| Revision as of 23:45, 12 June 2008 editQuackGuru (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users79,978 edits →Chiropractic: expand← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:09, 13 June 2008 edit undoImperfectlyInformed (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, Pending changes reviewers13,371 edits →A user you have dealt with previously: cmtNext edit → | ||
| Line 363: | Line 363: | ||
| :::::Simple fix would be to change the restriction to discussions on noticeboards regarding ScienceApologist, but not directly involving you or a topic you are both editing. It's the restriction on discussing content that effectively topic-bans you. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 23:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | :::::Simple fix would be to change the restriction to discussions on noticeboards regarding ScienceApologist, but not directly involving you or a topic you are both editing. It's the restriction on discussing content that effectively topic-bans you. --''']''' <sup>(])</sup> 23:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC) | ||
| Pardon me for interjecting where I perhaps "do not belong", but I find this situation puzzling and disturbing. People should not be discouraged from offering advice to new people -- or to experienced people. Now, I'm not sure I entirely understand the restrictions on Martin, and I don't have any real experience with Martin, but I've had some experience with ScienceApologist and find him to be tendentious and disruptive, and fairly given towards edit warring. For example, he recently tried to add unreferenced trivia to the lead of ]; when I reverted it, he reverted me (), and I let it stay because I know he won't stop. He seems to constantly try to push people's buttons. I'm sure Martin and ScienceApologist can go round and round "discussing" and getting nowhere, but when push comes to shove and ScienceApologist tries to edit in things which don't belong, or unbalance articles, then it is good to have a balancing opinion. It appears here that there is a bias against Martin in favor of ScienceApologist; hopefully I'm just misreading. ] | (] - ]) 04:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | ==]== | ||
Revision as of 04:09, 13 June 2008
|
Vassyana is on a "semi-wikibreak" and will be back on Misplaced Pages soon. |
Word of the day
Treeware. noun. Template:IPAEng.
An antediluvian method of publishing information on a portable medium created from processed arboreal macerate, often with decorative covers glossed by petrochemical solids.
"Reginald went to the athenaeum to peruse treeware with the assistance of an informatics professional."
Thought of the day: I am seriously and vastly disturbed by the proposals for increased bureaucracy and centralized committees flying about Misplaced Pages recently. I strongly oppose any such change, and will depart the community if it takes this well-meaning but vastly wrong-headed turn (as it is directly contradictory to the community I joined). It is a solution to a problem that only exacerbates the problem. The problems are being caused by rigid interpretations of the rules and excessive bureaucratic sprawl. Adding more of the same is not a solution, it's masochistic and foolish. 01:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Help me out.
- Take a look over History of early Christianity and Apostolic Age and provide some feedback on the talk pages. Thanks! 06:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
- Contribute some thoughts and feedback to m:Dispute resolution analysis group.
WikiProject Christianity Newsletter
Help required
Hi, I am trying to develop Anekantavada as a featured article candidate and require your help for additional contributions and improvements. I have got it peer reviewed by Ruhrfisch (talk · contribs) and Alastair Haines (talk · contribs) and require additional independent opinion. If you have sometime, I would appreciate your help in this matter. Thanks.--Anish (talk) 06:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Question
You accused me of violating WP:NOR here. That is a serious accusation. Could you tell me if you read my sourcing, the Cramer and Olson paper, before you made your accusation? SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think it has been fairly clearly explained, but I will provide some additional feedback. However, I would first like to note that regardless of the NOR violation, it was pushing a controversial edit in a long standing dispute for which you and another person were recently blocked. That alone would be sufficient to justify further sanctions for disruption. That being said, this edit did commit original research. You present it as though government documents nigh exclusively discuss military service and that some few other sources provide other uses. The thrust of the paper itself is to argue that the historical roots of a right to bear arms is based in a broad usage of the right, including far more than military service, strongly ingrained in the common law and legal foundations of the United States. Avoiding arguments over the wording being cited, it's clearly an acute misuse of the source (and probably original research) to use it in such a fashion as to make it appear to support an opposite conclusion. To make a comparison, it would not be acceptable to selectively (and/or inaccurately) cite a paper that makes a forceful argument for special relativity to argue against (or using a phrasing implying invalidity of) special relativity. It is no more acceptable on the topic of bearing arms. Vassyana (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- You neglected to actually answer my question. Also, I guess, that determining "the thrust" of the Cramer and Olson paper depends on the reading, but in good faith when I read that paper I reach a different conclusion that you did. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I was attempting to avoid being drawn into arguments of minutiae. Regardless, let's address your edit:
The paper does not purport to "confirm" any such claim. On the contrary, the paper puts forward the possibility of selection bias for such claims from previous sources. It does say that it is "unsurprising" that government documents discuss governmental functions and uses. However, the paper also makes it clear that "military service" is not the whole of this discussion. The paper does not say that the scope was simply expanded to non-governmental documents. It states the search was more comprehensive and casting it as does your edit is extremely dishonest. Commentaries on the Laws of England can hardly be cast as distinct from government usage, for example, as it was 'and is considered the authoritative source on the state of Anglo-American common law in the late 18th century. Indeed, it is even cited by the United States Supreme Court for such purposes. Additionally, the paper makes it further clear that the broad interpretation was the standard of common law at the time. One can hardly state that common law considerations are independent from governmental concerns.
