Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Elonka, ScienceApologist, and Martinphi

Elonka (talk · contribs) has issued a 30-day page ban for ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) from editing the fringe theories guideline. Her alleged basis for this action is the concern expressed by "multiple admins" about the editing situation in this thread at WP:ANI. First off, a cursory reading of the entire thread shows widespread support of SA’s actions (with the exception of Elonka quickly calling for a block or ban of SA, of course).

Elonka has been repeated asked to disengage from her mucking about in Pseudoscience arbitration enforcement, and specifically been asked, both by SA and others, to let ScienceApologist alone, yet she refuses to do so. She popped onto SA’s talkpage to drop her banhammer after he made one edit to the guideline in question today, after a three-day break since the long discussion on ANI found that nothing more was needed than a reminder for SA to tone his edit summaries down, which he did.

I ask the editors here to answer two specific questions: (1) should the page ban be vacated, and (2) would you say that Elonka’s ban was even reasonable or appropriate to begin with, or executed in bad faith or poor judgment? HiDrNick! 03:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that we want to condone allowing an editor to unilaterally declare that an administrator, carrying out actions with community consensus, or enforcing arbitration rulings, is disallowed from a talk page. That's a bad precedent. That SA was repeatedly warned, and repeatedly removed the warnings is one thing. But to ask that Elonka not post there? No. I have myself wondered if Elonka sometimes is a bit meddlesome and persistent, but in this case I endorsed the warning, and I endorse the ban as well. Martinphi I am not so sure about, as I have asked already at her page. ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS I am not sure I agree with HiDrNick's characterization of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#Back_to_ScienceApologist as "widespread support of ScienceApologist's actions". Rather I see some admins saying SA needs to tone down edit summaries and some admins (including myself) endorsing the warnings given. ++Lar: t/c 03:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive487#Back_to_ScienceApologist ++Lar: t/c 03:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Elonka's talk page and my talk page and this. I may have made a mistake, but seriously.... It isn't as if I'm unresponsive to criticism. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, did you see this? _{(Didn't notice it was already posted.)} seicer | talk | contribs 03:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooof, I should have been more clear. The "widespread support of ScienceApologist's actions" I was refering to was in the superthread, which was the bulk of the discussion there and is in now in a colapse box in the archive. I aggre that no one suported the sort of edit summaries he was using there at the end, but clearly there was no consensus to block or ban there either. I haven't really reviewed Martinphi's contributions to the FRINGE page, and wasn't trying to leave him out per se, I just watch SA's talk page there. HiDrNick! 03:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HiDrNick!, Elonka has been doing really exceptionally good work in general in the pseudoscience arena. I do not think that anyone should use this as an excuse to go after her. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that. She just missed the mark a bit here with Martinphi. It happens... let's fix it and move on. Or we could have a long drawn out discussion in which everyone defends their positions vociferously and much hard feeling is engendered. It's up to Elonka I guess. ++Lar: t/c 03:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is noot an isolated incident. For instance, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement/Archive26#Martinphi_at_WP:NPOV. I was the last victim of his response to this: a mixture of outing, personal attacks, and attempting to get me banned. I shan't link because of the outing - e-mail me for details. This incident is comparatively minor, but I think that we have been very, very lenient with Martin, and that it is beyond time that something is done. However, every time something is done, he throws a hiuge fit, attacking the admin, or even person wh o has simply scriticised him - the attempt to get me banned was over me saying that that he probably shouldnðt be editing WP:NPOV in ways that increase its friendliness to his views while under a arbcom sanction for POV-pushing (well, soapboxing is the exact word they use.)

