Mathsci screws again (and fails)

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 6:45 am

I take it everyone's seen this atrocity? (permanent link)

Mathsci, with the (in)able help of that vile little backstabber Lukas Pietsch, tried to do a number on Cla68. Soooo charming.
Luckily, Mathsci has made so many enemies by now, his little soft-shoe act is not quite as effective as it used to be.

And as usual, none of the Glorious Arbitrators could be bothered to stick their noses into this shitpile.

Anroth · Unread post by **Anroth** » Fri Dec 07, 2012 9:08 am

Yeah, saw it last night, sadly it was all over and I was on what could best be described as 'carrier pigeon' internet. Otherwise I might have commented. FPaS might want to stick his neck back in, if he keeps on this road he will end up at arbcom himself. That was truely atrocious.

Cla68 · Unread post by **Cla68** » Mon Dec 10, 2012 1:35 pm

Just a quick comment to clarify that Eric is not outing Future Perfect at Sunrise. He publicly connected the two accounts on-wiki.

Volunteer Marek · Unread post by **Volunteer Marek** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:51 am

Cla68 wrote:Just a quick comment to clarify that Eric is not outing Future Perfect at Sunrise. He publicly connected the two accounts on-wiki.

You know, I understand the idea that sometimes the role of "Wikipedia critic" is a bit like the role of a defense attorney. It means that you argue on principle but at the same time find yourself defending some pretty guilty characters. But hey, everyone's got a right to representation and all that. Still, even a defense attorney hopes that most of their clients are innocent-folks-who-have-been-wronged not guilty-folks-who-have-been-wronged types.

But Cla68, whatever his merits as a Wikipedia critic, has been championing folks who are obviously and exclusively of the latter type. On climate change, ok, sure there's plenty of hardcore editors, like Connelly, who represent the mainstream view but have been obnoxious in making sure it gets represented in Wikipedia articles (at this point, I'm not sure I blame them - it just is a freakin' battleground, so people act accordingly). I can understand that one criticizes the actions even while not disputing the the actual point of view itself. But on climate change Cla68, and a few others, really are out there by this point.

If this was just one topic area, then sure, it's just an one off thing and one can think that it's the principle being defended, not the actual wacky beliefs of the subject. But then Cla also goes and defends obnoxious racist trolls like Mirardre http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: ... t_by_Cla68 on Race and Intelligence. Fuck it, let's be frank and honest here. Cla68 likes crazy fringe views whether it's climate science or race and intelligence. Yes, some editors who represent these views were "set upon" by some Wikipedia insiders. I don't like these folks either. But seriously, can anyone tell me why the fuck should I care?

That's not legitimate Wikipedia criticism that's the standard "They Won't Let Me Push My POV in Peace!!!!" nonsense that prevails through out the project. We need less of it not more.

Go Mathsci!

DanMurphy · Unread post by **DanMurphy** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:32 am

I'm pretty much with Marek. I did take a small look at this. "Mathsci" comes off as obsessed-- but an obsessive arguing for mainstream scientific views and better articles. Sane people wouldn't waste time on such children's crusades at Wikipedia, which means the Mathsci's of the world are the best anyone could hope for. Inasmuch as millions of the unwary are taken in by Wikipedia, more Mathscis please (or, of course, fundamental reforms so that such personalities aren't required).

Oqhai · Unread post by **Oqhai** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 2:25 am

Isn't the evidence that Cla68 has been posting at the Clarification and Amendment Request just the evidence that Captain Occam was touting on another thread here a few hours ago? Won't that get him into trouble for proxy editing on behalf of a banned user?

Cla68 · Unread post by **Cla68** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:37 am

The problem I have with it all is fairness. The same rules are supposed to apply to everybody. For example, I have complained about the regular editors at the 9/11 articles for openly ridiculing and bullying the editors trying to introduce fringe theories to the article. To say I like "crazy fringe theories" is fairly insulting.

I was in the Pentagon when it got hit, and I saw what looked like flaming aircraft pieces laying in the corridor between the B and C rings when I went over there to see what was going on (although I've never been able to confirm for sure that that's what I saw and not pieces of the building). Other people I talked to told me they heard or saw the airliner hit the building. But, I still defend including mention of the conspiracy theories in the article because there are sufficient sources to support it. That's Wikipedia's model, and if you're going to participate in it, which I do, then you have to take a stand on having the rules apply to everyone equally, even if it means that some will think the articles are dodgy (BLPs being the exception).

