User talk:Sharavanabhava - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sharavanabhava (talk | contribs) at 20:03, 17 December 2007 (→Re: Quackery AfD). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:03, 17 December 2007 by Sharavanabhava (talk | contribs) (→Re: Quackery AfD)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Archives

Archive 1. Archive 2.

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

If you leave a comment for me here, you should watch this page for any reply that I might make. If I have left a comment for you on your Talk page, expect that I will be watching your page and you should reply there (if you wish) but not here. This way, conversations are kept in their proper context. I reserve the right to delete or archive (but will not otherwise modify) any comments left here.

Email received

I got your email. Thanks for pointing me at one more place to look. Not so much thanks for my now needing to look in even more places ;) this thing is consuming more time than I ever wanted it to. GRBerry 20:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing glaring struck me. Can you provide evidence (diffs) for the "used as a weapon against other" editors bit? GRBerry 02:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see my Fifth response in the RfC and observe this diff. Whig (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

With regard to item 2 in today's email. I am not acting because I'm not certain that acting would be in Misplaced Pages's best interest. See the second to last bullet in the relevant portion of my evidence. I also don't think my escalating matters would be a good idea. GRBerry 17:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom MatthewHoffman case

~~Any user is welcome to add me to this case if it is appropriate to do so.~~ Whig (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Specifically, I would like User:Adam Cuerden to set forth evidence why I should be permanently blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Whig (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I will address this to the clerk. Whig (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request renewed

Any admin who considers the evidence submitted so far in the MatthewHoffman case may wish to review my block and restore my editing privilege as long as it will not interfere with ongoing or pending arbitration. Whig (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Use the {{unblock|reason}} template. Your page may not be watchlisted by many. This will add it to CAT:RFU. Mercury 18:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I already posted an unblock request some time ago, which was declined. The message states, "Do not replace this message with another unblock request or add another unblock request." Whig (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

Can another admin review the above? Mercury 22:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Request unblock from ArbCom at arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org — Lara❤Love 12:55, 7 December 2007 (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.

If nobody will unblock you (I shouldn't because I am unfamiliar with your case, and I am tangentially involved in the Hoffman matter), I think you should email Arbcom and ask to be unblocked so you can participate in the case. Go to WP:ARB and you will find an email address there, somewhere. - Jehochman 22:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I am not, but administrators are volunteers with limited time on their hands. Please state very clearly and very briefly, providing links where necessary, why your block violated the blocking policy and should be lifted. Sandstein (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I think reading Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Evidence#Adam's recent blocking history is spotty - subsection on Whig - and the later section "Adam and Homeopathy" would be enlightening to whichever admin reviews this request. The first has links to all the prior community discussion that I could find about this block, the latter contains some relevant context. I also am a party in that case so am not opining on the merits. GRBerry 22:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I strongly agree with Sandstein. At this point, I think that it would be best to pursue unblocking by contacting WP:ARBCOM. I also can't say I'm thrilled with stuff like this: . However, that was almost two weeks ago, I suppose. SQL 22:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Would it make sense for someone to propose a motion to the committee to include him in the case? That would put the decision ball squarely in their court. GRBerry 22:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

(ecX2)Yeah, I think, that would make sense. I'll hunt down an arbcom clerk, and point them here. They can unblock as well, if needed for this user to participate in a case. SQL 22:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Sandstein here. If you could briefly condense. Mercury 22:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandstein and Mercury, I'm not sure what diffs I can provide since there is not even a concrete allegation of having done anything wrong. Please read the Matthew Hoffman evidence which GRBerry has supplied, as I believe that contains most detail necessary to determine that I am improperly blocked by an involved administrator in a content dispute over Homeopathy. Whig 22:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

