Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:14, 14 October 2008

Click here to leave me a message. Remember, if you leave a message here, I'll reply here.

Elonka comments

Hi there, I've been mulling over your comments on Elonka's talkpage. I'd think that while you see her comments as supporting disruptive editors, Elonka sees it as trying to persuade and encourage people who do not follow our policies and guidelines into being more productive members of the community. Coaching "difficult" editors is indeed tricky, you need to both encourage their actions that are positive and discourage the negative. Elonka and yourself differ in how much encouragement you think is needed. This probably comes from the length of time you've spent dealing with some of the most acrimonious areas in the project - you'd prefer to simply see the back of these people as quickly as possible. Instead Elonka seems (to me) to be trying to treat all editors absolutely equally and to not give a free pass to either side in debates. This lack of content-driven decisions and absolute focus on the behavioral policies can either be seen as a strength (admins are not supposed to decide on content) or as a weakness that can be exploited by editors intent on violating the content policies. These two opposing points of view on the merits of this approach are the reason why Elonka's actions are surrounded by so much drama at present. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I think there's a limit to her approach. Her support of User:Jagz went on a bit too long for my taste, as the most apparent example of failure of an excessive-AGF policy. Yes, you are correct, I'd prefer that these individuals just let the door hit them in the rear end as they are tossed out of the project on their tush. But I just don't think there should be even handed treatment between the two POV's. One side should be shown the door if they can't use NPOV correctly. OrangeMarlin 20:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

A difficult situation, well described by Tim. Keeping polite when dealing with persistent WP:Civil POV pushing is difficult and possibly even counter-productive, but always desirable. Elonka is right to draw it to your attention, and you're to be thanked for continuing to deal with persistent attempts to water down or evade core policies. Guess the struggle will continue. . . dave souza, talk 20:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree that "she treats all editors absolutely equally." She often gives lots of leeway to abusive editors (e.g., Jagz) while coming down harder on constructive editors. I'm convinced she intends to work for the good of Misplaced Pages, but that doesn't mean her approach does work for the good of Misplaced Pages. Her methods and logic often leave me totally puzzled. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This was a block of a science editor. Why should I give good faith to an admin that makes no sense? I reported her block here. OrangeMarlin 20:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

QED. Levine2112 gets friendly advice and pleasant conversation, as does Ludwigs2; NJGW gets a block with no warning. Technically the block is justified, but this is one of those cases where the intent of policy -- avoiding edit wars and creating a constructive environment -- is not served by applying the letter of the law. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I think the problem is not just people having different "points of view on the merits of her approach;" it's that she's trying to transport an approach, which for all I know may have been very effective in areas of ethnic strife, into areas where it is not appropriate, not useful, and almost certainly guaranteed to erode the quality of the encyclopedia.

With ethnic strife, there are different points of view that have to be accommodated somehow, and probably reliable sources backing up those different points of view, and the task of editors is to reach a compromise that presents all points of view in a neutral fashion. But in areas where science and fringe theories intersect, to treat the editors who are trying to accurately represent expert opinion as given in reliable sources as just another viewpoint, just another vested interest, just another political group that needs to be forced to compromise in the interest of harmony, is to disregard the fundamental goal of the project: to produce a serious, high-quality reference work. I've been watching fringe-type articles for several months, and wherever I'm familiar with the literature on the topic, it's very easy to tell who is accurately representing reliable third party sources and who is bent on introducing dubious material into the encyclopedia, or keeping criticism of fringe theories out, by citing unreliable sources or by misrepresenting reliable sources. The latter group are the people Elonka invariably champions and encourages, and who rush to her defense whenever questions are raised about her actions. I don't doubt that Elonka means to help the encyclopedia, and that she may actually be "trying to treat all editors positively equally" but people who are following core policies and people who are not, should not be treated equally. Content does matter. Woonpton (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

LOL

 :)

Or rather, I mean: You attacked me!! Waa, waa, waa!!! NPA!!!111!! Guettarda (talk) 17:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

ZOMG!!!!!!!OrangeMarlin 17:14, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes

I do realize, I hope it works (: ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Uhh

Erm, its cool. I dont mind, I dont know i was a vandal or something, I was just correcting obamas religion, since he was muslim, but converted to becoming a christian. So yeah. Anyways, I dont mind. ^^ II MusLiM HyBRiD II 13:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

