User talk:Soupdragon42

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Plasma cosmology. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --ScienceApologist 11:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist has started an edit war in a flagrant attempt to push his own points of view and to censor and suppress new ideas. This user has also resorted to making false and unsubstantiated allegations. See the ludicrous sock puppet allegation above. Please watch this user.

He has removed a legitimate link to D.E. Scott's new Book, The Electric Sky, on a number of occasions now, and has failed to provide any reasonable basis for this edit warring. The book outlines the latest developments in Plasma Cosmology, and is endorsed by Anthony Perratt. Additionally, this book makes no claims in regard to catastrophism!

Explanation please

Why did you delete my statement at WP:RFAR?[1] Raymond Arritt 15:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No explanation is necessary

I am not aware of making any such edit, although my comments in the Ian Tresman ArbCom were persistently removed by unknown persons.

Furthermore, I am not a sockpuppet of Ian Tresman. Proof positive has been provided to senior admin, and yet the allegations are yet to be removed. This is a disgraceful state of affairs! A witchcraft trial no less.

Sockpuppet of Ian Tresman

I never accused you of being a sockpuppet of Ian Tresman. ScienceApologist 18:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have accused me of being a sockpuppet of numerous people, including NineDragons, who you also claimed was a sockpuppet for Ian Tresman.

I see you have now edited these accusations out of this page (top), and other places, but that you have made them in more general terms!

--Soupdragon42 17:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show the diff. Welcome to the discussion. It's nice to see the catastrophist society out to try to get their main champion unbanned. Enjoy reveling in your pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iantresman (2nd nomination) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Jehochman ^Talk 15:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a timeout

Warning: You need to take a timeout for 24 hours. If you continue to edit today you will be subject to sanction for evading the block placed on your IP address for harassment. You also should avoid a repeat of March 26. Thatcher 15:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

As Checkuser, Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iantresman, has now confirmed the use of sock puppet accounts for harassing other users, and for evading scrutiny of your edit history, I have blocked your account for two weeks. When you return, please use only one account, and please be WP:CIVIL to other editors. Jehochman ^Talk 16:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have been through all these sockpuppet allegations before. See here. http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration&oldid=164377671#Statement_by_ScienceApologist_2

I cannot believe that ScienceAntagonist gets away with his continual insinuations and misrepresentations.

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).

Soupdragon42 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Jenochman should make an effort to get his facts straight before doing SAs bidding for him

Decline reason:

Since you haven't actually put forward a reason for your unblocking, I have declined the request. _GB^T/C 16:47, 12 April 2008 (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.

Here was my reason, which you edited out:

I cannot believe that ScienceAntagonist gets away with his continual insinuations and misrepresentations. SA has sent me abusive emails to dvd[at]plasmacosmology.net He knows that I am not Ian Tresman. I am based in West London (Check my IP) and www.plasmacosmology.net is my web site. It is based on the works of Kristian Birkeland, Irving Langmuir, and Hannes Alfven, and also those who continue their great pioneering works. Unfortunately, the emerging plasma paradigm threatens some of the entrenched thinking out there.

This info is also outlined in the link I provided above and has been passed onto numerous Wiki admin before

I have no idea how to use an unblock template. Apologies!

Here was my reason, which was edited out earlier:

I have sucessfully demonstrated that I am not a Socpuppet before now. Why do I have to go through all this again?

I cannot believe that ScienceAntagonist gets away with his continual insinuations and misrepresentations. SA has sent me abusive emails to dvd[at]plasmacosmology.net

He knows that I am not Ian Tresman. I am based in West London (Check my IP) and www.plasmacosmology.net is my web site. It is based on the works of Kristian Birkeland, Irving Langmuir, and Hannes Alfven, and also those who continue their great pioneering works. Unfortunately, the emerging plasma paradigm threatens some of the entrenched thinking out there.

This info is also outlined in the link I provided above and has been passed onto numerous Wiki admin before

Soupdragon42 (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)}}.[reply]

Have a look at the diff. I didn't edit out any of your wording, so I don't particularly appreciate the insinuation - you put forward no reason in the unblock request. The unblock request explains how to do this - copy this bit of text and {{unblock|replace this text with your reason}}. _GB^T/C 17:06, 12 April 2008 (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).

Soupdragon42 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have sucessfully demonstrated that I am not a Socpuppet before now. Why do I have to go through all this again? ::I cannot believe that ScienceAntagonist gets away with his continual insinuations and misrepresentations. SA has sent me abusive emails to dvd[at]plasmacosmology.net ::He knows that I am not Ian Tresman. I am based in West London (Check my IP) and www.plasmacosmology.net is my web site. It is based on the works of Kristian Birkeland, Irving Langmuir, and Hannes Alfven, and also those who continue their great pioneering works. Unfortunately, the emerging plasma paradigm threatens some of the entrenched thinking out there. ::This info is also outlined in the link I provided above and has been passed onto numerous Wiki admin before

Decline reason:

Confirmed sockpuppetry, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iantresman. While it was established that you are not Iantresman, it was also confirmed that your IP address, 82.35.165.180, has been used for harassment. — Yamla (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2008 (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.

I've reposted the unblock request for you, properly formatted. I'll leave it for another admin to review. _GB^T/C 17:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look above at my block notice, there is a link to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iantresman that confirmed the use of IP for harassing another editor, and the use of a second named account for avoiding scrutiny. I welcome a review by any uninvolved administrator. Jehochman ^Talk 17:44, 12 April 2008 (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).

Soupdragon42 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

So you now accept that I am not a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet, despite ScienceApologists continuing insinuations. However, you have now changed tack and claim that my IP has been used for harrassment. If you are going to make such fanciful claims, can you please provide some evidence?

Decline reason:

You've been provided with compelling evidence above. To prevent you from posting more ridiculous requests, I've protected this page. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 13:38, 13 April 2008 (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.

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).

Soupdragon42 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Plentiful evidence has been provided against the ludicrous sockpuppet allegations. I am not NineDragons, Ian Tresman, or Ski_Fan, nor have I ever been any of these, or any other wikipedia users. I simply do not have time for such nonsense. It is clear that allegations from ScienceApologist are taken far too seriously in what amounts to a witch hunt against those who continue to support and discuss the emerging plasma universe paradigm. Why are some people so afraid of any new challenge that they resort to underhand suppression? Science is a competitive and argumentative business, and so it should be, within reason. Nearly all major breakthroughs have met with initial hostility from those who clung to the dogma of their day. I have provided my contact and web address details on countless occasions now. What more can I do? Soupdragon42 (talk) 15:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your block expired yesterday. — Jehochman ^Talk 20:25, 25 April 2008 (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.

October 2008

I have blocked your account for an undefined length of time. Inspection of your contributions reveals that you have repeatedly spammed www.plasmacosmology.net.[2][3][4][5] Today you posted to ANI stating that this is your own website.[6] You were previously blocked for two weeks for sock puppetry and harassment. At that time you could have been blocked indefinitely. Further inspection of your contributions reveals that none of them have substantial encyclopedic value. They consist of attempts to promote your own site, or to fight with those who oppose you. Should you wish to edit again, you should post an unblock request stating that you will stop repeatedly adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It may also help if you identify subjects to which you would like to add encyclopedic content, and state that you will not fight with other editors. I hope this helps. Jehochman ^Talk 21:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]