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:48 am

Oqhai wrote:Isn't the evidence that Cla68 has been posting at the Clarification and Amendment Request just the evidence that Captain Occam was touting on another thread here a few hours ago? Won't that get him into trouble for proxy editing on behalf of a banned user?

Give it up, Mathsci, or MastCell or whichever of his little thug-lifers you are.

the Mathsci's of the world are the best anyone could hope for

Do you really want this guy to defend science?

*2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =444326885 August 2011]. I'm told that in the edit summary, Mathsci revealed [[User:Mikemikev|Mikemikev]]'s real name along with a reportedly homophobic comment, "Stick to your boyfriend, and the sheep." Fred Bauder, who oversighted the edit, appears to have stated in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =445203227 August 2011] that the Committee was aware of what took place. Perhaps they can confirm if the information I have is true? If the information I have is not accurate, they need to say so so that I can strike this, as it is extremely pejorative about Mathsci and unfair if inaccurate.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 5:42 am

Cla68 wrote:and I saw what looked like flaming aircraft pieces laying lying in the corridor...

sorry, pet peeve.

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:23 am

Oqhai wrote:Isn't the evidence that Cla68 has been posting at the Clarification and Amendment Request just the evidence that Captain Occam was touting on another thread here a few hours ago? Won't that get him into trouble for proxy editing on behalf of a banned user?

No. See WP:PROXYING (T-H-L).

Unread post by **HRIP7** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 8:25 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:
Cla68 wrote:and I saw what looked like flaming aircraft pieces laying lying in the corridor...
sorry, pet peeve.

+1. Alas, that battle seems to be lost, at least in the States (and the UK is rapidly following suit). "Lain" is on the way to not being recognised as an English word any more.

lilburne · Unread post by **lilburne** » Thu Dec 13, 2012 11:45 am

DanMurphy wrote:I'm pretty much with Marek. I did take a small look at this. "Mathsci" comes off as obsessed-- but an obsessive arguing for mainstream scientific views and better articles. Sane people wouldn't waste time on such children's crusades at Wikipedia, which means the Mathsci's of the world are the best anyone could hope for. Inasmuch as millions of the unwary are taken in by Wikipedia, more Mathscis please (or, of course, fundamental reforms so that such personalities aren't required).

I agree too, the fringe cranks and kooks ought to be pilloried and hung out to dry. Any half decent work would consign them to a footnote and have done with it. As it is they are allowed to insert their rubbish into any nook and corner that isn't constantly patrolled.

So I can understand why the minor cranks get a rough deal, and sometimes it is over the top abuse. But I really have to work to find any sympathy for them except when they are being misrepresented.

Mathsci · Unread post by **Mathsci** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:08 am

Oqhai wrote:Isn't the evidence that Cla68 has been posting at the Clarification and Amendment Request just the evidence that Captain Occam was touting on another thread here a few hours ago? Won't that get him into trouble for proxy editing on behalf of a banned user?

Thanks for the link.

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 11:43 am

DanMurphy wrote:I'm pretty much with Marek. I did take a small look at this. "Mathsci" comes off as obsessed-- but an obsessive arguing for mainstream scientific views and better articles. Sane people wouldn't waste time on such children's crusades at Wikipedia, which means the Mathsci's of the world are the best anyone could hope for. Inasmuch as millions of the unwary are taken in by Wikipedia, more Mathscis please (or, of course, fundamental reforms so that such personalities aren't required).

+1 and I have a theory for this. Make two fundamental divisions. (1) people that hold views that are quite crazy, versus the rest and (2) people that are fanatical about their views, versus the rest. The divides the world into four:

1. Those that hold crazy views, but are not fanatical about promoting them
2. Those that hold crazy views, and are fanatical about promoting them
3. Those that hold non-crazy views, but are not fanatical about promoting them
4. Those that hold non-crazy views, and are fanatical about promoting them

Which of these groups are going to end up editing Wikipedia?

dogbiscuit · Unread post by **dogbiscuit** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:05 pm