I don't like talking about Martinphi, because I get the strong feeling that he wants me to be his next Scienceapologist, so, whatever is said here, I shall say no more. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a far less wikidrama course of action would simply have been to protect the page for a time until concensus was achieved on talk. Drop the bans and lock the page to a version prior to the current warring. Vsmith (talk) 03:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse Elonka's actions here. I see nothing out of order. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had considered protecting WP:FRINGE; discussion is occurring, but it seems to be in parallel with edit-warring, and a guideline should really be more stable than this. But I don't want to get involved anymore. I don't quite understand the immediate trigger for these page bans, though the long-term history is clear enough. In any case, 1RR might be preferable, but a page ban won't kill anyone. I would like to see more eyes on WP:FRINGE, as I find it populated almost exclusively by editors who are active and opinionated in the fringe subjects in question, whether pro or con. MastCell ^Talk 03:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is absolutely out of line. Protection would have been the standard practice and I see no good reason to do this. Frankly, I'm beginning to think that Elonka should stay away from everything related to fringe issues since her presence creates more disruption than it solves. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am ignoring everything Elonka says from now on including her "page ban". Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 04:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of risking a permanent block, I recommend that you start keeping a running tab of all the vandalism and POV-pushing and other junk that occurs on that page, and bring it up here or some other appropriate venue, and ask, "Who's going to do something about this?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm personally surprised that there is more "oversight" going on with the general discussions in a guideline page. If admins allow an edit war to continue in what hopes to be policyspace, no wonder we have problems in pretty much every sector of Wikipedia :-( Shot info (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do so at your peril, I think. This is an ongoing discussion that will result in the ban being endorsed or overturned, but until that consensus becomes clear I view it as in effect. I'll enforce it, with regret, even if I happen not to agree with it (and I expect I'm not the only admin that will), if your actions are too egregious. So watch out for that. ++Lar: t/c 04:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Elonka should stay away from pseudoscience. Since she has decided to unilaterally implement her version of EP, the wikidrama has increased rather than decreased. It would appear that she hasn't learnt anything from her RfC nor her recall notice (other than she can pretty much ignore anything she perceives as "negative" as she has enough "positive" support....much like SA has in fact). I recommend that, if the fringe articles are not properly policed, then some other admins should jump in, rather than leaving it for Elonka to "do the hard yards". Per her RfC and her recall notice it is clear that a large minority of the Community disagrees with her actions particularly when they inflame the situation rather than resolve it. Lar, if you feel that SA has overstepped the mark, then I'm confident that the editors at the coal face would appriciate your more active admining in the necessary areas...rather that leaving it to backing up Elonka attempt to rewrite policy. Shot info (talk) 04:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point. In my copious free time I'll try to see what I can do. ++Lar: t/c 04:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shotinfo - My experience with Elonka is that she's always reasonable, unfailingly polite when people respect her efforts at keeping things orderly and civil, and completely no-nonsense when people don't. heaven knows she's called me on enough of my own crap, and I've learned to respect her opinion. the main problem in this case is that the signal to noise ratio is utterly dismal. I think you would withdraw your objection if you dug through all the drama-trauma and actually looked at bare facts of the matter. --Ludwigs2 04:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm shocked. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not, but OM I'm going to take on board Lar's comments below. Shot info (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I completely agree with that assessment, but it's immaterial. I think it's more important, here, to just stay confined to the narrow question of whether to endorse or overturn these actions. ++Lar: t/c 04:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Elonka has been doing a good job. I merely object to being treated in the same manner as ScienceApologist. I also object to the ban because at the very most I made a mistake with one edit (making it into an essay). However, that was just a reaction to what MastCell says above: it should be more stable if it is going to be a guideline. My revert (the other edit in question which was not the reason for the ban) was merely an "agree revert," along with two other editors who reverted first. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin, I've been trying to work with you across a number of projects, and I think we've made some sort of peace, despite our divergent views. However, I'm going to strongly disagree with your assessment of Elonka. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me repeat... I think delving into the whys and wherefores of how we all feel about each other may not be the most productive use of our time. Let's stay focused on this action and whether to endorse or overturn it. Whether you come to bury or praise, save it. Not likely to be productive. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 04:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't often comment on blocks and individual incidents. But, speaking as (IMO, at least) a fairly "middle of the road" WP user with a primary main-namespace orientation towards category:philosophy and category:religion articles, side-by-side with a strong empirical orientation, I think this incident merits comment at the moment. ScienceApologist has for years been a diligent and highly valuable contributor to WP. Admittedly SA is often contentious w.r.t. issues he feels strongly about. And I recognize that a 30-day ban from one page is not ordinarily a :"great-big deal", The recent little brouhaha at WP:FRINGE, however, appears to me to be a very minor conceptual scuffle among good-faith editors with differing POVs about what the content guideline should be w.r.t. "fringe theories" (fundamentally a WP:WEIGHT issue anyway). I'm disturbed that SA is being painted as unusually disruptive, when in fact minor edit wars of the kind cited by Elonka happen very frequently with no more than a reminder to desist and discuss further on the relevant talk page(s). This block thus has the rather odd result of citing prior administrative action as a cause for further administrative action, with nothing else particularly out of the ordinary given in justification for this particular administrative action. The obvious implication is that future administrative action will threaten to draw also on this administrative action. I understand that there may be cases in which such gradual escalation of sanctions are reasonably deemed appropriate where users plainly are unproductive and additionally are chronic violators of WP policy. Here, though, we've got a fairly typical guideline disagreement about which SA evidently felt strongly in the face of edits by other user(s) who evidently also felt strongly about their preferred expression of the WP:FRINGE guideline page. I submit that the block should be immediately lifted and ScienceApologist excused here, at least absent much more extensive evidence that SA is being tendentious or disruptive in a way that can't be handled by the normal range of consensus process with which we're quite well accustomed in WP. ... Kenosis (talk) 04:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
..... P.S.: I hadn't noticed that Martinphi had also been blocked, or page-banned, or whatever exactly the case is here. IMO, no one should remain blocked under this circumstance. I've encountered Martinphi before as well, and as with SA, I've had differing POVs with Martinphi. IMO, somewhat similarly to SA, MartinPhi too is often contentious about issues he feels strongly about. But there's nothing here that can't be handled via the normal range of consensus process. Thanks. ... Kenosis (talk) 05:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a supporter of SA, in general, but I know he can be direct in his language. Elonka probably is the wrong person to do something about SA's behavior, since Elonka seems to have appointed herself the policeperson of pseudoscience articles. She has unfairly placed blocks on users such as User:NJGW, while ignoring the misbehavior of other editors who might be honestly described as anti-science or pseudoscience supporters. This is completely unfair to SA. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, SA has partially removed part of Elonka's post to his user talk. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put it back, because I want to go on record as standing behind this action, until and unless consensus develops here to overturn it. I'm not a big fan of going to users talk pages and arguing about whether an action outlined on that talk page is a good idea or not, so even if I were to disagree, I construe this as enforcable until consensus develops that it is not. If SA removes it again, he's within rights to do so, and we can construe the notice as being given, but he doesn't get to say "admin so and so can't talk to me". That's ArbCom's job I think. ++Lar: t/c 05:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus does appear to be drifting towards a "drop the block and pursue normal page management practises" - which of course is being obscured by the normal amounts of commentary. Given that I'm prepared to be incorrect. Shot info (talk) 05:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sensing the same sort of very slow drift you do, yes, but there aren't a lot of different voices here yet, so it's hard to be sure it's a real consensus just yet. I'm on board in any case, whichever way it comes out. If I'm asleep, anyone else should feel free to do the needful (I'm guessing Elonka's asleep since she hasn't commented here once, despite being notified... odd, unless she is away) ++Lar: t/c 05:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be sensible to lift both page bans and lock the main page until some consensus is reached on the talk page. Mathsci (talk) 05:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will also be available to block, and I've not been involved with the "fringe" page at all. Mathsci, I would agree with you, but we should not need to protect a page such as that when the primary disruptor is one individual whose prior histories give indication that he is unwilling to work with others. seicer | talk | contribs 05:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partially resending my comment, I've went and protected the page for one week to see if SA and others are willing to work towards a consensus. If not... seicer | talk | contribs 05:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a large enough number of allies on WP, you can pretty much act with impunity and without fear of reprisal or sanction. Why should this incident be any different from any of the uncountable number that came before it? Dlabtot (talk) 05:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is my feeling that the temporary page bans on these two editors are a justifiable minor restriction, which is helping to stabilize the guideline. To give a bit more background on this: I had warned both ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) and Martinphi (talk · contribs) a few days ago, for edit-warring on the guideline page. I also specifically told both of them to disengage from each other.[1][2][3] This is because they've been brought up in more ArbCom cases than I can even name off the top of my head, but try Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience to start. ScienceApologist was particularly out of line because he was trying to force through major changes to the WP:FRINGE guideline, but hadn't participated on the talkpage for months.

