameters of my current situation in years.

jps (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2013 (UTC) ("jps" are my initials. Signatures ought to confer identity, I think.)

OK. I sort of agree that it's better to keep the AN discussion as concise as possible; the very long back-and-forth threads tend to scare off anybody truly uninvolved. And people can indeed damn well come here to talk with you. I wish you luck. Bishonen | talk 21:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC).

Allow me to chime in here. The impression that I get from the AN discussion so far is that people value your edits but are worried that you will not follow the various behavioural policies and guidelines. And the impression that I get from reading your talk page here is that you are willing to follow those guidelines, but that you're not sure whether you can persuade people of that. But actually, it's not so hard. All you need to do is the following. First, admit to any recent socking that you've done. It's better to admit to it, as that will help to show people that you're serious about following the guidelines. If there are socks attributed to you that weren't really you, don't be afraid to say so. If you can, give a good reason why a checkuser check might have produced a match. If people don't believe you, though, don't worry too much about it - it's in the past, and you will have more chances.

Next, if there are reasons that people might be sharing computers and/or IP addresses with you in the future, then let us know. If we know more about your real-life situation, it will help you in the event of future checkuser checks. This is the best way to protect yourself against that "resetting of the clock" that you mention above.

Finally, we need to know that you're serious about following our behavioural rules or guidelines. So it's best to post a convincing reason, one that addresses the issues that have been brought up at AN. If you do this now, you might just be unblocked now. If you also state that you are willing to follow the standard offer, and you actually do follow it, then you have quite a good chance of being unblocked come December. In a lot of your posts above, you say that it is up to the community to decide whether to unblock you or not, but actually I think it is mostly up to you. Have a think about what you can do right now to show people that you're serious, and you may well be unblocked sooner than you think. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius 10:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I would add that a plausible statement about how tendentious FRINGE pushers will be handled would be desirable. Also, there will be trolls who attempt to exploit the situation by provoking SA—how will they be handled? Johnuniq (talk) 11:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, Mr. Stradivarius, here's my reply:

1. I haven't done any recent socking of which I'm aware. I work out of an academic community who pools computing and internet resources and am allowed to, on my downtime, use these resources. That others share my IP and UA is known. Whether this explains the CU matches I cannot say, but I'm not willing to go into greater detail than this because, frankly, I have had issues in the past with people contacting colleagues and employers and I'm not in the mood for that to happen again. Others have pointed to "behavioral evidence" that shows that these two accounts and other unnamed IPs are mine. I'm not sure what that means. Most of my colleagues are likeminded individuals who share similar editorial beliefs as me. I suppose that's why I don't object to being labeled as a "sock" of the two accounts I'm accused of running. Additionally, the User:Junjunone account is not mine, even though I admitted it was in order to get the deal from Coren in January. User:Redshiftimprove was an account I created to improve the redshift article and I am proud of its contributions, per WP:IAR.

   TCanens is claiming that there are residential overlaps between the accounts now. I do live with a number of my coworkers, incidentally. Not that that's any of his business. And no, I'm in no mood to go asking around who is who on the internet. As for the behavioural evidence, well, I'm not sure I understand. It would be nice if TCanens commented here where we could actually have a discussion, but having had rather icy relations with that fellow for a bit now I'm not too optimistic that he'd be willing to do so. jps (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

2. The behavioural rules and guidelines are, in fact, rather straightforward for me to follow. Although the reputation is that I am liable to be "uncivil", I haven't seen evidence that this is the case. For years I had a standing notice that anyone who found anything to be uncivil should explain to me what it was that they found uncivil and why and I would remove or rephrase it. I never had a single person take me up on the matter. I believe this means that I've been civil on this website and if you can point to instances where this has risen to blockable offenses since that notice was posted, I'll gladly express contrition. In short, I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to follow behavioural guidelines and, in fact, think that the reputation that I cannot is due more to the offended sensibilities of those who have had their contributions criticized by me (content not contributors, right?). In fact, the "content not contributors" maxim is a double-edged sword that not many people realize works two ways. One way is that one shouldn't personally insult others. The other is that one should not take personal offense when one's contributions are criticized. The problem is that certain noise-makers mix this up and accuse people who are strict on content as being uncivil or personal attackers. When I say that a "contribution is poor" that is no reflection on the personal character of the contributor, but this is mixed up in the minds of those whose contributions are being criticized, especially when those contributors are promoting ideas and poor sourcing that may not pass the sniff test for critical thinking. That's the civility treadmill on Misplaced Pages. The easiest way to avoid such messes is to avoid interaction with the less-than helpful contributors. This can be done through adding sunshine as a disinfectant. WP:FTN is a useful means for that, for example.
3. Finally, I take some umbrage to the claim that I am responsible for my own unblock. If I could unblock myself, I would have already done it by now. Please understand how condescending it appears to write something like that. I mean this as a means to suggest an improvement in future interactions you may have with other personas-non-grata.

