Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:07, 17 January 2009

Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45 This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Re: New antisemitism

Feel free to unprotect it if you feel it's necessary. Sorry I hadn't noticed that earlier. –Juliancolton 20:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom request for clarification: WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE

A request has been made for clarification of the ArbCom case WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE as it relates to List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts. I'm leaving this notification with all editors who have recently edited the article or participated in discussion. For now, the pending request, where you are free to comment, may be found here. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 13:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like they're going to blow it off. Candidly, I think your comments discouraging taking up the case were unfortunate, because I don't think you're familiar with the long history of the dispute over the name. However, you did correctly identify the main areas of dispute right now.

I posted my best shot at a description of problems and constructive suggestions for going forward on the talk page. I hope it's helpful. If we could get editors away from a !voting mentality and into an "addressing one's opponent's strongest arguments", we'd have an excellent debate. Some editors do that already; others, not so much, but this is not the place to name-check. regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 08:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that the entire talkpage is suffering a bit from three main problems, one is "tl;dr" (too long, didn't read) comments, another is too much back and forth between a small group of editors who just keep repeating the same positions, and thirdly, the discussions range a bit into the abstract, rather than focusing specifically on the List itself. This makes it difficult for outside editors to offer comments. What you may wish to do is identify one specific part of the list which you would like to modify, and start a very brief and focused section. Use a very short post, and try to be very specific about what wording change you would like. If other of the regular editors comment, don't feel that you need to reply to every single thing they say. Let them say their piece, and then wait a day or so and give other editors a chance to weigh in. Now, if you feel that a constructive dialogue is possible with the regular editors, by all means continue to discuss to hammer out a compromise. But if it's just you and them going back and forth, neither convincing the other, then all that's going to do is fill up the page and make other editors less likely to want to join the fray. For best results: Keep comments short, sparing, and directly focused on the article. --Elonka 17:29, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I hope it works. But I'm not optimistic. You can already see examples on the talk page where a specific issue -- asserting consensus falsely -- was raised and ignored (deliberately, I think). --Backin72 (n.b.) 22:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Was the thread-starter here an example of "too long, didn't read"? thanks, Backin72 (n.b.) 22:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That particular one was borderline. It's long, but wasn't that difficult to read because of the bullet points. As a general rule of thumb though, as soon as a post gets longer than 5 or 6 lines, the chances that anyone is actually going to read all of it start dropping drastically. And the chances that they're going to carefully ponder it also drop at a rapid rate. It's a shame, actually, because when someone writes a long post, chances are pretty good that they put a lot of time and thought into it. But the attention span of the reader needs to be brought into consideration. As an exercise, try skimming the discussions at WP:ANI. Pick a thread that you know nothing about, and then read it to try and get a sense of what's being talked about, and further, to try and determine what should be done about it. I think you'll rapidly find that it's very difficult to review an unfamiliar discussion, and that the longer the posts are, the more difficult it can be! --Elonka 22:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I understand. I just have fond hopes that articles, which are much more stable than ANI threads, can attract more sustained attention. I've had some fantastic long exchanges at acupuncture. But the List of Pseudos and Sorta-Pseudos does seem to be a place where shorter arguments avail (if they avail at all; I don't think the WP:IDHT is in my imagination). Is it possible that you are treating the page more like an ANI thread, and just skimming over the longer posts? If so, you would have a better sense of where things stand if you read posts in detail. Please toss away that "shoe" if it doesn't fit. I'm just super burned out on WP because this sort of thing was tolerated. I believe SA crossed a line very badly with his rampant WP:NPA, and I just can't trust WP anymore as a healthy editing environment. ciao, Backin72 (n.b.) 23:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Indicating disagreement in WP space

Your thoughts would be welcome at Wikipedia_talk:Policies_and_guidelines#Massive_revision. You made an eloquent argument that when there is a disagreement on guidance, we should indicate it; and I wonder if you have a way to phrase that as policy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Editprotected consensus

