User talk:Random account 47/Archive3

ID Straw Poll

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design/Marshills_NPOV_objections#Strawpoll You may be interested in voting in this :) Trilemma 02:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are still banned. If you are interested in voting, please indicate so here. I'd be happy to do the honours.

The poll refers to a new editor complaining about the 'blatant POV' in the ID article. His first edit was to place a POV-boiler at the top of the article, and he, like you, is threatening legal action. -- Ec5618 02:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Ec5618. I would like to vote that the "Article does not meet WP:NPOV"

If I can add to that, as some of the others there did, I would say "I do not think the neutrality of each individual sentence is that much of a problem rather that, overall, through selective omissions, misinterpretation, and naive essay-style argument the article is POV. The bias is instead spread throughout the article. For example, phrases like 'Intelligent design reduces to creationism,' conflating 'irreducible complexity' and 'specified complexity,' using admitted advocates of Atheism such as Richard Dawkins as authoritative sources on philosophy (Dawkins is a biologist), confusing the reader with claims of "critics say" and then writing as if their claims and/or perspective were true, saying scientists view it as neocreationist which is a characterization of the concept, not a study of the scientific aspects of the concept, shifting the definition of ID to be able to add criticisms, and other things like that. Many of my complaints, these and others I have made, do not really fit into charges of "POV", but I will vote here to express my dissatisfaction. Any bias I see seems to be manifested out of ignorance, writing style, and structure of the article. It seems that the writing is a sort of "attributed editorializing," which occurs so often that it is difficult to understand the concept. There is also an extremely hostile and antagonistic environment on the discussion pages with respect to critics who, even recently, have been labelled "Christian soldiers" and frequently told they are part of a conspiracy and have a Christian and political agenda, even by administrators on the page. Ironically, charges of an "Atheist agenda" by critics are met with threats of blocks, RFC's, and bans for personal attacks from the administrators."--Ben 04:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Are there specific omissions that you find troubling? If you could list them, we could address them.

If you find IC and SC being conflated in the article, could you suggest delicate edits to the article so it can be more correct?

As for shifting the definitions of ID, you'll have to admit that the definitions given by ID websites and organisations are far from uniform. Some specifically state that evolution is impossible, for example, while others merely state that given the obvious marks of design we must assume we were in fact designed, without dismissing evolution.

And as for Talk page etiquette, I agree that a lot of heated debate has been going on. Perhaps individual editors should try to post only well thought out and unambiguous comments. -- Ec5618 09:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

When it comes to omissions nothing really specific. It is mainly things here and there and the writing style. This article would basically not be understood by someone new to the concept because of the "omissive" writing style. IC and SC are mentioned at the start but absolutely no attempt is made to explain them. The teleological argument is not mentioned until the "origins of the concept section" but the fundamental part of the entire argument is the teleological argument. If you want an example of omission, there was one that I changed which was the opening line in the Who's who section. The first sentence previously simply read "By Intelligent design's own reasoning, a complex designer..." I changed it to say "According to critics, by Intelligent..." The writer is writing as if he/she has access to some information which is not presented in the article: "Intelligent design's own reasoning." When asked about it on the talk page, so far no one has ever responded and explained just what "Intelligent design's own reasoning" is, let alone provide a citation. This is probably because "Intelligent Design" can't "reason" (that's called personification). You have to be talking about someone who is doing the reasoning or something specific like a book or paper, etc. While I'm on that, a concept can't "argue" either (which is in the introduction). This is poor writing and, to me at least, gives me an idea that the writers are approaching this from a "flamewar" type of article instead of an objective definition and observation. The "opponent" is a kind of Intelligent design entity which argues and asserts and reasons and things like that. There is a lot of personification of the concept in the article which is confusing, and which is compounded exponentially considering the shifting definitions, even those outside the encyclopedia. Which Intelligent design's "own reasoning" is being discussed?

I do admit the definitions from websites and such are far from uniform. Considering that IC and SC are both very different approaches to "proving" a teleological argument†, that should be expected. Just because the ends are trying to prove the same thing doesn't mean the means in which they do it are the same. What the article should be is a description of the underlying concepts which are common to all the arguments. This seems to be common sense to me. There are obviously underlying concepts which all the arguments have in common. So if some state that evolution is impossible that doesn't mean the concept is one or the other, it means that it is an offshoot of the underlying concept. The underlying concept is not IC or SC, those are the arguments for the concept. The basic idea they have in common is that the teleological argument can be proven with scientific empirical evidence. That evidence can be gathered through IC or SC or fine-tuned universe, etc. So the different definitions provided by proponents is a moot point. The job of the encyclopedia writer is to find out what they all have in common, and then to describe what they have in common and elaborate on the different approaches and different views. If the answer to what they have in common is "not much" then they obviously need separate articles. Just because something has the same name as something else does not mean it is the same thing (Though I think that they do have some basic things in common, so I'm not suggesting this.)

When it comes to the talk page, the hypocrisy there is beginning to boggle my mind. I noticed in Marshill's poll you have KillerChihuahua strongly chastising Marshill for suggesting that there is an Atheistic bias to the article, and telling him to stop making "personal attacks" and things like that, while just a couple posts above you have Alienus saying "...it looks like all the people claiming [that the article is not] NPOV are religious advocates, so I see their disapproval as an indication that we're doing our jobs right." When another user suggests Alienus read the article, KillerChihuahua, who must have seen that comment about "religious advocates," apparently doesn't care and simply chastises the other user for saying he thinks someone is policing the article and leaves Alienus alone. Just like the "Onward Christian soldiers" comment by JPotter I saw pretty much right after KC had finished saying "...refrain from disruptive behavior, including spurious conjecture about other editor's religious beliefs." --Ben 22:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Without commenting on your other statements, though I have read them, and agree with parts, I feel that calling editors who oppose ID, and by extension everything they do, atheistic is rather useless and possibly pejorative. Calling ID advocates religious advocates seems useless but correct. The 'onward christian soldiers' comment, to me, was a general call to action, though I understand that you could feel it was pejorative and over the line. No offense, but if you had acted a bit more carefully you would have had credibility left, and you could have told him off himself. You were banned for comments much worse, so please don't try to claim moral high ground. -- Ec5618 12:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you implying all critics of the article are ID advocates? I'm not, I think it is stupid. As for saying the "onward Christian soldiers" is "a general call to action????" you almost made me throw up. For fuck's sakes I know you aren't that naive. That spin gives me nausea.--Ben 00:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

†(and of course, many of the editors going on about "consensus" often use irreducible complexity and specified complexity interchangeably, suggesting to me that they do not understand the differences in the concepts. Irreducible complexity is "observed" when removing a part of a system renders the system non-functional, the argument being that the part could not have arisen naturally. Specified complexity is "observed" based on a mathematical measurement, the argument being that one can measure the "specified complexity" mathematically and compare it to other measurements, regardless of whether removing a part of system renders it non-functional or not (regardless of the concept of irreducible complexity)). --Ben 00:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

IC, in a strict sense, is all around us. A house of cards is IC, a lightbulb is IC. Obviously, any two objects that lend support to eachother are IC, so IC does occur in nature.