Well, Johnuinq:

1. FRINGE promoters should be handled by report to WP:FTN. I think that noticeboard works very well.
2. I haven't seen intolerable trolling on Misplaced Pages for some half-a-decade and I am of the opinion that it isn't going to be an issue because most of the would-be trolls have moved on. Many of the fringe-areas have been cleared out of vested trolls and all that's left are fly-by-nighters who get caught up in other issues related to Misplaced Pages. But maybe I'm missing the point of your question. Perhaps you can be more specific. Can you point to an instance where a troll was mishandled by myself in the past?

   I stand corrected. There is a troll actually active right now in the WP:AN thread and it's a rather dangerous one. However, I will be dealing with it off-wiki, and I am hopeful you won't even notice. jps (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

jps (talk) 15:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Let me explain where I'm from. Years ago I saw and greatly admired the work you did to keep science and fringe topics under reasonable control—Misplaced Pages is a sitting duck for cranks to push their wares, and combating them is both important and difficult, and you did that with great skill and dedication. I saw you get shot down, but I did not follow the details because, frankly, it was just too depressing. Regardless of whether there has been trolling in the past, it is certain that on resumption of editing there will be cranks who look for ways to yank your chain—from their point of view, getting rid of you will be #1 priority, and since they cannot win any debate on the issues, they will use the standard techniques of poking and goading, hoping that you can be emotionally drawn into a dispute and will act in haste. If that were to happen, the chorus at ANI would chant "omg, SA was uncivil ... SA did X number of reverts". Few in the chorus would even be capable of noticing the actual problem (that Misplaced Pages is a sitting duck for crankery, and that there is no humanly tolerable mechanism for repelling it). If you get even one edit warring or civility block, the curtains will close. I believe that the best defense would be for you to rehearse the scenario I am describing in your mind—have you ever been emotionally involved in a dispute at Misplaced Pages? how would you avoid that in the future? Please do not try to answer those rhetorical questions here: I'm suggesting that some serious thinking about them would be very helpful. I feel silly offering advice to you, but while I don't know anything like the amount of science that you do, I may have other knowledge. I'm talking about the future, and don't know whether you mishandled a troll in the past, but you are indeffed, so something went wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a great comment and I appreciate it. To answer your last comment first, what went wrong was a misjudgment on my part of how the culture at this collaborative website was changing. In 2006 things were a lot different here. The changes are essentially ones that happened when gamers and social network administrators became vested interests. Now that the site is older still, there is a certain level of inertia that keeps a lot of the bigger problems down to a dull roar. The goading and the trolling cannot be as effective any more simply because there are fewer opportunities to effect the sort of dramatic change that many of the internet amateurs were hoping Misplaced Pages could enact. While I fought tooth and nail to keep creationists from generating ridiculous swathes of content here, today that would never pass the muster.

The question is, can I avoid getting that game-ending block? I think I can simply by not caring as much (and, indeed, I don't care as much as I used to because, thankfully, students seem finally to be moving on and taking Misplaced Pages less seriously than even a few years ago). As for whether there is a way to rehearse an emotionally involved dispute with Misplaced Pages, it turns out that there is something of an emotionally involved dispute happening even as we type -- a dispute of the sort that pales in comparison to your typical trolling. If it comes out well, then you probably will never know what I'm talking about, and that is the current hope. So I guess I'm saying that this has turned out to be good practice in any case. I'm sorry I can't be more concrete than that. I know it's not in vogue to trust me, but there it is. If you're truly curious, send me an e-mail and we'll talk a bit in private.

jps (talk) 00:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge:. My answer to your question is above. jps (talk) 01:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

On risk assessments and my unblock

For those concerned,

The question is whether my proposed unblock is a risk and whether there should be restrictions on my unblock. I think in situations such as this it is difficult to decide what the risk is going to be.

The concern is that activity on other accounts that I am accused of using are indicative that there is tremendous risk with unblocking me. I presume this is on the basis of past experience with vandals and the like who use scripts, IP hop, spoof, register serial accounts, and generally cause headaches for recent change patrol and the like. I understand that this is where the bias (in the statistical sense, not in the political sense) comes from in being concerned over those users who are accused of violating WP:SOCK. But I think most would agree that WP:SOCK was composed with something slightly different in mind than what this situation is. What makes this all the more difficult is that the accounts that I protest are not mine I think have made fine edits to this website. I find nothing wrong with those edits and if someone else were in this situation I would say basically that because the edits were good, there's nothing more to be seen here.