Peter Damian wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:I'm pretty much with Marek. I did take a small look at this. "Mathsci" comes off as obsessed-- but an obsessive arguing for mainstream scientific views and better articles. Sane people wouldn't waste time on such children's crusades at Wikipedia, which means the Mathsci's of the world are the best anyone could hope for. Inasmuch as millions of the unwary are taken in by Wikipedia, more Mathscis please (or, of course, fundamental reforms so that such personalities aren't required).
+1 and I have a theory for this. Make two fundamental divisions. (1) people that hold views that are quite crazy, versus the rest and (2) people that are fanatical about their views, versus the rest. The divides the world into four:

1. Those that hold crazy views, but are not fanatical about promoting them
2. Those that hold crazy views, and are fanatical about promoting them
3. Those that hold non-crazy views, but are not fanatical about promoting them
4. Those that hold non-crazy views, and are fanatical about promoting them

Which of these groups are going to end up editing Wikipedia?

"One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent -- he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief."

Unread post by **Peter Damian** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:53 pm

dogbiscuit wrote:
Peter Damian wrote:
DanMurphy wrote:I'm pretty much with Marek. I did take a small look at this. "Mathsci" comes off as obsessed-- but an obsessive arguing for mainstream scientific views and better articles. Sane people wouldn't waste time on such children's crusades at Wikipedia, which means the Mathsci's of the world are the best anyone could hope for. Inasmuch as millions of the unwary are taken in by Wikipedia, more Mathscis please (or, of course, fundamental reforms so that such personalities aren't required).
+1 and I have a theory for this. Make two fundamental divisions. (1) people that hold views that are quite crazy, versus the rest and (2) people that are fanatical about their views, versus the rest. The divides the world into four:

1. Those that hold crazy views, but are not fanatical about promoting them
2. Those that hold crazy views, and are fanatical about promoting them
3. Those that hold non-crazy views, but are not fanatical about promoting them
4. Those that hold non-crazy views, and are fanatical about promoting them

Which of these groups are going to end up editing Wikipedia?
"One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent -- he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief."

Seems like a good man.

I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent -- their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy -- they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent -- he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief.[8] [9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_H ... ein-Equord

lightnight · Unread post by **lightnight** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 2:40 pm

whats the connection between Piestch and mathsci - it seems he is a pocket admin that defends him at all costs and blocks mathscis opponents on request?

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 9:02 pm

lightnight wrote:whats the connection between Piestch and mathsci - it seems he is a pocket admin that defends him at all costs and blocks mathscis opponents on request?

Still figuring that out. Why don't you sift thru AN and arbitration noticeboards, and try to find some reasons why they cooperate?

I divide my officers into four groups. There are clever, diligent, stupid, and lazy officers. Usually two characteristics are combined. Some are clever and diligent -- their place is the General Staff. The next lot are stupid and lazy -- they make up 90 percent of every army and are suited to routine duties. Anyone who is both clever and lazy is qualified for the highest leadership duties, because he possesses the intellectual clarity and the composure necessary for difficult decisions. One must beware of anyone who is stupid and diligent -- he must not be entrusted with any responsibility because he will always cause only mischief.[8] [9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_von_H ... ein-Equord

Best thing I've seen to date, as an epitaph for Wikipedia. Of course, the stupid/diligent ones have already taken over the general staff.

Mathsci · Unread post by **Mathsci** » Fri Dec 14, 2012 10:16 pm

Presumably Cla68 knows what he's doing at the moment. It seems to be some kind of mix between kamikaze and harikiri.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =528030914

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:40 am

Mathsci wrote:Presumably Cla68 knows what he's doing at the moment. It seems to be some kind of mix between kamikaze and harikiri.

How do you have time to do research at DPMMS, when you're routinely haranging people on AN/I or AE, from 5-6 in the morning until late at night?

Mathsci · Unread post by **Mathsci** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 12:45 am

EricBarbour wrote:
Mathsci wrote:Presumably Cla68 knows what he's doing at the moment. It seems to be some kind of mix between kamikaze and harikiri.
How do you have time to do research at DPMMS, when you're routinely haranging people on AN/I or AE, from 5-6 in the morning until late at night?

I was on the faculty at Cambridge from 1990 until 2001, but left after that. At the moment I am still recovering from a triple bypass operation. Have you or any close relative had one recently? The period of being on a heart-lung machine during the operation, the trauma of having the sternum cut open and resealed and the floating debris in the blood from the operation take about 6 months to recover from, physically and mentally. So I have been told.

Where did you get your defective information from and, more to the point, why repeat it here?

Cla68 has made a series of very foolish errors on and off wikipedia. Your ad hominem attacks, inaccurate and embittered as they are, will not change that.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 1:09 am

Okay.....If you're recovering from a coronary bypass, how do you have time and energy to harangue people on AN/I or AE, from 5-6 in the morning until late at night?

Mathsci · Unread post by **Mathsci** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 1:24 am

EricBarbour wrote:Okay.....If you're recovering from a coronary bypass, how do you have time and energy to harangue people on AN/I or AE, from 5-6 in the morning until late at night?

I don't harangue people and you seem to have got the time frame wrong for France. I am in a period of slow recovery, but still cannot sleep well. I suffer from the same kind of recurrent nightmares I had during the 3 minor heart attacks on 29 September-1 October. My next appointment at the Heart Hospital in London is on 11 January. You can fly over from Lakeside if you want to be with me while I chat to my surgeon or his assistant. At the moment I do not have the energy or powers of concentration to create content on wikipedia. That will return gradually, or so I hope.

I have been harassed by Cla68. He has quite foolishly paired up with somebody not known for their truthfulness (Captain Occam). You seem very chummy with Occam, but, as they say, birds of a feather ....

Cla68 · Unread post by **Cla68** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 5:45 am

Mathsci wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:Okay.....If you're recovering from a coronary bypass, how do you have time and energy to harangue people on AN/I or AE, from 5-6 in the morning until late at night?
I don't harangue people and you seem to have got the time frame wrong for France. I am in a period of slow recovery, but still cannot sleep well. I suffer from the same kind of recurrent nightmares I had during the 3 minor heart attacks on 29 September-1 October. My next appointment at the Heart Hospital in London is on 11 January. You can fly over from Lakeside if you want to be with me while I chat to my surgeon or his assistant. At the moment I do not have the energy or powers of concentration to create content on wikipedia. That will return gradually, or so I hope.

I have been harassed by Cla68. He has quite foolishly paired up with somebody not known for their truthfulness (Captain Occam). You seem very chummy with Occam, but, as they say, birds of a feather ....

Harrassment is a very serious charge, Mathsci. Anyway, you have got to end this duel between yourself and whoever this banned editor is. I'm not the only one who has expressed concern about it. The fact that I have been given a one-way interaction ban and a block for saying something about it tells me, based on my experience, that something definitely not right is going on. Almost every time I've addressed or helped address a deep problem in Wikipedia (Mantanmoreland, global warming, etc. Although that block I received during the global warming stuff was deserved, the only block I've received that was.) I've received push-back from concerned Wikipedia admins who evidently feel they need to maintain their own control over the situation. It's a red flag.

It's not entirely your fault. Your pursuit of this bloke has been enabled, even encouraged, by the actions of a handful of admins, including Future Perfect at Sunrise, Timotheus Cannens, MastCell, and NuclearWarfare. They have not done you any favors by facilitating you twos' battle with each other.

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:30 am

Mathsci wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
Mathsci wrote:Presumably Cla68 knows what he's doing at the moment. It seems to be some kind of mix between kamikaze and harikiri.
How do you have time to do research at DPMMS, when you're routinely haranging people on AN/I or AE, from 5-6 in the morning until late at night?
I was on the faculty at Cambridge from 1990 until 2001, but left after that. At the moment I am still recovering from a triple bypass operation. Have you or any close relative had one recently? The period of being on a heart-lung machine during the operation, the trauma of having the sternum cut open and resealed and the floating debris in the blood from the operation take about 6 months to recover from, physically and mentally. So I have been told.

Where did you get your defective information from and, more to the point, why repeat it here?

Cla68 has made a series of very foolish errors on and off wikipedia. Your ad hominem attacks, inaccurate and embittered as they are, will not change that.

If you've been on bypass or ECMO, why don't you take some time off and do something besides wikipedia?
It cant be good for you to be elevating, voluntarily, your hydrocortisoids.

Unread post by **Zoloft** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 6:47 am

Roughly a year before this forum began, I had a stroke.

During my recovery, I read good books, learned a new software program, did some CAD design, and played some board games and put together puzzles. I went outside and exercised when able.