Hi. Regarding your "{{ep|c}}" comment with the Coord template modification request, could you please elaborate on what lead you to the conclusion that there's no consensus? Do you disagree with my earlier comment on the same topic? --Para (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw the following:

• A request to edit the protected template {{coord}} template was made by you, Para (talk · contribs)
• The request was struck out within minutes by TheDJ (talk · contribs)
• An objection was posted by Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) a couple hours later.
• Dschwen (talk · contribs) disagreed with Pigsonthewing
• TheDJ re-enabled the request
• Andy Mabbett (aka Pigsonthewing) objected
• TheDJ replied to Mabbett
• Nihiltres (talk · contribs) declined the request
• Para asked to look again
• Mabbett disagreed again
• Cush (talk · contribs) agrees with Para
• Para accused Mabbett of wasting people's time
• Cush agrees with Para
• Occuli (talk · contribs) agrees with Mabbett
• Para replies
• Mabbett accuses Para of "partisan" descriptions which "are unhelpful and false". Perhaps not the most civil way of expressing things, but clearly shows that there's still disagreement.

In short, I saw no indication at Template talk:Coord#Modifications that there was consensus for a change. And since the {{coord}} template is in extremely wide use throughout Misplaced Pages, it is especially important that we be very careful and conservative in making changes. If you still feel that the change is good one, I encourage you to follow the steps at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution, perhaps by inviting more editors into the discussion. If a clear consensus emerges, then the change can be re-requested. Hope that helps explain, --Elonka 21:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you look at the discussion of the problem, before the suggested technical modification? --Para (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I tend to review only the actual section where the request has been made, I don't read everything on the page. --Elonka 21:51, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, please do. The relevant part is the main section of that subsection, and the previous discussions linked from there. Very few people are interested of the technical details of fixing the template, when the most important issue is to get the problem in the template fixed. --Para (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

re: query

The tags are self-explanatory enough. I'm sure this guy can fix the article himself, or maybe you can since you know him. I stopped short of putting the article up for AFD, but it is certainly a candidate. --MrShamrock (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. It's an orphan for starters, as the tag reads. If you click the "what links here" button, you'll see that SimFarm is the only real article that links to it, the rest are disambig and user pages. I don't see a "clear assertion of notability." He's a guy that makes video games, big deal, so every video game developer automatically gets a wikipedia article? The "biography" is a narrative of his life story, like working at Toys R us and staying with his company when it was bought out by EA, hard to imagine less notable or encylopedic entries. It's a vanity page / resume to promote himself in his industry, plain and simple. Your dedication to your "friend" is admirable, and since you're an admin, you're probably just going to do what you want anyway. But this is article is neither encyclopedic or notable, it's not much more than an advertisement. --MrShamrock (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. I apologize for offending you. I have put the aforementioned points on the talk page. I don't have an interest in rewriting an article that I feel has many inherent faults, including the notability of its subject. Perhaps I'll put it up for AFD and let others decide and if I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But again, i do apologize for offending you. And thanks for letting me know about the editting war stuff on the Bob Ross article. --MrShamrock (talk) 03:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

ping

Keep an eye on this: Talk:Scientology#Error. I'm not sure, but it looks like that was a quote! --SB_Johnny | 12:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try, but to be honest, there are so many EP requests (edits to protected pages), that I tend not to watchlist them for very long. My practice is to review Category:Misplaced Pages protected edit requests, and spot-check items on the list. When I see the section where the request was made, I review all the discussion in that particular section. If a request has been made and it looks immediately non-controversial, I take care of it on the spot. If it appears possibly controversial, but no one has objected to it for a few days, I go ahead and accomplish the edit. If there are people objecting to the change, I decline the request and tell them to work it out. In this case at Talk:Scientology#Error, if you feel that the change was incorrect, simply make another {{editprotected}} request back to the old wording, and if there's consensus for the change, it'll get put back as it was. --Elonka 18:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm an admin actually :-). I had seen the request earlier (I'm trying to keep an eye on that category too), but didn't comply because there was no prior discussion (just the one user making the request). --SB_Johnny | 19:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Aha, sorry for misunderstanding. If you disagree with the change, I have no objection to you or any other admin reverting it. --Elonka 19:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's unprotected now anyway... another editor replied as well, but it's unclear (to me) who put the quote in, and whether it was actually a quote. C'est la wiki :-). --SB_Johnny | 20:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you think?