While I am frustrated now and have been frustrated in the past by situations where other accounts who were not me were associated with me, I cannot plead surprise that this has occurred. I have started other accounts and have acted in ways that contravene the way WP:SOCK is written and so this would quite naturally cast a pall. If a peace protestor commits civil disobedience and trespasses on a military installation when a case of mistaken identity also causes the prosecutor to charge that protestor with trespassing on the grounds of a nearby weapons manufacturing plant, it's going to be a tough sell to convince a jury that the first instance was true while the second was false. So it's not surprising that there would be some who would presume that I would be guilty of every accusation set forth against me. I understand this and am not even particularly upset by those who are rather stridently opposed to my unblocking on this basis.

But please. PLEASE. Assume for even a moment that I'm telling the truth. What advice would you give? Above, some advised me to be open and honest. While I tried this, I also realize that such will lead those who think I am not being honest to claim that I'm not only guilty of violating the WP:SOCK rules, I'm also guilty of being deceitful. The alternative is to lie and accept responsibility for the CU accusations. I have done this in the past. I don't particularly regret it, but it doesn't seem to be any better than the alternative that I can see. So here we are.

I am committed in the future to stick to a single account because I realize that this website is in a different era than when I was active. But like it or not, there is a history that has caused a weird symbiotic relationship to develop between myself and here. I have to respect that history and the structure at this website if I am to effect the certain amount of change I think is needed. This community, for all its problems, is the group with which I am bound on into the future and the way I am treated and the way I treat it have to be considered in relation to that.

Okay, then. That's the story. If you think that violations of WP:SOCK should be a non-starter, then I can see no recourse other than to lock me up and throw away the key. But if even a small part of you thinks that there might be more to this place than WP:SOCK, then it's to you who I am asking to think about what this situation entails. What advice would you give me to move forward?

I'm open to suggestions and have been for some time.

jps (talk) 23:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Advice? State which accounts were controlled by you. State which ones deceptively imitated you but were not you. Don't give excuses, reasons or rationales. Talk of weird symbiotic relationships does not inspire confidence. State what you intended to do, in terms of user-account use, if unblocked. "I am committed in the future to stick to a single account" is a contorted sentence. Is "committed" rhetoric? If not, what collateral is committed? Are you committed now, or does the commitment start at some future point? Weren't you committed previously? WP:SOCK is an understated, shadow-language policy. I advise that you to not wikilawyer WP:SOCK. I advise that promises should be made in very simple terms. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Cool, Smokey.

1. For the record> --> Redshiftimprove: mine. Other three mentioned here: not mine. If you want to go back further in history, please let me know. I'm not so interested in going down that road, if you don't mind.
2. Forgive me my indulgence of the "weird symbiotic relationship". I have found it desirable to be unblocked on account of this weirdness. Perhaps this doesn't inspire confidence, but it's the truth. It's not pleasant reading, but going through the talkpage history of this account may give you some indication of what I've been through. Then again, maybe not.
3. "Committed" was not chosen for its rhetorical flare. It is how I write. The single account is important because it is important to this website and is not an issue for me to do if unblocked. I guess some people prefer statements like "I will use one account". However, I was taught in my background not to speak of the future with certainty regardless like that. It's a phrase-choice and a cultural thing but I suspect it means the same thing. So, for your sake, I will say this: "In my unblocked, restricted or unrestricted future I will use one account."
4. I'm not wikilawyering WP:SOCK. I get why it's written the way it is and that's the way this website operates. I think that's clear. I'm just saying that according to WP:SOCK I'm guilty, guilty, guilty in the sense that CU confirmation is the strongest assessment that can be made (for good reason).

jps (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

1. I suggest going back 6 months (the cleanstart period). I would explcitly name/link the mentioned accounts that are not yours. This provides a diff to beat you with if you are lying. If there are accounts in recent history that you do not wish to name, at least describe them a little and count them.

2. The history is heavy going. I am not on top of it. I have seen you around for a long time and do not really know what went wrong. I have a hobby interest in rehab.

3. Good, mostly. I think you mean "If unblocked, I will use _only_ one account." I detect wiggle room, you may use another account if subsequently blocked again? I advise: "From now on, I will only ever use one account to edit Misplaced Pages". I suggest going further: "I will not deliberately edit as an IP; and if done accidentally I will promptly log in an sign for it". Maybe even: "All other controlled accounts have been privately disclosed, blocked, and/or passwardscrambled.

