Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:53, 23 January 2011

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Arbitration sanctions warning: Pseudoscience

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to pseudoscience if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, 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 including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision.

This warning concerns your comment here about a pseudoscience-related arbitration enforcement request. Accusing others of "presenting a prime example of the kind of myopic, self-entitled chauvinism ..." is a personal attack and is not acceptable.  Sandstein  19:09, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Warning noted, but please do not mix modalities. the arbitration page is not 'a page broadly related to pseudoscience' - it is an administrative page specifically designed to discuss user behavior. speech is conventionally a bit stronger and looser on such pages.

I will take your notice as a civility warning and give it the respect it is due. If you really want it to be more than that (i.e., really want to invoke the general sanctions), say so and I will open a new ArbCom clarification request on the issue. --Ludwigs2 19:31, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The sanction does not apply to pages related to pseudoscience, but to editors working on such pages, which includes you. It is certainly applicable, and I intend to apply it if required, to misconduct in a pseudoscience-related AE discussions.  Sandstein  20:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, it shouldn't become an issue, and I trust that if you get to the point where decide to apply sanctions they will probably be deserved. I just prefer clarity on things like this. but no sense dragging it out. --Ludwigs2 20:10, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Misplaced Pages:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 06:35, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Attack? no, that was an observation, nothing more. I will not put up with the kind of crap I got from Ronz the last time I worked on this article, and I want him to be aware of that fact.

In other words, mind your own business. --Ludwigs2 07:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Wait, sorry - you were complaining about that?!??!? please, don't make me laugh... --Ludwigs2 07:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ludwigs2: (i) Your comment was addressed directly to me, so is most certainly my business. (ii) As I was the one citing the use of "the term in the way a wide range of WP:RSs", your "you and I both know that it's possible (intentionally or unintentionally) to use reliable sources to present a skewed version of a topic" comment was either (a) an (unsubstantiated) accusation against me or (b) irrelevant. (iii) I don't know who this Ronz person is and don't care. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 07:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the Ronz thing way my mistake (because I used a bit strong language with him, and I feel guilty about it - psychological projection).

With respect to the actual issue, you are drastically misconstruing both the tone and content of my statement (which was a simple observation about something that happens - intentionally or unintentionally - on a daily basis on wikipedia). I'm sorry you feel that way, but I think your complaint is unfounded, and I have no intention whatsoever in crediting it with any legitimacy. Everyone on Misplaced Pages should be able to entertain the notion that they themselves have made an error of fact or judgement on any particular topic; that is an essential part of proper consensus discussions. Claiming that it is uncivil of me to remind you of that fact tends to imply that you are unwilling to entertain that notion about your own beliefs, which is entirely not my problem. --Ludwigs2 07:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

P.s. do not template me again - I find that rude, and will delete templates on sight, without comment. express your concerns in your own words, please. --Ludwigs2 07:27, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hrafn, if you're going to warn other editors over civility, could you please practice it yourself? Cla68 (talk) 07:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs2: nobody on Misplaced Pages should be required "to entertain the notion that they themselves have made an error of fact or judgement" unless and until somebody provides evidence substantiating that "notion". You want me to "express your concerns in your own words, please." My "words" are "put up or shut up". Put up reliable sources supporting your definition of 'Intelligent Design' or drop the issue. Put up evidence substantiating that I "use reliable sources to present a skewed version of a topic", or drop the issue (if you didn't believe that "a skewed version of a topic" was being presented, then why on Earth did you raise the issue?). Cla68: (i) the warning was over WP:NPA, not WP:CIVIL. (ii) "Could you please" stop following me everywhere repeating your spurious complaints. Hrafn_Stalk(P) 09:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

hrafn: bullshit. policy is not designed or intended to excuse editors from thought, common sense, or basic reason. You are not 'required' to use thought, common sense, or reason in your application of policy, obviously, but should you choose not to you lose the privilege of being taken seriously.

Cla68: I can handle this tawdriness without too much effort, and I prefer if people do not use my talk page to continue arguments they are having elsewhere. Unless you have something substantive that needs to be added, it's best if you let me ice this out on my own. --Ludwigs2 14:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Ludwigs, if you look at my talk page archives, you'll see that in the past I have been subjected to attempted bullying and intimidation by regulars at the Intelligent Design article. As a result, I have little tolerance when it looks like other editors involved with that topic appear to be reverting to similar behavior. I had thought that that type of behavior had ceased, but apparently not. If you say that you can handle it by yourself, I believe you. Cla68 (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not unaccustomed to this - you should look at some of my talk page archives. I swear, I never thought editing[REDACTED] would involve lessons I learned from reading the Three Little Pigs. --Ludwigs2 23:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

ID is, arguably, among the most notorious articles for having serious NPOV and editor conduct problems that have continued for years and have resulted in at least one arbitration case. The only reason, I think, that the problems haven't been resolved is that not enough editors care enough about ID as a topic to jump in and NPOV the article and deal once and for all with the conduct of the article's regulars. Cla68 (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

History of the U.S.

Oh my goodness! There I was praising you and DV to the skies over at Talk:Intelligent design, and here I find you embroiled in all kinds of wiki-drama. Oh, well, again, I think you're right. And brave.

This has nothing to do with improving WP. (Unless you want to count being pleasant to and appreciative of an admirable editor so he'll hang around.) I'm a history buff and love to discuss politics. If you don't care to, that's fine. This is a tangent from two of your comments at ID.

Just as an aside, one of the more interesting things about the formation of the US political system is that it is pretty much the first time in history that a political system was conceived that didn't rely on people being good, honorable, noble, far-thinking, or idealistic. It's a dirty, crappy, rotten, misbegotten little system that works as well as it does because it is flagrantly and self-admittedly dirty, crappy, and rotten.

I assume that means you admire the check and balance system? I can't help but see Madison and Jefferson and Franklin and Washington as honorable and far-thinking. (Jefferson honorable not in every particular but wrt a sincere desire to create a decent, fair, working government.) There was some idealism, some noble thoughts and deeds, and overall it was a "good" bunch of men, again wrt to creating a stable government. You're talking about their having no illusions about Americans being a noble bunch, but knew they and we, like all humans, will do as much as we think we can get away with. Yes?

"Misbegotten." Does that refer to the failed Articles of Confederation and the unauthorized writing of the Constitution?

Plus, western scientific logic began explicitly as a means of wrenching our understanding of the world out of the hands of Christian dogma;

My take on the Enlightenment was that after scientific (empirical) thought and the scientific method were developed, Christian dogma appeared illogical. Would it be more accurate to say it's quick growth, not its beginning, was due to a means...etc.? I'd agree the French Revolution was about overthrowing Christendom.

This is just for fun, probably shouldn't even be on your talk page. You could email me....or ignore me. :) Regards, Yopienso (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)