So anyway, things were quiet over the weekend. ScienceApologist was offline, but other editors were engaging in good discussion at the talkpage, and consensus changes were being gradually restored to the guideline. Then today the edit-warring started up again, ScienceApologist came in and reverted everything back to his last version,[4] and Martinphi followed up immediately by trying to downgrade the guideline down to an essay.[5] That last was definitely against consensus since this was discussed extensively in July and the page's status as a guideline has strong community backing.[6]

The reason I chose not to protect the page, is because there are multiple editors working on the guideline, who do seem able to make incremental edits based on talkpage consensus. So I didn't want to "throw the baby out with the bathwater". It seemed that the best way to help protect the editing of the guideline was with a relatively minor editing ban on both ScienceApologist and Martinphi. After all, what does the ban limit? Both editors are still completely free to participate at the guideline's talkpage, and if the discussions there are productive, then other editors will agree, and those other editors can incorporate the changes into the guideline. All the page ban really does, is to prevent ScienceApologist and Martinphi from jumping the gun and making no-consensus edits. Which I see as a good thing. --Elonka 05:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martinphi and Ludwigs2 have just been asking for the guidelines to be completely rewritten "from top to tail", possibly in jest. seicer made a very fair decision in locking the main page to let things calm down and consensus to be reached. The WP:FRINGE page needs far more eyes on it. Mathsci (talk) 06:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support Elonka's page ban of SA. He was edit warring, plain and simple. He felt his version was the best version and rather than engaging in the discussions going on the talk page, he chose to revert to his version with inflammatory/egocentric edit summaries. This is SA's modus operandi. We've seen him do this very tactic many times in the past. Skirting 3RR, by edit warring slowly. Given his history, a 30 day block from editing one policy is extrodinarily lenient, IMHO.

I think MartinPhi's ban is undeserved. Unlike SA, MartinPhi was participating in discussion and I believe he only made one revert to SA's four. MartinPhi's choice to downgrade the policy to an essay - while not a move which I would have made - was something which he discussed on the talk page and when it was reverted, he didn't engage in an edit war.

Mathsci, I agree. More eyes on WP:FRINGE are needed and welcomed!

As a final note, to my fellow American Wikipedians: Be sure to log off from Wiki land today long enough to vote! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What elections? Mathsci (talk) 06:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because that gratuitously non-neutral link was so relevant. I'm going to have to resist the urge to change it to link to that for McCain or maybe a third party candidate or maybe Cthulhu (why vote for the lesser evil?). JoshuaZ (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theres an election?? From media reports here (ie/ not in the US) it's sort of apparent who is going to win....much like in Zimbabwe :-) Shot info (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crap. I was going to cast aspersions about Levine's character, intelligence and overall usefulness to the project, and he had to go and be an Obama supporter. But I do disagree with his opinion of Elonka's fairness.  :) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OM, check out the The Tale of the Tape; you might be surprised what else I support or don't support. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka says:

"This is because they've been brought up in more ArbCom cases than I can even name off the top of my head"

I've been in exactly two ArbComs.

One "agree revert" is not "edit warring" in the negative sense, but common practice, BRD.

I explained that the downgrade to essay was only meant to be till the guideline resumed a stable form. Thus, if the edit stuck, good. If the edit didn't stick, it was at least a message to others to stop edit warring on a guideline. Again, good. That was my intent. For that I'm given a 30 day page ban? I was aware of the consensus to keep it as a guideline, and my edit had nothing to do with that general consensus.

The argument of "minimum force" is something I'll let others decide. I already addressed that on my talk page [7], as admin actions are not punitive. Exactly how was I disrupting the guideline such that allowing me to edit there would harm Wikipedia? I would like Elonka to explain just how "minimum force" required me to be banned.

She speaks of "these two editors." To equate me with ScienceApologist as if we behave in similar ways is incomprehensible. That this is being done is reflected in Elonka's sentence which I quoted above, though she does seem to draw some minor distinction.

Elonka notes that "things were quiet over the weekend." I was there over the weekend. Working toward consensus. Please don't equate me with ScienceApologist. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:21, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page ban is far more than what Elonka says "All the page ban really does, is to prevent ScienceApologist and Martinphi from jumping the gun and making no-consensus edits." Rather, it is symbolic that our actions were so negative that we can't be allowed to edit the page. Certainly, it doesn't have much practical effect on me, though it does for SA. If it stands it is because the community is saying "Martinphi deserved to be banned for 30 days because of his edit." Is this so? I don't want this on my record. And particularly, I want the community to stop equating me with SA. Were our actions equal? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SA was edit warring. There is no doubt about that. WP:EW states:

uninvolved administrators may either block the involved offenders for a period of time or protect the affected page(s). Protection is useful when the involved parties will work to resolve the conflict. Blocks occur when there is evidence that users cannot or will not moderate their behavior, often demonstrated by an inflexible demeanor, incivility, or past instances of edit warring and unchanged behavior