I cannot conceive of anything more likely to kill me during that period than contending with the craziness that is Wikipedia.

Mathsci · Unread post by **Mathsci** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 7:34 am

Vigilant wrote:
Mathsci wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
Mathsci wrote:Presumably Cla68 knows what he's doing at the moment. It seems to be some kind of mix between kamikaze and harikiri.
How do you have time to do research at DPMMS, when you're routinely haranging people on AN/I or AE, from 5-6 in the morning until late at night?
I was on the faculty at Cambridge from 1990 until 2001, but left after that. At the moment I am still recovering from a triple bypass operation. Have you or any close relative had one recently? The period of being on a heart-lung machine during the operation, the trauma of having the sternum cut open and resealed and the floating debris in the blood from the operation take about 6 months to recover from, physically and mentally. So I have been told.

Where did you get your defective information from and, more to the point, why repeat it here?

Cla68 has made a series of very foolish errors on and off wikipedia. Your ad hominem attacks, inaccurate and embittered as they are, will not change that.
If you've been on bypass or ECMO, why don't you take some time off and do something besides wikipedia?
It cant be good for you to be elevating, voluntarily, your hydrocortisoids.

Cla68 started a request for a new arbcom case just a few days after I was discharged from hospital on 22 October. The case centred on me, so I really had very little choice but to respond.

Randy from Boise · Unread post by **Randy from Boise** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 7:57 am

Cla68 wrote:The problem I have with it all is fairness. The same rules are supposed to apply to everybody. For example, I have complained about the regular editors at the 9/11 articles for openly ridiculing and bullying the editors trying to introduce fringe theories to the article. To say I like "crazy fringe theories" is fairly insulting.

I was in the Pentagon when it got hit, and I saw what looked like flaming aircraft pieces laying in the corridor between the B and C rings when I went over there to see what was going on (although I've never been able to confirm for sure that that's what I saw and not pieces of the building). Other people I talked to told me they heard or saw the airliner hit the building. But, I still defend including mention of the conspiracy theories in the article because there are sufficient sources to support it. That's Wikipedia's model, and if you're going to participate in it, which I do, then you have to take a stand on having the rules apply to everyone equally, even if it means that some will think the articles are dodgy (BLPs being the exception).

The standard for inclusion at Wikipedia is not "Verifiability Not Truth" but rather "Verifiability and Veracity."

Wacky fringe theories to the dumpster...

RfB

Vigilant · Unread post by **Vigilant** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:05 am

Mathsci wrote:
Vigilant wrote:
Mathsci wrote:
EricBarbour wrote:
Mathsci wrote:Presumably Cla68 knows what he's doing at the moment. It seems to be some kind of mix between kamikaze and harikiri.
How do you have time to do research at DPMMS, when you're routinely haranging people on AN/I or AE, from 5-6 in the morning until late at night?
I was on the faculty at Cambridge from 1990 until 2001, but left after that. At the moment I am still recovering from a triple bypass operation. Have you or any close relative had one recently? The period of being on a heart-lung machine during the operation, the trauma of having the sternum cut open and resealed and the floating debris in the blood from the operation take about 6 months to recover from, physically and mentally. So I have been told.

Where did you get your defective information from and, more to the point, why repeat it here?

Cla68 has made a series of very foolish errors on and off wikipedia. Your ad hominem attacks, inaccurate and embittered as they are, will not change that.
If you've been on bypass or ECMO, why don't you take some time off and do something besides wikipedia?
It cant be good for you to be elevating, voluntarily, your hydrocortisoids.
Cla68 started a request for a new arbcom case just a few days after I was discharged from hospital on 22 October. The case centred on me, so I really had very little choice but to respond.

Listen to yourself.
You were released from the hospital after bypass surgery and you HAD TO RESPOND to something written on wikipedia?!

You need to reevaluate your continued participation on wikipedia. You're up there with World of Warcraft guys who play even if it means losing their jobs.

Mathsci · Unread post by **Mathsci** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:38 am

Cla68 should probably answer Roger Davies's two quesions on wikipedia instead of repeating his private conspiracy theories here.

If any wikipedians are genuinely interested in offering me medical advice, the best way to do that is through my wikipedia email account.

Mathsci · Unread post by **Mathsci** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:23 am

Returning to the request for amendment, here are Roger Davies' two questions to Cla68:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =527980439

Here is Cla68's reply, which did not address either question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =528008774

And here is Roger Davies' response, after he moved Cla68's comments to the talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =527785575

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 9:52 am

Mathsci wrote:Returning to the request for amendment, here are Roger Davies' two questions to Cla68:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =527980439

That's actually pretty creepy;

# Can you please state whether you have or have not collaborated with banned users in preparing your comments for this page?

I didn't realize freedom of association and editing at Wikipedia were incompatible. If Cla talks to me here on this forum, engaging in the type of honest criticism that's censored by intolerant admins at Wikipedia, will arbitrators openly use it against him? We're not talking conspiracy or harassment or anything of the kind, just honest criticism, out in the open for all to see.

I wouldn't answer that question either, Cla. There is no right answer, and Davies has no business asking it. There is nothing wrong with participating on this site. If Davies wants to make a charge, let him ask it honestly. If the charge is participating on this site, make him say so.

Mathsci, did Davies ask you the same question?

Mathsci · Unread post by **Mathsci** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 10:12 am

TungstenCarbide wrote:
Mathsci wrote:Returning to the request for amendment, here are Roger Davies' two questions to Cla68:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?tit ... =527980439
That's actually pretty creepy;
# Can you please state whether you have or have not collaborated with banned users in preparing your comments for this page?
I didn't realize freedom of association and editing at Wikipedia were incompatible. If Cla talks to me here on this forum, engaging in the type of honest criticism that's censored by intolerant admins at Wikipedia, will arbitrators openly use it against him? We're not talking conspiracy or harassment or anything of the kind, just honest criticism.

I wouldn't answer that question either, Cla. There is no right answer, and Davies has no business asking it. There is nothing wrong with participating on this site. If Davies wants to make a charge, let him ask it honestly. If the charge is participating on this site, make him say so.

Mathsci, did Davies ask you this question?

No. For which site-banned or community banned editor would I have been proxy-editing? Ottava rima? Scibaby? Abd? Mikemikev?

Given Occam's offer to provide evidence to Cla68 on this site, Roger Davies could compare Cla68's evidence to arbcom with prior email submissions of Occam and his girlfriend. Arbcom already passed a motion prohibiting editing on behalf of site-banned editors in the R&I area and Cla68 seems to have fallen foul of that motion.

Cla68 · Unread post by **Cla68** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 1:27 pm

Mathsci wrote: No. For which site-banned or community banned editor would I have been proxy-editing? Ottava rima? Scibaby? Abd? Mikemikev?

Given Occam's offer to provide evidence to Cla68 on this site, Roger Davies could compare Cla68's evidence to arbcom with prior email submissions of Occam and his girlfriend. Arbcom already passed a motion prohibiting editing on behalf of site-banned editors in the R&I area and Cla68 seems to have fallen foul of that motion.

Mathsci, did you really say "Stick to your boyfriend, and the sheep." to MikeMikev?

Cedric · Unread post by **Cedric** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 3:35 pm

Vigilant wrote:
Mathsci wrote:Cla68 started a request for a new arbcom case just a few days after I was discharged from hospital on 22 October. The case centred on me, so I really had very little choice but to respond.
Listen to yourself.
You were released from the hospital after bypass surgery and you HAD TO RESPOND to something written on wikipedia?!

You need to reevaluate your continued participation on wikipedia. You're up there with World of Warcraft guys who play even if it means losing their jobs.

Oh no, it's much worse than that. As Zoloft quite properly suggests, it's his very life that is at stake. Thus, a level of obsession that goes beyond the merely insane.

Unless, of course, this is yet another cynical claim of a non-existent illness or a dead relative/significant other made to get a leg up in some wiki ba-telle or other. I do not know enough about Mathsci or his activity on WP to venture any opinion as to that.*

* This is NOT a request for you to post your private medical records here, on WP, or anywhere else. Your disengagement from this thread and WP generally will be more than sufficient.

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Sat Dec 15, 2012 11:13 pm

Fuck it, let's be frank and honest here. Cla68 likes crazy fringe views whether it's climate science or race and intelligence.

Absolute, unmitigated bullshit. And I can prove it. Take a look at the 9/11 article and the one on the transcontinental railway. When Charles gets his way, the result is a significant improvemrnt in the coverage of articles and NOT a promotion of fringe theory.

That's not legitimate Wikipedia criticism that's the standard "They Won't Let Me Push My POV in Peace!!!!" nonsense that prevails through out the project. We need less of it not more.

Go Mathsci!

With Charles driving no one gets to push their POV; this has been demonstrated. Of course computer models might disagree.

Mathsci · Unread post by **Mathsci** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 7:02 am

Notvelty wrote:
Fuck it, let's be frank and honest here. Cla68 likes crazy fringe views whether it's climate science or race and intelligence.
Absolute, unmitigated bullshit. And I can prove it. Take a look at the 9/11 article and the one on the transcontinental railway. When Charles gets his way, the result is a significant improvemrnt in the coverage of articles and NOT a promotion of fringe theory.

Cla68 has recorded his views on the article Race and intelligence on WP here. So yes, away from his hobby of battleships, air strikes and treaties, Cla68 does seem to like some "crazy fringe views".

Notvelty · Unread post by **Notvelty** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:13 am

Mathsci wrote:
Notvelty wrote:
Fuck it, let's be frank and honest here. Cla68 likes crazy fringe views whether it's climate science or race and intelligence.
Absolute, unmitigated bullshit. And I can prove it. Take a look at the 9/11 article and the one on the transcontinental railway. When Charles gets his way, the result is a significant improvemrnt in the coverage of articles and NOT a promotion of fringe theory.
Cla68 has recorded his views on the article Race and intelligence on WP here. So yes, away from his hobby of battleships, air strikes and treaties, Cla68 does seem to like some "crazy fringe views".

That link does not show what you say it does. Colour me unsurprised.

Cla68 · Unread post by **Cla68** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:15 am

Mathsci wrote:
Notvelty wrote:
Fuck it, let's be frank and honest here. Cla68 likes crazy fringe views whether it's climate science or race and intelligence.
Absolute, unmitigated bullshit. And I can prove it. Take a look at the 9/11 article and the one on the transcontinental railway. When Charles gets his way, the result is a significant improvemrnt in the coverage of articles and NOT a promotion of fringe theory.
Cla68 has recorded his views on the article Race and intelligence on WP here. So yes, away from his hobby of battleships, air strikes and treaties, Cla68 does seem to like some "crazy fringe views".

You didn't answer my question, Mathsci. If you're going to hurl homophobic insults at others, it really doesn't matter what their agenda might be, because you have just conceded the moral high ground to them by stooping to such behavior, haven't you? Did you feel empowered to act in that manner because a couple of arbitrators had privately promised to help watch your back (at least, that's how you interpreted their comments) if you had any trouble from the banned R&I editor?

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:39 am

Mathsci wrote:Cla68 has recorded his views on the article Race and intelligence on WP here. So yes, away from his hobby of battleships, air strikes and treaties, Cla68 does seem to like some "crazy fringe views".

Mathsci · Unread post by **Mathsci** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:45 am

Cla68 wrote:
Mathsci wrote:
Notvelty wrote:
Fuck it, let's be frank and honest here. Cla68 likes crazy fringe views whether it's climate science or race and intelligence.
Absolute, unmitigated bullshit. And I can prove it. Take a look at the 9/11 article and the one on the transcontinental railway. When Charles gets his way, the result is a significant improvemrnt in the coverage of articles and NOT a promotion of fringe theory.
Cla68 has recorded his views on the article Race and intelligence on WP here. So yes, away from his hobby of battleships, air strikes and treaties, Cla68 does seem to like some "crazy fringe views".
You didn't answer my question, Mathsci. If you're going to hurl homophobic insults at others, it really doesn't matter what their agenda might be, because you have just conceded the moral high ground to them by stooping to such behavior, haven't you? Did you feel empowered to act in that manner because a couple of arbitrators had privately promised to help watch your back (at least, that's how you interpreted their comments) if you had any trouble from the banned R&I editor?

Why should I answer your questions, when you're so rude?

I have no record at all of the diff except for my emails to Oversight and the resulting tickets. In the emails, sent almost immediately after I posted the diff, I refer to the edit summary as "inappropriate" and that I made the reversion with that particular edit summary accidentally, that's all. Your source, Captain Occam, made a big of thing of it back in 2011 and was uniformly ignored on wikipedia. Fred Bauder passed on all Captain Occam's emails to the arbitration committee.

Have you looked at the on-wiki postings of Mikemikev? Click through the diffs of his socks/ipsocks and look for "faggotry", "negroes" and usernames like "Juden Raus" (in German, backwards and in Korean). You can probably translate the username 수학 과학은 거대한 게이입니다 yourself.

As far as the arbitration committee is concerned, no arbitrators have privately arranged to "watch my back". I don't know what they're discussing off-wiki, but your delay in answering Roger Davies' questions cannot be helping.

The Devil's Advocate · Unread post by **The Devil's Advocate** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 5:36 pm

Cla68 wrote:You didn't answer my question, Mathsci. If you're going to hurl homophobic insults at others, it really doesn't matter what their agenda might be, because you have just conceded the moral high ground to them by stooping to such behavior, haven't you? Did you feel empowered to act in that manner because a couple of arbitrators had privately promised to help watch your back (at least, that's how you interpreted their comments) if you had any trouble from the banned R&I editor?

One would have to stoop pretty damn low to concede the moral high ground to Mikemikev. I don't think Mathsci has come close. That is not to endorse his obsessive sock-hunting or behavior towards other editors, obviously, but lashing out at someone such as Mikemikev is not an indication of a serious problem.

Mathsci · Unread post by **Mathsci** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 6:25 pm

The Devil's Advocate and Cla68 have been trolled by Captain Occam, indirectly and directly. More fool them.

EricBarbour · Unread post by **EricBarbour** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 8:52 pm

Mathsci wrote:The Devil's Advocate and Cla68 have been trolled by Captain Occam, indirectly and directly. More fool them.

Meanwhile, you're trolling yourself.

The Devil's Advocate · Unread post by **The Devil's Advocate** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 9:55 pm

Mathsci wrote:The Devil's Advocate and Cla68 have been trolled by Captain Occam, indirectly and directly. More fool them.

I would love to know how you think I have been trolled by CO.

SB_Johnny · Unread post by **SB_Johnny** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:15 pm

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
Mathsci wrote:The Devil's Advocate and Cla68 have been trolled by Captain Occam, indirectly and directly. More fool them.
I would love to know how you think I have been trolled by CO.

I'm just happy that the four of you aren't smoking whatever your smoking in my presence, because I don't want to inhale whatever it is.

This isn't even popcorn worthy, but feel free to carry on if it floats your boats.

The Devil's Advocate · Unread post by **The Devil's Advocate** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 10:55 pm

SB_Johnny wrote:I'm just happy that the four of you aren't smoking whatever your smoking in my presence, because I don't want to inhale whatever it is.

This isn't even popcorn worthy, but feel free to carry on if it floats your boats.

Well, you can always turn it into a drinking game. Me, I prefer to keep out of this, but I think Cla68 focusing on Mikemikev is a bad strategy since his is not the kind of case that would evoke much sympathy.

TungstenCarbide · Unread post by **TungstenCarbide** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:06 pm

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
SB_Johnny wrote:I'm just happy that the four of you aren't smoking whatever your smoking in my presence, because I don't want to inhale whatever it is.

This isn't even popcorn worthy, but feel free to carry on if it floats your boats.
but I think Cla68 focusing on Mikemikev is a bad strategy since his is not the kind of case that would evoke much sympathy.

Huh? Waat?

Tippi Hadron · Unread post by **Tippi Hadron** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:12 pm

EricBarbour wrote:
Mathsci wrote:The Devil's Advocate and Cla68 have been trolled by Captain Occam, indirectly and directly. More fool them.
Meanwhile, you're trolling yourself.

Cla68 · Unread post by **Cla68** » Sun Dec 16, 2012 11:26 pm

The Devil's Advocate wrote:
SB_Johnny wrote:I'm just happy that the four of you aren't smoking whatever your smoking in my presence, because I don't want to inhale whatever it is.

This isn't even popcorn worthy, but feel free to carry on if it floats your boats.
Well, you can always turn it into a drinking game. Me, I prefer to keep out of this, but I think Cla68 focusing on Mikemikev is a bad strategy since his is not the kind of case that would evoke much sympathy.

Like I said before, the rules need to apply to everyone. WP's rules prohibit outing and insults. The character of the recipient is irrelevant in those situations.