SC is less intuitive, so I can understand that some editors don't care to learn what it refers to. Considering the maths of SC has been widely criticised, I don't think it is useful for people to try to understand what he was talking about. -- Ec5618 12:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

"I don't think it is useful for people to try to understand what he was talking about."

Wow. You wanted an example of "omission?" There it is. You're saying you'd rather not explain it and just post up the criticisms??.. that's like. .. ugh never mind.--Ben 00:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

---

Tee hee, I like how people are saying Marshill is out dishonestly campaigning for the poll. Yes, I'm sure NONE of that went on and people like Rasmus, siafu, Alienus, Plumbago, Cyberdenizen whom I've never seen before on the talk pages just "happend" to realize there was an obscure poll in some out of the way place. Obviously FM et al use back channels like IRC to talk about Wikipedia issues and none of their campaigning shows up on the talk pages. I think they just don't see it as "campaigning" when they tell people who haven't been involved on the ID talk page for months, and some I can't find any reference to ever having been involved on the talk page, about the poll. They probably talk on IRC having "lols" about "Christian soldiers" and someone like FM or Dunc or someone mentions the poll. How is that different? It ain't. Or, maybe you say that that's not how it happend? Ok, then these people have an extremely high-traffic discussion page on their watch list perhaps? They never contribute but just happend to all check it at the exact right time? Is there an RFC for the poll on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Religion_and_philosophy? No. Is it even listed at Wikipedia:Current surveys? No. Is it listed on any of the ID-related pages, Talk:Irreducible complexity or Talk:Specified complexity or Talk:Teleological argument perhaps? No. In other words, the only possible way these people could have known without someone telling them was if they watched and read the page every single day. The hypocrisy blows my fucking mind.--Ben 01:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I know for a fact that Alienus and Plumbago have contributed to this page, and related pages, so it isn't improbable that they have the Article (and thus the Talk page) on their watchlist, and have become involved through their own actions. You are jumping to conclusions, and appear to be congratulating yourself for it. Tee hee indeed. -- Ec5618 12:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with "campaigning" really. I just think this is more hypocrisy intended to antagonize critics. Cyberdenizen? Rasmus? Siafu? And did you miss the point that these people who haven't participated in months on the ID page or even related pages just happen to randomly check it on the day? Ah whatever. I could be wrong. I know there are "back channels" and I know stuff like this goes on. E-mail maybe? Heck, the public part of #wikipedia on IRC often has people talking about another user and telling everyone to go to an article to go look at things. People who are really "into" Wikipedia just don't bother using the talk pages when they want to talk to their friends. But hey, I could be wrong. I just thought the coincidences were far too great to imply that zero "campaigning" has gone in to get people to vote that the article is perfect the way it is.--Ben 00:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hell, I'm thinking of starting an RFC against KillerChihuahua. She's still going nuts with the whole "you saying the article has an atheist slant or that people have an atheist agenda is attacking a person's religion and I can ban you for that!!! I will block you!!" This is amidst people saying "onward Christian soldiers" and probably at least 10 accusations of Marshill and others having an agenda. She is making the most hypocritical, one-sided, frivolous accusations I think I've ever witnessed, and obviously are intended to harass and bully people. She's going way to far. I mean, Guettarda is bad too, but KC has taken it to the next level. What's she going to do? Just claim she "didn't notice????" the whole Christian soldiers crap? Or is she going to try to argue that one-sided application of her "stop attacking people's religions" "rule" only applies to the people she disagrees with?--Ben 01:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Marshill has been asked repeatedly to stop using the term atheist in this way, by several editors. He now states that anyone that feels offended should leave, and this article is too much for them. Alternatively, he could have stopped, and could have suggested that the article is slanted, and suggested that it feels anti-ID. Anti-ID does noet mean it is atheistic, and stricktly speaking, most toilets are atheistic. What's his point? -- Ec5618 12:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you ask him? Or if you want, read what I wrote directly below what you just said. I'm 99% sure Marshill would agree with what I said. Here, let me write it again for you. It is only a single sentence, so maybe if I write it again you will actually read it:

For anyone that cares, when someone says the article has an "atheistic slant" it means the article reads as if it is advocating against theism and/or for atheism.

As for him being repeatedly asked to "stop using atheism this way," that's a little hard because he isn't using atheism the way you think he is, you guys are just out to get him. I agree if you feel offended you should leave, because obviously people who are so offended by someone saying an article has an "atheistic slant" that they want to ban and block and make threats to that person are batshit fucking crazy. If someone wrote on a page "An argument goes that if an Intelligent designer exists, then why do bad things happen? The answer is, an Intelligent designer doesn't exist. This is a general critique for the existence of an Intelligent designer, as bad things in fact do happen, but Intelligent designer is thought to be a nice guy." and you tried to get it removed and noone would remove it, what would be the simplest way you could describe your problem with it? Say crap like this was spread throughout the article? Then what'd be the simplest way... sigh. This makes me tired.--Ben 00:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

---

For anyone that cares, when someone says the article has an "atheistic slant" it means the article reads as if it is advocating against theism and/or for atheism. Basically that it is being used as a platform for advocating atheism. I saw some ridiculous comments on the talk page from Bill Jeffreys, I'll let them speak for themselves:

ID may not be "officially" theistic, but Marshill's calling objections to the article "atheistic" seems to imply that it is actually theistic. I'm not sure why he uses this sort of language, since it undermines the "official" position. The only other reason I can guess is that he means to use "atheistic" as a perjorative, applying to anyone that disagrees with his position, including theists such as Guettarda and myself. I find this profoundly insulting. Bill Jefferys 00:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

What the fuck?--Ben 01:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems perfectly logical to me, Marshill claims the article is POV, claiming that the article is atheistic. And how is I got nothing but a huge atheist rebuttal to ID not pejorative. ID is not religious, officially, yet criticism can be dismissed because it is atheist? It seems he is saying that he can ignore certain people, because he perceives them as being atheist. Surely that is insulting to anyone. -- Ec5618 12:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, then you are not paying attention and, just like Jeffreys, are searching for something to "get" Marshill with. Marshill's explained many times what he means. It's blindingly obvious to me that in this case Jeffreys is spinning up a strawman. The point of strawmen is to be internally logically consistent, that may be why it "seems perfectly logical to you." If Jeffreys really thinks that Marshill thinks the article needs to be more theistic he is either an idiot and hasn't been paying any attention to what Marshill is saying or he's spinning up a strawman.--Ben 00:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't much like your tone. I have replied civilly to you, and all you have done is spew bile. Don't do that. I will explain my comments, after which I would like an apology.