These are just a few points that demonstrate the inappropriate use of the source. The edit on a very fundamental level commits original research, cherrypicking and grossly distorting the source to advance a position. If you earnestly cannot distinguish sufficiently between the correct and incorrect use of sources in an area that you hold a strong interest in (which is very common and quite human), then I would strongly recommend editing unrelated topics to take advantage of your strengths unhindered by bias. Vassyana (talk) 20:16, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
- I wasn't asking to discuss the meaning of the Cramer paper, and I strongly disagree with your opinion and your accusation of bad faith, but I won't engage that discussion here on your talk page. I am questioning the appearance that you are taking sides in a content dispute. It appears that your criticism of my edit, and your tacit approval of this revert by Yaf has a poor appearance. Taking sides may not be your intent, and that is why I am asking. In any case your conduct has the appearance that you have taken Yaf's side in the content dispute, as Yaf has asserted here. You may want to clear up this appearance of impropriety, as I suspect that you did not actually intend it. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- This goes beyond a reasonable content disagreement. It's not "taking sides" any more than blocking someone for a personal attack, soapboxing or other issues is "taking sides". You blatantly and obviously misused a source, presenting conclusions in contradiction to the source, to promote your opinion. This isn't a debate about a murky meaning or content selection or anything of the like. If you seriously and honestly do not understand what was wrong with your edit, you really need to walk away from the topic. Vassyana (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Happy Adminship Day
User:QuackGuru
Upon consideration, it would be best to let this issue drop. While some information may be available or even public, it doesn't mean that it should be raised here on Misplaced Pages. Unless it is pertinent to the purposes of Misplaced Pages, it should not be raised here. While it is certainly not "outing" (and shouldn't be called such), raising it against the person's wishes with no obvious purpose for the encyclopedia could easily be construed as harassment and/or simply being disruptive to prove a point. I would encourage people to avoid hyperbolic and inaccurate language such a "outing" to describe raising the public information. However, I would also strongly encourage people to not raise the information, as I cannot fathom the purpose of raising it on Misplaced Pages. Vassyana (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, yes, I agree. Even what is already in the ArbCom should only be raised with a reason. My original mention of his site was misjudged (or rather unjudged). To me it was only a passing reference, the first thing that came to mind when I cast around for a specific example of editors on that article (well, second). Nor did I know anything about any wishes of , as I had not had contact with him for many months (I didn't even know that the evidence page of the ArbCom had been blanked). People mention my ArbCom stuff all the time, it doesn't bother me. QuackGuru also emailed me for mentioning 's site on your talk page, threatening to go to AN/I. I think that my original mention may have been a little off, but all this fuss has outed much more than anything I would ever have done or thought of doing. It also caused me to do a lot of research on , which I'd never have done otherwise. I see you archived all that, so I'll blank his name. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- It could have been approached better by all involved, myself included. I was just dropping a line to everyone who commented in the section to note its archival and my thoughts after due consideration. Vassyana (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. Yes, "outing" may not be the best term, but harassment and violations of WP:TALK and WP:POINT are probably more accurate. Unnecessary or irrelevant use of outside information regarding Wikipedians, especially when used to attack them, isn't constructive or conducive to a collaborative environment. Regardless of our differing POV, we all need to avoid personal attacks. I wish that policy included something about this. The closest I have found is the condemnation of "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream." Using people's POV against them is also unfair, since that makes it seem illegitimate to have a POV. We should stick to commenting on the edits, sources, etc., instead of impugning each other's motives. -- Fyslee / talk 00:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- It could have been approached better by all involved, myself included. I was just dropping a line to everyone who commented in the section to note its archival and my thoughts after due consideration. Vassyana (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, yes, I agree. Even what is already in the ArbCom should only be raised with a reason. My original mention of his site was misjudged (or rather unjudged). To me it was only a passing reference, the first thing that came to mind when I cast around for a specific example of editors on that article (well, second). Nor did I know anything about any wishes of , as I had not had contact with him for many months (I didn't even know that the evidence page of the ArbCom had been blanked). People mention my ArbCom stuff all the time, it doesn't bother me. QuackGuru also emailed me for mentioning 's site on your talk page, threatening to go to AN/I. I think that my original mention may have been a little off, but all this fuss has outed much more than anything I would ever have done or thought of doing. It also caused me to do a lot of research on , which I'd never have done otherwise. I see you archived all that, so I'll blank his name. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Kender/Trim
Hello,
