User talk:BruceSwanson

DYK for Inventing the AIDS Virus

On April 21, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Inventing the AIDS Virus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for this one Victuallers (talk) 18:02, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You seem to be edit warring to insert out of context trivia to the bio of Rajendra K. Pachauri. In addition to WP:3rr applying, this is a WP:BLP and higher standards apply: please discuss your proposals on the article talk page and get consensus from other editors before adding such content. . dave souza, talk 21:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied thread

I have moved the off-topic discussion not appropriate for article talk page here:

Yobol's Deleted and Reverted Comments

I tried, but got no response. Still not too late for anyone to articulate their concerns, if any. And if not, no problem. BruceSwanson (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have 4 times now edited comments of another editor (mine) on a talk page, against talk page guidelines. You do not have my permission to edit my comments, including striking them out or restoring any comments I have deleted. Please desist from this disruption. Yobol (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But these talk page guidelines also say: It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Other users may have already quoted you with a diff or have otherwise responded to your statement. That is exactly the case here. You changed your comment by deleting it. Your comment was as follows:

“

If you can't see the difference between the opinion of one person in 1996 against the opinion of the medical community in 2012, there is nothing more to be said. We are not going to go down the road of re-hashing denialist theories here. I think re-application of WP:SHUN is in order. Yobol (talk) 16:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

”

I read it after you had deleted it. I then restored it and responded to it as follows:

“

Are you saying that Richard Horton is or was an AIDS denialist? BruceSwanson (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

”

Other than on your own user and talk pages, you have no right within article talk-pages to delete comments that you have made and that others choose to respond to, even if they respond after you delete them. Basically you can only expect to permanently delete comments that no one else cares about or will care about restoring and responding to. Your own comments on such pages aren't your property to hide as you choose. Once you post them, they are fair game. But what you can do is ~~strike out~~ your comments, which acts as an editorial comment regarding them. And you need not respond to others' comments (like mine) about them, whether you have struck them out or not.

Does all this make sense? So if you fail to respond to this posting after a reasonable period, I will repost your above comment and my reply. But feel free to ignore it. BruceSwanson (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not read talk page guidelines as you read them, and I suggest, once again, you desist from this disruptive behavior. Yobol (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was going to userfy these comments, but it's already been done. Do not replace them on the ItAV talk page. If you have a problem with another user, bring it up at the appropriate venue.

Also, keep pushing AIDS denialism and I will request a page ban of all AIDS-related topics. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex

How am I pushing AIDS denialism? BruceSwanson (talk) 14:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I think Yobol is just your sockpuppet -- or vice versa. BruceSwanson (talk) 14:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban discussion

Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:39, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience, which includes the topic of AIDS denialism. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page. NW (Talk) 17:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply.

I have reverted your change to the 3RRN archive. The discussion is taking place here. You may want to add your comment at that location. I'm assuming you did this as a mistake, if you purposefully put an irrelevant comment on an old archive, then you may want to read up on WP:POINT. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked and topic banned

See here. To appeal the block, see WP:GAB. To appeal the topic ban, you may appeal to WP:AN or the Arbitration Committee after you have been unblocked. NW (Talk) 17:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NW wrote here I am also implementing an indefinite block for general disruption, though that is being done on my own initiative, not as an implementation of community consensus.

I'm thinking that not as an implementation of community consensus is itself disruption, making his statement some variant of Tu quoque. Any suggestions? No? Didn't think so. BruceSwanson (talk) 01:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find the 'community consensus' is that admins are allowed to block for disruption without first seeking consensus. Actually, that is part of their job. You are of course free to appeal against the block. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is a statement of fact: you can't appeal against the ban until the block is lifted. It isn't an argument for the lifting of the block. On what grounds do you think you should be unblocked? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because AIDS isn't infectious. BruceSwanson (talk) 06:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stupidity seems to be... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:56, 16 March 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

The block must end before implementation and enforcement of the consensus-imposed topic-ban can begin.

Decline reason:

The unblock reason given is not in fact logically true; a ban and a block can easily co-exist. Even if it were logically true, it does not address the reasons for the block having been imposed in the first place. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 11:18, 16 March 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.

You can actually use your own talk page and e-mail to attempt to address the page ban if you'd like. Of course, any efforts you make are completely worthless when you make soapboxing statements like "AIDS isn't infectious". Wikipedia frankly doesn't care what you think of AIDS or HIV, the issue is editing against the clear scientific consensus that HIV causes AIDS and is infectious. You can think whatever you want about HIV/AIDS, but you must edit giving due weight to the scientific consensus.

If you are genuinely interested in getting your block and/or ban removed, you must first understand why you have a block and a ban. One is subject-based, one is behaviour based. You must also demonstrate you have the maturity and understanding of the community to edit within its guidelines. Until you address why you are blocked, your ban doesn't matter. If your block is ever lifted, your ban will remain on all medical articles until you indicate you can edit according to our content policies. You would, of course, be free to edit nonmedical articles. But your block would of necessity come first. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding having the maturity to edit within Wikipedia's guidelines, what do you think they might have to say about editors deleting their own comments from article Talk pages in the face of editors who have responded to those statements? This is relevant here because it may be that the "general disruption" editor NW was thinking of when he imposed the block occurred when I repeatedly reverted Yobol's repeated deletions of his own comments from the Inventing the AIDS Virus Talk page. It was those reverts/deletions that led to the Admin Noticeboard discussion, which then led to my ban/block, citing as justification disputes that ended in 2010.

If this point is clarified, I might be able to appeal the block by promising not to interfere with editors' right to delete their own comments from article Talk pages, nor to ask questions about them after they have been deleted. In other words, to treat such comments as the property of those who made them. But it seems . . . dubious as policy. And on that point WLU, you'll remember deleting the following paragraph of mine from that same Talk page:

Other than on your own user and talk pages, you have no right within article talk-pages to delete comments that you have made and that others choose to respond to, even if they respond after you delete them. Basically you can only expect to permanently delete comments that no one else cares about or will care about restoring and responding to. Your own comments on such pages aren't your property to hide as you choose. Once you post them, they are fair game. But what you can do is ~~strike out~~ your comments, which acts as an editorial comment regarding them. And you need not respond to others' comments (like mine) about them, whether you have struck them out or not.

To me, that's a sound interpretation of Wikipedia's guidelines on the topic. BruceSwanson (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]