In my frame of reference, 'onward christian soldiers' has never had any specific connotations. I have never heard the phrase to mean anything negative or offensive, and have always seen it as a cute way to edge people on. Onward .. Charge .. Arriba arriba .. So forgive if I am that naive, but when I initially read the comment I didn't see anything wrong with it, and didn't respond.

Yes you are that naive. A Google search for "onward christian soldiers" "intelligent design" yields the following as the first result:

Christian Terrorism: The War on Science Onward Christian Soldiers: The Holy War on Science. Note that the page is even called secondcrusade.html. I bet even JPotter himself would have more respect than you have for me and say that that is what he meant. If you don't "get the joke" you are indeed extremely naive.

Here are some more things for you to look at so you can experience the whole "Christian soldier" thing in situ [1]. These are comments from one of the most popular sites on the Internet. Look through for references to "Christian soldiers."

And really, I don't think naiveté is the issue here. Like I said before, it seems perfectly obvious what JPotter was implying. Even if this is your first encounter with any joke about "Christian soldiers", I find it strange, indeed disturbing, that you just didn't "get it" especially given the context provided by Kernow.

As for the rest of your comments, I will get to them soon. --Ben 01:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

When I said "I don't think it is useful for people to try to understand what he was talking about." I was refering to the editors. I can understand that not all editors have taken the trouble to figure out what SC means, specifically, and I feel that editors needn't be experts to be able to expertly edit an article. Please don't imply I am in favour of omitting important facts from the article.

Well, forgive me if I thought that is what you were saying when you said you don't like it is useful to understand SC. I agree that editors don't need to be experts, but if you are writing an informative article, at least someone has to understand the concepts involved. If the editors can't write a comprehensive article that they understand, the readers are definitely not going to understand it either.--Ben 22:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I do see something wrong with campaigning sneakily, as candid and open discussion should be the norm. I have never had the impression that other editors were collaborately working on editing the article via IRC, though. Somehow, you seem to be suggesting that people are campaigning, and that it is your duty to report this activity, yet you claim not to oppose campaigning. I'm not sure I understand.

I was trying to point out the hypocrisy, because I'm guessing that the people praising the article were also campaigning. I don't oppose campaigning for practical reasons. I don't think it is possible to stop people from campaigning--indeed I think it will make it worse since there is no way to prevent campaigning through "back-channels" like e-mail, IRC, etc. Ironically, it would then be the people openly campaigning (on talk pages here) who will have the rules enforced on them. I embrace it because there is no way to stop campaigning from occuring in the back-channels, and barring it on Wikipedia will actually encourage campaigning in back-channels instead of a more honest and open campaign on the talk pages. --Ben 22:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I have asked Mashill what his point was, but he hasn't responded with a clear answer. He has reiterated his opinion, and has again stated that the article is atheist. Surely he understands by now that, to get his point accross, he should rephrase his arguments. There is no excuse for repeating it.

He has tried to respond with a clear answer. I think he's done so to the best of his abilities. I don't see a problem with suggesting that the article seems to be tilted towards an Atheistic pov. Note too that he said the article is "Atheistic." Here is the definition if you have a problem with it:

atheistic: related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings"

That the article leans towards "rejecting any belief in God." You may disagree with that, but acting/being offended is a response which makes me think you should, as Marshill said, consider not participating. I say this because people who, once it has been explained to them, are still offended are rejecting that opinion as insult instead of honest observation on Marshill's part. It is inappropriate to, in a way, "throw sand in Marshill's eyes" instead of either explaining why you disagree or at least accepting that your view is different and not taking it personally.--Ben 22:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The impression I get from Marshill seems more in line with Bill Jefferys' impression than with yours. That doesn't mean we are both out to 'get him', nor that we are spinning up a 'strawman'. Please assume good faith. I am sure Marshill is honorable, but he is going about his objections in the wrong way. He could have edited the article, and I have suggested to him that he do, because actual editing is much more productive, and much more likely to earn one respect than simply complaining, and complaining vaguely at that. He could have made any of the recent edits, and could have subsequently called attention to a larger problem. Instead, he chose to rush in, and complain, and expect other editors to heed his warnings (and do all the actual heavy lifting).

It is difficult to assume good faith at this point. Bill Jeffreys is either spinning a strawman conciously, or doing so as a result of self-delusion based on some sort of confirmation bias. That's my opinion. Regarding editing, it has been explained ad nauseum why editing a single sentence is not going to cut it and yet you and others keep bringing that up. Either accept this as a valid argument, or counter the argument. You can't simply make the same point. The point has been addressed: the bias is systemic, not specific. If you disagree that the point has been addressed, or wish to counter argument, approach it that way. Don't simply weasel around implying Marshill and others have nothing to contribute.--Ben 22:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

There you have it. Thanks for being a sport. -- Ec5618 00:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I still don't like your tone, nor your suggestion that I might have trouble with the definition of atheism. I know what atheism is, thank you.

Not all frames of reference include the specific text your google search yielded, and indeed, mine doesn't. Thank you for repeatedly explaining to me just how naive I am.

As for pointing out the hypocrisy, you may not be the right person to do that. You have very little credibility, and could easily be accused of the same thing.

Atheism. The complaint is actually that the article on ID doesn't glorify god?