GRBerry, I welcome any such motion if appropriate. Whig 22:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Up until an arbitration official intervenes, I'll follow standard unblock request protocol and ask the blocking admin to comment on this unblock request. Please stand by. Sandstein (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have been standing by a few weeks now, and do not mind waiting a bit longer if it is necessary. Whig 23:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like any unblocking admin to consider the comments and responses at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Whig 2. This RFC, coupled with Whig's reactions to it, led directly to his block. I have no problem whatsoever with Whig being unblocked to edit in other areas, or to participate in the arbitration, but he needs to stay away from homeopathy. He was a seriously disruptive presence there, both before and after his ban from editing the main article, and it wasn't only Adam who had a problem with his behavior. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Whig, what, if any, of your actions/behaviors do you believe were incorrect and plan to change? To be perfectly honest, I was sympathetic when this came up 1.5 months ago, but the way you seem above under #Blocked again to be as interested in going after Adam Cuerden as you are in being unblocked isn't doing you any favors. I could be wrong, but as it stands now, I doubt you will find any admin willing to unblock you. --B (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless otherwise noticed I will refrain from editing the Homeopathy article in accordance with Mercury's original ban. I will also comply with his original 1RR parole. I should not have reverted more than three times in one day but I would welcome advice on how better to draw attention to a suppressed NPOV dispute. Whig 23:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My only interest in Adam Cuerden is that he is the blocking administrator and is involved in a content dispute with me. Whig 23:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This is mightily confusing. IF this section is a discussion of process (which is how it began), I'm staying out of it. IF it is turned into a discussion of the merits of the case, which is what a couple of the recent contributions (Skinwalker and B) seem to be doing, then I have a few comments.

I think it would be best to get the process clear before getting into discussion of the "merits of the case." Wanderer57 (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that, out of good faith, we should consider unblocking this account. However, if the incivility issue is not addressed this time around, I will not be opposed to an indefinite community ban. Maser 04:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Could you be specific and provide a diff where I was uncivil prior to the present block? Whig 04:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I missphrased, I'm sorry.You were known for incivility at one point, however after viewing your contributions I feel you should be uunblocked in good faith. I don't believe you were recently uncivil - I was referring to past actions. I think that you have tried hard to improve your conduct - and that is why I think you should be given one more chance. :) Maser 06:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Section break

I don't think I see anything particurly blockworthy when I review the contributions from the point of my unblocking/mentorship to the point of the reblocking. Unless I'm missing something, someone please point it out to me. I am willing to unblock and resume mentorship per our earlier agreement. This is a link to the mentorship conditions. What are the thoughts? Regards, Mercury 16:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is going to yell and scream too loudly. If you are willing to work with him, it's a zero-risk proposition, since he is gone at the next infraction. A community ban exists only when no admin is willing to unblock. If you are willing to unblock, then that's not a community ban. --B (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punative. If Mercury wishes to work with him, and Whig understands that a repeat of this behaviour will result in another block, then go for it. The editor seems to have calmed down since the block, and is responding civily and constructively to resolve the issue. Pedro : Chat 16:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I should add that if Mercury is willing to resume Mentorship under the prior terms then I would be willing to resume that relationship as well. Whig 16:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, we will continue for 14 days then. May I ask that we stay away from all medical articles, including alterative medicine and its associates. (for 14 days). I really want to work with you on other interests if you have them, and we will be able to address the editing style without editing those article currently in dispute. What do you think? Mercury 17:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I do have a lot of other interests but many of them are not Misplaced Pages. I will certainly stay away from the articles you request for the next two weeks, and if another article seems in need of editing I'll go ahead and you can let me know what you think. Whig 17:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Well I can understand that. I have a hard time with editing outside my interests. Nearly all of my new creations are medical or scientific in nature. So, lets just stay away from Homepathy alltogether. Other medical articles are ok. I don't really see a need to restrict medical articles entirely. I'm going to unblock you. Since we were 16 days in our 30 program, I'll go with 14 days. After that, those restrictions outlined for mentorship are gone. these restrictions will remain, but I don't think they should be extended due to the block.

I'll archive your talk page if you don't object in a few days to clean it up. Please use my talk page for questions, and I'll be watching your talk page for concerns of other editors.

I would ask that any administrator let me know before blocking Whig, and give Whig a warning, before a block. Lets try to work.

