User talk:FNMF

Three-revert rule

It is important that you familiarise yourself with the three-revert rule. Please read the linked article. Thanks. Guettarda 02:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the issue of "potentially libelous information" was already addressed. The material is based on reliable sources. It's accurate and relevant. So that exception doesn't apply in this case. Guettarda 02:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The fact that some people have "discussed" the material and do not think it libelous does not make it not libelous." True, but the fact that you claim it's "potentially libelous" without bothering to support the allegation doesn't make what you say true. The issue has been discussed. You can't simply declare the arguments invalid by fiat without bothering to address the issues. Guettarda 03:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you have cited policy, but you haven't made any attempt to show how these policies apply, or why the arguments made previously are invalid. Guettarda 03:31, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning about your edits to Christopher Michael Langan

Please read Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist#Asmodeus_banned and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist#DrL_2 and note the passage that says "All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern." This is a warning that you have definitely exhibited a similar editing pattern and may be blocked for walking in their footsteps. FeloniousMonk 03:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. Guettarda 03:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You've been blocked for 48 hrs for the method of your participation at Christopher Michael Langan per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist#DrL_2; 24 hrs for walking in the footsteps of DrL and Asmodeus, and 24 hrs for personal attacks and disruption. Please use the time off to reconsider the method of your participation. FeloniousMonk 03:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad move, FM. --Otheus 04:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unclear how "All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern." Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist#DrL_2 applies here I'd be happy to explain it to you on your talk page. Otherwise, I request that you do not cause yet another disturbance over my conducting my duties. FeloniousMonk 04:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Your post to User talk:Jimbo Wales

Jimbo very rarely intervenes in disputes. You may have more luck looking at Wikipedia:Contact us/Article problem. --Deskana (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's extremely unlikely. I urge you to follow other methods or your problem may be ignored. --Deskana (talk) 08:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations at Christopher Michael Langan

Thanks for your positive work on the Langan bio! The references in question can be found at Langan's CTMU website. See http://www.ctmu.org/Q&A/Archive.html#CTMU, http://www.ctmu.org/Press/Esquire1.jpg, http://www.ctmu.org/Press/TheSmartGuy.pdf, http://www.ctmu.org/Press/MrUniverse/MUTitle.jpg, http://www.ctmu.org/Press/BBC.html, http://www.ctmu.org/CTMU/Articles/CTM.htm. I lack the technical expertise to edit the references myself or I would! --NightSky 14:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned this on the talk page of the article. Hope I didn't step on anyone's toes - seems like a lot of touchy editors over there! --NightSky 15:12, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OTV

Nice touch ;) Good to see you have a sense of humor --Otheus 01:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

improper block by involved editor without sufficient explanation

Decline reason:

No, you were disruptive.

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.

I have just been blocked by user FeloniousMonk for issues surrounding the entry on Christopher Michael Langan. This entry has been fraught for some months, but my contribution has been confined to the last week or so.

I acted several days ago on a longstanding request by the subject of the entry to remove what he considers a potentially libelous section of the entry. User Jimbo Wales judged the section to be blatant original research and deleted the section. One place where Mr Wales explained his intervention was here. This followed many months in which several editors, including FeloniousMonk, refused to see any problem with the section. Some editors were needless to say displeased with this correct decision by Mr Wales, and argued against it, although they did not try to re-place the deleted section.

I have provided extensive arguments on various other content issues to do with the entry. Progress was being made toward improving the article, but some users whom I consider clearly biased against the subject of the entry, had difficulty accepting these arguments. Other editors agreed with my arguments, which were extensively but politely put. Some editors changed their position on some issues, such as the issue of whether to include certain links, which user Arthur Rubin originally opposed the inclusion of (deleting them with little reason given), later acknowledging that inclusion of the links was legitimate.

FeloniousMonk is an editor involved with the entry, and he is blocking for reasons of a content dispute. This is in violation of policy. In addition, he has not provided any arguments why my edits are sanctionable. I do not believe there was a problem with my edits, the vast majority of which were confined to the talk page of the entry, and I would ask any administrator to examine my record. My userpage contains some links at the bottom to recent important edits in relation to this entry, including many by myself.

Some users implied that I was in fact a sock-puppet for the subject of the entry. I realised just before this block was placed that a checkuser request was conducted a couple of days ago that showed I was unrelated to Langan. I in fact live outside the United States, do not know the subject, am not a proponent of his ideas, and am not a proponent of intelligent design. I have stated this previously on several occasions. A link to the checkuser request is located at the bottom of my user page.

Furthermore, I am accused of making personal attacks. This refers, I assume, to a comment I placed about a user on the talk page of the entry (the edit appearing here). The user has been disruptive, ignoring discussion on the talk page, and reverting legitimate good-faith edits without explanation. My comment was the outcome of a long chain of poor behaviour by user 151.151.21.101. The comment I placed was not in any way a personal attack.

The other justification given for the block was violation of a ruling in relation to user Asmodeus and user DrL. I point out that I was accused of the very same violation for arguing for the deletion of the section that user Jimbo Wales shortly thereafter judged needed to be deleted. On no occasion has it ever been explained in what way I have violated this ruling, other than the statement that my "edit pattern" is similar to user Asmodeus. I do not know what this means, and nobody has tried to explain it. It seems simply to be a means of intimidating editors.

I would like to point out that I have been at pains to explain at length every element of my position on this entry. I believe the entry has suffered from editors who do not quite understand some important points, and who are inclined to introduce controversy and original resesarch into an entry about a living person. My intention has been to improve the entry, and I believe I have worked very patiently and fairly to do so.

I would like to further point out that user FeloniousMonk has just deleted from his talk page an offer three days ago by user Otheus to gather evidence to see if my "edit pattern" really did resemble that of user Asmodeus. Otheus made this offer before he received the results of the checkuser request. FeloniousMonk most likely removed this offer from his talk page to conceal that an alternative to blocking me out of the blue had been declined by him three days earlier. His removal of this offer occurred here.

Also, I believe user FeloniousMonk has himself been admonished for this sort of thing before. I direct your attention to this comment about the situation by user Otheus. Otheus seems to believe user FeloniousMonk is also user 151.151.21.101, whom I admonished as mentioned above. I do not know if this is the case, but if so, it might explain why FeloniousMonk suddenly and without warning decided to impose a block. If so, this is further evidence of just why FeloniousMonk was precisely the person who should not have blocked me.

FeloniousMonk originally "warned" me on March 20 that I was violating an ArbCom ruling in relation to Asmodeus, prior to the intervention of Mr Wales to remove the lawsuit section. FeloniousMonk's original "warning" was in relation to my argument that this section should be deleted. Immediately after he gave this warning, I left a comment on his talk page stating that I did not understand his warning, and asking for him to explain it. I left this request here. FeloniousMonk did not respond to my request, and did not contact me again until he decided without warning to impose the block on March 23. And I remind readers, again, that FeloniousMonk has, since blocking me, deleted from his own talk page the suggestion by user Otheus to investigate whether my "edit pattern" really did resemble Asmodeus's.

And I note that, after blocking me, FeloniousMonk stated (below) that he would be "happy to explain" how I was in violation of a ruling, but that, when I asked him to do so, he again did not respond.

This block is a clear violation of policy by an administrator, and an abuse of power. FNMF 04:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unclear how "All remedies which apply to Asmodeus also apply to DrL and, after warning accompanied by a link to this matter, to any other user with a similar editing pattern." Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/ScienceApologist#DrL_2 applies here I'd be happy to explain it to you. You may indeed not be a sockpuppet, but you have certainly shown an identical editing pattern at Christopher Michael Langan to Asmodeus (talk · contribs) and DrL (talk · contribs); I view you as more of a meatpuppet than a sockpuppet, but the only relevant point per the RFAR ruling is your editing pattern, which I'd already warned you about, not your identity. FeloniousMonk 04:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should have explained it to me before placing the block. Or, rather, perhaps you should have explained it, and then brought an uninvolved administrator in to see if he would like to block me. You have not ever argued for one thing I have done wrong. FNMF 04:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were properly warned and directed to the arbitration ruling as required by the ruling three days ago: [1] You simply chose to ignore it. FeloniousMonk 04:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I remain unclear how it applies (since nobody has ever attempted to explain this) and would like you to explain it to me, as you say you are happy to do. FNMF 05:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if any users see this and know of any objective and worthy administrators, I would ask you to inform them about this improper block and direct them to my userpage. Thanks. FNMF 05:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked FM to unblock you based on the case I outlined on his talk page. Believe me, you would rather give him the chance to unblock you. But if another admin unblocks you, then I hope he at least apologizes. --Otheus 05:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the block is justified. I suspect we need a CheckUser here, as the edit pattern is very much like that of an abusive puppeteeer. To prevent damage and disruption int th emean time, the block can stay in place. Guy (Help!) 07:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find the above judgment incredible. No evidence of my disruptive behavior has been offered. No discussion of whether FeloniousMonk was in a position to block me was discussed. I ask that another administrator examine this case. FNMF 10:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the above administrator implies I am a sock-puppet of another user, and he "suspects we need a CheckUser here." With this comment he shows that he did not even read my unblock request, which states that a checkuser request was already conducted (the results are available here). I have stated repeatedly I have no connection with Langan and am not a proponent of his ideas. No evidence that I am has been offered. FNMF 10:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FNMF, just a friendly word of caution and advice. I know it's an insult and and seeming injustice to be blocked for 2 days, but it's only 2 days. I will try to have this lifted sooner than that, but the article will not be trashed, nor will the world end in those two days. Don't think of doing what others have done by evading the block by using other accounts, etc. That would be serious egg on your face, on my face, and completely justify FeloniousMonk's block. --Otheus 15:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you may be interested in reading up on [Daniel_Tammet] and [Mike Warnke]. --Otheus 15:47, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I too ask that FNMF be unblocked. FeloniousMonk has a long history of content disputes at Christopher Michael Langan, and one recently involving FNMF. Specifically, FeloniousMonk had added, and re-inserted after it was protested as potentially libelous, a "Mega Society lawsuit" section which eventually had to be removed by Jimbo Wales himself, who observed that the section had "badly violated" NPOV and warned that "Wikipedia should not be held hostage by people who are doing original research in support of an agenda." FNMF's first edits to the article (beginning just five days ago) tried to remove this section, and FeloniousMonk involved himself in the dispute on the talk page, arguing against FNMF that the section was "fine". FeloniousMonk was previously admonished by the ArbCom not to use his administrative tools in content disputes in which he is involved, and the administrator who declined FNMF's unblock request, JzG, had also argued for the lawsuit's inclusion (in part so that it could illustrate, in his words, "the obsessive behaviour to which [Langan] is stated to be prone"), and has apparently even been in contact with Mega Society members. FNMF seems to me to be a well-intentioned contributor, and has participated constructively at the article. Input from uninvolved administrators would be very welcome here. Tim Smith 19:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments by Otheus moved so as not to make my unblock request confusing to read

Sorry to interject. Whether or not I believe that FM is 151.151.21.101 is not relevant. I said that he would have a hard time proving that it is not the case, an entirely different thing, yet a subtle, distinction. --Otheus 05:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of your documentation of requesting clarification from FM, I added the diff-link to the request made to Jimbo. --Otheus 18:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Asmodeus about my block

User Asmodeus has left a comment here concerning my block by FeloniousMonk. I include the link to Asmodeus's comment purely because I consider it to be a fair summary. I would like to add (and I don't believe I have made this comment previously) that the indefinite ban prohibiting users Asmodeus and DrL from editing the Langan entry should be rescinded. No doubt this comment will be cited by certain others as proof of collusion or proof that I am a "Langan-promoter." Such a conclusion, however, would be false. I simply believe that they have been treated unfairly by a biased group of editors with an axe to grind, and who have chosen to grind it on Langan's formidable head. FNMF 07:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

I have removed this block. However, I would urge you to avoid comments such as this & 'vandalizing' - as they are somewhat uncivil and can only serve to inflame dispute. Also, on the links in question, I'd suggest citing the original sources, even if they are not available online, rather than the copies of them at Langan's site. Offline sources are perfectly allowed on Wikipedia and would, in this case, remove the concerns about the copies being hosted on Langan's page.

Good luck and please try to work with people even if they don't seem to be willing to work with you. --CBD 12:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And here is the comment by CBD, explaining to FeloniousMonk why the unblock was performed. FNMF 13:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, however, I still appear to be blocked. This seems to be because my IP address (58.104.22.81) is still blocked. FNMF 13:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I've unblocked that IP address though I couldn't find a record of it being blocked or any related autoblock entry. Unfortunately the autoblocker is sometimes tricky to unravel. --CBD 14:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the thanks and comment I left for CBD for unblocking me. FNMF 15:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of events leading to my block by FeloniousMonk

I left the following on the talk page of user CBDunkerson (CBD), the administrator kind enough to unblock me:

For further reference, and in case it ever becomes necessary, here is the sequence of events leading to my purported “personal attack” on the IP user.

As you know, after the intervention of Mr Wales, a reaction occurred, leading to the discussion of the question of whether to include certain references. This discussion seemed (to me at least) to have been, or to very nearly have been, resolved.

The following sequence then occurred:

21 March, 15:20. User Tim Smith deletes quote from footnote, arguing in the edit summary that the quote is unnecessary, and noting that it has been corrupted.
21 March, 16:45. User 151.151.21.101 restores corrupted quote for the first time.
22 March, 06:01. User Tim Smith makes note on talk page about the use of a corrupted quote, and argues it does not serve its purported purpose and should be removed.
22 March, 06:51. I respond by saying that the quote in its corrupt form is obviously unacceptable, but I do not argue for its removal rather than correction. I explain at length why I believe the quote has been misunderstood. I argue that if no legitimate secondary sources can be found for the contention that Langan is a proponent of intelligent design, then for the entry to assert this would constitute a violation of the policy against original research.
22 March, 07:38. User Tim Smith removes the corrupted quote.
22 March, 07:50. I open a new section, called “Langan, intelligent design, and Wikipedia policy,” in order to make even clearer my argument that, without secondary sources, the entry should not assert that Langan is a proponent of intelligent design.
22 March, 08:04. User WAS 4.250 asks if I agree with the statement from the entry that Langan and his wife are members of an intelligent design society.
22 March, 08:19. I affirm that I agree with the statement, and that I do not have great problems with the section as written. I indicate that my motive is to show why a campaign to prove Mr Langan is an advocate of ID is unnecessary and can be ended.
22 March, 12:39. User NightSky indicates agreement with my presentation, and makes two proposals: 1), that the section title be altered; 2) that the word “fellow” be deleted from the phrase “a collection of essays by fellow intelligent design proponents.”
22 March, 15:02. User Arthur Rubin makes several points, arguing in a qualified way that Langan has explicitly supported ID, but also noting the lack of secondary sources for the contention he is an advocate of ID, and making a suggestion to rephrase the above to “a collection of essays pubished by intelligent design proponents.”
22 March, 15:34. User Tim Smith argues against the characterisation of the ISCID as an intelligent design society. He suggests another way of characterising the association.
22 March, 16:09. User NightSky argues that the entry should state that neither Langan nor his wife have declared themselves proponents of ID.
22 March, 16:14. User NightSky agrees to Arthur Rubin’s suggested rephrasing.
22 March, 16:58. I indicate support for: 1) the deletion of the word “fellow” from the above-mentioned phrase about the book-collection; 2) Arthur Rubin’s suggested rephrasing; 3) Tim Smith’s suggested rephrasing about the ISCID; 4) NightSky’s suggestion about a statement that Langan has not declared himself an ID proponent. I also argue that Langan’s wife’s fellowship in the organisation is not notable or important, and probably should not be mentioned in the entry.
22 March, 17:47. User NightSky indicates agreement with my position.
22 March, 17:49. User 151.151.21.101 restores the corrupted quote for the second time.
22 March, 17:55. User 151.151.21.101 states that ISCID is in fact an ID society.
22 March, 17:55. User NightSky removes the corrupted quote, asking in edit summary that it not be restored without further talk page discussion.
22 March, 17:58. User 151.151.21.101 claims that the suggestions supported by myself and NightSky in fact “promote a partisan POV” and improperly rely on a primary source.
22 March, 18:01. User NightSky starts a new section, “Quotes,” and asks editors to make sure quotes are accurate, and to discuss controversial edits on the talk page.
22 March, 18:44. User Jim62sch asks what is wrong with the quote, and states that if he is not happy with the answer, he will restore the quote.
22 March, 19:10. User Tim Smith directs Jim62sch to the arguments given against the quote.
22 March, 19:29. User Jim62sch restores corrupted quote for the third time.
22 March, 20:44. User 151.151.21.101 declares that “there’s no shortage of Langan meat puppets at this article.”
22 March, 20:57. User Arthur Rubin removes the corrupt phrases from the quote.
22 March, 20:58. User Tim Smith reiterates to Jim62sch the problems with the quote, and complains that Jim62sch has simply restored with quote without discussion.
22 March, 21:08. User Arthur Rubin argues for the inclusion of the quote, so long as it is corrected, because it “supports the claim (not presently made in the article) that CML (falsely) believes ID to be a ‘scientific theory’.”
22 March, 21:59 I again try to explain my arguments that Langan is not claiming that ID is a true theory, simply that it presents itself as science and claims to be scientifically verifiable. I admonish Jim62sch for his refusal to examine or discuss counter-arguments while editing the entry. And I reject his accusation that I am connected with Langan.
22 March, 22:10. I re-paste my arguments in another section about why the quote has been misinterpreted, in case it was missed due to its placement high up on the page.
22 March, 22:16 User Arthur Rubin agrees that the entry should not state Langan is a proponent of ID without either a secondary source or clear declaration by Langan, but neither should it state the contrary. He agrees with 151.151.21.101 that ISCID is an ID organisation. He argues that Langan’s wife is “marginally relevant.” And he finally argues for the deletion of all references to megafoundation.org and ctmu.org throughout the entry.
22 March, 22:19. I open a new section about user 151.151.21.101, giving five different reasons why I believe this user’s editing is poor, indicating my belief that this user’s behaviour means they can presently be ignored, and hoping that their behaviour improves in the future.
22 March, 22:22. User Arthur Rubin responds by stating that I am approaching a violation of the ArbCom ruling about Asmodeus and DrL, and to “consider myself warned.”
22 March, 22:22. User Arthur Rubin argues that ID theory, as scientific is nevertheless “not self-consistent.”
22 March, 22:35. I respond to Arthur Rubin’s statement that I should consider myself warned, stating that I have done nothing other than argue my case, arguments which have been supported by several editors, but which have been totally ignored by those who keep restoring the quote.
22 March, 22:39. I respond to Arthur Rubin’s argument that ID is not self-consistent, indicating why I do not believe his point is important to interpreting the quote in question.
22 March, 22:47. I try to elaborate the above point in another way.
22 March, 22:54. User Arthur Rubin states that I have added material favourable to Langan and removed material unfavourable to Langan, “against clear consensus.”
22 March, 23:31. User 151.151.21.104 argues that the only source of disruption are “Langan’s cronies,” and argues that my creation of a section devoted to a “personal attack” is evidence of this disruption.
22 March, 23:34. I respond to Arthur Rubin’s comments at 22:16, agreeing with him that it is not important to state that Langan is not a proponent of ID, and suggesting a weaker phrasing. I also state that I do not understand what he thinks is wrong about Tim Smith’s suggestion about how to describe the ISCID. I also argue further against the mention of Langan’s wife in relation to ISCID.
22 March, 23:55. I respond to Arthur Rubin’s comments by noting that I have neither added nor removed material, and am happy to have my contributions scrutinised.
22 March, 23:55. I respond to 151.151.21.104 by denying that I engaged in a personal attack, by reminding him of the five reasons I gave that this user was disruptive, and indicating that I hope his edits will be constructive in the future.
23 March, 03:52. FeloniousMonk blocks me for 48 hours for “walking in the footsteps of Asmodeus and DrL,” and for “personal attacks and disruption.” He claimed to be happy to explain this further, but never did.

Note that in the above sequence I did not make any edits whatsoever to the entry on Langan.

I apologise for not providing links to all the diffs, but unfortunately I do not have the time to do the cut-and-paste at the moment. I believe that this exhaustive timeline makes the situation at this entry, and the events leading to my block, very clear. The difference between the amount and quality of argument offered by one “side,” and the lack of argument from the other “side,” is stark. This is, to me, evidence of a systematic problem with the editing of this entry. I thank you again for the unblock and for taking the time to review the situation. FNMF 00:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]