You have expressed an interest in my interactions with other editors in the past. Do you consider this a personal attack against me? Do you think that what I wrote (immediately above) provoked this/was written in a disruptive or inappropriate way? These are good faith questions: I'd appreciate an independent view here. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 14:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely ad hominem. I have left him a note. --Elonka 18:02, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, are you sure you understand what an ad hominem is? Sarcasm is not necessarily an ad hominem.

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting).

Since I did not think that anyone would take my sarcastic comment as a true claim, and since I did not apply any such claim as proof that his argument is false; the statement is just a sarcasm, not an Ad Hominem. In fact, his edit is written so vaguely that I still have no idea what he was trying to say, and my edit was more a question than anything else.

I will admit that the comment is sarcastic, but it is not an attempt to discredit his argument be discrediting him. (It is probably less an Ad Hominem than the time when -- in the middle of a disagreement between us -- he offered sympathy for my limited ability to explain myself in English.) Actually I have spent a lot of time thinking about the problems posed by Ad Hominems on WP, and would not use such an argument. I consider it very kind of you to do a favor for a fellow administrator by defending against that mean, and sarcastic, Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an expert, but Ad Hominem "Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking ... rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim," seems to indicate your position is contrived. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

If anybody knows...

... I thought to myself, you will know :) Please see my query at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#Families. Thanks! --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Israeli settlement

If you would be so kind as to comment on the recent reverting of my edits on this article. Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been casually watching, and hoping that the editors there would be able to work things out without requiring admin intervention. If you're sure it's an impasse though, I'll take a closer look and see what I can do. --Elonka 17:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

User talk:3RRBot/bot reported disruption and 3RR violations#Was there a move?

Hey, I have replied to your concerns on the talk page there. Sorry about the delay in getting the bot back up after toolserver went down, but it cannot run without upto date databases on toolserver. —— nixeagle 18:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I did reply there, if you respond quickish I might be able to reformat the output for you in relation to the first point about WP:POPUPS. —— nixeagle 18:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I'm trying to debug and fix another bot as well. —— nixeagle 19:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

FT2 discussion

In the process of subpaging, I think a comment of yours was lost. Majorly talk 22:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Bishzilla RFAR

Hi. Regarding Bishzilla, you wrote: "it is clear that she is not able to use administrator tools in a responsible manner, and she should therefore either resign or be forcibly de-sysopped". Would you care to explain what your criteria for forced desysopping are? (Should you wish to elaborate on criteria for voluntary resignation, please don't do so without a discussion about in what way any such criteria should be subject to arbitrary post-hoc redefinition, as that is how you have chosen to employ them yourself). Kosebamse (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My own standards are here. The core element of them, ever since my RfA, has been simple: If I abuse administrator tools, the community has a right to ask me to resign, and I will abide by the community consensus. The difference between me and Bish, is that I never abused administrator tools. Bish, however, used her tools to indefinitely block an active arbitrator. The block was overturned within minutes, and the strong community consensus is that the block was completely inappropriate. And even if, by some extraordinary stretch of the imagination, the block might have been appropriate, Bish should not have been the one to place it, because she was not uninvolved. Her actions were wrong, by every possible metric. --Elonka 17:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your elucidation. I note that you have precisely avoided discussing what I explicitly asked you not to avoid. A very significant part of the community has asked you to resign, and you have refused to abide by that demand or by your own commitment. As someone who has post-hoc tweaked her own standards to avoid unpleasant consequences, you are in no position whatsoever to publish behavioral standards for others. Kosebamse (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not about me, this is about a clear abuse of administrator tools by Bish. BTW, Kosebamse (talk · contribs), I find it very interesting that with everything else going on, the only person that you are choosing to talk to, is me. Why is that? --Elonka 19:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ad 1, it is about you as well as Bish, because you have set an undesirable example by lawyering yourself around your own standards when it came to resignation from adminship. Ad 2, you are free to find interesting whatever you like. If you take an honest interest in my opinions, I shall be glad to discuss anything you like at my talk page. Subjects suggested: honesty, decency, Machiavellism, and the social dynamics of Misplaced Pages. Kosebamse (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No bots, please; we're Wikipedians

