Jump to content

User talk:ජපස

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tarage (talk | contribs) at 06:44, 6 April 2018 (→‎Arbcom case: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please comment at Talk:Baraminology

I'm proposing at Talk:Baraminology to recreate an article that had been turned into a redirect at your suggestion. I'd like to not act without consensus, so I would appreciate your commenting there. --Captain Occam (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome...

I was concerned WP had lost you, but happy to see some relatively recent activity on your TP. Hope all is well. Atsme📞📧 21:17, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP only loses previous usernames of mine. Actually, I think things are going pretty well, if a bit quiet. I completed a clean-up of Aquatic ape hypothesis not too long ago. Would love to get your input. jps (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent article, J - I didn't go through the drill of checking references as normally would occur in a GA or FA review - I just wanted to enjoy the read. 🤓I've always been drawn to the water - lakes and ocean - and have an unwavering fascination for ancestral fishes. The article stirred memories of my earlier research as a documentary filmmaker. Science has made some incredible advances since then, yet there is still so much we don't know about our own [1] diversity. Atsme📞📧 02:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to read this response. You know, those who are angry at the clean-up think that it does an injustice to the idea (which is definitely a fringe theory). The concern was that the article is skewed against the hypothesis. But your response makes me think that people who are coming to the article without knowing about it are not seeing that claimed bias. jps (talk) 12:23, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coherent catastrophism

I am notifying everyone who took part in the first AfD about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coherent catastrophism (2nd nomination). Doug Weller talk 12:06, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/MystifiedCitizen. jps (talk) 12:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Gary Renard shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Softlavender (talk) 02:50, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS (talkcontribs)

Advice

Hello, 9SGjOSfyHJaQVsEmy9NS. I have closed the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#Accusations of canvassing in which you have started. Would it be possible for you to phrase your notice in a more neutral fashion in the future? In the meanwhile, I will take a look at the current AfD discussion to see if I can/cannot determine a consensus. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 02:07, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a fundamental disagreement about NPOV here at Wikipedia. The claim that users can be "neutral" is somewhat precious. It is, actually, presumptuous. Neutrality in article space is gained through careful research and dispassionate reporting. But every user at Wikipedia has an editorial opinion and it would be dishonest for anyone of them to hide it. So, I reject the notion that "NPOV" applies to notices. What I will say, though, is that it makes sense not to personalize messages. I should have, on reflection, separated the two issues. jps (talk) 07:34, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Alex Shih: I wanted to commend you for following WP:ADMINBESTPRACTICE. It is highly appreciated. If we can start a conversation about my concerns, I would be appreciative, but even if we don't, simply the fact that you came here for a discussion is something I'm happy to see. jps (talk) 12:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I understand the notion of what you are suggesting, but that's another story as they are "two issues", like you mentioned. If you would like to share your concerns with me, I'll be happy to contribute my opinion. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 14:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling is that WP:CANVAS is poorly written, especially when it comes to the idea of "campaigning". Trying to influence other people is our goal. The problem with "canvassing" on Wikipedia is that consensus is left up to those who show up. So if you preferentially choose users to notify on the basis of your knowledge of their pre-determined opinions, you end up with a skewed result. But the notice itself should not be an issue. To say otherwise is to give short shrift to the intellectual faculties of the users at this website. jps (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in...

User:MjolnirPants/Drafts/Savannah hypothesis. Feel free to edit away, and to invite others to do so, as well. I have done one thing "funny" there that I'm hoping will catch on; I've inserted all the references in a hidden <div></div> container under the references heading, because it makes the text of the article so much easier to read without being broken up every few sentences by three lines of {{cite}} script. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:36, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

It doesn't look like you've been notified by the nominator (groupsucle), so you may want to check out Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GMO_conspiracy_theories. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clever name, but....

