User talk:60.242.13.87

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Point about JS

Point about Jonathan Sarfati, but I'm a bit worried, as they're all a bit... odd, and rather uncritical. Adam Cuerden talk 03:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

OK Adam, but then name any of his ideological opponents who have so much criticism on their page. For example, see the next section, where Quiddity has censored out the slightest critical link against the atheist Sam Harris. There should be the same standard for all. If the likes of Sam Harris are allowed to have articles free of criticism, then so should Jonathan Sarfati without repeated requests to remove the article. Especially as Sarfati is more highly qualified, a better selling author and a chess champion of his country.60.242.13.87 08:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the page Letter to a Christian Nation do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Quiddity 08:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This is nonsense. This link was a proper one by a well known Christian internet apologist. As the article stands, it violates NPOV since it is highly lacking in criticisms. So what specific rule did this link violate? 60.242.13.87 08:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Jonathan Sarfati

Behave yourself 60.242.13.87: Wikipedia:No personal attacks Josh Parris 02:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Some people are way too sensitive. It is a statement of fact that a number of users hostile to creation vandalized the article, then abused their power to ban their ideological opponents from editing.60.242.13.87 06:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Not that Adam would know real science if he tripped over it deal with the article, not the editors. Josh Parris 06:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Well Josh, deal with Adam who spouted forth on alleged pseudo-science, instead of dealing with the facts in the article in question.60.242.13.87 07:16, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Knock off the personal attacks. FeloniousMonk 05:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning: Jonathan Sarfati

Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel#Agapetos_angel_et_al._banned, you will be blocked from editing if you continue to edit Jonathan Sarfati. Oh, and knock off the personal attacks and disruption, too. FeloniousMonk 05:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

FM, people will be keeping their eye on you too, as an editor warned for his disruption but is now abusively banning people even for commenting on "Votes for deletion".60.242.13.87 01:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] JZ edits

Hi, I don't think a case can be made that JZ initiated or authorized the edits on support of torture. See my (moved) comment and documentation on Talk:Sarfati

You really are harsh on JZ; for instance here he removed material that FM had reinserted. There are other examples. The one negative example I can find is here.

Please don't shoot the messenger.

--Otheus 16:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good faith effort

I have made a good-faith effort to collect and collate evidence. I ask you to and AA to contribute to this page, gathering evidence like I have but do not make comments in bold like I have on the page. Please concentrate on places where I have left "HERE" comments, notably under the Sarfati article section and the Ken Ham section. Feel free also to contribute to the other articles that have not been touched. I think AiG is fairly complete, but if you have something significant to add, sign your additions in the AiG section.

Thanx for your help with this. That's a really good piece of work. 60.242.13.87 01:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Review the help page on diffs if you need help with that. Do not make personal attacks in this article. Be as factual as possible, as AA was in the many articles she edited for the Project:Australia pages.

And be descreet. Certain admins have been shown to be vindictive, cunning, and vengeful, and I would not want them casting their eyes on me. --Otheus 23:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll be careful, so thanks for the heads up. 60.242.13.87 01:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments moved from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel

That has nothing to do with ARBCOM as it is not an article (and NB no vote was made). This goes beyond the pale of overstepping authority.
This seems to be an excellent argument for stripping the warned edit-warrers of any blocking power over this article. 60.242.13.87 09:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

I've been watching you fan the flames, attack others and disrupt the project over the arbcomm ruling of User:Agapetos angel and the content of the Jonathan Sarfati article. I also note your geographically located in the same area as Agapetos angel and Sarfati.

Accordingly, per the arbcomm ruling - "Agapetos angel and User:Dennis Fuller, User:Phloxophilos, User:220.245.180.133, User:220.245.180.134, User:220.245.180.130, User:58.162.252.236, User:58.162.255.242 and User:58.162.251.204 are banned from editing of Jonathan Sarfati and associated articles. This list is not exclusive and the remedy applies to any user, registered or not, who engages in the same type of tendentious editing as has been done by Agapetos angel." - you will be blocked if you continue to walk in the footsteps of Agapetos angel. 23:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC) [Unsigned comment by Felonious Monk]

This amply proves the point raised about FM's abuse of power, and the unjustness of the arbcom ruling. I see he has now blocked 58 for a month for daring to criticise him. Yet he also violated the arbcom ruling against tendentious edits and hatchet jobs, by reinserting that absurd claim about torture.60.242.13.87 01:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from Talk:Jonathan Sarfati

I'm moving your personal attack to your user page; the article talk page is not the proper venue and was disruptive.