Regarding working on this page, I am wondering about the appropriateness of soliciting outside help in sourcing the information found in the current version of the article. I'm assuming it would not be OK to have uninvolved partied editing the Trim page itself, but would it be appropriate for others to post source information and discuss things on the Trim talk page? I myself am only marginally familiar with the subject of Kender, and can conclude that the other involved parties are either in the same boat, or don't have the time to put in to getting the work done. BOZ (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
- I can't imagine that soliciting assistance for finding good references should ever be considered inappropriate. I would ask that you try to keep any observational or opinion-based comments from outside parties to a minimum, as that can easily degenerate into the general argument about the area (part 233 of a continuing series of disagreements *chuckle*). However, there should be no problem at all with people providing sources, offering suggestions about good places to find references, etc. Vassyana (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- Coolness. :) I'll ask around at EN World this week; people there seem to know more about what they're doing than anywhere else when it comes to RPG stuff. But yes, I know exactly what you mean - I know good and well that any amount of mediation will never stop all arguments, but we can always hope to come to some kind of understanding... and that won't happen if a dozen folks butt in with their own arguments. I will encourage people to post somewhere other than the Trim talk page. BOZ (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- As it is, it doesn't take much to get just the principles arguing. :) We work together so well! BOZ (talk) 14:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Christianity Newsletter
| The Christianity WikiProject Newsletter | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||
Possible edit warring by logged-out editor
Vassyana, this may be a little bit of a long shot, but the pattern of behavior is just too familiar. Since you are familiar with the editor (I hesitate to actually name him/her without proof, but I think who it is may be obvious, please let me know if you want me to ID the suspected editor here or privately via email) that may be trying to dodge accountability for this anonymous/IP 72.197.197.215 revert, do you think you could look into it if you have the opportunity? I'm not sure yet if the information deleted in this edit appears elsewhere in the article (taking a quick look does not reveal the Cooke, or any other, source for that information), but I feel that controversial edits should be hashed out in the talk page, like the one that immediately preceded this revert. This type of behavior is really quite disruptive, since, if that information really does appear elsewhere in the article, this citation should have been added there to improve the reliability of the article per WP:RS. All we have now is a vague POV-based revert, the loss of an academic source, and no discussion on the talk page to learn if this citation was appropriately removed. Please accept my apologies if Misplaced Pages does not log the IP address of logged-in users and there's no way to track this situation. Thank you. --tc2011 (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Unlikely it is him. This anon IP uses Cox in Atlanta as their ISP. Yaf (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- If you review the IP's edits, including two made to the article at the end of May, the user seems to be attempting to edit in line with NPOV and related principles. It does not appear that they are supporting one view or another, or otherwise attempting to unbalance the article. Vassyana (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for your attention. --tc2011 (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
|
|
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
A user you have dealt with previously
I really wish that Martinphi would stop doing things like this to ScienceApologist. One could easily read that diff (in context) as telling another user how better to nail ScienceApologist in the future. With effort, of course, one could convince oneself that this is simply friendly advice. But given the timing and location of that advice, it seems poorly advised. I'm not posting this on ArbCom Enforcement because I don't think this needs enforcement. I'm not posting it to Martinphi because he clearly knows what he's doing. I'm posting this here for you because I think you're neutral enough to tell me to stop whining. Thanks, Antelan 00:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Antelan- always following me around and saying I do things wrong. Trying to get me banned. Surely you know it was general advice, as no one can block SA. Getting him is not an option. Even if it were, Ludwig is a newish user, and he's been a help recently. I give him the advice on how to get things done which I had to learn myself. I feel quite right about helping to make impossible the see/hear/say no evil attitude of the admins who don't have cojones to do anything about anything even when it's within their domain- I mean, even when the issue is not one of content and they have a clear mandate. If that means spelling it out for them so they can't pretend blindness, that's what one has to do.
- Please note that if I'd been trying to get SA, I'd have informed Ludwig about SA's ArbCom restriction, which he doesn't seem to know about.
- Perhaps you put this here because you know Vassayana thinks I'm out to get SA. That of course is the wrong way of putting it because I just want SA to stop hassling me so I can get to more real editing. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- That's it. Martin, you are prohibited from injecting yourself into reports and conversations about ScienceApologist unless it directly relates to actions taken towards or against you, or directly relates to articles in which you are both currently involved. To prohibit circumvention of this restriction, you are further prohibited from newly inserting yourself into content discussions where ScienceApologist is previously involved. If you have not participated in several weeks or some months in a topic, rejoining the discussion to counter SA will be considered "newly inserting yourself".
- Your snotty and demeaning message linked above is bad enough, but worse yet, in this instance ScienceApologist was trying very hard to be civil and politely discuss the issue and OrangeMarlin was not even remotely uncivil in the linked sections. Certainly, SA and OM have had issues with civility, but this opportunistic tar-slinging is intolerable, as it treats Misplaced Pages like a battlefield and worsens the situation more than any off-hand insults could. Vassyana (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm curious what was snotty, demeaning, or tar slinging about the diff in question ? Clearly Martinphi was talking to Ludwigs2, and telling him how to provide better diffs. That's the complete extent of the comment. Martinphi is restricted from disruptive editing. The linked comment was constructive advice, to a newer editor. The part about people having the attention span of fleas is general commentary on why diffs should contain the important stuff. It's not directed at anyone in particular and certainly isn't an attack on ScienceApologist. As for Martinphi butting in on a conversation unrelated to himself, all three (Ludwigs2, Martinphi, and ScienceApologist) edit remote viewing together, which was recently locked because ScienceApologist jumped in.
- To the point (this is the reason I bothered commenting here at all), it is ScienceApologist we're talking about. The restriction imposed by Vassyana makes it seem like SA needs protection from Martinphi or something. People in glass houses don't need protection when they throw stones randomly, everywhere, even so much that they have to put a disclaimer at the very top of their talk page saying they intend to continue doing so and require one explain in personal detail why the stone thrown at them hurts before they'll take it seriously. If no complaint of incivility on SA's part is ever taken seriously, then seriously no perceived incivility against SA should ever be taken seriously. If one expects everyone else to have a thick skin, they in turn should be required to have one themselves.
- Both ScienceApologist and Martinphi have no moral high-road to complain about each other, and admins would have to cherry pick diffs to impose sanctions against one and not the other. The above "attack against ScienceApologist" -- which is really constructive advice to a newish editor on how to deal with disputes more effectively -- is completely overshadowed by the recent overt "poisoning the well" attack on Martinphi diffed here . Frankly, either both should be directed to not interact with each other at all, or perceived slights towards one another on both their parts should be ignored entirely as them trying to game the system against each other. Anything less is picking favorites despite the fact that there's no moral high ground justification in picking one over the other. Both would equally like to see the other banned, I'm sure.
- Antelan may have in good faith posted this request, but come on, it is ScienceApologist we're talking about. If he doesn't have a thick skin, he really shouldn't be here "to combat pseudoscience" (his words). At the very least, a weakly figured "attack" on him shouldn't result in restrictions when strong overt attacks are made by him all the time. Goose and gander and all that. The rationale for the restriction was "treat Misplaced Pages like a battlefield and worsens the situation more than any off-hand insults could." It is ScienceApologist we're talking about. He says all the time that Misplaced Pages is a battleground and makes off-hand insults repeatedly. --Nealparr 13:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Enough of these tu quoque arguments. I'm tired of this fallacious crap from both sides. This has nothing to do with "protecting" anyone. This is not the first time he's done this, nor the most egregious, but it simply needs to stop. Martinphi apparently cannot disengage, so I'm making a formal restriction for him to disengage. Vassyana (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Further comment: It baffles me how someone can fail to understand the problem with Martin's comment about attention spans and the openly encourage essentially cherrypicking "the worst" from the diffs (which tends to ignore context, etc). Also, the one link you provide about "poisoning the well" appears to be some kind of response (edit summary "r") and doesn't seem to even come close to crossing any lines. The problem was not that Martin was making personal attacks, but rather that he constantly sticks his nose in reports about SA, regardless of its appropriateness. It's disruptive and needs to end. Vassyana (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Look, you or Antelan can make it out to be that Martinphi is the sole problem all you guys want. That's your perogative. But Martinphi commenting in a noticeboard post about ScienceApologist being disruptive isn't the reason ScienceApologist repetitively shows up in these noticeboards. Whether editors are right or wrong at a given moment in their beefs with SA, it's obvious that ScienceApologist earns being in the noticeboard all on his own, independently of what Martinphi does. Martinphi doesn't post all those notices, all those dozens of notices.
- I've been watching the interaction between the two for almost two years now. They are both at each other's throats. The difference is that Martinphi is always seen to be the bad guy. ScienceApologist always skates by. They both do the exact same thing to each other.
- Regarding the "r" diff, it's not a reply. Check both ScienceApologist's talk page (no conversation between Hrafn and him remotely around that date) and the article's talk page (no conversation between the two at all). It's not a reply. It's a "helpful hint" about how to effectively deal with Martinphi in an unrelated content dispute. Regarding Martinphi's comment, why not get some outside opinion on whether it's disruptive before assuming it is? Saying that Martinphi is instructing someone to not present the context of the dispute is, in my opinion, stretching the issue quite far. --Nealparr 15:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I've whacked people on both sides of this dispute with cluesticks and I've received enough harassment to last a lifetime just from the blatantly obvious cases. I don't need a lecture about evenhandedness. Show me some solid evidence about SA if you wish to continue harping on him or I'm quite done responding. Thanks. Vassyana (talk) 15:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Regarding the "r" diff, it's not a reply. Check both ScienceApologist's talk page (no conversation between Hrafn and him remotely around that date) and the article's talk page (no conversation between the two at all). It's not a reply. It's a "helpful hint" about how to effectively deal with Martinphi in an unrelated content dispute. Regarding Martinphi's comment, why not get some outside opinion on whether it's disruptive before assuming it is? Saying that Martinphi is instructing someone to not present the context of the dispute is, in my opinion, stretching the issue quite far. --Nealparr 15:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well that got ugly real quick. Sorry I commented at all. PS Asking you to consider outside opinion isn't harrassment. --Nealparr 15:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) My tolerance is admittedly low today. However, I would have usually found the tu quoque arguments and the like far less irritating, though still problematic. Regardless, you are earnestly welcome to provide some solid evidence of recent problems. I will pay attention to it. I will review it. I will act directly on it as seems necessary and/or bring up a potential solution for discussion and review. I don't pretend to be aware of everything that happens and if something substantive is brought to my attention, I will attempt to do the right thing. It's just that I'm not interested in hearing the same complaints and logical fallacies, over and over from people on sides. Bring me something with some meat, preferably with a minimum of commentary, and I'll sink my teeth into it. Vassyana (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Neal, I sincerely did not mean to imply that you were harassing me at all. It was more a statement that I've been fair in this area and I've "paid my dues" for it, thus I don't need to be told about being fair. It was a statement of frustration, noting some offense taken, and I should have been more careful in my phrasing and presentation. On the point of outside opinion, I did post a note to AN/I, expecting other sysops and the community to review the decision. Vassyana (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well that got ugly real quick. Sorry I commented at all. PS Asking you to consider outside opinion isn't harrassment. --Nealparr 15:57, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Understandable that your tolerance level is low. Respectably, no, I'm not going to post a bunch of diffs against SA to demonstrate something with some meat on it. It's sort of my point that there's no meat on any of it. SA takes digs at Martinphi. Martinphi takes digs at SA. Both are contentious editors. I don't think it's right to give SA the upper hand by restricting Martinphi from any article SA gets to first. More to the point, I don't think that's a real solution to the problem. Restricting each other from each other probably won't help either. All that will do is create a "gold rush" to claim articles.
- The only real solution is to ignore any request to intercede on either's behalf. This thread was started with Antelan asking you to help make Martinphi "stop doing things like this to ScienceApologist". Why? ScienceApologist does the same to Martinphi. Both have been at each other for a long time. There's no meat to any of these requests, and like I said, it's not like SA is squeaky clean on the matter. So why do anything for him at all? It doesn't take me posting a bunch of diffs to establish that he doesn't need support. One thing I will take the time to do is post the list of articles that have been locked down in recent months after SA decided to "participate". I have four that I remember off-hand, parapsychology, electronic voice phenomena, what the bleep do we know, and remote viewing. I know there are others, but I can't remember them all. In each of those articles, SA comes in and makes changes he knows are going to piss people off, edit wars with them for a bit, and boom: article locked down. It happens all the time. Should he be restricted? I don't personally think so. Really, I don't care. My point is this: He deserves exactly what he gives... that is, he deserves to be treated with the same "I don't care" attitude he gives to everyone else. In other words, if ScienceApologist goes around saying things and making edits without caring what people think, why should he get any community support in turn? Why should you care if Martinphi did pick on him? Requests to intercede on his behalf (like this one) should be completely ignored.
- That's my point ^ Ignore any complaints about Martinphi in relation to ScienceApologist and any complaints about ScienceApologist in relation to Martinphi. All complaints are meatless and attempts to get the other blocked, banned, restricted, or otherwise gamed out of the system. My (unsolicited) advice is to simply don't buy into it. --Nealparr 21:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Background: I have copyedited Remote Viewing and so keep an eye on the article despite my lack of knowledge in the area, I came into the discussion yesterday to possibly shift direction when balance in the discussion was deteriorating. I also did not view MartinPhi’s comments to Ludwig as in anyway insulting to or referring to Science Apologist. Antelan’s comments initially made no sense to me, although I can now understand how he might have arrived at the understanding he did. I am aware that Ludwig is a new editor as one can see on the discussion on remote viewing and that MartinPhi is coaching him somewhat.
- You are an admin I respect. Out of respect rather than disrespect I make the next comment to you in a straightforward way. Is there a possibility that your recent judgenent is based less on the diff Antelan presented rather than on an accumulated level of frustration one might rightly feel in this situation.
- Might it be appropriate to ask two or three completely uninvolved admins who know neither SA nor Martin to view the diff. with the background information that one editor had been coaching another as obvious and so provide a judgment that cannot be attributed to the frustration those of us aware of this situation feel.
NOTE: As I post this, I see you have asked for outside assistance
- If a ban is placed on one editor for other reasons than this diff., and I have to say watching remote viewing, I thought Martin was handling himself pretty well, then that restriction be placed on both editors. Not to do so leaves an open-ended situation, and tips the balance in any discussion both editors are involved in. At least with both editors on equal footing, some balance can be maintained. Until Antaean ‘s comments SA and Martin were handling business as usual.
- Where I not feeling well today my better judgment might have kept me off your user page. As it is, I am commenting and hope you can take the comments with the respect and understanding I have written them with.
Am I supporting Martin in this case? Absolutely, yes. Do I edit at his request and ignore my own judgment and the level of integrity I strive to maintain? Absolutely, no.
I don’t require any kind of reply … Just adding comments for your consideration.(olive (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC))
- Just wanted you to know that I have read your message and I am earnestly considering it. Vassyana (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- There has probably never been a more clear-cut case of two users who should disengage, or at least not seek out opportunities to insert themselves into disputes with each other. Admittedly, they share some topics of interest, and if their paths cross on such articles then so be it. But Vassyana is absolutely right; while I didn't find Martin's message overly condescending, the fact that he's inserting himself into the dispute is the issue. Look at the facts:
- The dispute was on alternative medicine, an article which Martinphi has never edited. It is reasonable to believe that his interest was solely based on ScienceApologist's involvement.
- The user filing the alert considered it resolved, after which Martin interjected with the predictable effect of reopening and prolonging a resolved dispute
- OK, I understand Martin feels picked on. This time it was him; ScienceApologist has, I believe, done similar things in the past. It's very simple: they should both avoid one another except as pertains to specific issues on articles which they both edit. Neither one should go out of his way to inject themselves into a dispute involving the other, or to give helpful "advice" to other parties on how to deal with their opposite number. That's really not too much to ask; it's reasonable to make it a two-way street, but otherwise Vassyana is completely on target. MastCell 18:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- There has probably never been a more clear-cut case of two users who should disengage, or at least not seek out opportunities to insert themselves into disputes with each other. Admittedly, they share some topics of interest, and if their paths cross on such articles then so be it. But Vassyana is absolutely right; while I didn't find Martin's message overly condescending, the fact that he's inserting himself into the dispute is the issue. Look at the facts:
- Consider this crap from SA's page:
- "I act to mitigate, redesign, and occasionally destroy the offerings of users who think that a particular "breakthrough" or "notable idea" deserves more consideration than it has gotten in the academic world. Such grandstanding is forbidden by a variety of Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines (WP:V, WP:SOAP, WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOT, and WP:REDFLAG to name just a few). Misplaced Pages is inherently a non-innovative reference work: it stifles creativity and free-thought. If Misplaced Pages had been around at the time of Galileo, his ideas would have been subject to my incisive commentary and editorial braggadocio -- even if I agreed with him. I am a status quo promoter. NPOV-PUSHER."
- Consider this crap from SA's page:
- And, how SA has made an effort to circumvent the civility rules on the top of his talk page. Consider that SA gang edits with his supporters, such as the ever present OrageMarlin, Fyslee and Antelan. Consider that SA has diligently worked to eliminate editors with views he does not agree with. Then take a look at his block record and tell me that you honestly think he is faultless.
- To not edit in articles SA is involved with is to simply give Misplaced Pages to him. Trust me, Misplaced Pages is already sliding on the scale of respectability in the world--especially in the academic world. You do not want it to be identified as a skeptical platform to protect the status quo from new ideas.
- Martin is about the last editor opposing SA's SPOV editing. I for one have given up and am taking the argument to the public. Where do you suppose the other banned or driven off editors have gone? Tom Butler (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- "take a look at ScienceApologist's block record and tell me that you honestly think he is faultless"?!? No one is claiming he's faultless. I explicitly said otherwise. There may not be a good guy and a bad guy here, hard as that may be for a partisan to accept. There are just two editors who feed off of each other in a negative, disruptive fashion. Your comment, and the strawman embodied in it ("If you're not with Martinphi, you must be making excuses for ScienceApologist") is exactly why people are tired and frustrated with both sides here. MastCell 20:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Martin is about the last editor opposing SA's SPOV editing. I for one have given up and am taking the argument to the public. Where do you suppose the other banned or driven off editors have gone? Tom Butler (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
What in the world are people talking about? I was helping Ludwig, and nothing I said related to SA. I looked in, I saw that he obviously hadn't presented things right, and I helped him. Had nothing to do with SA, except the complaint itself.
What, I repeat, are you talking about Vassayana? It had to do with admins not reading diffs, not SA.
Why was I following Ludwig around? Because we were recently involved with SA on other articles.
If you have even a single reason to think I was slinging tar at SA, then please bring it forth. As it happens, I was merely talking to Ludwig, saying how to do things. Since I consider him a friend, that accounts for my being there, not getting SA in trouble.
Vassayana, be reasonable: if I'd been wanting to get SA in trouble or sling tar at him, here's what I would have done: I'd have emailed Ludwig, told him about SA's ArbCom restriction, and collaborated with him to get SA at Arb enforcement. Duh. Just how dumb do you think I am? If I'm going to try and get SA, I'll do it properly. And I would be far too smart to sling mud at him in the meantime, because I already knew how that is perceived.
In short, this is a completely egregious lack of AGF on your part. I ask that you remove this restriction, and also remove it from the Arbitration page. You have absolutely nothing to go on, unless you think I'm a complete idiot.
Now, perhaps I am an idiot, but if I am it is to think that there is indeed an assumption of good faith on this wiki. I assumed that I could make an innocent comment, or actually a snarky comment about the attention span of admins in general, without it being construed as my trying to get SA.
Again, look at the situation there: there was no chance of getting SA. I'd known about that thread for a long time: do you think I don't watch that page? I can send you my watchlist. Do you think I would not have inserted myself earlier if I'd wanted to get SA? Do you think that I believed there was the least chance of getting SA? Get a little good faith. I was there for a brief comment to Ludwig, and nothing more.
I was restricted from an article once for doing exactly what SA did in this diff of Nealparr's . In that case, SA complained, in exactly those words, that I'd poisoned the well. But you can't see it. You won't do a thing to SA.
But anyway, I avoid SA as much as I can, and that includes trying not to go to articles where he is. Show me one place where I followed him (if you look hard there might be one or two articles), and I'll show you people begging me to help (literally).
Of course, because of this, it is a completely easy restriction to follow, but it is also completely unfair, and I think it only shows your frustration with this situation. Frankly, I think you know that I'm not anything like SA, yet you want the situation to stop. Well, you can make it stop easily, by just banning everyone who disagrees with SA. But is that what needs doing? You gave SA an indef block, so you know what the reality is basically. Do you really think that SA needs to be protected against me...... even assuming you still insist that what I said at WQ had anything to do with SA?
I ask that you get this reviewed. Get other completely uninvolved admins to review that diff, and see if it is really me wanting to "get" SA. See if they really think it believable that it was my belief that such a thing could do SA the least bit of harm. Vassayana, the more I think about it the more I see that even if you consider me to have no good faith at all, and therefore that my little comment was trying to get SA, you also have to think I'm completely STUPID. Let me assure you, I know how people perceive our interaction, and I wouldn't be that dumb if I were trying to get him. Which is why I almost always avoid these discussions on him at AN/I and Arb enforcement. Which is why I avoided that one till it was already closed. I haven't even emailed Ludwig. Go ask him. But he could have made a good Arb enforcement request if I had asked him.
Please ask reviewing admins to read what I just said here. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- (ec)If you had not repeatedly and inappropriately injected yourself into complaints and reports about SA, I would be willing to assume a whole lot more good faith. To be blunt, one assumes good faith as a starting point and it goes away in the face of contrary evidence. It's not a matter of one diff, but just another blip in a long-standing pattern of interaction. I did not block you. I did not even topic ban you. I did not even completely prohibit from you dealing with ScienceApologist. I simply prohibited you from injecting yourself in discussions, disputes and reports that involve SA where you are not already involved. If that restriction is truly that much of an issue to you, its necessity becomes even more clear to me.
- I clearly posted a link to AN/I where I notified everyone of what I did. I will link to your message here, but you're free to comment on AN/I, like anyone else. Vassyana (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I am banned
- If that's what you did, it's completely unfair. I completely object to it's being on my record, because I have done nothing wrong.
- But that's not what you did. Rather, you handed all the paranormal articles to SA. What you did was say to him: you have complete freedom to edit without Martinphi being involved anywhere Martinphi hasn't been for a while. Remember, we edit very low traffic articles. You just handed most all the paranormal articles to him. Completely, as I am the only one who bothers about his POV pushing on most of them. He can completely remake the paranormal articles because of this. You think he won't notice? ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- In fact, you just banned me from Parapsychology and a number of other articles, now that I think about it. Yes, you did ban me, on most of the article where I edit. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- And you show obvious bias by shrugging off Nealparr's diff. I think you are completely biased against me. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- "Not currently involved". Your restriction doesn't come into play yet. The problematic scenario would be if you made no edits to the articles in your watchlist for several weeks or months, and then ScienceApologist makes edits you feel strongly against. Then you're not allowed to edit it, because you'd be "injecting" yourself. Or if you took a wikibreak for any considerable length of time. That's when it'd suck for you and you could consider yourself effectively topic-banned. --Nealparr 22:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Um, yeah, you mean like nearly everything on my watchlist, including EVP and Parapsychology (I edited there today before I realized the implications of this, but before that I hadn't edited since 19 May. And on EVP since 7 May) and most everything else? No, this is a topic ban from nearly everything. SA has the wiki to himself now.
- If this is not changed, I will leave WP. I will ask to be blocked indef so as not to be tempted. This is completely egregious. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:25, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Or rather, as worded, you can edit content without restriction, but you can't participate in discussing the content.
- Simple fix would be to change the restriction to discussions on noticeboards regarding ScienceApologist, but not directly involving you or a topic you are both editing. It's the restriction on discussing content that effectively topic-bans you. --Nealparr 23:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Pardon me for interjecting where I perhaps "do not belong", but I find this situation puzzling and disturbing. People should not be discouraged from offering advice to new people -- or to experienced people. Now, I'm not sure I entirely understand the restrictions on Martin, and I don't have any real experience with Martin, but I've had some experience with ScienceApologist and find him to be tendentious and disruptive, and fairly given towards edit warring. For example, he recently tried to add unreferenced trivia to the lead of water fluoridation opposition; when I reverted it, he reverted me (diff), and I let it stay because I know he won't stop. He seems to constantly try to push people's buttons. I'm sure Martin and ScienceApologist can go round and round "discussing" and getting nowhere, but when push comes to shove and ScienceApologist tries to edit in things which don't belong, or unbalance articles, then it is good to have a balancing opinion. It appears here that there is a bias against Martin in favor of ScienceApologist; hopefully I'm just misreading. ImpIn | (t - c) 04:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Chiropractic
I need help on chiropractic. -- Dēmatt (chat) 20:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Please be more specific. What's the current issue? Can you provide some section links and diffs? Vassyana (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for the brevity, but thanks. This type of conversation with QuackGuru has been going on for weeks now and is getting very wearysome. We can't get anything done and it is very disruptive, especially with all the reverts and claims of consensus. He talks in circles and when we finally agree on something, he starts over at the beginning. If I am wrong, please let me know and I will adjust my way of doing things accordingly. -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going have one of our solid volunteers from WP:MEDCAB swing by to see if it's just a miscommunication issue, personality conflict, et cetera. This may well be a situation that can reach a peaceful solution and I'd like to give that a shot. If even with assistance there's still problems with the attitudes or actions of some people, I can step in to mitigate any disruptive editors. Vassyana (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- More than one editor disagrees with Dematt's version. For example, the WHO quotes are boring and are only suggestions. I explained this to Dematt. I want the education section to be fully referenced and accurate. Accuracy is a good thing. NPOV is to be respected. QuackGuru 21:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to bring this to your talk page, there's more on my talk page, too. -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, I appreciate more information. I understand the current situation and I think some help in reaching consensus might be just what the article needs. Let's see if some volunteer assistance can help get things on track, OK? If not, there are always other options to minimize disruption. Vassyana (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to bring this to your talk page, there's more on my talk page, too. -- Dēmatt (chat) 21:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- Some help reching consensus would be great. So far we have multiple editors in support of draft #3, Eubulides supporting "either 3 or 7", and QuackGuru supporting draft #7 (and stating that he refuses to consider draft 3). It seems that OM has once again come by to edit war in QuackGuru's version. DigitalC (talk) 23:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
- See Talk:Chiropractic#Comments_on_Education.2C_licensing.2C_and_regulation_7. Read what Eubulides wrote about draft 7. Draft 7 has been improved and is far better than draft 3. This is easy to understand. Please read my comments. QuackGuru 23:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Need to talk
Heya, we need to talk sometime soon, I figure. Will you have time? (Please reply per e-mail). --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)