4. I advise to ignore WP:SOCK and stick with the answer in 3. Some people, with esoteric stated reasons, want to reserve a right to use an undisclosed alternative account. This seems to not apply to you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

1. User:Eliminatesoapboxing and User:Mj12hoaxwriter are the accounts referred to. Here's your diff with which to beat me.
2. "All other controlled accounts have been privately disclosed, blocked, and/or passwardscrambled" is true. If unblocked I will not edit with an IP. If I am logged out accidentally and an IP appears in the signature, I will note it is me (this is an interesting change from the early culture of Misplaced Pages, but it's the way of the wiki now).
3. You want me to say, "From now on, I will only use one account." I think you want me to say this regardless of whether I'm unblocked. You really want me to promise to only use one account if I remain blocked? I don't understand at all. I think what you are trying to say is that you want me to abide by blocks when they are made. I guess that's the thing to do. So fine, when unblocked, I will abide by subsequent blocks leveled against me.
4. I don't want any undisclosed alternate accounts. No sir.

jps (talk) 02:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the whole sock issue is a distraction, the people making the most fuss about that are not eager to see you back editing here. So arguing about that is a waste of time and energy. What's far more important is to address the issues Anthonyhcole writes about in the section below. My opinion is that if you were to stick to 0RR for your own edits and 1RR on other edits that this will almost automatically prevent the problems he writes about. Also it's easy to enforce, so people who are sympathetic to you returning but have some reservations may be reassured that it will work out well, and they can then argue more strongly on your behalf. Count Iblis (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If the consensus is to restrict my editing, then I'll abide by that. jps (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Gaming and neutrality

My experience of you was as a gamer and as someone who doesn't recognise what neutral language is. You dragged people to various boards and lied about them - claiming they misrepresented sources, they edit-warred, they edited "disruptively" etc., etc, anything, really, so long as it thoroughly harassed them - you misrepresented policy and claimed non-existent prior consensus. You seemed to think a good quackery article was one that said "this is crap" in every paragraph. (I found myself in the uncomfortable position of defending pseudoscientists, and arguing against skeptics.)

Do you think the above is true, and will you be any different if you are unblocked? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Some might see the above as baiting. It's definitely an example of what you'll be subject to if you return, and there will definitely be worse, some more blatant and some much less so. --Ronz (talk) 03:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem. I wish more people wore forthright like that, actually. It's very refreshing. jps (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

An interesting take, Anthonyhcole. Normally, the tradition is to ask for this to substantiated with diffs, but I won't be so rude as to do that. Here's what I will say my actual outlook is:

1. "Neutral language": Neutral language is mostly relevant for matters that cannot be verified empirically. I'm not very interested in such situations precisely, though you can look at attempts from years ago to work at Nina Totenberg to see my take on how that might work. For empirical matters there is one of two things that can be said, "There is not enough data to come to a conclusion" or "The data supports this model". The issue is that sometimes people take umbrage to fact. A person who doesn't like it when something is plainly stated, "The Earth is not flat", for example, might propose that this isn't neutral because we cannot know this for certain or some people disagree with it. I have had a discussion about this very issue in the past and I think I'm largely in agreement with it: though today I wouldn't deign to speak for the entirety of Misplaced Pages as I did then and certainly wouldn't wave the WP:IAR flag as prominently. I simply don't have the stomach for that kind of thing. I will just say that I think I agree that empirical fact must be stated as fact and not as opinion if this website is going to be taken at all seriously.
2. Lying about people. Hmmm... I'm not sure who that was, but generally, you're absolutely right about the fact that I had a tendency in the past to treat Misplaced Pages as a WP:BATTLEGROUND since that sort of thing was encouraged in 2006 when I started editing in earnest. Actually, there is still an aspect of battleground-ness still present, but the "game" now is to pretend that it is not. That's the culture, so inasmuch as I will be here that's the culture I'll respect. The question is, will I get caught up in the fighting even if I don't want to treat it as a place to go out an look for fights? I think the thing to say here is that I have grown past caring, more or less. I see this site as being on a down-swing and the only thing that matters to me as it slowly settles into some sort of moribundity is that people don't come away from it with misinformation. But I'm not about to engage in cutthroat tactics over this anymore. It's too much a waste of time and, anyway, there's this friendly group of WP:FTNers waiting in the wings to help out when the heat in the kitchen is too much.
3. Is a good quackery article one that says "this is crap" in every paragraph? No. But a good quackery article has to be written so that it is clear to the reader what is imaginings and invented claims and what is empirical fact. Too often this point gets lost. But this is best illustrated by example rather than the abstract.
4. There is a general issue of concern trolls that you ought to consider if you are finding yourself defending pseudoscientists. Maybe you have a slightly different outlook than others on what constitutes a decent or neutral description of reality. You may disagree with pseudoscientists but find writing such things as "The Earth is not flat" to be too harsh in lede of the article about the Flat Earth Society. Without further expansion, I'm having a hard time understanding where you're coming from, and I only have a vague recollection of why you have such a negative association with me (homeopathy, chiropractic, osteopathy, other alt medicine? can't recall). Well, this has opened the conversation and for that I'm grateful. I would love it if you would explain some more of your philosophy of what you want for Misplaced Pages because I think that may be the most fruitful way to engage.