No thanks, I have not installed a bot on my usertalk because I may want to keep some old messages, as I have done at the top of the page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Rachel Corrie

I appreciate your effort to help resolve the archive issue at Talk:Rachel Corrie, which is grossly overswollen. But we're already making slow progress toward agreement that some issues can finally be closed and archived. Also, part of the reason for the slow progress is that there are editors on the page who I'm trying to convince NOT to treat archives as a Flash drive to cut and paste to/from, but rather to start new sections instead. I'm afraid this would aggravate it.
If it's not below at least 200k by 31 Jan, please accept my invitation to wreak havoc and hack it down to such a size or smaller. But at least for now, can you give us a little more time? Thank you, arimareiji (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I took too long composing my comment. Commenting first would have been better, but I sometimes (often) take awhile to write. I thought it would be prophylactic to make the edit before anyone else added material which would have made the undo more complicated. arimareiji (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Could I ask why you didn't respond to my request, then added MiszaBot anyway? I'm not sure why this is such an urgent problem that it can't wait for a more peaceful resolution. arimareiji (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I responded on the talkpage itself. The only reply was someone concurring with the plan, so I waited a day and then added the bot. It should really be set at a 7-day cutoff, but I set it for 14-days for now, and then we can tweak it later. If you'd like to make a list of "to do" items, have you looked into using the {{todo}} template, or adding a list at "./TODO"? This would be much more efficient than maintaining a 400K page. --Elonka 04:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

You didn't respond to my specific suggestion, you asserted that it needs to start "soon." I took that as concurrence that if the problem wasn't resolved in the time frames I had asked for here and on that talk page, you would then act. arimareiji (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Beg pardon? You made one unannounced edit to add a bot, and asserted consensus based on no one responding to "the page needs to be reduced in size soon." I had previously asked you to give me some time; your response was the above. I reverted that one edit after explaining why. How is that continual? Your threatening objection to my daring to revert you even once speaks far more of WP:OWN than anything I've done. arimareiji (talk) 05:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Your first edit was an archive which made no effort at consensus, and went against established discussion on the page. Your second edit was not an archive, it was addition of a bot with only a nominal effort at discussion. If you'll note, I'm asking to see if it's possible to get consensus for your proposed method - I'm not blindly opposing you in the way that you're blindly opposing me.

You pejoratively note that I've spent a lot of time at the Rachel Corrie page. Yes, I have - I've put in a lot of effort to trying to get the worst of the POV out, and it's an uphill battle. Have you considered that maybe that means I understand the dynamics better than someone who charges in with the best of intentions but little understanding of the history?

I'm proud of the results - perhaps the best reflection of them is that I get accused of POV by both sides for trimming their rhetorical excesses. Compare the page now to the page a month ago, and you might actually agree with me that it has improved. The warring on the talk page has been decreasing more and more, and I don't want to see it flare up again because of something as minor as the current size of the page. As you pointed out by graciously showing me that the page versions are stored in the history, the current size of a talk page is not a life-threatening issue in terms of database storage.