...it's hard enough trying to remember IP user names. I don't know any people who can remember a long string of letters and numbers, much less an unfamiliar trio of symbols - hell it's all I can do to remember my phone number and address. Hopefully there's a simple word somewhere underneath ජපස for us symbol-impaired users to easily recall if they need to ping you...or is that what you're trying to avoid? Atsme📞📧 21:09, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Softlavender (talk) 22:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abd posting slanders about you

There is a banned Wikipedia user and coldfusion advocate Abd who has been posting your personal details, Wikipedia history and dox on internet forums and also his personal blog. I will not link to this forum or his blog but Abd is a known pseudoscience promoter [2] with a notorious online history. He is currently on Wikiversity where he defends and works with the banned sock-puppeteer Ben Steigmann. As this guy has been slandering you in various places I was just giving you a heads up. He is currently doing the same to me so I know how it feels. He also likes to stalk peoples families and post deliberate slanders about them. He is banned on Wikipedia but Wikiversity still hosts his pseudoscientific content, he wrote most of their cold fusion article. 117.20.41.9 (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abd's new slander about you post. Can you help get this guy banned from Wikiversity? He defames skeptical Wikipedia editors on his blog, he writes slanders, falsehoods and misinformation, he is banned from Wikipedia yet Wikiversity hosts his nonsense. 117.20.41.9 (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. There are people with better connections who watch this use talkpage than I who can maybe deal with some of the Wikiversity stuff. I try to steer clear of that website when possible. jps (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Abd has removed the slander about you on his personal website because I complained, but the stuff he posted on two forums still remains. He has now changed his original post about you and turns it into a hit-piece against me. His original post about you is very different to his now deceptive live version. How now claims I have 'harassed' him and that it is 'libel' to archive his original website posts. Indeed, he has entirely spun this round to try and hide his old blog post.
He now tries to make out I am the bad guy for signing up to Wikipedia and informing you about his article. He even promote a wacky conspiracy theory I am responsible for his Rationalwiki article (I'm not). He accuses me of being a paid Wikipedia Guerrilla Skeptic, a banned Wikipedia user (someone called AP), and an admitted schizophrenic (all these claims are false). I show this to you as an interesting case study. In no place in his new post does he apologize to writing slander about you. With his old article entirely changed, anyone now visiting his website will instead think I have been harassing him and yourself. This is serious deception and misinformation from abd. This is just another example for me of why irrational people cannot be trusted. I will not be further responding here but I hope you see this is the sort of deception I have to put with from abd.
He also claims it is 'illegal' to archive his blog posts and I will get in trouble for this. He was banned on Wikipedia for this sort of behaviour, and as to this present day he defends the banned sock-puppeteer and pseudoscience promoter Ben Steigmann and claims I have 'attacked' this user. Unfortunately he is still active on meta-wiki and has a whole slanderous 'project' about skeptical users over there. He claims he is emailing you and that I am the guilty party. He no doubt will write 2000 words to you about how he is innocent. Hopefully you can see through this guys deception. I have not harassed anyone. I archived his blog post so I could warn people about his harassment. The reason I took interest in this is because he slanders skeptics like myself on his website every week. I was interested in his other targets and I thought I was doing the right thing in informing you about it. Take care. 64.120.56.10 (talk) 15:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your transparency in posting to my talkpage. The entire thing is rather tiresome to me. Abd has sent me two e-mails telling me that he wants to take down his attacks of me. He has also said that we are friends, though I have no idea who you are.
Whatever allows for things to settle down is fine for me. It may be a good idea to get arbcomm involved. In fact, I think I'll ping Drmies to see if he has any thoughts on this matter.
jps (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DENY would be best. There is no reason to talk about off-wiki things that cannot be controlled here. Johnuniq (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have much. I don't understand these people; I wish they took up fishing. They were outed themselves a few times, so I would think they'd know what a shitty thing that is: you don't mix up people's private lives with Wikipedia editing. What does it take, Ajraddatz and RadiX, to get a global ban for someone who has been indefinitely banned on en-Wikipedia and is obviously harassing a current editor, albeit in an off-wiki forum? Drmies (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The last time nonsense like this came up, there was some serious talk about shutting down Wikiversity. I think they came within a hair's width of doing so. jps (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of note: [3] jps (talk) 01:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A community global ban would require Abd to be indef blocked on two wikis or more, which isn't the case. If there is significant off-wiki harassment occurring, you could forward the case to the Wikimedia Foundation's Support and Safety team (email ca[at]wikimedia.org), and they might be able to take some action. If Abd is willing to take down the posts in question, then it might be best to pursue that route. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Sorry for the late reply. Ajraddatz has just explained exactly what should be done in this case and how it should be done as well. :) RadiX 02:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks RadiX, Ajraddatz--I appreciate the explanation. Drmies (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As there are admins present on the page here, I wanted to ask for help. Abd who has been blocked on Wikipedia is still active on wikimedia where he indulges in a very strange stalking project here of supposed "skeptical users" [4]. This project or study of his was originally on Wikiversity. It included real life names of people but he was warned for doxing and outing several users by an admin over there, so he removed the real life names. He then ported the study to meta.wikimedia. Abd has a strong grudge against a banned sock-puppet known as "Anglo_Pyramidologist" (AP). He then incorrectly links this user's socks to another user Michael Skater (active in 2017). This user appeared to have some kind of vendetta against Abd and spoofed his username. He is now linking me to this person. He has incorrectly linked several peoples accounts/socks together and then claims it all the same person. He now has a section on my recent IPs here [5], and he keeps requesting for them to be globally locked. I am seriously concerned about this 'project'. It contains serious misinformation and slander.
As another user who appears to have been blocked pointed out, Abd is not a check-user, nor admin, but seems to have put together four separate check-user results from different time spans going back years. He then claims all these accounts belong to the same person, a skeptic he blames for attacking his friend Ben Steigmann. But there is no solid evidence for this. A comment from another user claims there is more than one person involved [6]
The talk-page has been locked so I cannot comment, but it appears another blocked user has also complained about the material that is there [7]. Abd has also edited this persons comments so this is deceptive. The real underling cause of this 'project' seems to be to defend Ben Steigmann. Indeed at the bottom of the 'project', Abd claims that Ben has only socked "relatively harmlessly" and he is has been the victim of skeptic harassment. He even recommends Ben request an unblock in the future. Abd's entire case study seems to be an absolute mess and mind-wreck and I am now featured in it. How do I get his inaccurate study removed? He is logging in everyday writing more and more words on this study. I cannot work it out. This user has been blocked from Wikipedia but he is now active to defame anyone he likes on Wikimedia. I have not seen any other 'studies' like this, and Abd is now linking to this study on his website. As far as I can see no other user has ever done anything like this on Wikimedia yet no admins have paid attention to what Abd is writing. He has separate pages here [8], which appears more than obsessional. Is it in meta.wikimedia's interest that this guy is hosting grudges against people? I mean can I turn up there, create an account and write about 10,000 words about him? The answer would be no, So why he is doing it about other users? This is not the objective of Wikimedia or any other Wiki. I really do not understand what is happening here. Should I write an email to the Wikimedia foundation to complain about this? How can this inaccurate study be taken down? 23.105.134.162 (talk) 08:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it Rationalwiki is not part of Wikimedia, but this is interesting [9], Abd was banned over there for "repeated doxxing as well as harassment, now attacking rationalwiki users on his personal blog". He seems to have a history of attacking skeptical users and is now using Wikimedia as a place to do this. 23.105.134.162 (talk) 08:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to compose an e-mail to Support and Safety team (email ca[at]wikimedia.org)? If you want to draft it here, and I agree with it, I'm willing to send it too. jps (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice, unfortunately no admin seems to have looked into Abd's recent activities. I am in the process of writing an email and making an official complaint about Abd's abuse and harassment. This issue is now very serious. Abd is following this discussion [10] so he is aware about what has been written here. In his recent post he says I have admitted to "being the LTA Anglo Pyramidologist" on your user talk-page. Read above when did I say that? I am not that person and strictly denied it above. As you can see Abd is involved in serious deception, he is not a trustworthy source, his agenda seems to be wanting to attack skeptical users or IP/s he has a grudge against and he will lie about them if he needs to. He has a long history of being banned on forums and Wikis on the internet for harassing people, he is now using Wikimedia to do this. As I said above I do not believe it is in Wikimedia's interest to be hosting his personal grudges. There is something very unethical about his study. Abd has since removed the slander about you on his blog but replaced it with something else entirely, which is confusing to say the least, but his posts attacking you on the thunderbolts forum and elsewhere still remain.
I understand this issue does not involve you any longer so I will not bother with you with it anymore. As Abd is following this like a hawk, I will cease commenting here. I will email the support and safety team in privacy and hopefully they can take action. Thanks again for your help. 193.70.12.231 (talk) 23:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, ජපස. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SPI