Mercury 17:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Per above. The autoblock tool is down, so let me know if you are autoblockered. Request handled by: Mercury 17:45, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Quack watch

You said "Anynobody, you have an excellent point but who could possibly be a more reliable source on whether or not Quackwatch is a peer reviewed resource than Quackwatch." Did you mean that facetiously? Anthon01 (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No. If Quackwatch says they are not a peer reviewed resource, they should be considered reliable on that unless there is verifiable evidence to the contrary. Whig (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

But Quackwatch never says that, IOW that is OR. It never addresses the point because it is a moot point because no one expects websites, especially sites with such an obviously clear and critical POV, to be peer-reviewed. They only make a short statement and if we are going to address the point of review at all, we have to stick with that. Anything more is OR. -- Fyslee / talk 17:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that they do not say so. I think they clearly say they are not a peer reviewed resource by stating they have advisers who review articles on request. Whig (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There are two things going on here, "affirmative" statements, and "denial" statements. We can make an "affirmative" statement: "Yes, they have a form of review of some articles," (my careless wording to get the point across), based on one citation. We can't make a "denial" statement: "They are not peer-reviewed," because we have no legitimate citation.

I agree that they are not peer-reviewed, but we aren't in the business of writing the "truth", only what is "verifiable" using V & RS. (Look up that wording here.) Fortunately truth us usually verifiable, but not always. Unless it is, it doesn't belong here, and that is rather fortunate since one person's idea of truth may not be another person's idea of truth. Quackwatch does not use the phrase "peer-reviewed" about themselves at all. That may seem like a minor detail when looking at the truth of the situation, but precisely those words have been misused (by its enemies) regarding the status of Quackwatch. While that would normally not have any bearing on whether or not we would make an edit here, it happens to make this issue more sensitive because those enemies are in active lawsuits with Quackwatch and the allies of those enemies are editing here and trying to get the wording of those enemies included. We do not run errands for libellers or other questionable persons. If Quackwatch doesn't use those words, and no other reliable sources use them, then any discussion of the matter in any article is OR. OTOH, if we can find sources that are V & RS, we might be able to include it. I have nothing against that. It must not be done as a criticism because it is a totally improper criticism designed as a straw man attack, no matter how it is phrased. (While inclusion of such types of criticism isn't always forbidden here, in this case the existing sources of that criticism happen to be so bad that they are already blacklisted here at Misplaced Pages.) If a good source just states it neutrally, then we could quote them and include it as a well-sourced factoid. So far I haven't seen such a statement, simply because good and sensible sources are usually scholarly sources, and they wouldn't engage it making such a denial statement when it is totally malplaced. It is as malplaced as stating that cow's milk is not shocking pink in color. Of course it isn't, but no reasonable person would ever claim it is, so that is a moot point and is ignored, rather than denied. -- Fyslee / talk 22:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee, I have asked Mercury to comment here as well because I do not want to have a conflict with you about policy. If I understand the V & RS requirements both are satisfied in my opinion by Quackwatch as the source of our knowledge that they are not peer reviewed, a fact you concur in above. Whig (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no doubt about Quackwatch being allowed as a source in its own article, but unless you can find the precise words where Quackwatch explicitly and very exactly addresses any issue about its articles being "peer-reviewed" (exactly those two words), you (or anyone else wishing to include it) are engaged in OR. It doesn't address the question because it is not a legitimate question. Why? Simply because websites aren't peer reviewed (with one exception), only scientific research papers (and that exceptional website is an exclusively on-line scientific journal publishing scientific research). It's a non-issue with everyone except those who wish to use a "denial" statement (see above) as a subtle means of denigrating Quackwatch, and there are a number of enemies of Quackwatch here who wish to include such an editorial statement. Keep in mind I don't have any objection (as clearly stated above) to inclusion if we can find a neutral and reliable source stating it as a matter of fact. To the best of my knowledge reliable sources don't address the matter because it's a non-issue. It is only an issue to those who wish to denigrate Quackwatch. We don't help them using editorial freedom. We need reliable sources. -- Fyslee / talk 01:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