Official complaint OK, I hereby officially complain about FM and all the others warned about tendentious editing, and request that they are no longer allowed to ban editors on Sarfati-related articles. I also request that someone so involved on one side of the debate like JoshuaZ is not allowed to ban an opponent unless there is a clear Wikirule violation as opposed to merely for editing this article. I also propose that this one-sided ban is rescinded. (someone more familiar with the bureaucratic procedures can make this more official. Otheus?) 60.242.13.87 01:34, 14 March 2007 (UTC) Now since FM has escalated by banning 58 for a month, I also officially complain against this as an abuse of power. This follows on from the week's ban for merely commenting (not even voting) on the vote for deletion page, which is not an article under the rubric of the arbcom ruling, as unfair as this was. Any alleged lack of civility is understandable given the what s/he sees as the gross injustice of the one-sided ban, while Felonious Monk and Guettarda were officially warned against making this article a hatchet job but were not otherwise punished. And they have recently reinserted that "Sarfati supports torture" stuff, which is blatant original research in order to make a hatchet job. In any case, there is no way that it can be seen to be just for one of the warned editors to have such draconian powers over their opponents, and to threaten dissenters. I hereby ask that FM should be stripped of any power to administrate over this article. FM really has quite a nerve complaining about disruptiveness, when his banning of opponents and attempts to make hatchet jobs of articles are the real disruption. 60.242.13.87 01:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

A number of fellow admins I have discussed your activities agree that you are walking in the footsteps of Agapetos angel as prohibited by Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Agapetos_angel#Agapetos_angel_et_al._banned. You've already been warned before, and if you continue to make personal attacks, ignore the arbcomm ruling, or disrupt the article with tendentious edits and arguments you will be blocked from editing.

Ignoring the Arbcomm ruling? What about you, hypocrite:
Opposing editors warned
2) Duncharris, Guettarda, Jim62sch, and FeloniousMonk are reminded of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. They are instructed to seek dispute resolution rather than edit warring when involved with content disputes. The banning of Agapetos angel and her meat and sock puppets should not be interpreted as a license to make a hatchet job of the affected articles." 60.242.13.87 07:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

There are 1,693,583 other articles at Wikipedia which you can edit other than Jonathan Sarfati, I suggest you move along to one of them. FeloniousMonk 03:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course, more closing ranks, just as has been alleged. E.g. Durova, who once seemed to think that Agapetos Angel was a good enough editor to be awarded a Barnstar while some of her opponents were unfair, * is now more concerned about obsessing about who I might be and hiding behind the ArbComm ruling rather than what's right. FM is just a little man in power who can't take any criticism of his despotism, and can count on most admins to close ranks around him, right or wrong. I wonder whether Otheus will continue to defend Wiki against Vaknin, since he has been proven right about the nature of the admins. 60.242.13.87 07:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This was one of Durova's comments (italics added):
Given that my views on science are strongly opposed to those of User:Agapetos angel I'm disposed to be critical. That said, you have failed to establish the relevance of your investigation. Agapetos Angel has focused on the content of the articles and correctly raised relevant encyclopedic policies. The case for evolution is strong enough that there is no need to bend policy or conduct ad hominem attacks. What I saw at Talk:Jonathan Sarfati was a set of hostile editors who erected uniquely high standards of evidence regarding information that could be in Mr. Sarfati's favor. It would be rather unusual for someone to obtain a Ph.D. in chemistry without publishing a few peer reviewed papers, yet these editors insisted that every paper on his C.V. be double checked against relevant publications for authenticity and every journal's peer review practice receive independent verification. The only excuse for such extraordinary scrutiny is Mr. Sarfati's minority opinion on evolution. The publications themselves are nothing spectacular: a handful of routine studies in physical chemistry, unrelated to evolutionary theory, and more than a decade out of date. This is a near-great chess player who abandoned the beginnings of a career in science to become an author of general audience books. One of the hardest things to do is to take a procedural stand in support of something I disagree with, but I have to say that Agapetos Angel's editorial decisions are healthy and productive: if you want to develop a really good refutation of Mr. Sarfati and his beliefs, then solicit the best evidence in his favor from the editors best able to provide it. This man isn't much in the world of science. Durova 19:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] == Message for 60. ==

Please see [1]. --Otheus 18:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1 month block

This IP address has been blocked for 1 month per WP:SOCK for evasion of an active block.[2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Durova (talk • contribs) 04:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC).