User talk:InvestigateThis
InvestigateThis, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
|
Hi InvestigateThis! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 17:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC) |
Sockpuppet investigation[edit]
An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/QuantitativeGeometry, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:51, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I only have one account, I have not edited on wikipedia pages, but commented on talk pages on doubtful edits by XOR'aster. I guess this is initiated to claim I am a Sockpuppet to be able to delete comments on XOR'asters defamatory comments on for example Prof. Gift. XOR'aster has pointed his research and the journal he has published in, called it garbage. This likely even to delete references to another researcher he had issues with in the past. Some of the claims by XOR'aster can be found here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Planck_units
please also see in relation to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Squaring_the_circle
also in relation to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/QuantitativeGeometry/Archive
InvestigateThis (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Sure now is XOR'aster and perhaps some editor friends working hard to close any visible critics towards the defamatory behavior! What exactly wrong have we done by simply pointing out XOR'asters personal attack on researchers, well enough that much of our critics will be deleted I guess? InvestigateThis (talk) 18:06, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
We expect our user to be deleted and our questioning XOR'asters editorial behavior to be unfairly removed, here is what the case is about:
"
Was that really the reason for the delete[edit]
XOR'easter delete likely for other reasons than he states! "curprev 15:44, 6 February 2021 XOR'easter talk contribs 73,547 bytes −2,535 →List of physical equations: no need for a table of elementary equation reshufflings, particularly when the "reference" is to a journal that publishes tripe like "length contraction in special relativity is a logical contradiction" undothank
So the reason "given" is a totally different article in a journal. Many even top journals have some junk papers, so we should delete references to papers in these journals because we can point out other junk papers in that journal?. And who say a peer reviewed published paper is junk or not, other peer reviewed researchers proving so or wiki editors? And we are not even talking about the paper he deleted reference to, because he did not want to indicate the real reason he deleted it. Interesting to see how CXOR'easter keeps deleting anything referring to the researcher he and David Eppstein wants to delete anything about on wikipedia, except if anyone write something negative on that researcher, that they will let stand and defend. Please check out https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Squaring_the_circle, is XOR'easter involved here? why was this delete again related to reference to this specific researcher by exactly XOR'Easter ? coincident, ohh yes for sure, LOL!! (XOR'easter and David Eppstein works hand in hand to delete and deplatforming anyone that write positive or refer to researchers they dont like. Off course now we will hear it was a pure coincident, and that I am putting out conspiracy... LOL
"List of physical equations: no need for a table of elementary equation reshufflings, " LOL yes we are sure that is why it was deleted. Because elementary things and simplification of science is not what highly complex wiki is about...LOL XOR'easter had for sure even forgotten the name on this researcher from last time he aggressively attacked him, so this delete was because he discovered another paper in the same journal (that not even is referred to on this or other pages on wiki) that he personally thought was nonsense, and why he now had to delete a link/info to a paper that by coincident was by the researcher he wants to delete anything positive about!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by InvestigateThis (talk • contribs) 23:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- My edit summary was accurate. Physics Essays is a garbage journal that we should not cite (see WP:CITEWATCH). I've been cleaning up citations to it in many articles. Your comments here and at Talk:Squaring the circle constitute personal attacks against myself and David Eppstein, which violate Wikipedia policy. XOR'easter (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
XOR'aster are specifically mention the following article "particularly when the "reference" is to a journal that publishes tripe like "length contraction in special relativity is a logical contradiction"" in his reason for deleting reference to another article someone has put on the Planck unit page. I googled the paper you specifically mention "length contraction in special relativity is a logical contradiction"" and found it is a peer reviewed paper by Stephan J.G. Gift, Professor of Electrical Engineering, The University of the West Indies. Your claim that his paper and the journal is garbage is highly defamatory. I see Professor Gift has many papers in well respected journals, and also Physics essays is well respected in many circles. Either you should state your critics of why this paper is "tripe", preferably you should do so yourself in a peer reviewed paper you can get published, or you have to give reference to other papers doing so. Your editing had very doubvious standard, it is quite obvious you are after another researcher. Even if you have been co-author on a few physics papers, this do not make you an expert in the field. It is highly non-respectable the way you operate. And it is quite clear why you mention a paper not even that has been mentioned on the wikipedia page for Planck units, you wanted clearly to delete references to another researcher there. I have not done personal attack on any, I am criticizing how you and other editors are operating, and specifically mention how you in my view are doing personal attack on person that likely not even are aware of you are putting out very negative things about them on wikipedia, and therefore not even can respond. You are specifically mention very negative stuff about a paper written by a specific professor. Is this not a topic even in other much more well known journals also? How can it come that you think you can do what you do? You now try to play the game that it is me breaking the rules off wikipedia and doing personal attack, on editors that likely even will have my questions of their personal attacks tried removed. I do not think wikipedia benefit from you throwing out your personal opinion on researchers you dont like personally. Prof Gift should be informed I think about your claims! So XOR'aster think it is fully okay to put out defamatory claims on papers of Professor Gift and others. And as defense for me making wikipedia readers aware of this he say I am breaking the wikipedia code and personally attack them. I am stating what you delete, and also show very good indications you are after specific people etc. InvestigateThis (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Will XOR'aster also update the wikipedia profile on Physics Essays, and tell what he claim above "Physics Essays is a garbage journal" or will he get the page deleted? Should the editor of that journal be informed about XOR'asters claims? Is it fair to throw out such claims without more backing? Some will possibly consider your behavior highly defamatory, both towards specific persons such as Prof Gift, and to journals and their publishers and editors, all of them should be informed, and I am not sure the founding fathers of wikipedia would prefer editors to behave like this? InvestigateThis (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)"InvestigateThis (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GeneralNotability (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
InvestigateThis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I find it very unfair I have been blocked. The only edit I have done on a wikipedia page is on the Compton wavelength page where I added a reference to who actually came up with the Compton wavelength, namely Compton in 1923. I have also commented on a few talk pages on how XOR'aster in my view is abusing his editorial status to bash people and for example journal he do not like without backing it up with objective facts etc. For example XOR'aster have called Physics Essays a garbage journal '(Physics Essays is a garbage journal)' stated by XOR'aster, without much backing for such claim. He has also said bad things about professor Stephan J.G. Gift paper, based on clear prejudice and not based on any scientific reasoning, or any references to scientific critics of Prof. Gift's work. There are even papers published in Nature that are wrong, but the critics are then scientific, not about bashing journals, papers and journals one do not like. Wikipedia editors should try to be objective. I am blocked for pointing out some editors in some instances not are objective, but seem to act more on personal emotions. I would like to continue to contribute to Wikipedia, I see that I am blocked simply from criticizing that some editors have not behaved in the spirit of wikipedia policy (always). Why not let me edit further, if I do any non objective edits on any wikipedia page in the future then please block me, but please look at what I have edited!! "InvestigateThis (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
None of this is relevant. You are blocked for violating WP:SOCK, but have not addressed this in your unblock request. Please see WP:GAB to understand how to craft an appropriate unblock request. Yamla (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
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.