'08 US Election (12 October 2008)--Update

According to pollster.com we have the following good news:

• Obama/Biden: 320 Electoral Votes
• McCain/Palin: 158 Electoral Votes
• Undecided states: 60 Electoral Votes

Obama/Biden continue to keep a major lead in ], the US's curious method by which states vote for the president, and citizens only vote for them indirectly. What's interesting is that Obama has small leads in the traditional Republican states of Colorado, Virginia and North Carolina. Traditional Democratic states are staying solidly for Obama. If this holds through the election, it could indicate a shift that demographics has been indicating for years. Virginia and North Carolina are becoming major research centers, attracting more liberal and progressive voters. Colorado, like much of the rest of the southwestern US, Nevada, New Mexico, and Arizona (which is solidly in McCain's camp because he is from the state, but has been trending Democratic over the past few elections) is becoming a Democratic stronghold. Republicans can now only count on five or six states in the Deep South, but not Florida, and a few states in theMidwest and a few in the Mountain States, especially those states heavily influenced or controlled by the Mormon church.

Overall, Obama/Biden are leading by 49.8 to 43 in an average of all national polls (se Real Clear Politics Average Poll

According to pollster.com, the Senate Breakdown (remember, only about 1/3 of seats are up for election every year) should be:

• Democrats: 54
• Republicans: 40
• Independents (both of whom sit with the Democratic caucus): 2
• Undecided: 4 (2 are traditionally Democratic states, Oregon and Minnesota, 2 are traditional Republican states, Alaska and Georgia. I do not know what to make of Alaska leaning towards a Democratic senator, given the incumbent Republican, Ted Stevens has been around a long time).

Interestingly, both Obama and Biden will need to be replaced in the Senate. Usually, the Governor of the state in which those seats are held choose the replacement until the next election (again usually). Obama is from Illinois, the governor is a Democrat, so will be replaced by a Democrat. Biden is from Delaware, one of the most solidly Democratic states, and the Democratic candidate for governor is leading by a huge margin, so expect a Democratic replacement there.

According to pollster.com, the House of Representatives should fall as follows:

• Democrats: 242
• Republicans: 174
• Undecided: 19

The Democrats have gained, and the Republicans lost 5 since the last review. This election is harder to predict in the battleground areas, but about 80-90% of seats are very predictable.

Some of you have mentioned that the Bradley effect, that is that white voter lie to pollsters about whom they'll vote, especially if that candidate is African-American so as to not appear racist to the pollster. The effect probably was more prevalent in the 1980's than it is now. Black candidates seem to meet or beat the pollster estimates in recent elections. And frankly, Obama may be settling the nerves of voters in the US who are now frightened of the economy. Wars, terrorism, crime and other key issues have fallen way behind the economy. And traditionally, voters trust Democrats with the economy (though I'm not convinced that either party has looked past partisan fighting to actually making the right moves on the economy, other than creating corporate welfare). I've archived previous comments to these polls User talk:Orangemarlin/Archived Election Commentary. OrangeMarlin 15:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the Bradley effect, but I do think that history tells us that in states where Republicans control the logistical and voter-registration machinery, a slim Democratic lead in polls may not translate into a higher number of votes being counted for the Democratic candidate. It would be remarkable if Virginia and/or North Carolina went for Obama, despite the demographic trends you alluded to.

It will be interesting to see what the McCain campaign does. Right now, McCain clearly has a little angel sitting on one shoulder and a little devil on the other, both whispering in his ears, and he's taking turns obeying one and then the other. You can tell that they were keeping the really ugly stuff in reserve, officially denying that they'd make an issue of it, but then about a week ago things were desperate enough that McCain gave in to the dark side. Hence the McCain-Palin rallies have started to look uncomfortably like the crowd scenes from Triumph of the Will, or at least like an angry mob being incited to burn witches at the stake.