As for editing (which has been discussed ad nauseam, in your view), can you see that it is very difficult to take any editor seriously, when all we know of him is that he 1) claims to be impartial 2) clearly isn't impartial 3) claims to see POV 4) fails to fix said POV, but merely wants to discredit the entire article 5) has been disruptive on other pages 6) is rash and abbrasive 7) that he has not made a single edit to the article, to show that he is willing to work on it, or that he knows what he's talking about. I mean, come on. Obviously, especially on articles such as this, editors need to prove themselves in some way; we cannot be expected to react credulously every time another random 'editor' (isn't everyone an editor?) drops by and starts complaining.

".. Marshill and others have nothing to contribute." ? Please show me some evidence of a contribution of his, other than his general complaining and his insistance on a POV boiler -- Ec5618 11:30, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. From my view, your reply indicates to me that you apparently do not understand any of my points, indeed it seems like you are missing some or even most of them on purpose. For example, you ask "The complaint is actually that the article on ID doesn't glorify god?" when that is precisely what I was calling a strawman before, indicating not only that have you not investigated my point, but that you have missed it altogether. One last time: An objective and neutral article should neither reject nor affirm (or as you put it, "glorify") the existence of God. Marshill believes that the tone of the article leans towards rejecting the existence of God. A further example is your insistence that one should assume an editor has nothing to contribute until they edit the article, which is entirely dismissive of any insight they may provide on the discussion page and, to me, is clearly showing bad faith. When it comes to the Christian soldiers comment, I regret having to explain your naiveté (or ignorance) to you, yet I find this is the most accurate description of your interpretation. So while I thank you for your time, I regret we are at an impasse and I cannot find a way to meaningfully participate in our discussion at this time. --Ben 21:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Ben, have you noticed how many times you have accused people of failing to get your point. Could it be that the point isn't clearly articulated? Could it be that they got it and rejected it? It seems to me that you take this a bit too personally, and vent your spleen on any who dare defy your POV. A number of us, including myself have been on the receiving end of your bile, some get upset, others dismiss it as puerile ranting and raving. In any case, you really don't help your case by behaving in the manner in which you do. You may actually have good points to make, but they are lost in the venom. As for EC's "Onward Christian Soldiers" comment, it was tongue-in-cheek sarcasm, based on the song (my request "OK, perhaps you can give one of us a lesson in statistics" was also sarcasm). In posting the rules you posted last night on the main discussion board I hope that you are indicating that there will be a change in your modus operandi -- Kommt Zeit, kommt Rat. Jim62sch 12:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Could it be that they are inexperienced? Could it be that they are ignorant? Could it be that they would rather spin in an attempt to make themselves and their friends/gang/cult look innocent of purposefully insulting people? Subconciously, driven by fear? Conciously, driven by aggression and an intent to hurt people? Could it be they would rather fuck with people than listen to them? Could it be that they don't even bother to read what people say?

As for your interpretation of "Onward Christian soldiers" I'd say your equivocation "buh it was just sarcasm, don't worry about it" leads me to believe that particular comment falls under category 5. You can count the sentences yourself. --Ben 20:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and thanks for congratulating me on posting the rules. Of course, your idiotic post before that "Oh, have you read the three links to which you referred? Jim62sch 00:37, 27 December 2005 (UTC)" trying to say I don't know the rules and trying to attack my post that said the discussion didn't follow the rules betrays any claim to sincerity that you have. --Ben 20:11, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

You've been warned, RFC'd and blocked for making personal attacks. This comment [2] crossed the line again. Limit your comments to the content, not the contributor. I'm sure you don't want a repeat of two weeks ago. FeloniousMonk 02:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The contributor is lying and he's trying to make me look bad. He's saying he understood something that he quite clearly did not understand at all, and is clearly doing so to turn it around and make me look like I am being disruptive. This is a frivolous complaint and a personal attack against me. If it is improper for me to defend myself in the way I did, by pointing out that he is lying when he said "Ben, I understood your point and, as I said, I don't need help with stats, thanks" please let me know how I should make it known that he is not telling the truth. Is it improper to say someone is lying or misdirecting or being dishonest, even when they clearly are? --Ben 02:23, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I've found Jimsch62 to be one the better informed, more reasonable contributors. You, on the other hand have a history of nastiness. Who would you give more credence?

This final comment of yours [3] was unecessary and unwarranted, violated WP:NPA again, and did so after you being warned. Less than a week after a 7 day block for NPA violations and you're back to your old stunts. FeloniousMonk 02:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

The issue is not who gets credence. You're a logical man. You figure out. Read what Jim62sch said. Read what I said. [4] It is plain as day. He said he understood what I was talking about, yet what he said to me right before that was:

OK, perhaps you can give one of us a lesson in statistics. I doubt it, but give it a try.

Note (again) that the figures were sourced. You do the math. Were it not for your history, I might give your argument some credence, but I cannot. Jim62sch 00:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Here are my two responses:

First of all, declining (or being unable to) sign a petition does not count as an endorsement of the opposing view. So, it's out just on that count. For a poll to be valid you have to ask a Yes/No question and include all responses from the sample. You have no way to know what the sample size is, and so you have no way to know what the margin of error is (and it is likely huge in this case). You've basically selected your samples rather than polled a given sample. This is called selection bias. If that still doesn't convince you, I don't have time but I'll come back later tonight or tomorrow and explain some more. --Ben 02:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

There was no response to this explanation. So I had to ask for his response, since he was posting other places (11 posts) but by not replying to my post he was holding up the discussion.

Hey Jim you still haven't replied to what I said above (02:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)). I need to know if you understand what I'm saying or not, and whether you find it convincing, that way I know whether to bother finding some help to show you that the statistics are biased and shouldn't be included (I've already asked for some help on Talk:Statistics, but that page isn't as active as this one, so any reply might be a while.). If you understand and are convinced, great. We'll take it out. If you do not understand and/or are not convinced, let me know. This is especially important because there's already people citing the 0.3% number (for example Parallel or Together? cites the 0.3% right on this talk page to support his point), and as the statistic is in error, the paragraph is spreading disinformation.--Ben 00:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

His response?

Ben, I understood your point and, as I said, I don't need help with stats, thanks. In any case, I also think PoT? has a good point. Instead on having an endless circular debate, let's try to find a source we can use. Jim62sch 01:34, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I can only conclude either he was holding up the discussion on purpose and understood after I explained it to him or, even worse, understood the whole time, or, what I believe, which is that he lied and didn't understand until someone else said I had a point. This I find is indicated due to him saying "I don't need help with stats" when he specifically asked for help with stats. Either way he is lying or he was purposefully obstructing discussion this whole time.