InvestigateThis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
"None of this is relevant. You are blocked for violating WP:SOCK, " Sorry but this is highly relevant. So if I have an account and point out what I think is behavior by some editors that in a few instances are in conflict with the wikipedia objectives of being as objective as possible then it is not fair to block me for WP:SOCK. So if I start a new account next time I see XOR'aster call journals "a garbage journal" without scientific evidence of sources to back it up, or next time he bash peer reviewed published papers then I should again be blocked for WP:SOCK? XOR'aster has called papers by Professor Gift "tripe" or in his own words; "particularly when the "reference" is to a journal that publishes tripe like "length contraction in special relativity is a logical contradiction" This is a claim made by XOR'aster about a peer reviewed paper written Prof. Stephan Gift, that he has published in a peer reviewed journal. Prof. Gift seems highly qualified to do research https://sta.uwi.edu/eng/electrical/staff/prof-stephan-gift Why are we allowing wikipedia editors, no matter how senior they are to come with such non scientific subjective claims and bash papers and researchers? Critics of papers are naturally allowed, critics of peer reviewed papers normally has to pass peer review and then be published, and then one need to give plenty of time also for the researcher that has been criticized to come with comments on the critics. But no, here XOR'aster are out with extreme prejudice against people, journals, papers? But yes what happened was that what I wrote about such editor behavior on talk page to a large degree got deleted, and then I had to be blocked, because one are not to allowed to ask critical questions against wikipedia editors?? You can say I am blocked for WP:SOCK, but that is just a unreasonable reason used for blocking critical voices against wikipedia editors breaks with wikipedia policy. What exactly have I edited that is against wikipedia policy on any page? InvestigateThis (talk) 18:49, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
So now you have blocked me since I am a critical voice against editors breaking with wikipedia policy. Next time I see such behavior I will speak up again in a objective way telling politely what I think is breaks with wikipedia policy. But then since you blocked me for doing so already with claim of violating WP:SOCK you can then block me for infinite any new profile, because you do not even let me have 1 single profile that not have violated any wikipedia policy. Sure we can disagree and discuss to what degree it is against wikipedia policy for wikipedia editors to call journals "garbage" and to call peer reviewed papers by Professors for "tripe", but the deplatforming of critical voices towards wikipedia editors behavior in some circumstances seems to be very unfair. Your should re-open my account, and block me if I break wikipedia policy, not for criticizing editor behavior with the cover-up story that I am violating WP:SOCK. All I will do is constructive editing on wikipedia pages, and yes indeed on talk pages point out when I see other wikipedia editors comes with claims that I think not is in line with wikipedia policy. InvestigateThis (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2021 (UTC). SO I have indeed stated by reasons for why think I should be unblocked. I must be allowed to have 1 account until you actually point out I am doing any edit in conflict with wikipedia policy. Or you can naturally block me indefinitely, but people shall know the real reason, namely that I strongly criticized some senior wikipedia editors way of editing and bashing journals, papers and people in a very subjective way. InvestigateThis (talk) 19:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 19:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
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.
InvestigateThis (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please list exactly what this "abuse" have been? Exactly what have I edited on wikipedia pages that are against Wikipedia policy? Or is it my critics of a senior wikipedia editor that make me blocked? I have criticized XOR'aster because he has claimed on wikipedia "(Physics Essays is a garbage journal)-- XOR'aster" without any reference to any objective article or such discussing exactly why.
I have criticized XOR'aster for calling a peer reviewed published paper by Professor Gift "tripe", ""particularly when the "reference" is to a journal that publishes tripe like "length contraction in special relativity is a logical contradiction"" -- XOR'aster.
I have criticized XOR'aster motives for deleting references to journals on pages (that I not have put there), because he is after certain journals and people, such as clearly for example Physics Essays.
Please point out what is wrong with my arguments, or what exactly I have done wrong in editing on any wikipedia page that is against wikipedia policy. Please do not hide against short comments such as "WP:SOCK" when this is clearly not the real reason for blocking me. Now I have been blocked again. Next time I see XOR'aster or other editors misbehave in this fashion I will need to open a new account, and you will again block me for "WP:SOCK". You have given yourself a good excuse for blocking people trying to keep all wikipedia editors to hold wikipedia guidelines. InvestigateThis (talk) 11:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Continued WP:IDHT in this unblock request, and continuing to blame XOR'aster without addressing the block at hand. Removing Talk Page Access as well, and noting there is currently an open request at UTRS. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:15, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
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.
UTRS 41188[edit]
UTRS appeal #41188 is declined.
I have reviewed your request using a variety of investigative techniques. I'm afraid I find no reason to disagree with the findings at <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/QuantitativeGeometry/Archive>. Please see the Guide to Appealing Blocks <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks>. This request is declined. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:31, 10 March 2021 (UTC)