Blocks occur when there is evidence that users cannot/will not moderate their behaviour. It is clear wikipedia policy. SA was warned, and has been warned previously about edit warring. That edit warring continued, with his revert to back to his version. That shows that (s)he cannot or will not moderate the edit warring. Martinphi on the other hand, was not blocked for edit warring, but for disruptive editing. I'm not as sure that the downgrade to essay was clearly disruptive. Consensus definitely existed for it to be policy a few months ago, but as we all know, consensus can change - especially when the policy itself has changed to the point where people are edit warring over it. Overall, I definitely support Elonka's rationale for blocks instead of a page protection, and support SA's block. I am unsure whether Martinphi's block was appropriate, as I am unsure whether the edit was disruptive. DigitalC (talk) 06:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This entire situation is belittling to both editors involved, entirely inconsiderate, not to mention lacking in even the most fundamental hint of a clue regarding general human psychology, and can easily be read - with a slight amount of literary indulgence, mind you - as pure and simple bullying, with a mask of civility disguising the sheer contempt for those deemed "beneath" the grown-up alpha bully setting the rules. Business as usual from one of the most considerate, level-headed, uncontroversial and productive administrators who has ever graced this humble project with her exhalted presence. Badger Drink (talk) 06:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:-) - no support for blocks/bans of either editor. That was unnecessary and unhelpful. dougweller (talk) 09:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I echo the positions of OrangeMarlin, JoshuaZ and Dougweller. Elonka had no business banning/blocking MartinPhi, who was engaging in discussion and did not edit war. Her action was plain and simple abuse of admin powers. Her rationale that MartinPhi was involved in some Arbcom cases is ridiculous — she has substituted her judgment to that of the Arbcom. Furthermore, if we consider long-term positions, like Elonka's doing in the case of MartinPhi, then Elonka is not an uninvolved party in this case. Elonka has adopted conciliatory positions towards fringe theorists, like the recently indef blocked User:Ariobarza, who kept filling Wikipedia with his inane WP:OR, while she's shooting on sight editors that try to keep Wikipedia an encyclopedia. VG ☎ 10:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree with OrangeMarlin, BadgerDrink, JoshuaZ, Dougweller, VG, et al. that this block is a bad block. Verbal chat 10:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been watching this ongoing debates at multiple boards and watching just a few editing this page. I am an outsider to this whole thing and have no opinion of any of the editors per se. I think the blocks were unnecessary and caused more heat then light. I also think Elonka was aware that this would not be wildly excepted. What I am seeing are editors with strong views and strong headiness. Protection of the page would have brought things to a cooler level and should have been done to begin with instead of the warnings to just these two editor since there were more editors involved in reverting and just popping in to do the revert. Some just did the revert, popped a quick comment on the talk and left, kind of looked to me as a protection to prevent a block even though the action done was done because of which editor made the last edit. This kind of gaming needs to be stopped and now. I am not going to mention names, if you want to see the whole picture read the talk page and the last edit summaries when the warring really started. I have to also say that I do not believe Elonka should be patrolling these articles as mentioned by others above and I have stated this before. There is a lot of bad blood amongst editors with her and I would assume her with them since the RFC and the recall, which a lot was said. So, I am saying, if it matters to anyone, that both editors have there bans/blocks removed, the page stays protected for thirty days or until things on the talk page shows calmness, and other administrators do the patrolling of the different articles including this one. Are there other administrators that are not involved with this that can be useful to helping get better guidance and control over the pseudoscience area? I personally feel that at this point Elonka in involved with conflicts with certain editors or at least there is an appearance of this to make her cause more drama with decisions than needed. I am just trying to give the view of someone who has been watching things for quite some time now and this is how I see things. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dougweller, Tim Vickers, Dbachmann, MastCell and Moreschi have a lot of experience with WP:FRINGE and are well aware of the issues involved. Why not be led by their experience? Mathsci (talk) 11:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crohnie's summary is very good and has some very good suggestions in it. I myself did revert, but quickly did a self-revert on realising there was a bigger problem. Verbal chat 13:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF and WP:NPA are essential policies, without which Wikipedia will eventually collapse in an ugly heap. So I am dismayed if edits like this can be made with impunity. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 13:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick two cents here: I had SA's talk page watchlisted when the ban came down from Elonka. I thought that, in light of the ArbCom rulings, SA was really pushing things, and I'm not sure I disagree with the ban per se. That said, if Elonka thought the ban was uncontroversial, she should have asked another admin to make it official. There is way too much history of Elonka taking aggressive administrative action against the anti-fringe crowd, and regardless of whether a given action is valid or not, it invariably leaves one with the impression of retribution, or at least conflict of interest.

SA's reverting was not so disruptive that it required immediate (as in <10 minutes) action. So it seems to me there was plenty of time for Elonka to find another admin lurking about, point out the situation and the ArbCom rulings, and have that admin institute the ban (assuming he or she agreed, of course). This just seems like a no-brainer to me.

Or does anyone here seriously believe that all interactions between SA and Elonka are impersonal at this point, hmmm? --Jaysweet (talk) 14:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am deeply bothered buy the admission from an editor that he has been humiliated. In reviewing Martin’s edits to the Fringe article and in assuming good faith I have to question, while respecting Elonka, the ban on him. His actions were not comparable to Science Apologists, and there is no sense in any of us suggesting that they were. Behaviours following the ban are a further clear indication of how each editor deals with such situations differently. Yet each received equal restrictions.

I think Shot Info and SA are right. We can’t stop SA from editing the Elonka article, and attempting to ascertain why any editor edits an article can only lead to mistakes and frustration. Most of us don’t go there. Whether it was prudent for SA to begin editing this article now is another matter entirely.

As a kayaker if you play in “big” water near the eddy line you are bound to find yourself in the water eventually, your kayak overturned. That’s the risk you take for the excitement you experience, and no intelligent kayaker expects to take those risks and not be faced with the ensuing repercussions that can follow even a small mistake in judgment. SA plays near the “eddy line” on Wikipedia, and being intelligent I can only assume he knows the risk he takes. His actions following Elonka’s ban are clear indications that he plays in this slightly dangerous environment, and for reasons of his own. Although nothing stops him from editing the article of the blocking admin., he had to know that this would cause some Wikidrama as it has. There’s no sense in pretending SA is stupid either. I would assume then, that he is fully aware of the risks he takes, and if he overturns his kayak must have expected the possibility.

Martinphi, whatever his behaviour has been in the past seems to be steering clear of this kind of editing. His actions on the fringe article if reviewed indicate efforts to edit in a manner that supports collaboration whatever his POV might be, as do his actions following this ban. These are two very different editors.

I am sorry to see the ban on Martin given his progress. I think its unfortunate and unfair to him. And this is Wikipedia. Since we have to assume good faith, we must trust that SA edits the Elonka article for the right reasons, whatever we think, however imprudent we judge that editing to be. We have to also trust Martin made the edit and revert on the Fringe article for the right reasons as he says he did, whatever the results. I can only hope the admins. reviewing this case will very carefully re evaluate the situation, and to remember that Martin is not SA and vice versa.

