User talk:Ptarmigander

Welcome

Hello, Ptarmigander, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your activities

Hello, you appear to be an WP:SPA with a narrow focus on one subject, and your contributions to date suggest that reading WP:NOTFORUM would be in order. Also, please refrain from making evidence-free accusations, as you did at Talk:Deepak Chopra. I believe you are wrong about the accusation, and in any case no action can be taken against an editor who is not currently active. Manul 22:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Manul I am not a single purpose account. I am a relatively new and very busy elsewhere account. I am certainly not wrong. And I did not ask that any action be taken against SAS81 / Askahrc unless he returns. I favor rewriting the Chopra page in view of past indiscretions -which are plenty easy to prove. Ptarmigander (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the outing and unsupported allegations. If you do that again, I will request that you be blocked. I implore you to enable email -- if you do, you will understand why your actions are extremely detrimental to Wikipedia being able to handle the problem effectively. Admins already know about the problem, which is not quite the problem you think it is. Manul 01:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Manul OK I have enabled email. You say I will understand and that the problem is not what I think etc. - I may not be aware of other Wikipedia issues that you are hinting at but I am certain about the facts that I do know and they are shocking and go far beyond what I have currently discussed. If Wikipedia is dealing with this as you say it is. pls enlighten me as promised so I adjust my activities accordingly. Thanks in advance Ptarmigander (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to make it public at Talk:Deepak Chopra. Remember, that talk page is only for discussing improvements to the article. As I said in my post there, my only reason for making the post is to address the lasting effect on the article. Please try to avoid WP:FORUM-like commenting, especially on that talk page. Manul 06:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I haven't checked my email yet, though it is the next thing on my list. The wiki culture has this strange thing of not "outing" trolls, something that I was very surprised about. It was not my intention to encourage this either, but I had thought that from Pt's statements on the Chopra Talk, legitimate information was in the wiki public domain - it doesn't appear to be, so be careful. I've known one of the main players for years, and anywhere he turns up, his behaviour has always been exclusively disruptive. I'm off to check email. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 07:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Above I asked you to refrain from making accusations without evidence, but you went ahead and did it again. This is your final warning. Please remove the evidence-free claim at Talk:Deepak Chopra that SAS81=Askahrc. File a new SPI if you are so convinced -- that is the only proper way to handle sockpuppeteers. However I would urge you to review the new SPI first. It's an exact match with Tumbleman's previous sockpuppeting activities. Don't just react; take a deep breath and carefully examine the evidence. It's okay to be mistaken.

The things you said on the Chopra talk page may be attributed to SAS81 and Askahrc being separate persons working together, which we already know to be the case. Sharing of the SAS81 account can also explain whatever it is you believe you are seeing. See for example how obfuscatory and evasive SAS81 is here. Whatever he's saying, it looks close to account sharing. That kind of rambling is also classic Tumbleman. Manul 11:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.. Manul you were correct about Tumbleman and SAS81 and I appreciate and admire your diligence and how you speedily rose to the task. I was aware Tumbleman was a founder of Ishar but I was focusing more on the Cap'n who is also an employee of ISHAR. The Cap'n it turns out is a "researcher and an archivist" too. Imagine that.

As to whether there was any activity by the Cap'n on the SAS81 account along with Tumbleman that has not been determined. Clearly Tumbleman and the Cap'n have been involved with the organizing of ISHAR. And they both equally claim ISHAR is an entirely neutral and non biased library at service to Wikipedia. And it appears it is going ahead with the Cap'n at the helm.Ptarmigander (talk) 16:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why haven't you removed the false accusations? These are being cited as evidence that people don't know what they're talking about. Manul 20:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Cap'n and Tumbleman have been working together for a long time. The Cap'n is at the helm of ISHAR. ISHAR is an anti Wikipedia initiative masquerading as pro Wikipedia. It is a trojan horse.