Do I think what you say is true? Inasmuch as I think maybe you have such an opinion of me, sure it's true. Do I think that opinion justified? Well, on the basis of my recollection of how I behaved, no I don't. But then maybe now is not the time for comparing diffs. Do I intend to behave as an awful gamer and "non-neutral" contributor in the future? Gamer? No. "Non-neutral"? Well, I've seen that term abused and bandied about in Misplaced Pages so much that it's hard for me to understand it. Back in my day, it was perfectly fine to admit that no one was "neutral", but that the goal was that the content should be to be "neutral" (write for the enemy and so forth). Inasmuch as I think the content should be written so that readers are informed of the correct information and also not left with a taste in their mouth that something is being forced down their throats, then I think I can get behind such a goal. I mean, I think that's the tone Britannica takes, so if that's what is meant by "neutral", I can get behind that. Though I note they don't exactly have a lot of articles on "fringe theories" in their encyclopedia. Not necessarily a bad editorial decision, actually, but this place is pretty much an "accept all comers" kind of endeavor in some ways.

jps (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Oh well. Given that you renounce speaking for the encyclopedia, excessive use of IAR, and BATTLE - especially BATTLE - I support lifting the ban.

Now, you might like to take look at TM. The last time I looked, a couple of months ago, there was a recent review that seemed somewhat credulous and gave far more credit to the health benefits than any earlier reviews, was based partly on a couple of very sus reviews, and may have been superseded by now by an anticipated new review. I got sick while discussing it on the talk page, left it to MastCell, and just haven't had the spirit to go back, or even look at it since.

You probably know that the TM proponents are very across WP policy and have a good grip of the sources. You may be aware of the fate of Will Beback. What this means is, a neutral presentation of that topic will rely on civility and good rhetoric - informed reasoning and sound argument. BATTLE, and everything that entails, will be counter-productive. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The TM situation is one that I've been keeping an eye on. What is probably the best for all concerned would be a shrinking of the subject down to its fundamental points: 1) There is plenty of data that relaxation, focused attention, meditation, what have you, has physiological effects and there is no reason to doubt that such activities might lead to certain desirable health outcomes in certain scenarios. Moreover, the effectiveness of any palliative care is a very subjective enterprise. The mechanism is even basically understood from certain fMRI studies. But one must be careful in not going beyond this kind of simple "people report that they feel better after doing what feels good" conclulsion. 2) There is no evidence that any particular technique involving this kind of behavior is better than any other one that acts in a similar fashion. 3) There is clearly no evidence for more of the outlandish claims such as the lowering of crime rates, the organizing of water molecules, or faith healing. That's the kind of summary that everyone ought to be able to get behind. There are plenty of citations that can be had for each and every point. jps (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Question on topic ban

When Tim blocked you two years ago he also extended your one year topic ban to an indefinite topic ban. As it stands, the topic ban isn't part of the discussion going on at AN. Could you please specify whether your desire is to have your topic ban lifted as well or if you are simply going to edit on other topics before considering an appeal of the topic ban?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

My desire, of course, is to be free of any restrictions, but it really isn't up to me to decide what the parameters of any unblock that happens will be. jps (talk) 16:57, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I am talking about the topic ban that was made indefinite at the same time you were blocked indefinitely. Presumably, if you are unblocked, the topic ban would remain in effect unless there was an agreement to lift that as well. Maybe you have forgotten about it given that you have been mostly concerned with the block, but the block was for violating that topic ban and it would be good to know if your attitude on the topic ban has changed. That is, are you saying you will abide by the topic ban and not violate it in any manner or did you intend for your proposed return to be without restrictions?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If an unblock happens, I'm sure that the unblocking administrator will explain to me what restrictions, if any, are to be imposed on my editing. jps (talk) 23:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Your take on the standard offer

hi jps, as you know there is no way we can be 100% sure that you did or did not sock during the period you claim to not have socked. When reading AN, I see a lot of people offering to not unblock you right now, and to extend the standard offer. Your comments here make me infer that you think that whether or not you sock, there is a decent chance that there will be editing activity that will be technically indistinguishable, or close enough to that that you will fail that criterion whether you follow the rules set out there or not. But casting all that aside, you did fairly recently edit with a sockpuppet, a choice you say you stand by. Now the demand of the standard offer to not edit with any account for at least six months to me is to make someone who has a history of problematic behaviour proof this is my interpretation. I'm not speaking for the guideline itself, nor am I claiming this is the only correct reading, nor am I saying that someone who has a different reading is wrong. Readers who disagree are welcome to discuss it on my talkpage, where we can have fun and maybe even disagree some more. they have dropped the stick sufficiently to say uncle be willing forfeit to do something just because the community asks it of them, even if they disagree that it's best for the project. Whether or not that is reasonable is something I switch opinions about faster than some people are physically able to actually say uncle. What's your take on this in general, and how do you see yourself in that view? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I think in the past I would have said that my commitment is to content rather than to the community and "damn them all". Now, I think that because of the "weirdness" of the relationship I've outlined above I cannot be so cavalier. I suppose my take on the "the standard offer" is that I don't see it as the "only possible way", but I respect the fact that this is de facto the scenario with which many are comfortable. To the extent that such a faction controls the place or has a serious influence on the place I respect the opinion. But, sadly, this kind of adherence is, primarily, why I'm in the scenario I find myself in today.