This isn't about how small a ban this is, but is about fairness and humiliation. Humiliation should not be something that is supported on Wikipedia for any editor, for any reason, and however tedious reevaluation is, fairness is of the utmost importance. If a mistake has been made, then it should be fixed. Its that simple.(olive (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The page is now protected, so what is the point of continuing the problematic bans? Revoke or undo the ban stuff and nip the drama. Vsmith (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I protected the page with the hope that all parties will come together and discuss. So far, that really hasn't happened. The protection lasts for one week. If any of the parties continue to edit war after the protection, the ban will be enforced. I hope that that is not the case, so let's hope for the best. seicer | talk | contribs 15:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And to clarify: SA or anyone that was involved was not blocked. I don't know where people have been getting that at. seicer | talk | contribs 16:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there seems to be some confusion here, so to clarify, I have not blocked anyone. Neither Martinphi[8] nor ScienceApologist[9] has a new block in their logs. I instituted a very minor page ban, which in my opinion was even less restrictive than page protection. When a page is protected, no one can edit it. What I did was to restrict two of the editors on the page, but just from editing that one page, and nothing else. It's a very precisely-crafted restriction, as authorized by WP:ARBCOM, via Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." Martinphi and ScienceApologist are not blocked. They are still allowed to edit anything else they want, except for exactly one of the 2.5 million pages on Wikipedia, which is the Wikipedia:Fringe theories guideline. Meanwhile, they can still participate at the guideline talkpage. I have to admit that I'm perplexed as to why people think that page protection is a preferable solution here, since I see that as much more severe, affecting all editors, not just the two who were involved in disruptive behavior. --Elonka 16:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So now the page is protected you are rescinding the ban, which doesn't have universal support, per Vsmith? I think the block/ban distinction here (in this discussion, not in general) was just "lazy" language (or, more likely, not using wp admin jargon). The ban is a block from that page, and no one said block in this section. Verbal chat 18:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason to lift the ban, especially with ScienceApologist making statements like this.[10] The editors who should be empowered at the page are those who are staying civil, participating in good faith, treating other editors with respect, and willing to work through the normal steps of dispute resolution. Currently, ScienceApologist does not appear to be abiding by expected standards of behavior; therefore his editing is restricted. If he continues with disruptive behavior, his editing privileges should be further restricted. This is not about punishing ScienceApologist, this is about reducing disruption to the project, and allowing other editors to get on with their work. --Elonka 18:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that you are no longer an "uninvolved admin" in regard pseudoscience, especially if you use the same version of "uninvolved" as on your agreement to be subject to recall. Fair is fair. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the page is protected, the ban is useless - if, as stated above, it was for prevention of disruption. Maintaining a useless ban would seem "punitive" rather than "preventative". Seicer protected the page (indefinetly according to the log), so until he unprotects in a week or whatever, there can be no disruption on the page. Now, if you are maintaining the bans for other reasons: then state those reasons - else lift them. Starting to look quite bad for your "uninvolvement" stance. Suggest that you rescind the bans and back away - let other admins take action if disruption reccurrs following lifting of protection. Vsmith (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Verbal: Someone mentioned block in the above section, not here. seicer | talk | contribs 18:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka said "The editors who should be empowered at the page are those who are staying civil, participating in good faith, treating other editors with respect, and willing to work through the normal steps of dispute resolution." How is that not what I have been doing?

I'm no longer willing to accept punishment just so an admin, even one such as Elonka who I generally support, may have the topical appearance of justice while actually conflating editors whose behavior could not be more different.

I have two main complaints here:

First, by no stretch could my edits have been construed as deserving of this kind of humiliation.

Second, to give ScienceApologist and myself equal treatment is an intolerable insult. It says our behavior is similar.

I also object to punitive admin action: there is absolutely no justification for saying that I must be banned to prevent harm to the Wikipedia process. The ban is therefore punitive.

I have already appealed to ArbCom, but as I stated before, I wanted to work it out with Elonka instead of going that rout. I still do. Here is what I want: I want to be unbanned, and I want it to be acknowledged that conflation of myself and ScienceApologist is wrong. I want it done in a clear way which leaves no doubt. After all this time, I deserve that consideration.

I'll be back some time late tomorrow. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's rare for me to agree with Martinphi on something, but his comment that he is "no longer willing to accept punishment so...Elonka...may have the topical appearance of justice", I think that really cuts to the heart of the matter here. This is why Elonka should not be performing administrative actions in pseudoscience- and fringe-related areas. Now it's not just the anti-fringe crowd that is questioning Elonka's motives: Now, Martinphi also has legitimate reason to feel that he has been wronged as the result of Elonka's personal entanglement in this debacle. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Elonka should not be performing administrative actions in pseudoscience and fringe-related areas. She is perceived as having a bias toward editors who advocate fringe theories, which calls into question her role as an uninvolved administrator. If she is biased, that could do irreparable harm to the encyclopedia by placing other concerns over some of our policies. If she is not biased, the perception of the bias causes her actions to contribute to the drama that seems to surround this area. Many wikipedians (including me) expressed doubts about her tactics in the RFC. I encourage Elonka to find other areas in which to use her talents and to stay away from pseudoscience and fringe related articles and the editors who frequently edit there. Karanacs (talk) 18:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A key problem rests with the beginning of the passage Elonka quotes: Any uninvolved administrator may... Suggest in future Elonka refer similar matters to WP:AE, where action may be taken by an administrator whose impartiality is not open to question. That will get the proper result minus drama. Durova^Charge! 02:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, before any of these complaints against Elonka being involved in fringe enforcement have any merit, at least one problem must be solved: those who Jaysweet portrays as "the anti-fringe crowd" break WP rules much more often than others, as is evident by how it's described, "anti fringe." I'm not just talking about WP:CIV and WP:3RR. Naturally, the anti fringe group will get whacked more often, especially when you consider only non-SPAs. Because of this, any admin who starts out seeming neutral, will very quickly be attacked as biased. This will happen even if the admin has made really extreme attempts to be even handed, as in this case: Elonka has tried so hard to be even handed she failed to be just. This general pattern, in fact, has happened repeatedly. By the time the admin has even a whiff of a clue, the admin is under heavy attack, and withdraws. Whatcha going to do? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, Martin, this advice comes without judgment about whether Elonka actually is an 'involved administrator'. What you describe is a pattern that's shared by a lot of long-running disputes: one or more editors gets aggressive about raising 'involved administrator' complaints. The simplest way around that is to seek review and action by administrators whose impartiality is absolutely above question. Erring on the side of caution that way is worth it in situations where good faith is already worn thin: it helps settle the matter with far less time and drama. Durova^Charge! 05:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vssyana, Rlevse, Elonka, Seicer, GRBerry, Thatcher (?), and quite a few others, in several sections of fringe. Then there are others who have been quite involved, but done it anyway. The other problem I didn't mention, cause you can't do anything about it, is that it ain't possible to find a neutral admin, because 1) no one will ask them first if they have a POV on fringe subjects and 2) everyone has a POV. I maintain, that what you say has been tried, and the uninvolved admin goes after whom they go after, they ban a few SPAs and then they start seeing the bad behavior of the regulars. Then they do a few admin actions, and suddenly they're "involved." That's how it goes. There are no uninvolved admins who can stay uninvolved in everyone's estimation. Perhaps they do become involved, but it's a problem. It would also make a good strategy: go after the admin and you can take them down because they're "involved" once you've said some mean things to them. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having a POV and letting it affect editorial judgment are two different things. I belong to a political party, Martin, and I usually vote with my party. If you can't tell which one it is then that's being a good Wikipedian. Mainly this is practical advice: look at the length of this thread and ask whether it could have been less contentious. Yes, there are editors who try to make a strategy of 'disqualifying' every admin who disagrees with them (but never the ones who come down on their side). It's an old trick that's been tried many times before. They get away with it once or twice, then it catches up to them. Durova^Charge! 19:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can another individual, who is uninvolved with the above commentary, provide feedback at Elonka Dunin? If it is not appearant, administrator Elonka is Elonka Dunin, and SA just recently began a push to have the page moved -- which coincidentally occurred after he was page banned from FRINGE by Elonka. seicer | talk | contribs 20:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following was snipped from Talk:Elonka Dunin:

Your block log makes me question your little crusade here. Perhaps you can find another article on Wikipedia to improve. There are over a million you can choose from. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per comments left at your talk page SA, I strongly encourage you to find another article to edit. Your strong conflict of interest, especially in light that Elonka imposed a page ban on you only yesterday, is giving undue bias towards your commentary here. Lar and others have made this distinction. seicer | talk | contribs 20:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Seicer has his own conflict of interest with respect to me and should not be involving himself in this situation. He wikistalked me to Elonka Dunin and has written me very uncivil e-mails in the past. I find it deliciously ironic that he is invoking conflict-of-interest here. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Seicer implicitly disclosed his conflict of interest when he asked for an uninvolved party to jump in. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I have yet to edit the article, only offering commentary in the talk page in relation to the page move and sources. seicer | talk | contribs 20:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? You've definitely edited the article. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka's bio is a bit puffed up. But that's mainly due to the sources, e.g. "She knew binary - the language of computers - by heart." With sources like that, what can you expect. OTOH, SA is a bit too aggressive in tagging. The timing is also a bit suspect. I suggest he cools off and, if he's really interested in Elonka's bio, come back when he's less passionate. VG ☎ 20:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind people discussing the tagging. I'm trying to point out the issues. I think that commenting on content rather than contributors should be exercised here. Why are people refusing to do that? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that Seicer made an extremely poor editorial judgement in this edit which removed tags that were discussed on the talk page, reverted edits by people other than myself (despite his claim that the revert was all about me), and reintroduced formatting errors. Is this above-the-board? Should an administrator with a vendetta like Seicer's be editing in such a fashion? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but I have never been involved in any of this, and I have no conflict of interest, and in fact I've sympathized with the crap up with which you have had to put in the past. I'm basically on your side. And I'm telling you that editing Elonka Dunin or Talk:Elonka Dunin right now, whether it be fixing a misspelling or nominating it for deletion or anywhere in between, is incredibly ill-advised, and is going to garner you a block, I'm pretty sure, and more importantly, give more ammunition to the "ban SA forever" brigade. Please don't do it. Please? --barneca (talk) 20:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me which edits were problematic.... Why would editing that article in an attempt to improve it and Wikipedia garner me a block? Under what policies/guidelines? I appreciate this concern, but really, I think because Wikipedia is explicit that we should comment on content and not contributors, I would like to be judged on the quality of my edits and not the perceived "risks" associated with my person. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to spend too much time on this discussion, because I think in my heart I know you know the answer to this, and are asking more for rhetorical effect (if so, let me know in future, so I don't spend time writing something that won't matter). But the answer to your question is, none of the edits themselves, if made by, say, me, would be problematic. But pulling the "contributions not contributor" card isn't going to fly, when the only reason you're editing that article at all is because of your dispute with User:Elonka. You're aware by now, I assume, that Wikipedia isn't utopia. It might be nice if you were able to edit that article regardless of your disputes, but the fact of the matter is, it's going to be considered disruptive by enough people that you'll be blocked for harrassment, or being POINTy, or something, and it'll stick. Maybe that's Fair, maybe it's Unfair, but it's true. --barneca (talk) 21:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm actually not asking for rhetorical effect at all. I'm not pulling any card. Either Wikipedia abides by the principles it stands by or it doesn't. If you wish to ignore all rules and assume bad faith out of me, then yes, you'd have a point. But I know I'm above the board even if you are suspicious of my motives. My dispute with User:Elonka has no bearing on the mainspace. I consider mainspace to be the real reason we're here and when I see problems in mainspace, I fix them. That's what I was doing. If I have harassed Elonka, please show me the diff. Since I'm not the one who has screaming and stamping my feet about editing, I fail to see how I'm the one who is disrupting Wikipedia. The rest of the field, including a goodly number of editors and administrators who consistently hound me are responsible for continually taking things to this place and other locations all the time. I am fine with the "unfairness" of Wikipedia. I've come to terms with it long ago. I am no more trying to "make a point" than someone who starts to research a subject and begins to edit the article on that subject is trying to "make a point". Since you yourself admit that my edits are fine, I see no reason for the alarm bells that people are clanging with alacrity. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SA, you are aware that as soon as I made that edit, that I reverted seconds later with the edit summary: "Whoops, SA did provide a rationale"? seicer | talk | contribs 20:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am, however, that is not the edit I'm referencing above. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) As a passer-by, I'm going to echo Barneca's recommendation. The situation and timing is not to your advantage, and in the interest of good relations, you might consider not touching the Elonka article for a couple weeks. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 20:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will consider it, but again, I must ask for someone to explain to me when this became the encyclopedia that everybody but ScienceApologist can edit? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2,612,000+ other articles available in the English language Wikipedia you can edit. Try one of those instead. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. I'm anyone and I'm editing an article. No one has pointed out anything beyond "excessive tagging" that is wrong with my edits. I believe the article has improved markedly since I got involved. That's evidence enough to me that I should be involved in editing that article. I appreciate the advice on the number of artiles. I choose which ones I'm interested in, as is suggested by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I have yet to see a policy/guideline that forbids me from editing that article. If you can find one or would like to create one (this is a wiki after all), please let me know. Love and kisses, ScienceApologist (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SA, this doesn't help your cause much. I recommend you don't touch this article. You are correct that there's no policy reason to prevent you from doing so but it really doesn't look good. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My "cause" is to improve the encyclopedia. I am abundantly aware at this point that "it doesn't look good", but I'm not here to "look good". I'm here to improve Wikipedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:COI: "A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor." It's quite to clear to everyone involved that your aims in editing this particular article are incompatible with the aims of WP. Ronnotel (talk) 21:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that my aims as an individual editor are incompatible with the aims of Wikipedia, please let me know. My aims for editing this article, which you must assume I'm telling you the truth about are to improve the quality of the article and, perhaps, the overall quality of the encyclopedia by proposing an eventual merger, redirection, or perhaps deletion (though I'm not sure right yet which one of these options is best, so I've put it to the field). In any case, it would be nice for you to take that to heart considering your own stated aims outside of this website with regards to cold fusion. Hugs and kisses, ScienceApologist (talk) 21:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do WP:AGF you, with whip cream and a cherry even. However, in response, I simply ask that you have the decency to follow WP:CONSENSUS (which, in fact, you kinda have to do as well). I have yet to read a single commenter on this page say they think it's a good idea for you to involve yourself with article. Ronnotel (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it's in SA's best interest to ignore Elonka's article? If anything he's pointing out that its a puff piece of a barely notable subject....who happens to be an admin. So because she's an admin her article fall under a different set of standards? Could someone please cite me the rules for editing an article about an admin if they're somehow different? Despite the bad blood between them, the edits thus far are ceratinly well within '...improving the quality...etc...' and I'm sure he knows damn well to stay inside those guidelines with this many eyes watching. Guyonthesubway (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