I think that being a fomentor of naked, often frankly racist hatred doesn't fit with McCain's self-image - he was clearly increasingly uncomfortable until this weekend he stepped in, to his credit, to mention that Obama is not an Arab (cue chorus of boos). Now the little angel on the other shoulder has won out temporarily, and they've cut back on the "palling around with terrorists" line and focused more on the economy and things that, you know, might actually affect people's lives. The problem is that it's got to be incredibly frustrating for his campaign staff to deal with such a lack of discipline and with a constantly changing strategy and set of talking points. I was encouraged to see McCain step back from the abyss and allow his fundamental decency to see the light of day, but next week all bets could once again be off. MastCell  18:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It's clear that McCain/Palin are in trouble. Palin did nothing more than secure the right wing vote. But Republican women are just not interested. And Democrats and independents, male or female, are done with the McCain/Palin ticket. Whether they vote for Obama is probably a bit relevant, but not worrisome. Trends just aren't breaking for Republicans, and despite Republican control over some voter mechanisms in some states, I think that even those miscreants cannot overcome 5-10% deficits. OrangeMarlin 19:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It is a bit frightening to find oneself in agreement with Bill Kristol, though (). MastCell  19:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I was with him through "Fire his campaign." and then we diverged company after that. The most glaringly obvious flaw of that editorial (glaringly obvious flaws are common to Kristol op-eds, which is at least as important as politics in explaining why the other columnists were so annoyed at his hiring) is that he ascribes every problem McCain is having to his campaign, to external circumstances, to the media, to Democrats, and on and on - but nothing appears to be McCain's fault personally.

McCain has been a mediocre guy, a mediocre politician and a mediocre candidate from the beginning. He graduated barely above last in his class at Annapolis, and I suspect he might not have graduated at all if his father and grandfather weren't widely respected admirals. His record of accomplishment in the Senate, which he points out vaguely as an exemplar of experience, centrist conservatism and maverick diligence, is actually a record of very few concrete achievements.

When you have a candidate with a limited record formed over a long career running against a candidate with a limited record formed over a brief career, the election comes down to which candidate has a compelling message and a connection with voters. You can't get either one from campaign staff or weak but shrill attack ads, and the Democrats finally came up with a candidate who has both. Avruch 20:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The outline of the story does have tragic elements. In 2000, Bush ran the most disgraceful, despicable campaign in recent memory to destroy McCain in the South Carolina primary. McCain made a calculated decision to swallow his pride and faithfully endorse Bush nonetheless. Now it's McCain's turn, and his support for Bush should be paying dividends, but instead he's anchored to a President who is radioactively unpopular, and whom he's probably always despised on a personal level. All he can do is try to deny Bush 3 times before the rooster crows.

To listen to them now, you'd think that the Republicans had spent the last 8 years warning us what an unfit leader Bush was, and how disastrous his policies have been. Bill Kristol is a prime example. Then again, Bush deserves no better (and probably much worse) than to end his Presidency being spit upon by his own party in a cynical attempt to rewrite history. MastCell  21:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As opposed to the hated Bill Clinton, who was loved by his party. I'm not sure about the "better angels" sitting on McCains shoulder, but he has all of the attributes of a very weak leader. Strong leaders listen to ideas, incorporate them as their own, then lead the group forward. McCain seems unsure of himself, and listens to the loudest voice, and jumps at it. He would make a miserable president. OrangeMarlin 21:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Concern

Orangemarlin, hi, I understand that you have a great deal to offer Misplaced Pages, and I am trying to respect that. However, I am becoming increasingly concerned by your actions at some of the Pseudoscience-related articles, such as Intelligent design. It seems that some of your comments are almost veering to a kind of ownership, such as declaring what edits can and cannot be made, or deciding who is or isn't POV pushing, etc. Your nomination of the Intelligent design article for FAR today also seems a bit premature, and at the discussion itself, you appear to be trying to "drive" the discussion, replying to every comment.

Please, do not take my post here as an official warning, because it's not. If it were, I'd give you the full formal template and log it at one of the Arb cases. But I did want to express, that as I am reviewing the various disputes at the Pseudoscience articles, that sometimes it appears (to me) that your comments are actually escalating disputes, rather than de-escalating them. I know that it can be very frustrating sometimes, especially when you are dealing with other editors who you feel certain are POV-pushers who are wrong and must be slapped down. But in your zeal to protect the wiki, I think that sometimes you may be doing more harm than good. So please, in the future, could you try to tone back the rhetoric a bit? For example, focus your comments just on the article, rather than on other editors. Try to stay positive and constructive. Welcome new editors, and try to adopt a demeanor of guiding and instructing, rather than rejecting. I think that this would be very helpful in many ways. Thanks, --Elonka 23:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)