Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:55, 16 May 2009

Archives

Index of archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Truly trivial note

You recently asked about WP:TPG's "100 words" bit in the Abd/JzG case.

As the original author of the page, and, in particular, that bit of it, I can tell you right now what was meant: The dreaded WALL OF TEXT THAT NOBODY CAN READ BECAUSE ITS TOO LONG AND RAMBLING. I needed a guidepost for how long was "too long" when not doing things point by point, and 100 words was a crude estimate of when it was time to start thinking about trimming your text down. Note also that regular use of paragraph breaks helps alleviate the problem.

Just your bit of Wikihistory for the day. _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 22:12, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, which I was definitely not aware of, as well as for the confirmation that someone other than the parties reads what we write on the arbitration pages. However, your post contains 107 words. Please shorten it for greater conciseness. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but isn't "concision" more concise than "conciseness"? (Yes, I recognize that the use of "concision" to mean "the quality of being precise" is—or at least was—disputed, as in The King's English...). 69.212.64.32 (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Question about the Abd / JzG case

Hi Newyorkbrad, I am hoping you will answer a quick question for me on the Abd / JzG case. Looking at your finding of fact on the nature of the dispute, you refer to three areas. Are these the only areas where the arbitrators will consider evidence? I ask because I think there are grounds for findings on Abd relating to disruption other than his zealous pursuit of DR. However, I have yet to see any post that really puts forward the evidence in a concise and coherent manner. I am willing to put in the effort to try and present such evidence, but only if there is any point in so doing. Obviously I am not asking for any sort of guarantee as to the weight that any such evidence might be given, nor as to whether any sanction might follow. But, if Abd's behaviour and editing in relation to cold fusion and the case more broadly - where JzG is uninvolved - is outside the scope of what the arbitrators will consider then there is no point in my putting in the effort to prepare the evidence. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fascinated to see it. I don't think it's related to the JzG dispute at all, but, though I tried to ask ArbComm to keep the case very narrow, which would have saved a whole lot of fuss, my motion was ignored. Others, such as Mathsci, have asserted that I'm POV-pushing at Cold fusion, proxying, and generally writing too much, whatever they can think of, but you've been pretty cogent, maybe you see something the others have missed. --Abd (talk) 08:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad, any chance of a response? Thanks, EdChem (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was off in the real world most of today (seeing 1776 with some family in New Jersey); I'll reply to this and other posts during the day tomorrow (Sunday). Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Responding now. I'm not sure exactly what types of evidence about Abd you are referring to. We are pretty far along into the case, approaching the voting stage, so I don't know how receptive my colleagues might be to a whole new category of evidence. My own inclination is that the evidence might be useful if it relates to serious and recent misconduct, but not otherwise. However, despite my having put together some proposals on the workshop, Stephen Bain remains the designated drafting arbitrator in this case, and other arbs may have some thoughts as well. So my suggestion is that you post to the workshop talkpage (and maybe e-mail the committee mailing list drawing attention to your post) with a general idea of what you are referring to, so as to potentially draw some feedback. Sorry again for the delay in responding; real life does get in the way sometimes. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I had already added evidence about Abd's editing on cold fusion in my 4th statement in the evidence section. Despite saying that he would withdraw from editing CF here - preferring so he said to write his own fork in his user space - he has continued to edit war about his self-written lengthy proposed content addition, which has been disputed by most other editors. Abd unfortunately now seems to have emerged as a fully fledged POV-pusher and edit warrior. I hope his disruptive pattern of editing is not ignored by ArbCom. On the other hand, I think his recent contentious editing behaviour, which has risen to a peak during the ArbCom case, possibly in a futile attempt to prove a point, could probably be more easily dealt with by the community than ArbCom. Mathsci (talk) 21:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Mathsci apparently supports the editing position of Hipocrite as expressed in recent days at Cold fusion, where an operating consensus previously existed. If not for Hipocrite's intervention, we'd be working on balancing a section on "Proposed explanations," i.e., of theories advanced to explain cold fusion results. Obviously, if one believes that there are no results, the only explanation one would support would be "experimental error," and that's the position Hipocrite is asserting. However, that position isn't supported, overall, in academic reliable sources, and what I've been "pushing" for is use of preponderance in academic reliable source to determine article balance; however, I've been pushing gently, not attempting to change the overall balance, which remains, at this time, that cold fusion is widely considered a rejected field. That view is supported ("widely considered disproven") in all pop sources. However, peer-reviewed sources, and neutral reviews (or at least reasonably neutral reviews) show a different picture: there is real research going on, interesting results are being found and published in peer-reviewed journals, and if we were to limit our "vertual survey" to those familiar with the literature, I strongly suspect that at this time the weight of opinion would favor CF as a real phenomenon, or, more accurately, that there is a set of unexplained phenomena, seen under certain conditions, that could possibly be explained by fusion. (The situation was almost there in 2004 with the Department of Energy review.) So how do we approach this situation? Media sources say one thing ("rejected"), though that is, in fact, changing slowly, and there is now ample recent media source saying this is active scientific research, and peer-reviewed reliable source says something quite different, supporting the reality of the effect (negative peer-reviewed source has practically disappeared, and there is continued positive publication outside the Walled Garden of supportive publications). In the presence of someone dedicated to promoting the idea that cold fusion is bogus, Bad Science, and vigorously opposing and removing any source that would ordinarily be considered reliable source (independent reputable publisher, for example) as "fringe," it's impossible to negotiate this, so I gave up until the smoke clears. Meanwhile, the article needs reorganization, so I may work on a fork as a draft of that, because reorganization is totally impossible in the presence of massive POV pushing, it's hard enough to change one sentence toward neutrality, much less the whole article. In the end, it will be editorial consensus that will determine the outcome. NYB, you know that consensus mechanisms are my special interest, that's why I'm interested in parliamentary procedure. In no case did I assert a possibly biased source (RS can be biased) in order to contradict stronger reliable source, less likely to be biased; rather, in the section where edit warring appeared, Storms, The Science of Low Energy Nuclear Reaction, World Scientific, 2007, was used as a source for proposed explanations, and Storms does indeed verify that the explanations are proposed, and if they are included in Storms, they are notable within the field. No assertion was made or implied that these theories have been accepted, and, in fact, Storms was quoted as saying that no theory has received general acceptance (and he means not even within the field). This was all removed on the "fringe" argument. Which I think you will recognize is a violation of the arbitration on fringe science. This is exclusion, not balance. --Abd (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI, from your friendly, neighborhood "Nazi"