Did he mean he "understood" after I told him the first time? And then didn't reply? Or did he understand all along? Or did he NOT understand and is trying to pretend he did to make me look like I was causing a problem?--Ben 03:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Ben, see my other responses on the main discussion page, and on this page. You also need to work on your definition of lying, the meaning and use of sarcasm, and on the faulty syllogisms you use to draw your inferences and conclusions. In fact, had you understood the sarcasm, much of this could have been avoided. Jim62sch 13:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems you still have not told me when you "understood." Because that's what you said, you know. You said you "understood." You can even read what you said above. All nicely laid out. That's what I want to know, and I've told you why, and that's what you've avoided telling me. You can insult me all you want, but the fact that you refuse to answer such a simple question leads me to believe that I've got you caught. I'm asking for the point in time you claim to have "understood" my point and you won't give it. You've been caught being an asshole Jim. Admit it and move on. I'm not going to kick you off Wikipedia for it, I just want you to own up to it. My reputation is constantly under attack and your lies and sarcasm were obviously meant to damage my reputation by suggesting that I didn't know what I was talking about, and suggesting I was disrupting the discussion. Was I disrupting it with lies and insults when I explained why that statistic was in error? Or was that you when you insulted my reasoning with your sarcasm? When you were adamant it was simply a matter of math? When, I after explained it and asked if you understood after that, you had no response? And when I asked for one you said you understood what I meant all along? Or when you tried to change the subject from the 0.3% to the word "overwhelming?" You treated me like a piece of shit Jim and you did it on purpose. Own up to it.--Ben 19:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Intelligent design

Regarding Talk:Intelligent design#How the Stuff was Created, your comment seems quite right to me and I'm happy to remove my contributions under that heading if that's your preference. ....dave souza 23:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

It's up to you (and I guess the other participants in the discussion). When making your decision, consider that the talk page is already really long and also that the discourse might be read by some as pejorative and discriminatory. --Ben 00:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Block

Ben, you've been temporarily blocked from editing for disruption in the form of personal attacks, after calling another user an "asshole" and saying he had lied to you. Please stop addressing your fellow editors in this way. If you feel this block is unwarranted, you're welcome to e-mail me about it using the link on my user page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes I did call him an asshole. I believe this is true. He called me smug, arrogant, illiterate, stubborn, ignorant, and other sarcastic, pejorative, condescending comments towards me. He believes they are true (of course, I'm not illiterate, that's false so that was obviously just an insult towards me). So which is worse? The swearing, or the attack? Ah, the real thing that is worse: Arguing against the status quo. Right? Does he have a warning from you on his page?

And didja see that part on the talk page where he tried to attack my reasons for saying a discussion should be elsewhere? Where he pretended I didn't know what the rules are? Was he warned about an obvious attack on my credibility? Where RoyBoy, in an apparent moment of complete insanity, pretended that my comment about the rules was trying to "burn people out," right after Jim62sch attacked me? Was he trying to drown me in a sea of irony?

Well, I'm sure your answer will be: Those guys are not my problem, you're my problem. And that, funnily enough, is the problem.--Ben 20:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

And please post the block on the incident notice board. I'd like to have a better record of your block than just something in the block log. --Ben 20:32, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh and yes I did call him a liar, because he is a liar. It is disturbing that other people can't follow a couple sentences to come to this blindingly obvious conclusion. He "understood" what I was saying? Two possibilities that I can think of: He lied and didn't understand shit and just pretended to understand to make me look bad, or he understood the whole time and was just toying with me--to make me look bad. That doesn't count as a personal attack to you? That then he denied and denied and denied it? Maybe if he had used a "bad word" while he was doing it...--Ben 21:00, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Ben, the arbcom has made clear that the alleged truth of a personal attack is no defense. As Fred Bauder put it, if you call someone stupid, we don't perform an IQ test to see whether you were right. It's a personal attack, period, and a violation of policy. [personal attacks and threats removed]. I did leave a note on Jim's page, though his behavior is different in kind from yours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not believe that in this case calling Jim a liar falls under WP:NPA. I made the accusation in good faith in order to prove that I was being personally attacked, which should be clear from everything I have said. Unlike calling someone stupid, it can be analyzed logically as true or false and is objectively provable beyond a reasonable doubt. You cite the precedent "Personal attacks are not excused or justified by offers of demonstration of their truth," yet you have not shown that when I said Jim was lying falls under the description provided in WP:NPA in the first place. Perhaps I should have said he "was lying," characterizing the content of his attack rather than he "is a liar," characterizing Jim himself yet that description seems to be ok to me, as it is in context and based solely on the content.

Limiting my defense to personal attacks by denying me the opportunity and ability to demonstrate that I have been personally attacked is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia.--Ben 00:42, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Accusing someone of lying is not "objectively provable." You may tell someone they have got something wrong, or have misunderstood, but to say they're lying is to claim they're doing it intentionally, and you're not psychic. [personal attacks and threats removed] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Please see perjury with regards to your first statement. I have also removed your personal attacks calling me uncivil. Remember, "the alleged truth of a personal attack is no defense." This is my first warning: Calling me uncivil is a personal attack. Please do not do it again. --Ben 02:03, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Offer of Advocacy

If your still looking for advocacy for the Arbcom just leave me a message in talk. --Chazz88 16:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Striking out comments on Talk:Intelligent design

Guettarda please let me know what I've done wrong and why you are reverting [5][6][7]. Those are the rules, and people should follow them. I don't get it.--Ben 05:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

You're simply misusing the rules to harass others. Do not alter the talk page comments of others. If you continue to disrupt the page and harass others, you will again be blocked. FeloniousMonk 05:47, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not agree with your assessment of my actions. Please review WP:FAITH. I only wanted to keep the talk page clear of chatter and partisan comments as per the talk page guidelines (WP:TPG). I now see that striking out comments is extremely offensive to some people, even when it is not their comments, and is serious enough that at least 4 administrators need to attend to it. I now realize this a very serious thing I have done and I will not strike out comments anymore. Even if the comments are against Wikipedia guidelines or policies (that are not being enforced or even noted by the same administrators). --Ben 06:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

A ghost's concern

Ben, I asked you to bring your concerns regarding ID and it's presentation to our respective chats. Please understand, I disagree with some of the editors that you've clashed with in the past, but I'm primary concerned with what appears to be a growing flame war on the chat. While I disagree with some of your positions, I respect your right to have and voice them. But the manner in which you're doing so is clearly disruptive. I'd like to help you cool things down.

First, may I suggest a Wikibreak. Say for a day or so. I'd be glad to take one at the same time to establish good will. Let me know when to begin if you like. There's nothing the folks'll do that we can't unwind in 5 minutes. During that time, you're more than welcome to reach me via email or via Talk if you prefer.

Second, I've noticed you tend to take things very personally on the ID page. And this tends to make your sebsequent posting more emotional. This is bad. For you, for us and for the article. Believe me, I've been worked up about a WikiWar in my time, and it's not worth the negative impact on one's personal life.

I want help you come back to the effort with you empowered to put some emotional distance between you, the topic and some of the other editors. When we write with fire in our hearts, that fire carries thru to the page. But it can quickly turn to venom without us meaning it too. And that detracts from the project.

Finally, if you're not here to help the project (and I think you are), then I'd ask you to move on. There's good people here doing good things. I happen to think you're one of them. I pray we can agree on that. Regards--ghost 04:31, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

First, take off your note to me on the ID talk page. It is disrupting the point I was making. The amount of times people have disrupted the point I've been making to make comments about ME is one of my major concerns. Please remove it. No one else needs to see it.--Ben 04:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. Now please return the gesture and deal with my concerns.--ghost 14:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Making a point?

By engaging in these recent changes are you trying to make a WP:POINT? --ScienceApologist 23:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

No no. If the consensus is that, for whatever reason, editors want to this article to be about the Discovery Institute's concept of Intelligent design, then it's simply a matter of making that clear to the reader. It's totally factual, there shouldn't be any problems. --Ben 23:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Jkelly 00:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack

Ben, I'm blocking you for disruption for 24 hours because of this post, [12] where you refer to another editor's comment as "bullshit" and ask him to stop being a "dick." I'm doing this under the blocking policy's section about "excessive personal attacks," because this is part of a pattern with you. If you feel the block is unwarranted, you're welcome to e-mail me using the link on my user page. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Ghost

Well, ghost, what do you think of all this? I am now on a "wikibreak" as you suggested. Actually, it's even two days now instead of one, because ThinAndAttractiveButNotSexuallyActive felt like throwing her weight around. --Ben 01:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this counts. A wikibreak ought to be voluntary. Difference between fasting and starving and all that. But why do you think that SV was motivated by a desire to throw her weight around? Regards, Ben Aveling 01:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Why do you want to know? Well, anyway, here it is: She could've blocked me for that yesterday if it was that important. Now that I've been blocked for something unrelated though, presto: time to pile on and get the most out of it! Search through the pages and look for something else to block Ben for! If you just think it's just a coincidence she upped my block 5 minutes after I was blocked for reverting the loonies policing the ID article then, well... you know where this is going. I'm known for my personal attacks OH NOES! --Ben 01:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If I had noticed it yesterday, I'd have blocked you for it yesterday. I intend to block you from now on for every personal attack you make and for any other form of disruption you cause. The blocks are likely to be longer each time. You've been warned many times over a number of weeks about your behavior. If you learn to speak to your fellow editors politely, it's unlikely you'll hear from me again, so the choice is yours. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 02:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That's great. I think the choice might end up being Jimbo's but we'll see.--Ben 02:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way (Aveling), I double dare you to go to Talk:Intelligent design and write:

What's wrong with saying "The Discovery Institute's concept of Intelligent design (ID) is defined as the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection." Something like my edit to the article [13].

Right now they are "discussing my edits" by agreeing with each other on the regular intro, nodding their heads saying "Very accurate" and "Yes, quite good" and "I am a puppy."

If you do, then you can take a wikibreak with me! That, or get covered in froth; or maybe be witness to, or the recipient of, various bits of character assination and conspiracy theories; or even driven insane by the absurd arguments they'll try to use to prevent you from even arguing it, let alone adding it. Remember, as FeloniousMonk said:

"...the canonical definition of intelligent design, which is the one offered by the Discovery Institute ("that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection")[4]. Since ID is wholly a product of the Discovery Institute, with every leading ID proponent is one of its Fellows and every campaign and strategy arising from its offices, defining ID as they do is necessary in the intro for any of the claims made in the article by Dembski, Behe or Johnson to make any sense. Any intro that ignores the canonical definition is deficient. FeloniousMonk 17:01, 5 November 2005 (UTC)"

But God help you (hah) if you try to say that in the article. For some reason that's a big no-no in FeloniousMonk's books (and his various buddies and sycophants). (I triple dare you to ask him what he means by canonical, and why he calls the DI definition that.)--Ben

Ooo and let's not forget his recent claim:

"As I explained to ghost on his talk page, the article defines the topic using the every words of not just the leading ID authorities, but the group from which ID originated and is still driven by, the Discovery Institute. It does this for the obvious reason that if they created the current concept of ID, then they are best suited to say what it is.

...

ID is what it's leading proponents say it is; if you have a problem with that, take it up with the Discovery Institute, not me. I only insist that we report the facts. FeloniousMonk 05:39, 4 January 2006 (UTC)"

It really makes you wonder why they don't want that line in there, doesn't it? --Ben 03:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

There are changes I'd like to make to that page. But life's too short. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Figured out the problem

I think I figured out the problem. It's hard to articulate, but basically I think I've figured out what FeloniousMonk's perspective is, and what my perspective is, and that they are very different (obviously). FeloniousMonk is approaching "Intelligent design" as if it literally were a scientific theory developed by the Discovery Institute (a pseudoscientific theory). When you approach it like that, you don't discuss philosophy and where Intelligent design fits into philosophy, you discuss the proponents of the theory and who came up with the theory. Much like, say, the theory of evolution. When evolution was first being written about, you'd have an article like this one. You'd use Darwin's definition, not a philosophical definition, because, well it's a scientific theory, not philosophy.

So, when writing an article about a scientific theory, this approach (including defining it the way it is currently defined in the article, the layout, what is discussed etc.) would be appropriate. The trouble is, Intelligent design is also quite philosophical. This causes problems on the page for people who approach it, perfectly reasonably, from a philosophical perspective. Like me, and many other editors. The trouble is, people have incorporated the philosophical aspects and arguments and critiques in an article which, from the perspective it is coming from (based on the definition, etc.), really has no place for them.

This makes editors quite angry because it seems as if people like FeloniousMonk are not admitting that there are philosophical arguments, perspectives, and positions that are related to "Intelligent design." FM's refusal to incorporate "The Discovery Institute's concept" in the intro and insisting that it not be incorporated is based on his approach, but when viewed from how one would approach a philosophical argument it looks to them like FM is intent on "over-writing" people's personal philosophical arguments and the myriad of different perspectives with the Discovery Institute's. That would make anyone angry. It's like saying to them "Free will is a concept developed by the Will Institute, and it is pseudoscientific crap," or more in line with the current article "Free will is pseudoscientific crap." That's why people say the article is "Atheistic." FM's refusal to identify where the definition is coming from also helps with accusations that he is trying to "over-write" the philosophical concepts, which is yet another reason. That's why people want to add in things about Theistic evolution, and rewrite the article and such, because they are approaching it from the philosophical angle, whereas FM and some others are approaching it from a political/pseudoscience angle. Kind of like it were a theory in a science journal, rather than anything at all to do with philosophy (where one can take a more ontological approach, since philosophy already has the particular reasoning and perspectives and such mapped out so to speak).

Both are valid approaches (though currently, the article is FM's approach and he seems to be fighting against the other, probably because he has not considered this other approach for one reason or another--which also promotes accusations he has an "Atheist" agenda), but the current article is from the pseudoscience angle (i.e. you have a theory which is being put forth by one person which you discuss), and the philosophical angle (i.e. philosophical arguments relating to the existence of design and God) is sort of shoved amidst it which makes it look biased--as it does not accurately and fully describe the philosophy involved and ignores where it fits--and confused, because the philosophy that is in there is based on a pseudoscientific definition. Something like that at least.--Ben 21:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Compare the two different approaches:

1.Intelligent design (ID) is the (Discovery Institute's) concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, as opposed to an unguided process such as natural selection."

2.Intelligent design, generally speaking, is a reference to theories, and the collection of theories, which are attempts to prove the teleological argument. The argument is based on the philosophical perspective of teleology which supposes that there is purpose in nature—an organizing principle or design. Design is usually said to be the work of a deity. The argument is that this design can be observed objectively.

Note even that my definition in #2 is somewhat pandering to the Discovery Institute's approach (saying "ID proponents argue this design can be observed objectively" is not necessarily true for everyone who would say they "believe in ID"), that's why I said "generally speaking," but I would be willing to hear arguments against it and work them in. Actually, I could probably add in something about Deism which would be (if I remember right) is that while Deism is a natural religion, and they believe in "intelligent design," they don't necessarily believe it can be observed objectively (well, maybe they kind of do) and empirically (and which they definitely do not).

crossposted to Talk:Intelligent design 20:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Ben, I think this attempt at putting yourself in another's shoes speaks greatly to your credit. Our challenge, based on your analysis, is to examine the appropriateness of Wikipedia's ID article focusing on ID as a scientific vs philosophical subject. While I appreciate your past examples of other usage of the term, I've come to the conclusion that we have a responsability to present the overwhelming usage. And, unfortuantely, that is the usage currently being defined in American political mudslinging. In time, I hope to see a more wholistic approach. Oh, and remember, my friend, "an ounce of forgiveness..."--ghost 15:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

---

Hi.. hmm, you have some pretty heavy-looking discussions going on here - well, here's one to lighten it a bit maybe. I noticed your edit comment about cadence braking being bad - well it is in many modern cars fitted with ABS. But in an older car without ABS, it's worth knowing. It has saved my butt at least twice. Graham 10:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for your vote

I saw that you voted against the adminship of William M Connolly. I reviewed said candidate's actions on the Cold Fusion article and determined them to indeed be very biased and uncivil. I haven't looked at WC's actions on the aetherometry article yet though. The vast support for WC is truly disturbing. I am a candidate for the arbitration council. William M Connolly is precisely the type of biased and uncivil person that I would fight against.

I request that you review my candidate statement and questions at: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/LawAndOrder , and consider voting for me, though only if you have suffrage for arbitration committee elections (registered before 9/30/2005, and have over 150 edits before 1/9/2006). The votes are vastly against me, so I will not win, but I have very few support votes, so voting for me will at least show that I (who is on your side) am less of a pariah. LawAndOrder 21:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I cast a neutral vote because you don't have experience in discussing things with people, so I can't evaluate your position and approach well enough. I strongly agree in principle, but I don't know how you would handle it. Have a look at WP:AMA, maybe you would consider joining them (cynical me however, thinks the AMA is pretty useless, I mean, Snowspinner a.k.a Phil Sandifier is even a member's advocate, and, further, the one time I requested help with my RfArb, the only response I got was more than a month after it was rejected). That might be a good way to find experience though.--Ben 02:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks

thanks, I will do so at once. KillerChihuahua^?!? 02:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

FYI

I have replied to your post on my talk page, but further trolling will be removed on sight. Dunc is an experienced Administrator who has made over 23 thousand edits to Wikipedia. You, in contrast, have made less than 2 thousand. Dunc is an administrator, with considerable experience. Your Rfc shows an ongoing pattern of personal attacks, ad hominem fallacies, edit warring, and generally disruptive behavior. I am far more likely to take Dunc's advice on being an admin, given his experience, than yours. Attempts to drag me into your personal vendetta against a seasoned contributor are ludicrous at best; attempts to lecture me on how to be an administrator are laughable. KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Duncharris called creationists "cretinists." Maybe you're right. I guess I haven't edited enough articles. Maybe I should read the Dehumanizing members of a religion deserves a slap on the wrist article. By the way, do not strike out my comments saying Jimbo said Dunc should be de-sysopped. Do not edit other peoples comments.. hahahahahahah!! Just kidding! I didn't actually think that the rules that apply to me apply to you too. :) --Ben 05:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine-tuning

Dear Ben,

my time is limited, but thanks for your message. Indeed, fine-tuning is the same fine-tuning that appears in fine-tuned universe, and fine-tuned universe is an apparent feature of the Universe that is connected with the anthropic principle, and anthropic principle has some vague similarities or relations with intelligent design. ;-) In reality, I would imagine that the term fine-tuning will stay technical because this is the form of the term that appears in technical jargon (it means adjusting the parameters of your theory to values that don't seem natural and/or with accuracy that seems high and unjustifiable in order for the theory to work), while fine-tuned universe could be more philosophical because this is the version of the term in which it is abused by creationists and others. ;-) Best, Lubos --Lumidek 15:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning

Your link addition to RFC has been removed by a number of admins. Please do not reinset it. If you think the removal is unjustified, discuss it on the talk page. Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. --Doc ^ask? 23:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for violation of 3RR for the reasons Doc glasgow described above. You are welcome to come back after your 24 hour block has ended. Thank you. WikiFanatic 00:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I reverted 3 times. Twice against FeloniousMonk and once against Doc Glasgow. I guess you just didn't want to investigate. [14] --Ben 04:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

RFC

Well, I guess the guy has a point. The page is plenty advertised already anyway. Radiant_>|< 23:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Mine wasn't. --Ben 04:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Bullying

Reading over it, my first suggestion would be not to send it. That's because you allege to a number of bad issues, but you don't substantiate anything. Jimbo probably can't do much with this, other than to tell everybody to "play nice". But note that we have extensive dispute resolution processes on the Wiki, and while they're far from perfect, they do tend to work out most of the time. So what I'd suggest is request comments on the people who (I assume) have been bullying you, and citing evidence on the matter. Radiant_>|< 00:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I asked if you could let me know if you knew somewhere else I could ask for signatures other than Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, which is where it was removed from for "not being an RFC" even though your "Admin accountability poll" got to stay. --Ben 04:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Six reverts in a two hour span, gratz

1. //en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Benapgar/Bullying&diff=35598556&oldid=35598063
2. //en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Benapgar/Bullying&diff=35601985&oldid=35598777
3. //en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Benapgar/Bullying&diff=35605333&oldid=35601985
4. //en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Benapgar/Bullying&diff=35607809&oldid=35606120
5. //en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Benapgar/Bullying&diff=35608448&oldid=35607809
6. //en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User:Benapgar/Bullying&diff=35610939&oldid=35608448

This doesn't help your credibility much. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 00:38, Jan. 18, 2006

No, it doesn't help his credibility, but it certainly is indicative of his behaviour since I first ran across him. Jim62sch 01:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

It's my userpage and you guys are trolling it. It's as simple as that.--Ben 04:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Anti-bullying petition

I am ok with your removal of my comments, however, any "anti-bullying" petition is going to have to specify some examples of the problem. Combating bullying happens in the trenches. zen master T 01:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Your petition

If you want examples without getting overly personal, you should probably look over WP:RFC/USER or its archive pages and find some active or recently closed RFCs that mention bullying. Just link to them as a semi-neutral example. Radiant_>|< 08:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked you for a week for this edit and because of your long history of personal attacks. --Duk 07:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The history FeloniousMonk provided you with, right? Good work, "detective." --Ben 04:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I am extending your block to one month. I'm tired of repeating myself. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 12:00, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

What a stupid reason. You haven't said a word to me for more than a month.--Ben 04:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Here's a nice template. Why don't you use nice templates?

Bullying

Please contact me, Ben. I can think of a number of ways that we can work together to improve you experience on the encyclopedia and, at the same time, improve the encyclopedia itself. Either respond on my talk page if you would prefer to talk in public, or respond via email (mine is enabled) if you would prefer to do so in private. Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I contacted you and you told me I was a problem and told me I had to change. Not surprisingly, you addressed absolutely none of my concerns.--Ben 04:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to change your behaviour. But if you want a different response from other people, changing your behaviour towards them might help. I know that sounds trite, and perhaps it is. I'm sure you'd like other people to respond differently, to see things your way a bit more often. But if they don't want to do that, then they don't want to do that. So you have to use a different tactic, a bit more give and take. I may be wrong, but I think it would help if you understood better why people disagree with you. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Look at my first edit on Intelligent design [15], read Talk:Intelligent_design#Court_decision_edit just like the person who reverted it asked, then read my next two edits [16], and [17]. Review my subsequent posts at Talk:Intelligent_design#Court_decision_edit and tell me just what I was doing wrong and what I should change. See my post at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive69#Being_harassed_on_Talk:Intelligent_design and tell me what I was doing wrong. What exactly, am I blocked for? And why would I do something like that? --Ben 08:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Bullying behaviour

Ironic this. I believe the potential for bullying is high, but I also believe that you haven't been bullied. - Ta bu shi da yu 16:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Outside View by Ben

Ta bu shi da yu's comments are useless and are not credible in the slightest. He is constantly disruptive, as evidenced by his recent RFC for disruption and pov-pushing and he has a long history of making personal attacks and abusing his authority [18]. An objective person will read Ta bu shi da yu's history and take his comments with a grain of salt. He needs to make some changes in his behavior before anyone takes him seriously. In the meantime, I find this comment interesting only for its humor value.

1. Support. Ben 21:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Seeking Help

I am preparing conduct RFC's against User:Commodore Sloat and User:Ryan Freisling. They have been harrassing me because I have resisted their attempts to push POV in several articles, including Plame Affair and Larry C. Johnson. They and their POV allies have just launched an unjustified attack RFC on my conduct.[19] I will eventually need someone to join me to certify both RFC's. Could you please review the situation. If you agree that their conduct is becoming a problem, could you weigh in on their talk pages or one of the article talk pages (a pre-requisite to certify a conduct RFC)? It would be appreciated. Thanks! --Mr j galt 00:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm blocked, so it doesn't matter. My short review indicates to me that csloat is a POV pusher and is trying to say Plame was a "covert agent" in an attempt to try to pre-convict anyone who has released her name under USC 50 S 426 in the court of public opinion. On the other hand, your edits seem to be an attempt to absolve anyone who released her name in the court of public opinion through omission of pertinent facts (changing "covert agent" to "officer" omits a very important fact that her employment was classified, which has been established in court). Additionally, you are dissembling on Larry Johnson's page and playing ad hominem games to attempt to smear him. That's stupid. In conclusion, csloat is a bigger pov-pusher than you are, and is acting as owner of the article. However, in my opinion, if you were in his place it seems likely you would do the same thing.--Ben 23:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Unblocking

May I enquire when the unblock was requested? Sceptre ^(Talk) 22:57, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

January 31st. --Ben 23:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing the unblock template because your 1 month block was not unjust at all. I suggest taking a wikibreak and returning when your block expires and try to control your temper more. SWD316 ^{talk to me} 03:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

And I'm putting it back up because I do not trust your judgement. --Ben 02:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, do as you please but that still doesn't get you unblocked. SWD316 ^{talk to me} 04:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)