User talk:Scibaby

This is what we call a "prima facie" definition. By definition, "nano" is equivalent to "on the order of 10^-9 meters." A committee can define it otherwise, but that does not make it so.

Definition of nanotechnology

I've noticed that you've changed the definition in the Nanotechnology article from 100 nm to 1um a number of times. I'm certain that the correct definition is 100nm as this is the size range given by the US National Nanotechnology Initiative [1], the UK Royal Society report on nanotechnology [2], and two of the three nanotechnology books on my bookshelf (Introduction to Nanotechnology by Poole and Owens, Societal Implications of Nanoscience and Nanotechnology ed. by Roco and Bainbridge). The EU Action Pan for Nanotechnolgy [3] and the third book (Introduction to Nanoscale Science and Technology ed. by Di Ventra, Evoy, and Heflin) simply mention nanometers without giving a range, and none of the sources I looked at specifically mentioned 1 micrometer. If you have any reliable source that does state that 1um is the upper limit for nanotechnology, we can make a note that there is disagreement about the definition in the article and list sources for both. Antony-22 19:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR on James Hansen

Hi Scibaby. Please refrain from repeatedely reintroducing the misleading and badly sourced information about Hansen's alleged support for "Global cooling" into his article. If you think this information is important, discuss for a suitable way to include it on the talk page. Please also be aware about the WP:3RR rule. Repeatedly reverting an article in short time may get you blocked.--Stephan Schulz 18:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

I believe you to be a sockpuppet of Obedium, and have blocked you indefinitely. Please complain here, or email me, if you believe this to be incorrect William M. Connolley 20:03, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apropos: My RFCU was rejected as "obvious per WP:DUCK". --Stephan Schulz 20:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:-). We were a bit slow off the mark here William M. Connolley 20:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet?

I have no idea if this account is a sock-user, but looking at your contributions they appear to be well-sourced, well-written and with an eye for detail. It seems that every new global warming skeptic account is accused by the same people and I suspect "confirmed" by people who don't realize how many people use certain ISPs - false positives are easy to find when dozens upon dozens of people are accused. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should read WP:SOCK then. The merit of their contributions are irrelevant. Grsz¹¹ 03:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this "scibaby" has been used as a boogeyman for 2 years now - and it apparently started when Connolley blocked/accused him for editing a (surprise) global warming related article he was edit warring with Connolley/Schulz over - and ever since then he seems to have been the "go to" guy when a global warming skeptic needs to get banned. You are welcome to look at his contribution history and see if that looks perma-bannable. I see you are still watching me Grsz1 - amazing how many people feel the need to watch my edits. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was permabanned not for his contribution under this account, but as the sockmaster of a large number of sock accounts used abusively. That said, this is a blatant lie, here it's turned into misleading OR, here he digs up an unreliable source in a BLP for the same issue, here is the same issue in even stronger language. Fact is that this misrepresents Hansen (who wrote a program simulating the scattering of light in the atmosphere of Venus, and nothing about terrestrial climate at that point), and Rasool/Schneider, whose paper is the source of this particular hubbub, but who did not predict global cooling but rather described the relative influence of aerosols (reusing Hansen's code and crediting him properly - that's his connection) and CO2, and made some conditional statements about possible future developments (i.e. not "it will be cooling", but "if we increase aerosols by a factor of 3, there might be significant cooling - note that shortly after that we began reducing particulate emissions). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hansen thing is a blatant lie? I don't think so. Perhaps he and others were mistaken, but there are news articles that confirm what he put into the encyclopedia. The way I see it he was either right or the source was wrong - I can't say either way, but when some people, and you know who, make global warming skeptics out to be believers in "Martians" I don't see such critical eyes to detail or BLP policy.

While that WaTi article tries to spin it, even that does not support the claim. It only claims "appears in a 1971 Washington Post article" and does not make any statements about Hansen's views.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting into a content dispute with you over this. The point was that you said it was a "blatant lie" and it obviously was not. I would not be surprised to find either position supported by evidence - just because you have a defense doesn't mean it is a valid one. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It obviously was, too. So there! Njanjanja! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, back to scibaby, I can only judge by the evidence I see. All the references to the sockmaster talk about this account as being the "sockmaster" and honestly I don't know either way, but I was curious to look up how it all started when I saw an account banned over a single edit (claimed to be "scibaby"), which, on its face, seemed patently ridiculous. So I ask, which account was the "sockmaster" and why don't you refer to that account? TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sockmaster is, per definition, the oldest account of a group of accounts misused by a single person. At that time, it was Scibaby, although much of the disruption was Obedium, and there have been and are plenty of others. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I can only judge by the evidence I've seen and it certainly doesn't seem like a lot. The way I see it a lot of global warming skeptics will come in bursts due to articles they've read on blogs and I think many of them may be getting falsely banned/flagged as socks. KDP said there were over 500 "socks" from this guy - extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof - the most likely thing is that most of these people were coming from blogs. In fact, I think this "scibaby scare" is CREATING sockmasters, I know if I was falsely banned from wikipedia (due to sockpuppetry accusations) then I'd have been tempted to learn how to hide my IP and go all out. TheGoodLocust (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be taken serious, you should try to find at least some information yourself - or at least avoid judgement if it is obvious that you have not seen a lot of the available evidence. The 500+ socks in Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Scibaby are confirmed via both CU evidence and behavior. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent> It is the "by behavior" part that I'm most concerned over - a single edit to ban a user should be unacceptable unless it is grossly inappropriate.Additionally, CU evidence is not very reliable and can give many false positives - confirmation bias is a terrible thing and censorship is even worse. TheGoodLocust (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I wrote "and" and mean "and", not "or". You should take up reliability of CU evidence with CUs, but so far I've not seen any evidence for a large number of false positives, either in this or other cases. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, that's why they are "false positives" - if you IP ban someone who doesn't know wikipolicy well then they are quite unlikely to argue their case. Hell, even if they were competent enough to do so they'd likely just say "fuck it" and move on. All I know is that when I first got to wikipedia I was accused of being a sockpuppet by some people who thought they WP:OWNed an article, they ran a checkuser on me, and saw that I had the same ISP as one of their myriad numbers of accused and "confirmed" socks - my ISP is quite large and has many many customers. This is why I'm very skeptical of "sock" claims - it just appears to be a good excuse to get rid of people so the merits of an argument aren't looked at. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:02, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't IP-ban ever. And we usually do not block IP-addresses, either, and certainly not permanently. Moreover, the blockee gets a friendly block message telling him how to challenge the block. But again, this is beyond this particular case. If you are unhappy with the way Checkusers work, take it up with them or the Ombudsman. If you think Wikipedia should treat socks or suspected socks differently, use the Village Pump or some other general discussion forum. I'm more concerned with the fact that its a lot less work to create a disruptive sock than to deal with it at the moment. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seems to me that disruptive admins/long-term editors are a bigger disruption than some moronic sock. I think socks are the symptom of such disruptions - not the cause. Personally, I think wikipedia would work better if it had a more "free market" approach - it is far too political, stagnant and the power is far too centralized to live up to its ideals. TheGoodLocust (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A root server with sufficient space can be had for 29.95/months, and the Wikipedia database dump is free. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "free market", but changing your identity every 10 minutes to avoid responsibility for past actions is not something even most libertarians would support. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am in fact a libertarian - had I mentioned this before? To use a real world example, when regulation/taxation become oppressive the logical and likely outcome is a black market. In my state of Oregon, there is a proposal to increase taxes by 8% of the gross income for businesses - since this tax is before the bills/expenses that many businesses pay then, if it passes, I think there will be far more "under the table" deals. Anyway, yes people should be responsible for their own actions, but excluding people, either through de facto or de jure methods, will inevitably create "criminals." TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:19, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are going to extreme length to avoid excluding people. If a sockmaster comes clean and believably promises to only use a single account from now on, he or she is usually given a second or even third chance. Scibaby seems to prefer to create his hsambling horde of socks - sure, that's a lot easier than actually engaging in discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme lengths? I saw an accused scibaby sock banned after one edit. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me on the surface. Perhaps it was justified, but it seems a bit premature. Socks/meatpuppetry/off-wiki canvassing will always occur, but a think a hands-off is ultimately more medicinal and preventive for the simple fact that some groups will always be banned/restricted more than others (based on ideology). I liken this to communism in the Soviet Union, where government officials lived the high life, while the rest of the citizens lived in squalor and persecution - ideals can't be realized when they fail to take into account human nature. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, if you want to change the way Wikipdedia deals with socks, discuss it in the proper venue, not here. I suggest you learn a bit about CU, blocking, and banning first, to be able to discuss from a position of knowledge. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Surely every organisation needs a Snowball? --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 13:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enforcement action

I've requested enforcement action against you at Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Scibaby_and_enablers. Please clearly identify any sock you bring to the discussion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scibaby can be unblocked in the near future

See this article. Count Iblis (talk) 00:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Scibaby for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Calabe1992 (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

Unfunny "joke". BMK (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I made some errors in the past, but I'm willing to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. Scibaby (talk)

Decline reason:

Made me look! --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:25, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.