If Kasaalan and PalestineRemembered agree that the bot can be added immediately, I'll happily concede the point - I'm working towards the same goal as you, though we differ in our beliefs of the necessary time frame. We'll both be happy. But if not, I think it would be grossly counterproductive to start a real edit war. Our current argument is a trifle by comparison to what's gone before. arimareiji (talk) 05:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, can I ask why this is such an urgent matter? You've known my proposed time frame since you first edited the page, and you still say "24 hours" before you're empowered to do whatever you want. You're not being "lenient," you're simply reiterating the same demands. If you actually look at the page, you'll see the obvious reason why I chose the 18th - many of the threads pass 30 days at that point, and no one has (yet) objected to 30 days as an ultimate deadline. And if you look at the page you'll also see that I'm actively trying to get people to agree that threads they've claimed should be kept can be closed out. That's a far better solution, I believe, than announcing that It Has Been Decided From On High.

Until I started pushing the point to get material archived, no one was even trying. So I'm not sure what basis you have for believing that someone has suffered Great Injury that requires you to come up with The Solution. Nor do I understand your basis for implying that other admins will coincidentally decide to come visit the page in the next 24 hours and reach the same conclusion as you - it sounds more like canvassing.

I genuinely hope that Kasaalan and PalestineRemembered show up and agree with you. It would mean this rather absurd argument would be over, and that I can stop spending time trying to get people to agree to put issues to rest. But if not, may I ask what basis you would have for insisting on "tomorrow isn't good enough, it must be today!" even though that would mean consensus would be strongly against you among the parties concerned? "My way or the highway" isn't the Misplaced Pages spirit, when there's neither harm engendered in waiting nor a violation of any policy except your own perspective. arimareiji (talk) 06:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

A particularly apt quote I saw on someone's page just now: "Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." If it's possible to achieve a peaceful resolution in two days, why is it necessary to force through your own personal solution in one day and then start handing out punishments to anyone who disagrees - when there's no compelling good to be gained by doing so? arimareiji (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

May I request an explanation of (or, preferably, point me to the policy on) archiving articles such as this? While not directly comparable, ANI is currently 410K, AN is 93K, RSN has just been archived down to 238K. Many TalkPages have been chopped to a size I find irritating - sometimes by editors who don't always seem to contribute very usefully. It's not happened to this one, yet, which is still at 331K, but I fear it might, and the article will be poorer for it. PR 09:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and user check?

We may need a user check on WillC and an unnamed user 96.239.140.104, who are instantly reverting my reverts this date of their inappropriate tags attached to articles on Sierra Club and Southern Poverty Law Center. It seems they object to previously published information beging posted that links three candidates in the 2004 Sierra Club Board of Directors election to two anti-immigrant groups. Their use of tags for independent citations (for financial information provided by the group cited) and for "weasel words" are inappropriate under the circumstances and disruptive. Motivation may be white supremacist affiliations. Most recent items in article histories today. Welcome back... Mervyn Emrys (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not user:WillC. On the other hand, User:Mervyn Emrys is clearly the same person as User:Dr. Perfessor and maybe should have his own user check since he is requesting one on good faith editors who are trying to keep his heavy POV pushing in check. Mervyn Emrys should be warned for personal attacks for "motivation may be white supremacist affiliations". Indeed, I voted for Obama. The Southern Poverty Law Center's self-serving promotional material fails WP:RS for any claims about that group, and fails WP:COI regarding anything about the 2004 Sierra Club election since they were one of the outside groups trying to interfere in that election. Emrys' edits do not give the impression that he is here in good faith, just here to promote his own POV. We are trying to keep POV out of these articles and keep them grounded in verifiable fact. 96.239.140.104 (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am WillC and only WillC. Mervyn is way out of line reporting people merely for disagreeing with him. WillC (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