I wanted you to know I did not outright dismiss your claim about BabbaQ. At the moment, however, I just could not say with absolute confidence that he was socking. For clarity's sake, I will further compare both editing histories and you may ping me with any additional evidence. My word certainly is not final on the matter and I would not be surprised if someone else disagrees with me.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. Wikipedia is this weird place where people will say, "If you have suspicions, SPI is thataway!" and then when you're at SPI they'll say, "This is mean, it perpetuates battleground!". I am not a serial SPI filer, but suspicions are suspicions and coincidences coincide. The best I can do is document, pass on what I can, and let the cards fall where they may. If I'm wrong, that's perfectly okay with me! Thanks for your thoughts. The more heads the better. jps (talk) 02:07, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HNY

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for 2018, —PaleoNeonate22:22, 29 December 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Wikiversity

As someone who, once in a while, thinks the best defense is a good offense, I was wondering what you might think of getting wikiversity material on fringe science, parapsychology, occult, and all that started. Admittedly some of it like astrology and alchemy and maybe some of the bad current pseudohistory also relates to the history of those fields, and that might make it more difficult, but you mentioned on a noticeboard how categories make it easier for students to find related material and a wikibook or wikiversity unit covering the same thing might have at least some advantages over our shorter articles here for students. John Carter (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC) John Carter (talk) 20:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the trouble right now with Wikiversity is a personality issue -- which is to say the community is too small and there are entrenched interests there who are opposed to a mainstream treatment of the subjects you outline. What likely needs to happen first is a dislodging of the problematic accounts from positions of power. This is slowly happening, I think, but it isn't yet at the point where we can have the free reign required to do good work (there is a lot of stuff that probably just needs to be totally removed from the site). jps (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Regarding your edit summary in your edit in the page WP:EVENT, per WP:PA, "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor". Thanks. Thinker78 (talk) 04:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I'm sorry, but I cant resist. Given the edsum in question, and the above user. QED. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 06:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's ridiculous, Thinker78. (The user isn't exactly a newbie, Roxy the dog. New-ish, maybe.) Bishonen | talk 13:55, 21 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

March 2018

Information icon I noticed that a message you recently left to 192.160.216.52 may have been unduly harsh. Please remember not to bite the newcomers. If you see others making a common mistake, consider politely pointing out what they did wrong and showing them how to correct it. It takes more time, but it helps us retain new editors. In future, read the talk page first. It should be clear the IP user had already been told. And now it looks like you are being accusatory, and the IP user is taking offence. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The IP user, however, is clearly not a "newcomer". I don't mind having a back-and-forth and assume those who can dish it out will be able to take it. jps (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not great with these template things, what I mean is don't bite people in general, i.e if someone has already been told about something, telling them again is not needed, and if you really have to a short note in the original section would be better. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that's true. But, sadly, I've found that heat does tend to bring these matters to the fore. Wikipedia should have a better discussion system in place for this, but, alas, we don't. jps (talk) 16:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I am here, can I ask why you changed your username ten times and ended up with three foreign characters that won't render in any program I have on my computer? You only edit on the English Wikipedia, so you should really have an English username. Prince of Thieves (talk) 16:37, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is the $64,000 question :D —SerialNumber54129...speculates 16:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are some hints in some of the discussions above, but the full reason needs to be kept private, I'm afraid. E-mail me if you really need to satiate your curiosity. jps (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so the reason for changing your username was for privacy, despite the fact all your previous identities are clearly noted on your user-subpage. But why did you end up with ජපස and not literally anything using the latin alphabet? Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can see on the list that I used to use the latin/arabic numeral alphabet. The change came about as a collaborative effort between myself and some bureaucrats apprised of the situation (which is, indeed, an odd combination of a need for privacy and a desire to remain transparent). Security through obscurity is sometimes much maligned, but I have found some measure of success with its implementation. And that's just about as far as I'm willing to go on-wiki about this subject. jps (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Security through obscurity is good, also very hard finding your pages :D No worries, if there wasn't a good reason I would have suggested another change, but that's fine I guess. Prince of Thieves (talk) 17:23, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ah righto. Prince of Thieves (talk)
  • I need to remind both of you that we have a rule against opposition research; we never say we will find out a user's identity, we never even ask, we never take steps to discover it, and we never discuss it on wiki --this applies even to checkusers like myself. DGG ( talk ) 22:01, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Fringe Theories Noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The topic is "Ian Stevenson revisited." --O Govinda (talk) 05:03, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert on Ark Encounter

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let someone else revert you as I have better things to do. You are currently at WP:3RR but as you have already ignored the discretionary sanctions the block will probably arrive anyway. TheVicarsCat (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HarperCollins Dictionary of Religion

I added the HarperCollins definition of faith healing to its talk page in this edit, as you requested at WP:RX, and have marked the resource request {{done}} so that it can be archived. The dictionary entry ends with "See also healing; medicine and religion." The first is a couple paragraphs, the second is two pages.

The discussion on the talk page is long and complicated; I don't want to try to evaluate whether there's anything in the additional entries that might be relevant. The dictionary will be on my desk for a week or so, and you're welcome to email me if you'd like scans of the additional entries. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:46, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! This actually helps quite a bit. jps (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

You've had the DS alert, your rhetoric has not toned down in any meaningful way, you're now topic banned from the ark encounter article. I won't extend this further than that one article at this point, but it remains an option and other admins may choose to do so independently. Guy (Help!) 14:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG: Not that it matters so much, since it looks like jps is about to be blocked upon request, but it doesn't look like he's edited at all since the topic ban proposal was closed with no action? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, you were involved in the discussion on the Ark Encounter(looking at the time stamps). Are you not an involved admin.? Perhaps another admin should make this call. jps will assure you that I am no friend of his but he deserves fairness and I'm not sure this sanction, because you are an involved admin, is.(Littleolive oil (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]
This is not controversial. If you are aware of jps' history, he has been sanctioned many times, including directly by ArbCom. I have little doubt that if he walks away form this account, he'll be back with another soon. I share jps' POV in most things. I'm not in dispute with him at all. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very aware of jps's history. I'm not protesting the sanction, whether right or wrong; I'm protesting who made it. You were involved. I won't discuss this further; just a note on my part and concern.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2018 (UTC))[reply]
I'm still curious where this came from. There was an ANI about jps's behavior at the Ark Encounter page. A topic ban was proposed. There was no consensus for it. A block was proposed. There was no consensus for it. Then it closed, jps makes no further edits to the page and in fact asks Bish for a self-req block, and then he's topic banned? There may be more to the story here, but it seems like if there was going to be a topic ban, it should've been from the topic ban discussion at ANI, not afterwards when there's been no additional edits. I don't intend to pursue this further, but I think some context is warranted. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom case

I am sorry it's come to this, but Swarm forced my hand before even letting me post on the existing arbcom case so... [11] --Tarage (talk) 06:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]