It seems to me that you would not have known about SAS81 and Tumbleman at ISHAR if I had not pointed out the situation at the Chopra page. At least you took no action about Tumbleman until I did point it out. I knew about Tumbleman's involvement since last summer -and suspected it all along.

Because SAS81 has been inactive I was waiting for SAS81 to return. Same with the Cap'n. He did not announce his involvement with ISHAR and Tumbleman until the SAS81 debacle was exposed.

I only brought this to the Chopra page because I felt that SAS81's activities- having been deceitful and in violation of Wikipedia policy warranted a review and reworking of the Chopra page -which was brought to a consensus in many areas by way of that deceit.

Wikipedians and admins will have to continue to keep an eye on ISHAR and watch out for continued socking and meat-puppeting and canvassing and since ISHAR is an extension of Tumbleman (it is his and the Cap'n's baby..) and since Tumbleman/SAS81 is an indefinitely blocked editor I feel their representatives and the people canvassed, organized and coordinated on their website with the aim of flooding alternative med and pseudoscience ideas into Wikipedia.. should at the least be limited to talk pages. And even that.. if the Cap'n ever gets ISHAR off the ground and working as intended.. is likely to be a huge time waster for sincere honest editors Ptarmigander (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, as I said admins knew about the problem, and have known for months. They are currently reviewing issues surrounding the other user, including but not limited to WP:MEAT and WP:PROXYING. Your activities haven't been helpful; in fact they have been damaging for the reasons I have already explained. Manul 19:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad the administrators are reviewing the further implications of the situation. And I am glad they have known for a while. It was pretty obvious and I am surprised other editors did not catch on. If you knew about it perhaps you should have done something about it sooner.. in particular when the socking activity was actively going on. I have been discussing SAS81 and ISHAR problems at project skepticism for a while. Ptarmigander (talk) 00:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That can be found at this location and also this location. Ptarmigander (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

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 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.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Manul 11:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Discretionary Sanctions Notice.

"This message is to notify you sanctions are authorized for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarize yourself with the discretionary sanctions system."

I am not editing this topic. So this notice is not accurate. I have worked up a number of suggestions for other editors in this topic. But I am currently waiting till I have more time and more experience in other topics and areas to proceed. PS Authorize (authorise) and Familiarize (familiarise) are miss-spelled in the template. Ptarmigander (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please Cease WP:ASPERSIONS

This is getting out of hand, Ptarmigander. I've tried to break this down politely on my Talk Page, but you're consistently misrepresenting me, my employment, my activity and my ethics across WP. At this point you are casting WP:ASPERSIONS. Please refrain from this behavior.

You have accused me of WP:CANVASSING, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:ATTACK, WP:DISHONEST, WP:MEATPUPPET and on/off-WP fraud, ‘’all without any diffs or actual evidence.’’ You have characterized any and all "model Wikipedia behavior" as a cynical and deceitful attempt to trick the entirety of WP, and have been pushing for preemptive disciplinary action based on your belief that the more closely we align with WP policies, the greater our threat. This is a prime example of WP:ASPERSIONS and is not appropriate.
You keep bringing up the warning I received nearly a year ago as if it was related to ISHAR, when it had nothing to do with it nor did I even have any connection to ISHAR at that time. You also aren't mentioning that the "time-wasting" I was warned for was due to an accusation that was repeatedly leveled against me, and that every set of admins since then have consistently dismissed.
Your editing is highly parsed and biased, such as quoting "...we will not compromise..." while leaving out that ‘’’what we are refusing to compromise on are adherence to Wikipedia policies and academic integrity.
All of your "evidence" that ISHAR is a threat to WP is made up of ISHAR's own statements upholding WP ideals & policies, and people who have endorsed ISHAR who hope to find content in it that will resolve issues they have with WP articles. The only statements that have any hint of contentiousness come from someone who is no longer employed by ISHAR and whose statements have been publicly declared non-representative of ISHAR.

You seem to believe that ISHAR and I are committing some malfeasance on Wikipedia. If that's the case, you are ethically obligated to take me to WP:AE. If you don't feel your case has enough weight for an AE, then please stop casting aspersions. I don’t want to take you to AE myself, but this kind of behavior is inappropriate. The Cap'n (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was happy to correct the missing quote to your approval Cap and I do not think it changes the obvious difference between your assertions on Wikipedia and the countless off Wikipedia statements by people connected to ISHAR that are unhappy that their favorite psychic energy businesses are not represented as they would like.

As far as malfeasance on Wikipedia... as I keep saying the proof is in the pudding. If ISHAR ever debuts and gets active.. and then interacts with Wikipedia or organizes or canvasses to change fringe and pseudoscience articles on Wikipedia that might be the time to go to AE -if there is a real problem. I hope there is not.

I have said before I hope for the highest and most productive outcome.

But sure, I feel ISHAR has a bad start. An embarrassing start. I knew all along that SAS81 was full of bilge water. And unfortunately I have come to believe much the same about you. Because you tow the same line as he did. And it is rife with the same contradictions.

And you never exposed him as you could have. So your loyalties are with ISHAR more than they are with Wikipedia.

And your disclosure which you tout as proper behavior was not placed on your page until SAS81 was exposed.

And you have not made any formal apology to the Wikipedia community. Which would be a proper thing to do. You already have had some opportunities. And there always is your user page. Although now I think it is a bit too late for total sincerity.. but it probably would not hurt to try.

For sure it would be better than saying Tumbleman/SAS81 "is no longer employed by ISHAR and his statements have been publicly declared non-representative of ISHAR" and then going right on to sound like an exact echo of of what he was saying before. The logical conclusion from that is that nothing has really changed. Ptarmigander (talk) 00:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

I told you that admins are evaluating the matter, and this is still the case (they are slow). If you want the problem handled effectively, you need to stop this commotion. Let admins do their job. Please stop.

The more you aggravate Askahrc, the harder it will be for Wikipedia to deal with the issue. Your behavior has already been used to smear others on the Chopra page, and this will happen again. You are generating evidence that will be cited as "harassment". You are derailing efforts to deal with the situation at the Chopra article. Please stop. Wait for admins to handle it. Please. Manul 17:40, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate your advice as I am a fairly new account applying myself to reading the manual of style and studying Wikipedia policies. I spend a lot of time reading articles and especially talk pages. They offer good working lessons. I have extensive notes on some topics that when I am educated enough I hope to be able to contribute to them and others effectively.

Studying the "spirituality" of Deepak Chopra has directed me to branch out toward numerous other pages. And not all of them pseudoscience and fringe topics.

And much as I respect good advice.. I will say that your e-mails to me are far more threatening and emotionally tipped than this message above. I think the e-mails particularly feel like a form of unwelcome harassment.

You have accused me of causing the "smearing" of other editors. Of derailing Wikipedia. And you have accused me of being a Chopra representative in secret. You are bossy and demanding. And now you will probably say once again I am smearing you and undermining your case against ... whomever.

I feel that Administrators will deal with the ISHAR issue effectively. Particularly if Askahrc or ISHAR organized and/or inspired users become an active problem.

I also feel that good editors will be able to deal with an influx of shoddy pseudo-science studies formatted for Wikipedia should such an influx ever transpire. Although clearly if editors have to deal with much of that it will be a big waste of time.

I figure this is what is behind the ISHAR initiative. It was originally created as a way to strike back over perceived "militant skeptic" slights against fringe topics on Wikipedia. So the result will likely be trying to inflict back. Wasting the community's time would be at least a partial victory.

I am quite aware that repeated harping on an issue can seem like harassment. And I have.. in part.. taken your advice to heart. I suggest you, "Manul" become aware of this too. At least in regards to my e-mail. Sincerely Ptarmigander (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]