All my edits on the Sierra Club and Southern Poverty Law Center articles are factual and I provided references to reliable sources, whereas these users do not. Their efforts are apparently directed towards making their POV more palatable to an uninformed audience. One has neither an active user page nor a talk page. The other is pushing confederate flag POV. Perhaps a user check should be done on all recent unnamed users on these two pages? There is clearly a pattern of edit warring on both. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are neither factual - they are conspiracy theories and personal attacks - nor are they sourced to reliable, third party sources that lack conflict of interest. You are the the one adding POV to these articles which had been neutral and stable for a long time before you started editing them. I'm trying to take the POV back out of these articles. You also have posted personal attacks on myself (using "POS" in an edit summary, accusation above of "motivation may be white supremacist affiliations") and posted numerous derogatory statements on people like John Tanton which are against Misplaced Pages policy in regards living persons and should be deleted. You say you are not here for the politics - then don't make heavily political edits. This is your final warning to please stop. 96.239.140.104 (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, POS was a typo for POV. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That might be more believable if S were anywhere near V on the keyboard. Maybe POW would be better, though I'm not sure why it would be relevant to call 96.239.etc a prisoner of war. arimareiji (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But on the other hand, 96.239.etc, phrasing like "this is your final warning" is a Really Bad Idea. Unduly inflammatory, and inappropriate unless you're an admin - which AFAIK is not possible for IP accounts. Though I could be wrong, you might be the first IP admin ever and I didn't get the news yet. arimareiji (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

How about assume good faith for my correction above? Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I am; that's why I was speculating on how a second typo might have fouled your good-faith efforts to explain a perfectly innocent first typo. I call people prisoners of war all the time, though I can't recall ever calling someone a "point of view." POV editor maybe, but not a POV. arimareiji (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

"Final request" then? :) May the lowly IP politely request an audience with an Admin for the purpose of humbly petitioning for reversion of the above articles to their pre-Mervyn Emrys/Dr. Perfessor state and warning given unto Mervyn to stop inserting his own biased narrative (or that of Morris Dees) as if it were fact? 96.239.140.104 (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I would have gone with "the last time I politely ask before I have to start the dispute resolution process," myself - but I've always been prone to logorrhea. 'Twas just a friendly indirect reminder to keep it civil if you want to be taken seriously. arimareiji (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Civil is as civil does..Mervyn has not been particularly civil himself. Starting with his use of the terms "anti-immigrant" and "hate group" and his inability to assume good faith. Use of those terms is on the exact same level as using the N-word, and they have no place in polite discourse nor a neutral encyclopedia article. 96.239.140.104 (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Confederate flag POV? how so? on the SPLC page? wow. WillC (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, I'll repeat myself: my edits were factual and well-documented with reliable sources. Deleting the references I provided doesn't change that. And it matters little if the unnamed user (who has no active talk page) thinks those references are not reliable. They are, and others will verify that fact. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 02:53, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I've left a note regarding at least one of the disputed edits on the SPLC talk page. Perhaps that would be a better battleground than here? arimareiji (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm informed on the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard that the SPLC publication Intelligence Report which was questioned by users above "has been named at least twice by the Society of Professional Journalists in their Green Eyeshade journalism excellence awards " and may be used as a Reliable Source. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm also informed that a link to an audited financial on the home page of the audited organization may be used as a Reliable Source, so it seems the objections of two editors in that regard has no substance. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

edit warring on New Antisemitism

OK, I'll back off, but you're incorrect that I am not participating in talk. I have been and shall continue to be a participant on the talk page with respect to the image issues; the current discussion is about why we need two of the same image on the page rather than one; the person I reverted was adding a third image. The only purpose seems disruptive especially given the user's edit summary; coupled with that, it's objectively a terrible photo, lighting so bad you can barely even see what it purports to be a photo of. But I'll raise these things in the discussion. Thanks. csloat (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You got mail

— Sebastian 18:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Regarding this warning, I'd like to offer a suggestion. WP:UNINVOLVED states that "if there is doubt, or a personal motive may be alleged, it may still be better to pass to others where possible." In the interest of reducing conflict, it might be useful to have another admin or two scrutinize the situation and provide feedback regarding sanctions. For instance, Shell Kinney (talk · contribs) has previously managed disputes involving many of the same editors and might have useful perspective. In any case, if the need for sanctions is real, then it should be straightforward to demonstrate to an outside admin. In this case, given concerns that have been raised and that are not unique to Orangemarlin, the extra step is probably worth the trouble to avoid unintentionally worsening rather than improving the situation.

Additionally, if you regard Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) as acting particularly counterproductively, then it may be worth contacting User:Jpgordon. I'm not sure whether Orangemarlin remains formally under his mentorship; regardless, as OM formerly entered into voluntary mentorship with him, involving Jpgordon might be a productive next step here, rather than invoking discretionary sanctions.

In your warning, you accuse Orangemarlin of "threats and false statements". I'm a bit concerned, because the diffs you provide both link to instances where Orangemarlin has criticized you - specifically, your ability to use the tools from a position of neutrality. The first cited diff is somewhat intemperate in tone, while the second cited diff appears to be critical of you but not in breach of any behavioral policy or guideline. In any case, it would seem inappropriate for you to invoke discretionary sanctions against an editor citing, in part, the fact that he has criticized you. Even if these were out-and-out personal attacks, it's generally a bad idea for an admin to sanction someone for incivility directed at themselves - a best practice codified here by ArbCom.

Additionally, your warning accuses Orangemarlin of "ignoring cautions". Based on the diffs you cite, I see him repeatedly removing your warnings from his talk page (, , , ), which is generally considered an allowable activity and seems odd grounds for a sanction. On the other hand, "repeated annoying and unwanted contacts" are listed as a form of harassment in the relevant Misplaced Pages policy. While I'm sure it's not your intention to harass Orangemarlin, repeatedly posting warnings to his talk page (I count 4 in the last 2 days), in the face of obvious evidence that he doesn't wish ongoing contact there, is unlikely to improve or de-escalate the situation. MastCell  22:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

At this time, Orangemarlin is not under any sanctions, he has simply been notified of the pseudoscience case. Thanks for the comments though, I'll keep them in mind going forward. --Elonka 00:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, about your comment to Jim62sch , I see a pattern here. You have an obvious history at that article and at other pseudoscience articles for many months now of taking a stand on pseudoscience content and views, meaning you are clearly too involved a party to be so heavy-handed with these two editors. You're far too involved to be leaving comments that read like threats, or protecting that article, as you did last month. People did notice that, and it doesn't reflect well on your claim that you're a neutral party simply enforcing Misplaced Pages policy. Looking over your activities at List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts it strikes me you are ignoring the previous arbitration ruling in Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience along with Levine2112. Perhaps it's time to take the matter back to the arbcom, but it would be better for the community and you were you to stop trying to force a new interpretation and simply just accept the standing ruling at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience and get Levine2112 to do so as well. There's a limit to how much disruption over previously settled matters the community is willing to put up with, particularly around things like pseudoscience. There are better uses of your time and those you are tying up there. How about moving along? FeloniousMonk (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I was a bit confused by your statement about pseudoscience content though, since I really have no opinion either way, as long as policies are being adhered to, so I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say I'm "taking a stand on pseudoscience content". As for Levine2112 (talk · contribs), if you'll review his talkpage you can see that I and other administrators have left him numerous warnings (example). When you say "get Levine2112 to do so as well", what exactly do you recommend? --Elonka 03:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, I will add my voice to those expressing concern. You have a history of involvement with the pseudoscience articles; if you truly do not care, then I strongly suggest you de-watchlist them and move on to something else. Your Notification of OM appears to be skirting very close to, if not actually violating, misuse of your position. Only an admin can add a name to that list, and you have added OM's name, someone with whom you've had a long running series of disputes. I recommend you remove your addition of his name to the "notification" list as far too involved to have made that determination, and leave it to others to add him, or Levine2112, or yourself, or anyone else if it is determined there is an issue. You seem to be using the ArbCom case to win a content dispute, and that is distinctly not desirable. KillerChihuahua 09:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)