...Are you just ignoring anything anyone says to you? Adam Cuerden 23:15, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, I am not. Is there something you wish to say to me? Whig (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Woah. Folks, lets address the subject matter. I've taken a look, but I'll have to look at the talk page as well. Mercury 00:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I see where Fyslee is coming from as far as reliable sourcing and V, although I do not agree or disagree with the dispute about inclusion. There are no policy violations in discussing what may or may not be OR. A violation occurs when we insert OR into the article itself. Now don't misinterpret me, I'm not saying the content under discussion is OR, I have no opinion there. I do have a suggestion, would y'all like for me to coordinate a uninvolved third opinion? Mercury 01:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Mercury, I don't think WP:3O can apply when it's not a dispute between two editors. This is a content dispute involving at least a half dozen editors. Whig (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you are correct. Color me red. Article requests for comments would be better here. Has one been attempted? Mercury 01:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't know, we should find out on Talk:Quackwatch. Whig (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this content dispute belongs on my Talk page in any case. It might be helpful if some of the comments here could be moved so they can have wider consideration and discussion. Whig (talk) 01:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Whig, I agree. This is actually part of the discussion at Quackwatch and should be copied there. May I copy parts of it? So as to not involve too many people, how about just yours and my comments? I'll make a suggested new section (shown below) that can be moved to Quackwatch talk. -- Fyslee / talk 05:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What I see going on here is quite simple. Whig made a statement - quite innocuous as far as I can see, although one may disagree with it, as with much of the comments on a talk page - and he is being hounded now by people with a vested interest in getting him banned again. Adam, Fyslee - this is unacceptable. Consider yourselves to be closely watched now. POV warriors are not needed on Misplaced Pages. docboat (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone else see the irony in this statement? Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

To copy to Quackwatch talk page

If Quackwatch says they are not a peer reviewed resource, they should be considered reliable on that unless there is verifiable evidence to the contrary. Whig (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that they are not peer-reviewed, but we aren't in the business of writing the "truth", only what is "verifiable" using V & RS. (Look up that wording here.) Fortunately truth us usually verifiable, but not always. Unless it is, it doesn't belong here, and that is rather fortunate since one person's idea of truth may not be another person's idea of truth. Quackwatch does not use the phrase "peer-reviewed" about themselves at all. That may seem like a minor detail when looking at the truth of the situation, but precisely those words have been misused (by its enemies) regarding the status of Quackwatch. While that would normally not have any bearing on whether or not we would make an edit here, it happens to make this issue more sensitive because those enemies are in active lawsuits with Quackwatch and the allies of those enemies are editing here and trying to get the wording of those enemies included. We do not run errands for libellers or other questionable persons. If Quackwatch doesn't use those words, and no other reliable sources use them, then any discussion of the matter in any article is OR. OTOH, if we can find sources that are V & RS, we might be able to include it. I have nothing against that. It must not be done as a criticism because it is a totally improper criticism designed as a straw man attack, no matter how it is phrased. (While inclusion of such types of criticism isn't always forbidden here, in this case the existing sources of that criticism happen to be so bad that they are already blacklisted here at Misplaced Pages.) If a good source just states it neutrally, then we could quote them and include it as a well-sourced factoid. So far I haven't seen such a statement, simply because good and sensible sources are usually scholarly sources, and they wouldn't engage in making such a denial statement when it is totally malplaced. It is as malplaced as stating that cow's milk is not shocking pink in color. Of course it isn't, but no reasonable person would ever claim it is, so that is a moot point and is ignored, rather than denied. -- Fyslee / talk 22:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee, I do not want to have a conflict with you about policy. If I understand the V & RS requirements both are satisfied in my opinion by Quackwatch as the source of our knowledge that they are not peer reviewed, a fact you concur in above. Whig (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

How does the above look? I have deleted other people's comments and redacted mention of Mercury from your last comment above, as it is irrelevant to a shortened version away from the context of this talk page. Can I just copy it? -- Fyslee / talk 05:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd only point out that there has been subsequent discussion about this issue on Talk:Quackwatch and this should be marked in some way as being out of context. —Whig (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes indeed. It could just be added as a new subsection and people can add their comments as they see fit. How about just calling it "From Whig's talk page" and a short introductory sentence stating the same? -- Fyslee 05:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no real preference for how you do it. Sounds fine. —Whig (talk) 06:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Let's give it a try and see if it generates anything new. Right now the discussion is going in circles. -- Fyslee / talk 06:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk archiving...

Whig, how long do you want sections to remain before they are archived to an archive by the bot? Mercury 01:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've never really archived apart from your own encouragement and don't know what is appropriate to do automatically. Whig (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Mine is set for 24 hours from the last comment, because I can check very frequently. If say you don't check for two days sometimes, you might find 72 hours appropriate. Alot of people do it different ways. WP:ARCHIVE has some thoughts on the subject. If you like, I can set up the automatic stuff. Regards, Mercury 02:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you make it 14 days? I like to keep some context even when I'm checking regularly, and I might not check every week if I'm doing other things. Whig (talk) 02:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. Mercury 04:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Quackwatch

Could you clarify who you're talking about when you say "our understanding"? It's best to refer back to previous discussions with a link to the section, a diff, a quote, and/or a name/time reference to what you're referring to. --Ronz (talk) 02:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for any confusion. I prefer not to have to cite every past diff for every reply, but I have attempted to seek some clarity here. —Whig (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking to time to response. I'm sorry, but I don't understand though:

I still think our understanding of the mission statement is correct, contra the notion that their mission is to review external papers upon request.

Quackwatch states on their website, "Members of our medical advisory board review articles upon request." Quackwatch is a reliable source for the purpose of quoting or accurately rephrasing this statement, and no synthesis is required to do so. The question seems to revolve over what this statement actually means. I apologize for repeating this question again, but does Quackwatch review external articles upon request?

I see that you're asking if they review other articles. I don't see how this relates.

What I'm trying to understand is why you oppose the proposal. I don't understand what you mean by, "I still think our understanding of the mission statement is correct", nor why this is rationale for opposition.

As for, "Quackwatch is a reliable source for the purpose of quoting or accurately rephrasing this statement, and no synthesis is required to do so." You're referring to the current statement rather than the proposal, correct? It's not clear.

Finally, the current Quackwatch reference is not a source that verifies what's in the article, because the article uses not only different words, but entirely different concepts. You can only verify what is said. --Ronz (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, almost forgot: I don't care how you refer to previous discussions, and I don't do it often enough myself. --Ronz (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Ronz, you are quoting me from obsolete diffs and not the refactored text on the Talk:Quackwatch page. I very quickly reverted my language of Oppose and replaced it with Disagree. Please do not bring this to my Talk page unless there is something I have not specifically addressed on the Talk:Quackwatch page. I cannot respond intelligibly to copies of obsolete text. —Whig (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the word, as it is completely irrelevant to our discussion in any way. --Ronz (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You removed "original" as well, but I thought it might be easier for you to respond to what you first said. Ignore it if it's a problem. --Ronz (talk) 05:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm having trouble following what you are asking me. I think I've explained myself well on Talk:Quackwatch. Please take further discussion there. —Whig (talk) 06:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'd like to understand your position:

Could you clarify what and who you're talking about when you say "our understanding"? --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
What I'm trying to understand is why you oppose the proposal. I don't understand how, "I still think our understanding of the mission statement is correct", is a rationale for opposition. --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
The current Quackwatch reference is not a source that verifies what's in the article, because the article uses not only different words, but entirely different concepts. You can only verify what is said. Do you disagree? If so, why? --Ronz (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Without trying to go back and analyze diffs, I'll just try to explain what I think.

A number of editors, including Levine2112, Anthon01, and I seem to have a common understanding that the Quackwatch mission statement means that their own articles are reviewed upon request.
I disagree with the proposal because it chooses to remove a verified fact from the article on an incorrect basis that there is some violation of WP:OR or WP:SYNTH involved here. There is no such violation.
The Quackwatch mission page is a source that verifies what's in the article, in my opinion. —Whig (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I understand now. I think you should change your "Disagree" comment to include what you've said above in (2), because you haven't made that clear.

As for (3), I think that viewpoint requires a complete rewrite of WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV, all policies fundamental to Misplaced Pages. --Ronz (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My Barnstar

You are too kind. Hopefully we have reached a peaceful resolution finally. My appreciation for all of your helpful input. Thanks! -- Levine2112 20:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Please revert

I consider this to be edit-warring: remove POV-section flag, no justification provided in Talk. The justification is there and in the edit summaries. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that you have responded to repeated requests for specific justification. I have self-reverted per your request, however I again ask you to make your specific objections and not simply link a bunch of policy pages and demand we search for the relevant parts. —Whig (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Editing and mentorship

Hi,

I noticed that the admin who was mentoring you may not be around. This presents a slight problem for you, in that you were unblocked on condition of a number of editing conditions and agreements, which were designed and agreed by the community, to help you stay out of problems.

To sum up, these were as follows, as best I understand it:

15 October, following community consensus at WP:ANI:

6 months of 1 revert rule, If you revert content in an article more than once per week, you will be blocked. The blocks escalate in duration after each violation.
Civility patrol for 6 months where any threat or insult, even vague, will result in a block. The blocks escalate in duration after each violation.
You are prohibited from editing the Homeopathy article for 6 months, you may use the talk page. You may revert simple vandalism.

29 October, mentorship:

You agree to send (refer) all complaints about your behavior to a mentor to discuss, who will handle them.
When you receive a complaint about your behavior or edits, you will stop the disputed behavior until you can talk to the mentor.
You agree to heed the mentor's advice.
The agreement will be re-evaluated in a month.
You will be reblocked if you breach this agreement.
You agree to explicitly comment on edits, and not comment on editors. You also agree not to use profanity on talk pages unless quoting a source or another editor.
You agree that you will not edit Talk:Homeopathy until discussed and agreed by the mentor.
This agreement is in addition to the current editing restrictions.

If mercury is not contactable, then this seems to be the situation:

(1)

The community decisions of 15 October remain. They were decided by the community, not by mercury.

(2)

You are aware of the norms and conduct expected of you under the mentorship agreement. This was intended to advise you, and guide you as to avoiding problem areas you know exist. Whilst the mentorship is no longer working, these were not so much restrictions to punish you, but restrictions to protect you as you learned to avoid problems. You are aware of them; the purpose for which they were set up still exists; it's still not okay to make personal attacks or edit war or the like as you may have once done, and hopefully from your work with Mercury you have learned to avoid these in future.

If they recur then the community will be intolerant most likely; I therefore do advise that you ask for another administrator to act as mentor or sounding-board, so that if problems do arise, you aren't alone and can avoid problems. But that's your choice. All mentorship does is protect you, so long as you wish that protection. I leave it to you. The points from 29 October were not areas of punishment, but more, areas Mercury felt you needed much protection from your own habits in. I leave it to your own judgement if you would benefit from help - it's free if it would be useful, there will be people willing.

This is posted in the attempt to make it easy to continue avoiding problems. A straw poll of administrators suggests strongly you are advised - for your own benefit - to ask some admin to be a mentor or sounding board, so you continue to avoid problems. Please let me know if you need any suggestions or input on this. FT2 03:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As FT2 has said, a nonbinding vote among uninvolved administrators has suggested that you seek a mentor. I'm willing to mentor you if you want; I have never run into you before, don't edit in the same spheres as you, and don't interact with people you are in conflict with. Please get back to me on my talk page if you have any comments or questions. east.718 at 04:02, December 16, 2007

OK, how do these terms sound? They are slightly tweaked from Mercury's old mentorship.

A 1RR restriction until 4/15/2008, enforceable by blocks. The blocks will escalate in duration after each violation.
A broadly defined civility and profanity parole until 4/15/2008, enforceable by blocks. Again, the blocks will escalate in duration after each violation.
You will not edit homeopathy until 4/15/2008, except for reverting simple vandalism.
You will refer all complaints about your behavior to me and I'll handle them.
When you receive a complaint about your behavior or edits, you will stop the disputed behavior until you can talk to me.
You don't have to heed my advice, but it's encouraged that you do so.
This agreement will be re-evaluated in January.
You will be reblocked if you breach this agreement.
You will not edit Talk:Homeopathy until discussing it with me and getting my permission.

east.718 at 18:35, December 16, 2007

I've never seen you "in action" before, so I'll reset the month timer. If you're good, it shouldn't be a problem as it's just another week and I can lift the mentorship early. east.718 at 19:43, December 16, 2007

Re: Quackery AfD

Thanks for letting me know. It's a really POINTy nom in my opinion, but I'll let you slide for now. Don't try something disruptive like that again though. east.718 at 19:57, December 17, 2007

I'm not trying to disrupt, so tell me what I did wrong, please. In e-mail if appropriate. I think that this article is incapable of being other than a disparagement of certain people and practices which are simply unpopular. There is no standard of what is or is not quackery. —Whig (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears you have been emboldened by Mercury's absence, and are back to your previous behavior. I will defer just this once to you new mentor's judgment, but if anything like this happens again I will press vigorously for your indefinite ban from the project. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate that. I will refer your comment. —Whig (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)