The best way to avoid such stuff is to actually avoid it. While there are Catch-22 scenarios that can develop, being unblocked will help because I won't be left in the lurch hoping that I can get someone to pay attention. I have to really thank User:IRWolfie- for taking a chance on this, because if it wasn't for him I simply wouldn't be even having this conversation with you right now, as much as I might have wanted to engage with it. Being on the outside looking in makes it very difficult to get any help whatsoever here, so that's the primary reason for unblocking. I fully intend (WILL) abide by the SmokeyJoe commandments set up above. I'm not sure what more I can say.

jps (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

FWIW, as someone who opposed the block be lifted more or less on a procedural basis more than anything else, the comment I made I think is still something that might be something you could work on in the interim. For a lot of our content regarding pseudoscience, and religion, and anything else that isn't really "hard science," having indicators as to what relevant reference sources exist which deal with the topic, and what they say about it, would probably be among the more useful information we could have. I did find one "Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience," and listed its articles and their comparative length, but I know that there are lots of other reference books on New Age-y type stuff and other dubious science. Even if the ban isn't lifted, getting together material on what is discussed in sources, maybe similar to Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles, they might be among the most useful things for such content. And given the amount of time it has already taken me to work on the Encyclopedia of Religion, honestly, depending on how many recent reference works you find, you might still not be finished with some of them by the time the standard offer might be available. John Carter (talk) 00:02, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the kindness you are expressing in extending this sort of offer. To be sure, while I think that the work you are doing is probably worthwhile, I actually think that pseudoscience is over-emphasized at Misplaced Pages except for historical examples. This is because most proponents see the value in promoting their ideas here. I think, actually, that an improvement to Misplaced Pages would be a shrinking of much of these topics. This is not to say I'm a "deletionist". It's just to say that there is no good way to write a lot about these subjects without entering into an area of WP:NOT.

Let me offer some perspective on how other encyclopedias of pseudoscience may be approached: Williams' Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience which you reference is somewhat problematic as a resource. Indeed Michael Shermer's and James Randi's encyclopedias are much, much better in terms of analysis, though their style is less formalized. The fact is, however, that unlike religion, the academic study of pseudoscience is not really formalized and the subject itself is, by definition, not an academic endeavor. The unfortunate state of affairs is that certain groups prefer Williams' approach which comes out of the post-tenure work of Marcello Truzzi, for example. This is an approach which is suffering from attrition in terms of academic seriousness, and the preference of many people who write about pseudoscience for such a credulous approach is somewhat suspect. The problem is that Williams unlike Randi and Shermer is not actually an expert in the actual claims (he's more-or-less not interested in the empirical basis of these ideas) and he simply edited material from a number of credulous sources. The problem of credulous academics publishing about pseudoscience is one that is not easy to avoid, though there is some change in the last few decades with certain science popularizers like Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, Jerry Coyne, Bob Park, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and Lawrence Krauss. There continues to be a strain in certain "science studies" that treat the subject of pseudoscience as a case study in human interaction rather than a case study in misconception. This is a fine approach, but it is almost useless for the topics that are pseudoscience proper. Politics, sociology, and history of science is the appropriate way for a reliable encyclopedia to approach subjects like the Velikovsky affair or the Sternberg peer review controversy, but the ideas of Velikovsky or intelligent design are not reliably described by the academics who have written about the social context for these events.