If you don't find this interesting or funny, sorry to have bothered you. -- Noroton (talk) 17:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Return of Anonimu?

Hi,

from the range of edits and writing style of User:PasswordUsername, I get a nagging suspicion that he might be a reincarnation of User:Anonimu. Even the names have significant semantic field overlap. Also, for a new user (PasswordUsername has been rather eager, but his first known edit dates from late middle of April), would be somewhat unusual -- but very much in spirit of Anonimu's approach to his talk page.

Who should investigate such a case? Checkuser is obviously powerless, as many months have passed since last known Anonimu edit was made. I remember Moreschi was good at style analysis but he appears to have burnt out :-( Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I never really knew much about Anonimu at all. Perhaps someone who watches this page will have a better sense of what to look for; if not, maybe a post to Arbitration enforcement or SSP would be the best thing. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll take your advice in account when pondering what to do next. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 21:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've initiated a thread at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible return of Anonimu. Hopefully, some of the regulars will have useful suggestions on how to proceed. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 08:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

RfA Thank You

My RFA passed today at 75/2/1 so I wanted to thank you for your participation in it. Special thanks go to GlassCobra and FlyingToaster for their nomination and support. Cheers! --Rosiestep (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Page protection for The Volokh Conspiracy

I saw you left the comment:

• (potential prominence for inappropriate pagemoves while I am blogging)

and I read your piece, but I don't see any reason to be concerned about page moves. What's up? Protection is usually applied only after there's a problem, not preemptively.   Will Beback  talk  03:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Responding via e-mail. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Tang dynasty case

Hello. I saw that ArbCom had a target date for May 16th to complete the proposed decision, but as far as I'm aware no proposed decision or draft has yet been made. I think the evidence and workshop pages in said case are roughly completed. Can you take a look and have some comments? Thanks for your time, and sorry to bother you.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, if you don't mind, I would like to ask that if a user does not answer questions given to him(and instead responds with personal attacks), is that appropriate behavior on ArbCom, or should ArbCom clerks take action against said comment? In addition, I think WP:TLDR is becoming a problem.Teeninvestor (talk) 21:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Another arbitrator was originally assigned to do a first draft on this case, but it appears that he is away. I have volunteered to step in if he doesn't return within the next day or two, and in that case will try to have something posted shortly. Thanks for the prompt. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind taking a look at my evidence and see if it is too long by ArbCom standards. It would not exceed 1000 words if the quotes of wikipedia policy are not included, but I'm afraid it might be too long. Link:diffTeeninvestor (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it's fine. In any event, I hope to write up the case within a day or two, so there probably isn't the time or the need to do any cutting. Thanks for asking, though. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, can I ask you a policy question relating to this case. User:Tenmei seems to claim that citing your sources does not make you comply with WP:V, as shown here. diff. I couldn't make out any of his other claims because of WP:TLDR. Being confused, I'd like to ask: Does citing your sources make you comply with WP:V? I ask this question just to get a clear and official judgement from an experienced arbitrator, as this is more or less the entire dispute.Teeninvestor (talk) 14:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

External blog posts

Misplaced Pages editors may be interested in my blog posts (under my real name) at www.volokh.com. There are two so far and a few more will appear during the balance of the next week or so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)