Barney the barney barney (talk | contribs) |
Philosophyfellow (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
<small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|Defending yourself against claims]].''</small> |
<small>''Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Guidance#Defending yourself against claims|Defending yourself against claims]].''</small> |
||
======Response from PhilosophyFellow====== |
|||
I think the valid quote here which was pulled by Vzaak is "'''If anyone is wondering why there would be IP editors or new editors coming in with fresh accounts, consider that they are probably just protecting themselves from harassment"'''. If anyone checks ANI cases, they will see that this team, especially Vzaak and Barney the Barney Barney, have quite a history of ignoring policy of assuming good faith and choosing instead to harass editors who disagree with them and trying to remove or bully them off of the page. That evidence speaks for itself and requires no interpretation. I have gotten a number of 'Thank you's' for my edits on the talk page from other editors. This will be my only comment on the matter. [[User:Philosophyfellow|Philosophyfellow]] ([[User talk:Philosophyfellow|talk]]) 12:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC) |
|||
======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== |
======<span style="font-size:150%">Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments</span>====== |
Revision as of 12:53, 25 November 2013
Tumbleman
- Tumbleman (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
25 November 2013
- Suspected sockpuppets
- Philosophyfellow (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · spi block · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- User compare report Auto-generated every hour.
- Editor interaction utility
- Generally speaking, Philosophyfellow advances the same arguments Tumbleman did, along the lines that the focus of the Rupert Sheldrake article should shift to philosophy. Philosophyfellow also holds the same general misunderstanding of how science works; he thinks that expert scientific critique is to be placed equally alongside other critiques, just as Tumbleman thinks.
- Four minutes after creating his account,[1] Philosophyfellow creates his own user page[2] and user talk page.[3] This doesn't seem like a brand new user; it's strange that a new user would immediately post to BLPN as well (BLPN edits shown later).
- Includes a "(talk)" link when alerting users:
- Philosophyfellow
- "That would be reasonable what you suggest, David in DC (talk)"[4]
- "I need you to walk me through this Barney the barney barney (talk), because"[5]
- "I have a question for Johnuniq (talk)"[6]
- "Ken Arromdee (talk) You make this claim"[7]
- "Thank you Shaynekori (talk) for making"[8]
- Tumbleman
- "Do as you will, IRWolfie- (talk)" [9]
- "Really? LuckyLouie (talk), it's strange is it?"[10]
- "Reaper Eternal (talk) Mark Arsten (talk) asked me to contact you directly."[11]
- "LuckyLouie (talk) thank you for stating that"[12]
- Philosophyfellow
- Tumblemanian odd capitalization: "Hypothesis"
- Tumblemanian odd capitalization: "Morphic Resonance"
- Without prompting, introduces 'extended mind', written with single quotes:
- "hypothesis or theory"
- Philosophyfellow: "I don't think Sheldrakes concepts of 'extended mind' would be either hypothesis or theory, it's a concept in Philosophy so neither should apply."[25]
- Tumbleman: "There is no reason any editor should mistake a philosophical discussion about science as pseudoscience as it's not an hypothesis or theory"[26]
- "list the sources"
- Tumblemanian focus on "bias" of editors instead of content
- Philosophyfellow
- Tumbleman (copied from AE request)
- "many editors here have a bias" [32]
- "language from editors clearly shows a bias on the page" [33]
- "commenting from editors shows a biased POV" [34]
- "the bias that they clearly have" [35]
- "a lot of biased sources and opinions" [36]
- "we have biased editors quoting opinions" [37]
- "editor is not able to provide a decent source and expresses a clear bias" [38]
- "those with negative bias here" [39]
- "your voice sounds a little biased here" [40]
- "a very circular argument"
- Tumbleman
- "This entire argument of applying WP FRINGE to the page is based on a very circular argument"[47]
- Philosophyfellow
- Tumbleman
- General lashing out the people who gathered the evidence culminating in his block. On BLPN, he aggressively promotes the idea that all current editors should be blocked, a peculiar move for a brand new editor.
- "The only solution at this stage is just block all current editors from the page"[51]
- "let's get these editors out of here"[52]
- "we need to get a new team in here"[53]
- "Let's get a new team in here"[54]
- "we need to get a new team in here"[55]
- "we need to get a team in here"[56]
- "If anyone is wondering why there would be IP editors or new editors coming in with fresh accounts, consider that they are probably just protecting themselves from harassment"[57]
. vzaak (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- Wow! I am extremely impressed by Vzaak's good work here. It's much appreciated. We don't need any socks here. Now let's see what CU says. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't gone through contributions to the same extent as Vzaak (talk · contribs) but I just got a feeling about this one. It's not just the use of language, it's the same condescending arrogant disregard for Wikipedia and its policies (especially WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE, science and scientists who give us the consensus from which we must work, and editors who wish to implement these policies. That said, he's not being hugely more disruptive than other pro-Sheldrake editors, and I'm somewhat concerned that we have to ban on "naughty behaviour" (i.e. socking) rather than the ignoring and trying to circumvent/redefine policy, bizarrely interpreting sources to get them to say things they don't, pretending that sources don't exist, etc, which is still being done by various other fans of Sheldrake (and which technically is naughty under WP:ARB/PS). But admins will only pull their fingers out for the socking. Huh? Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Comments by other users
Accused parties may also comment/discuss in this section below. See Defending yourself against claims.
Response from PhilosophyFellow
I think the valid quote here which was pulled by Vzaak is "If anyone is wondering why there would be IP editors or new editors coming in with fresh accounts, consider that they are probably just protecting themselves from harassment". If anyone checks ANI cases, they will see that this team, especially Vzaak and Barney the Barney Barney, have quite a history of ignoring policy of assuming good faith and choosing instead to harass editors who disagree with them and trying to remove or bully them off of the page. That evidence speaks for itself and requires no interpretation. I have gotten a number of 'Thank you's' for my edits on the talk page from other editors. This will be my only comment on the matter. Philosophyfellow (talk) 12:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)