jps (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, in some ways, I might agree with you there. Personally, I tend to think that having a better overall set of articles on any given range of content, basically covering all the major topics, would probably result in the decrease of article creation on that topic, because more material would already be covered. And thanks for pointing out two additional sources. Between them, I think there might be a real chance of getting together some of the better reference works on any topic, which again would result in better coverage, which again would probably prompt less article creation. And if you could get together lists from those works you indicate at any time, blocked or not, I think that based on your comments (which I myself know nothing about) that would make it a lot easier for any editor to improve the content and to know what needs to be included. The same for a lot of other topics as well. I'm starting on religion because, basically, the staggering number of Christian denominations, allegedly 20,000 or so, makes it kind of hard to say anything about the topic in general on one's own. That one source was basically chosen because I have easy access to it, not necessarily because it is the best. Anyway, best of luck on the unblock. John Carter (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that as groups of people, vaccine refusers, crystal healers, Bigfoot Researchers, UFOlogists, creationists, cranks (pejorative term, I know), &tc. could be worthwhile subjects in the same way that one might write about the 20,000 Christian denominations. But there just isn't very much literature on these groups in comparison because they don't follow the normal cohesion of something like a sect or cult and they are somewhat more prone (if you can believe it) to splintering than even religious groups. Still, there is some sociological work on cold fusion believers by Bart Simon, I believe, but I'm not sure its worth having an entry here on cold fusion proponents, though the topic is rather more relevant to an encyclopedic treatment than cold fusion itself. Amusing stuff, but it's hard to know exactly where to go.

As I said, Misplaced Pages's coverage of pseudoscience is over-complete from the perspective of the articles while suffering at the top level in a big way UFO is a terrible article, for example. UFO religion is actually much better. jps (talk) 02:26, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

You have a point. One of the things I have noticed over time is that, although this was not the intention in any way, having long lists of missing articles is actually apparently a cause for people to not create them, given the number, rather than create them. That seems to have been the case with Christianity, anyway. But maybe having an indicator which are the more significantly discussed articles, or longer articles, in such reference works might make it easier for those interested in developing content on those topics to do so. I started a list of missing articles from Melton's Encyclopedia of American Religions, for instance, some years ago, and was told by some that it might be counterproductive to have such a long list. Seeing a huge number of red links can be scary. But, at the same time, I think a lot of people aren't that familiar with a lot of these topics, and they might not think of, or even know, about some of the relevant reference sources. Yeah, in a lot of cases, they are at least a few years out of date, and things will have changed in a lot of cases significantly. But, for the major topics, those reference sources can provide better than average indicators of comparable weight to give topics within parent articles, some of the more highly regarded sources, etc. So, at least from what I've seen, they might serve as a bit of a disincentive to people seeking to "complete the set" of articles on a topic, if they see how big it is. But, they might also serve to help those legitimately interested in the more significant topics to find high quality sources which could be used in developing the content on those topics which already exists. Maybe, anyway. John Carter (talk) 23:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Creating long lists is something of a Misplaced Pages tradition, and I think that it does no harm to make such things. But what's more important, trying to beef up the obscure stuff or make sure the visible stuff is good?

• UFO gets 1500 hits a day
• Westminster Confession of Faith gets 150 hits a day

Therein lies the rub.

jps (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Collaborative work

@A Quest For Knowledge::

You can read an example of some of my collaborative work here: .

jps (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm a bit confused. Are you saying that arxiv.org is a Wiki? If so, can you please indicate which contributions are yours? In particular, I'm interested in what conflicts you had with other editors and how you resolved them.

I'd also like to point out that you didn't answer my first two questions: what went so horribly wrong the last time you were allowed to edit Misplaced Pages that it necessitated your ban?

How do you plan to avoid such mistakes in the future?

These are standard questions that I ask of every applicant in a similar position.

Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:19, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

1. This link is in response to your query "Can you also provide evidence of collaborative editing on a non-en.wikipedia website?" However, if you are interested in conflicts I had with the collaborators on that paper, I'm afraid that's not available at that website, nor is there any other public evidence of any conflicts I've had with anyone else in editorial environments. Most of the editorial work I do is proprietary.
2. #WP:AN is where I answered your first two questions. It's the second-to-last post in that section right above where you are pinged.

jps (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

unblocked

SA .. I have unblocked this account due to the discussion at:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=567904165#Discussion_about_unblocking_Science_Apologist

I hope I won't regret this action, but there seems to be a strong contingent on the project that feels you provide quality content. Still, you were blocked for a reason, and there are people who have valid reservations about you editing. I urge you to read the discussions and take to heart the the things that were said in opposition of your unblock. I would ask you to win over your detractors by your actions. Please stick to one and only one account for a while. If you want to adjust your "username", please do so very transparently. Please do it right SA. — Ched :  ?  04:13, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Given that most of the unblock votes failed to address SA's indefinite topic ban, it should be noted that this would still apply to him and he would have to appeal the topic ban if he wishes to make edits relating to fringe science.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

@ScienceApologist: (edit conflict) Like Ched said, most of those who favoured unblocking you did so, as I believe, by taking a big leap of faith that you, after being unblocked, will become an asset to this project. A chance like the one you are being given is not something to play with, and I expect you to show us that we did the Right Thing by doing so. I hope you enjoy editing again, and have a nice and safe ride in Misplaced Pages. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ 04:42, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Welcome back, hope you have a good time improving the project. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @The Devil's Advocate: Per the link you provided: 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. With SA being unblocked, the topic ban resets to the original expiration date of January 2012. Δρ.Κ.  05:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can seek clarification from Tim, but the comment clearly does not say any unblock gets the topic ban reset and SA has not really done what was needed to meet Tim's condition. Also, I took that as meaning the block would go back to being one year in length, rather than going back to a specific date.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The block has been been lifted so according to Timotheus's phrasing so has the ban reset. The ban was for one year per 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 WordsmithCommunicate 07:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC) Δρ.Κ.  05:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

First off, you are ignoring that in order for it to reset SA had to meet a certain requirement that was not met by this unblock and I see no indication of SA meeting it otherwise. Secondly, a topic ban being reset after a block usually means the topic ban starts over from the time the editor is unblocked i.e. a one-year topic ban being reset after an unblock for violating it means the unblocked editor has a one-year topic ban as of the unblock. Tim could have worded it better, but his words cannot be objectively taken as saying any unblock for any reason after a year of being blocked would mean he would no longer be subject to a topic ban.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:31, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's look at the phrasing: This block will be lifted, and the topic ban reset to its original expiration date, when and if you provide credible reassurances... The block has been lifted, ergo all conditions for it have been met. The topic ban has been reset to its original expiration date, i.e. somewhere in 2012. Δρ.Κ.  05:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Read those other little wordy things after the boldy parts. They're kind of important. Has he provided the necessary assurances that he will respect the topic ban? Above he hasn't even acknowledged that there has been an indefinite topic ban during his block.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:09, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I have read them. Have you? It seems pretty clear to me that: a) The ban expiry date has been reset to 2012 upon unblocking. Therefore SA is under no topic ban. b) The unblock would not have happened if SA did not satisfy the unblock conditions. c) Since the unblock already happened and the topic ban expired by having been reset to a past date upon unblocking, SA addressing his topic ban as part of his unblock pledges is really a moot point. Δρ.Κ.  06:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The community has the authority to lift any restriction on any editor without meeting the imposing admin's conditions. It means, in essence, that the community can reject Tim's conditions and that is fine, but that is all it means. Whether Tim's conditions regarding the block even apply after it ceased to be an AE block is another point to consider since said conditions were issued under the authority of the discretionary sanctions. My understanding is that no longer being an AE block means any admin can lift the block at their own discretion. Admins can't impose unblock conditions on other admins for normal blocks as far as I know.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

You make some interesting points regarding the transition from an AE block to a normal one and the role of the community in deciding this unblock. I agree that it is theoretically possible that an admin could have undertaken to unblock SA without community input after the AE status of the original block had expired, but this would have been too risky politically so the community had to be involved in any viable unblock scenario. Δρ.Κ.  07:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I've read @Timotheus Canens:'s post four times now.. If I'm reading it correctly, SA's indefinite topic ban remains in effect and this topic ban was made under AE authority. I've pinged Timotheus Canens so they can clarify, if necessary, but at this point, it appears that the block has been lifted but the indefinite topic ban remains in effect. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• BTW, welcome back SA. Kudos to Ched for an excellent closing. Δρ.Κ.  05:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Don't know how I missed all this excitement, Joshua, but hey, welcome back. Perhaps you can have another go at Nina Totenberg's article for GA one of these days? Drmies (talk) 05:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Indeed. I don't think we interacted at all in the past, but welcome back. Good decision by Ched from what I can see. Begoon  05:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Welcome back William M. Connolley (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Welcome back to the fold. Time to consider a name change? You can't edit as Previously ScienceApologist! IRWolfie- (talk) 08:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• Welcome back. Good call Ched. Just for record and openness, here's a verbatim copy of what I what I just posted on the noticeboard. ":The socking policy is a complete joke. It needs completely rewritten. If someone wants to edit you can't stop them. We have all these people creating socks and all these people chasing them. It's a never ending cycle with the policies we have in place. In cases such as this, it's best to let them have the account they want and keep an eye on them. I support this unblock. " PumpkinSky talk 11:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
• @User:The Devil's Advocate and User:A Quest For Knowledge. Formalism about Timotheus Canens' old topic ban isn't appropriate here. A majority of the people who weighed in on AN were asking for SA to be unblocked precisely so that he could again become a bulwark against POV editing by fringe and pseudoscience zealots. It's true that the topic ban wasn't mentioned much, except by The Devil's Advocate, who went on about it rather, yet failed to interest anybody. Why do you think that was, DA? Because it goes without saying that an unblock based on that discussion includes a quashing of the topic ban. Nothing in the AN discussion suggested that we were working up to saying something absurd like "Welcome back, we really want your help, but you must not touch the areas that we want your help with." Bishonen | talk 13:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC).