Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:33, 22 July 2008

Warnings

It's weird

that some editors think that Wikipeida is not about an encyclopedia ,

And some editors need more and more WP:TROUT applied: .

Several applications are obviously required...

I'clast harassment

Given that others have made the accusations, I'm going to stay out of I'clast's attempt at a cover for Ilena's ArbCom until such time they (whoever "they" are) go through the appropriate channels (which I have pointed out to Levine and Ilena above). I don't see that there are any issues on my part per se however I am happy to deal with you as a neutral editor should Ilena and/or the others decide to actually substantiate their claims. Until they do that, as I have pointed out previously, "I for one will not bother with a rebuttal." Shot info 00:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

This COI issue with you is only part of a larger picture that involves *many* hostile environment problems for "minorities" in the QW related articles.

Shot, I am quite serious about the COI part with you and, besides a number of recognizable hints, have more or less let it alone for most of 6 weeks, especially after your earlier message to me, after I earlier dropped another hint,...nipping at my ankles...(Arthur's, NCAHF talk), do you have a special interest here?--I'clast 09:46, 14 January 2007.

I give all kinds of people *lots* of chances to rehabilitate their editing, make their points, and get things off their chest, even having reasoned with demonstrable, bannable trolls rather than just pounding them with embarrassing documentation and policies. (I have been lucky, one troll finally embarrassed himself enough to abandon that particular account, and me.)

I encourage you to discuss this matter forthrightly.--I'clast 03:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'klast, you need to go and ask yourself what value any answer I give will make to the "debate". You also need to ask yourself why you are performing such obscuration and making such baseless accusations. If you and other editors have problems, there are WP channels to put this through (as noted above). I note that you still haven't elected to do this, but brings it up as a smokescreen to defend your POV warriors who you have defended in the past. Of course outside of an ArbCom, WP would consider this unacceptable behaviour, and I for one will not bother with a rebuttal. Shot info 07:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The primary value is to help clear the air here and in the future.

The other value of forthright is for you, it should be less painful and less crippling. I've had substantial capability to go to COI for weeks and I do think COI would be unpleasant, for you. Many people would like my "cooperation". Well, I want theirs. I am sick of suffering in partial silence as a minority when I am being messed with, either COI or trolls, because of a slanted field and I have some capabilities. Now if that means trampling every kind of COI, troll or less literate, that probably means I will be one of the survivors. Even at the brink of a pitched confrontation, I am quite capable of achieving collaboration, I recognize merit. Some very pro-QW editors who know me well, could attest to that. I prefer to miss the confrontation part. In many ways I have tried to recognize your merits. If I thought you had little merit, I would have skipped some dialogue, grace period & hints and just let you have exactly what you are asking for.

I am not blowing smoke, I've been forebearing. There is far more organizational astroturfing and "skeptical" trolling going on all over altmed related topics than is generally recognized (I sometimes know who is who), some that genuinely scare me. I simply am not in a position to trust so many counterparts enough to deal promptly with these problems when I would like (I sometimes have to wait 6+ months to clear up other problems first). Your COI issue is one that I expect to have acknowledgement of, now, even if others' issues have to be redressed later. Ultimately this is all part of clearing the air, one serialized step at a time. In fairness for the current RfArb, it needs to be done now. You-all want *more* help dealing with POV warring? Sure, when the field is a little more level and demining is not needed first.

"Baseless"? Do you feel lucky?--I'clast 10:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Aust Barnstar

		The Australian Barnstar of National Merit
		for your efforts with Australian articles Gnangarra 00:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Hi. You said at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/JzG2: ""civil" is almost always in the eye of the offended, not the policy." I disagree. Would you be open to discussing this point? -GTBacchus 07:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really, not because I don't wish to discuss, but often I find that such discussions only fossilise our already established positions. However in saying that, the things that different editors find that they are offended over, and pull WP:CIVIL out is amazing. You can see on JzG's RFC who and what get's offended about things that people just shouldn't be offended over. However given that WP is evolving into this oddball social experiment where the #1 policy is not offending people, I suppose it makes sense. A better place to discuss, rather than my talkpage, is here. Thanks --Shot info (talk) 11:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Mercury poisoning

Thanks for catching that howler in Mercury poisoning. I made this change which I hope fixes the immediate problem. The article still needs organizational work but one patch at a time. Eubulides (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem Shot info (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

VU parallels?

I'm confused - what's VU? Guettarda (talk) 07:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Vanished User. It's a codename for the user who was ultimately persecuted by the ArbCom as fallout from the Matthew Hoffman case. Shot info (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ahh. Yeah. That's so confusing, and I don't know what I am supposed to know or not know. Is his original username forgotten as far as Misplaced Pages's collective memory goes? I started off assuming that all of this was common knowledge, but now I don't know any more. I also stopped reading the Hoffman/VU case too early on - I only discovered today that the use of the term "dogs" in the context of of anti-anti-science editors (or maybe just ID-related ones) was related to a comment in an arbcomm ruling. Ugh. Guettarda (talk) 08:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Word choice

I think you mean "credulous" here. Also, though I agree that the community needs to do far more to eliminate {{in-universe}} bias, I do not think that that comment will do much to endear a precious uninvolved administrator to the reality-based community. - Eldereft (cont.) 00:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Somehow I think the die has already been cast. Sure, with a bit of wishful thinking and hope we could endear a precious uninvolved administrator to the reality-based community. Sadly however the facts of the matter beg to differ. Of course it remains to be seen if I am incorrect, but we have been down this path before... Shot info (talk) 00:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
Your continued joking at User talk:Badger Drink is disruptive and considered vandalism. You will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages if you continue. =D Badger Drink (talk) 03:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't find a template for incivility, but I figured that one was close enough. I get where you're coming from. --Badger Drink (talk) 03:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

WOW - you are right, for all the NOISE that people generate about CIVILity, there is no warning template here. That's amazing, although probably just reflective that CIVILity is largely a modern phenomena within Misplaced Pages. Particularly as it moves away from being the Encyclopaedia anyone can edit, to been an exercise in myspacitation, roleplaying, and getting up your edit count. Shot info (talk) 04:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Civility is a long standing principle on Misplaced Pages and hardly "largely a modern phenomena within Misplaced Pages". The page existed, was oft-referenced and considered a core principle over four years ago. It was in large part based on this essay on meta, as well as the "positive" explanation of the inherent principle behind such long-standing policies as "no personal attacks". Incivility, of varying stripes, was a central point of concern in the majority of the earliest ArbCom cases as well, In the "old old days" of Misplaced Pages, the concept was referred to as "Wikiquette" instead of "civility", but the principle was the same. I'm not looking to enter a debate over the concept itself, but rather just pointing out that the perception it is a recent phenomena is inaccurate.

In all earnestness, why do you feel so antagonistic towards the civility policy? Why do you feel that it is a detriment to Misplaced Pages? (I apologize if those questions are malformed because I am misunderstanding you.) Vassyana (talk) 00:49, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see your edit until now. I don't have a problem with civility. I have a problem when it's CIVIL first and only. Sure there are lots of admins who claim that they regard the other 4 pillars with equal measure, but as a skeptic, you have to ask for the evidence, and the evidence is that only CIVILity is enforced. And it's judgement is largely arbitrary and capricious as to what is civil to one admin, is the height of a personal attack to another. So what we in the Community see - is admins blocking for basically their own personal feelings (which is probably why so many blocks are overturned).

In the "old days", the civil pov pusher did not exist as admins weren't paralysed by this "uninvolved" (which actually equates to "uninformed") BS and could block problematic editors. Finally after about 2 years, we now have broad topic bans. However the bans are only implemented largely for CIVILity issues (ie/ he isn't nice...block, as opposed to, he isn't improving the project...block). As has been discussed before CIVIL is a weak and easy way out for admins to do their jobs... Shot info (talk)

No need for apologies. You're not obligated to satisfy my curiosities. :D Regardless, thank you for such a complete reply. (And, my apologies for misunderstanding your point previously.) I have a much better understanding of where you're coming from now. I would tend to agree it is a problem. I think two of the most serious issues we face is the misuse of sources and stonewalling/beating dead horses/tendacious arguments. What do you think of those issues and their prominence? What do you think are some of the most serious unaddressed concerns we face? Vassyana (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

*That* account

Dunno who that IP was here - I suspect you're right. Either way, it is an open proxy, so it's now blocked - Alison 23:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that we don't know 100%, but we have a very good idea who it was based on their MO. Let's face it, it was only used for a personal attack and was via an open proxy (so more evidence it's from a banned user). So while the account is blocked, the only way that banned users will get the hint is if their vitriolic trolling is purged from Misplaced Pages. Besides, per WP:TALK any editor can refactor comments that don't relate to the article - which Davkal's don't. Shot info (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

AN/I

I did reply, on the AN/I. I do think it was not attack enough to justify blanking, when the old adage "better to let folks think you a fool than open your mouth and prove it" applies so much more aptly. I support SA's efforts to keep the project clear of Homeopathicruft, but not his behavior at all times. ThuranX (talk) 04:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that admins have blocked him (and others) for much less "offensive" personal attacks, its odd that people are getting offended when SA effectively "takes the law into his own hands". And now is being accused of "edit warring". As I have pointed out above to V, civility is obviously something different to certain admins, depending on who is saying what to whom and where. Arbitary and capricious. Shot info (talk) 04:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:DR

Shot Info, if you want to file a case at Dispute Resolution or wish to discuss possible MedCom activities regarding Quackwatch, let me know. I can be a mediator for this case if you so desire, or I can see if another mediator can head this one up. seicer | talk | contribs 02:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

An RfM would be a good start, but I'm personally not interested in doing the leg work in getting it off the ground, nor am I interested in watching it crash and burn when somebody pulls out. More interested in seeing admins become better informed about what is actually happening over in QW land rather than the last 50 edits. How can this be done? Dunno, up to admins to reform their ways. Shot info (talk) 02:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, sorry to butt in here but I've been lurking throughout all of this since I gave myself time out from that article do to this kind of behavior. What I am seeing is a group of editors tagging each other from article to article and having a couple of administrators that this groups goes running to. Then amazingly I am seeing just other editors being banished from the articles for a week and now there is conversations going on at SA's talk page suggesting that he not revert at all and one of the editors who was involved in SA and Ronz being blocked coming into the picture again here, . Now to me this is egging on to get SA to react negatively, I know I would which is why I don't edit or even comment anymore in QW land. I got slapped down there even when trying to be polite and find a compromise. Then I have been seeing administrators going there but no one so far has commented on the title, Ronz has been blocked for a week, and I still don't understand the reasoning for that, but yet this was posted on the talk page and Ronz obviously cannot speak in his defense of what is being said there, so what is the point of moving the section with the title to the talk page of QW when it was on the talk page of the editor who put it there? Something wrong is going on here when outsiders can see a 'gang' running together from article to article to help revert to their preferred versions and no one does anything about it yet other editors are banned from speaking their own mind about things. This civility behavior has changed so much in the time I've been here. I like to be civil at all times and leave when I am getting upset, but to be honest, I have find that this group is civil to push their views in a uncivil way that gets the opposing parties removed because others feel they aren't civil enough. I do not think that what SA says here, "Wow, ImperfectlyInformed is so sure that his hatred for Stephen Barret should be codified in his cherry-picked quotes and out-of-context summarizing, I'm not sure that he should be allowed on this page any more. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)" is uncivil at all since the editor her/himself states this on the talk page to begin with. But now there is a threat against SA to take things further again. This, IMHO, is wrong. Sorry to rant on your page Shot, just this has been bugging the heck out of me now. Good day everyone, --CrohnieGal 11:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Who is Davkal...

You reverted an anon with the edit summary "more davkal"... could you explain? The anon has only been constructive on that article, which I have been watching for some while. Personally, I added Anthony Kenny's critical review to the article in case you want insight on my own POV.

What is going on? Merzul (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, User:Davkal obviously; is there any reason to believe this IP is that user? Merzul (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Proxy IP, follows SA around and made some edits calling for his blocking/avoiding ArbCom? Shot info (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, you're right that he arrived at that article right after SA and his first edit was just to undo that particular action. Of course, talk of ArbCom is not exactly the first thing a new editor would do. I still believe his contributions on that article, especially here, has been helpful. I don't feel strongly about "former biochemist", but I don't really see a reason to delete it either. McGrath is a former biochemist, many reviews of the book compare his background to that of Dawkins.

I'm not going to dig into his contributions further because I trust your judgement that this is a sock. Do whatever is needed with the user, but I take full responsibility for the edits to that page. You can of course revert it on the merits of the material, if that's your judgement, but don't revert simply because this was a sock. Merzul (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

No problems. Thanks for the goodwill and edit away :-) Shot info (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

POV tags

{{Lopsided}} and {{POV-statement}} are the only two that I can find.

I probably won't be editing any of the articles under ArbCom sanctions. --Ronz (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Technically those articles are not under an ArbCom implemented sanction. They are under a sanction implemented by a couple of admins who have taken it upon themselves to implement their own version of the WikiPillars. Mind you if it stops the civil pov pushers it would be a good thing. But as I've argued previously, those admins who aren't interested in editing the encyclopedia are normally only interested in Misplaced Pages being Myspacedia. These admins are more than welcome to the civil pov pushers and will (over time) find their target articles will become nonsense - so good on those admins, they do a great job of making Misplaced Pages a better place for the regular editors. I do find it amusing when these admins are taken to task over their performance and they whine about "shouldn't you be editing" while they don't understand the very irony in their own lack of editing contributions :-) Shot info (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The irony abounds. --Ronz (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

Shot info, as I am sure you are aware, the Quackwatch article is under conditions for editing. The top condition is "No reverts". However, you did exactly that, reverting a tag that had been placed on the article just a few minutes earlier. Please be aware that because of the Arbcom Homeopathy case, uninvolved administrators are empowered to place additional restrictions on articles or editors, in order to avoid disruption to the project. Please consider this your last warning, that if you take any other disruptive actions, you could be placed under further restrictions such as being banned from the article or topic area, or even from having your account access blocked entirely. So please, try to improve your mode of editing. Don't revert, do stay civil and constructive, and try to help out with positive edits and comments, and there won't be any further need for action. Thanks, Elonka 16:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)