because she's an admin her article fall under a different set of standards? Absolutely not. But because she is an admin who recently took action against SA, it is in SA's best interests to let other people clean the article, while he waits on the sidelines. The odds of SA wisely choosing to do so: 0.0%  :) For better or worse. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This looks to me like a Wikipedia version of the old game of "I'm not touching you..." so beloved of children on long car trips. For those who haven't witnessed this cultural delight, it involves child A pointing at child B, keeping their fingertip as near as possible to child B's face or body without touching it, while repeating the magic phrase "I'm not touching you..." in a sing-song voice. I await developments with interest. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SA, your comment "This is an encyclopedia anyone can edit. I'm anyone and I'm editing an article... Love and kisses.", and also, "My aims for editing this article, which you must assume I'm telling you the truth about" ..... You might want to read WP:GAME before telling people what they "must" assume. Wiki policies are not a suicide pact and users often apply judgement rather than being "rules wonks [fanatics]". Barneca has capably summed up the widely held concerns. If you have a concern on the article, ask an uninvolved user to look at it for you, but this combined with mass tagging and deletion listing, with the subject being someone you have a personal agenda/"history" with, doesn't look like a purely neutral content editor at work. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 10:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I probably knew about GAME before you were ever an editor, FT2. Given that you have a really dodgy history when dealing with the issues that concern me (Nuerolinguistic Programing, OrangeMarlin, etc.) I take your advice with its appropriate cube of salt. I'll also note that you didn't check contribution histories very carefully. I did not create list the article for deletion. The "mass tagging", as you would have it, was justified on the talk page and is still being discussed. I am aware that Wikipedia editors are sometimes loath to apply the rules they trumpet when it doesn't suit them. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of it all. I'm telling you exactly what I'm doing and being perfectly transparent. If you have any specific problems with the diff you posted, explain it, but making vague judgements like "doesn't look like a purely neutral content editor at work" is innuendo that is probably best left at the doorstep. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, it's easy, let SA edit the article....if you think that is edits are a problem, then deal with the actual edits. Just because (as discussed on WR) Elonka's own article is a walled garden doesn't mean that editors should be encouraged by all and sundry to leave it alone. Lets face it, SA is policed probably like no other editor and Elonka's article is more than likely on a long list of watchlists. So if anything untoward goes on, I'm sure there is a lot of people who will jump up and down. In the mean time, how about we let a bit of editing to occur???? And like normal, if the long list of people above who feel that SA shouldn't be editing an article....how about you jump in and improve Elonka's rather than leaving it to SA? Shot info (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does highlight an issue with Elonka being an admin...I suspect she should make a comment specifically encourging folks to hold her article to wikipedia standards...its seeming to me that folks are holding editors to a higher standard on her article. Tough to be have two sides of her presence on Wikipedia, and not take the appearance of something unseemly. Guyonthesubway (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I entirely agree that Elonka should not be taking any kind of administrative involvement in this subject area. I also feel very strongly that Martinphi, with his history of trying to rewrite policy to support his years-long campaign to downplay the mainstream scientific POV in firnge subjects, should be topic banned indefinitely from any policy page even tangentially related to fringe and pseudoscience subjects. Whether ScienceApologist's edits were a problem is harder to see, since much of what he was doing was rolling back attempts by Martinphi to either make it easier to represent the fringe views in isolation, or to weaken the guideline in other ways. And frankly I am absolutely sick of Martinphi's relentless civil POV-pushing, so I find it very easy to sympathise with SA here. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong feelings are not a good basis for topic bans. If you feel that strongly about it, you should be able to assemble the evidence to back up your claims and gain support for a topic ban. As for civil POV-pushing, if there is to be any hope for Wikipedia, people need to be able to detect and reject POV-pushing whether it is civil or incivil. Representing a POV, and arguing that it should be represented in the appropriate articles with due weight, should, however, not be confused with pushing a POV. Pushing a point of view involves trying to unbalance articles to excessively favour a POV. The big arguments come over where the right balance lies according to WP:UNDUE. The problem is that if you get two people who interpret the sources and WP:UNDUE slightly differently and say the balance lies in one of two positions that are not really that far apart, then the arguments can be never-ending. For my part, I am sick of people arguing over minor differences in weight in articles when there are crap articles out there that need far more attention. Why 10 percent of the articles around here get 90 percent of the edits and arguments and edit wars (stats are examples only) is also rather depressing. It might be better to say that WP:UNDUE should be used to set a narrow range with an upper and lower limit (still balanced and somewhere between two unbalanced extremes), and to have a group of people with slightly differing viewpoint taking a unified stance and agreeing that the article can be somewhere in that range, rather than have groups of people arguing where the balance should fall within that narrow range. In practice, this is what happens on most articles. People edit articles to remove extreme imbalances, but don't stress over the fine-tuning of the balance. But on controversial articles, massive wars erupt over tiny shifts in balance. Which is often a waste of time and effort. In my view, more effort should be spent on other, more pressing issues facing the encyclopedia, but it is difficult to persuade volunteers where to focus their efforts. Carcharoth (talk) 22:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Mate, have you not been watching the noticeboards? For well over a year this dispute has been rumbling on, with Martinphi and ScienceApologist slugging it out on page after page after page. The major difference between the two is that SA edits in support of WP:NPOV while MartinPhi wants to rewrite WP:NPOV to make it easier to document fringe and pseudoscience subjects in isolation without the intrusion of the cold hard light of reality. And that difference is of crucial importance according to the core goals of this project. I also feel strongly about WP:BLP, does that mean I should not enforce it? Of course not. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've not looked in enough detail at the edits Martinphi does, at least not the recent ones. One day I probably will. I don't think documenting fringe and pseudoscience subjects in isolation is good, obviously, but equally when reading or trying to construct a comprehensive article about a pseudoscience topic (for example, the history of such things, rather than the science), then it is annoying in the extreme to have an insistence that the science be explained and the pseudoscience busted at every turn. Sometimes just a clear statement in the lead that something is not mainstream and is not science, should be enough. Having said that, when people bicker over policies, I'm reminded of what someone once said on a mailing list. Most of the best editors around here make good edits and write good articles in spite of, not because of the policies. In other words, they apply common sense and they already knew how to write good, comprehensive and balanced article before they ever read a Wikipedia policy page. The policy pages are more about teaching those who don't know how to write encyclopedia articles, what they need to know. In that sense, they are a means to an end (a means to encouraging production of a good and balanced encyclopedia), not a set of rules to beat each other over the head with. So by all means ban them both from editing the policies. In theory, it shouldn't affect the end result of the articles that get written. As for WP:BLP. As you feel strongly about it, you should be interested in the discussions at WT:BLP. I'm going over there now. Anyone care to join me? Carcharoth (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I also support a topic ban for Martinphi from WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, and related policy pages. Carcharoth's comment above is excellent as far as it goes, but seems to have been made in ignorance of Martinphi's attempts to change WP:UNDUE itself. Trying to change article content to get a more sympathetic representation of one's views is fair enough, but trying to move the goalposts is just not cricket. I know, cricket doesn't have goalposts. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest both Guy and SheffieldSteel read very carefully the talk page for WP:Fringe and provide diffs before you attempt to discredit another editor so extensively. Lynching is not "cricket" either.(olive (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Strongly oppose this ban I've had doubts that an arbcom involving SA was being enforced much, but I don't know enough about it or about MartinPhi. What I will say though is that ScienceApologist is doing a good share of excellent work on fringe topics such as his work from the fringe theories noticeboard, and he should be allowed to continue that work. Sticky Parkin 23:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly haven't read all of the above. Carcharoth, I would love for you to review my edits of the last few months. As you would expect, I see my contribution as helping to balance articles, and mainly correcting extreme examples of certain POVs. My changes to WEIGHT were mentioned above. Here they are.; [11]. I find it no surprise that those whose POV I've worked against want me banned. In at least one case here (two?) I testified against these people at ArbCom, and their RfCs, so it's no wonder (I'm not counting ScienceApologist). They've been out to get me for years. I very much value anyone else who would take the time to evaluate my editing and give feedback. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't exactly ascribe to Martin's POV, but I think he can be reasonable in finding the middle ground for improving an article. Orgone comes to mind. I'm trying to work with him on Psychic, but I've been distracted by the election (sorry there). I'm going to give the weirdest opinion here. Martin and SA are both incredible assets to this project. I have a high level of respect for both. But their bickering has reached a level of background noise to me, I kind of ignore it. This isn't going to sit well with anyone, but I vote that anytime one or the other files any form of complaint against the other, that complaint gets deleted. I swear I don't care about their sniping (but I know, I might be alone), but we need both of them on the project. Given them a page somewhere they can complain about each other, we can read it for amusement, let them get it out of their system, and we can move along. These constant ANI's and threats and blocks and threatened blocks are getting boring. They both need to stop involving others, because no one is really (come on who just sighs when they see these long-winded AN/I's about one or the other) listening. I know I should take some drugs and move along. Elonka's involvement here caused it to degenerate. She should also stay away, cause she's not helping. I've got more to say, but this thread is long enough. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you Orangemarlin, that's great of you (: (I'm getting email with the title "Hell has frozen over.") LOL. There is lots of room to find common ground. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I like Orangemarlin's suggestion of deleting any SA-Martin complaints. :-) And I feel very strongly that Elonka needs to stay away. dougweller (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IF it works perhaps it could be extended to other perennials? :) ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]