User talk:Askahrc

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome!

Hello, Askahrc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Your edit to Vlad III the Impaler[edit]

I reverted it because you introduced bad grammar into the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

So I did... The Cap'n (talk) 21:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Whoa, overcats on Ignatius Pell[edit]

Greetings, the enthusiasm is great, but most of the categories you've added to Ignatius Pell don't actually exist, or aren't formatted right and thus don't like. The best way to figure out what cats to add is to find an article for a similar figure and copy/modify his cats. Also, if you want to see if a given cat exists, if you type, say "Category:Pirates" into the Search bar, it'll list out what items match that beginning ("Pirates by country", "Pirates executed in the 1800s", etc.) Do note that for cats the capitalisation does matter. Further, articles should go into the most specific applicable cats. For example, an article about a Buddhist temple in Foak District, Thailand doesn't go into "Buddhism" and "Thailand", it goes into "Buddhist temples in Thailand" and "Buildings and structures in Foak District". So Pell would not go in the basic cat "Piracy", he would go into things like (making up examples) "Pirates of the 1780s", "Pirates of the British Empire", etc. Just make sure that such a category actually exists before you add it. Feel free to write me with any questions. MatthewVanitas (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the information, that's very helpful! I've cut down the cats to those relating more specifically to the topic. This is my first original article, so I've been missing some of the little touchs I always took for granted. Much obliged. The Cap'n (talk) 19:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No original research[edit]

You aren't allowed to invent a term such as "fringe scientist" and apply it to articles without references, see WP:NOR. Thanks. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You're right about the references; I don't know if that term has been used extensively enough to be applied. That said, I didn't make up the term fringe scientist, we have an article about it here on WP.

Sheldrake Talk[edit]

It would be very helpful, IMHO, if you could post some sort of opinion (ANY opinion) HERE. The Sheldrake talk page is short of people who know how to express opinions politely and helpfully. Anything at all from such a person could serve as an example to others. Lou Sander (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Lou Sander's notice to you. Thank you.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

the section is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Lou_Sander -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:22, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Issues with the Sheldrake Page[edit]

If anyone else is uncomfortable with the tone of the work on the Rupert Sheldrake page, please drop me a line. I've been uneasy with the antagonistic dynamic that's developed there and would like to hear what others' opinions on it are, as well as see whether we can come up with some sort of resolution. I look forward to hearing from you! The Cap'n (talk) 16:59, 15 November 2013 (UTC)


Request for arbitration rejected[edit]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. The arbitrators felt that the already imposed discretionary sanctions were adequate to deal with current issues. Failure by users to edit constructively or comply with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines should be brought up at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Please see the Arbitrators' opinions for further potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Disclaimer About Offsite Contribution[edit]

I recently contributed a statement on Tumbleman's website about the problem with online pressure, bias and abusive practices on Wikipedia. I am posting this notice here to clarify that while I have deep concerns with the way Tumbleman and many others were isolated and blocked from WP, I do not intend to discredit, disparage or disrespect the work that is being done on Wikipedia. I think that there is an issue that needs to be dealt with regarding the silencing of minority editors, but I feel strongly that it is an issue that can be (relatively easily) fixed and WP will be the better for it.

Please do not mistake my acknowledgement of another's point of view as evidence that I am a sockpuppet, proxy, pseudoscientist or abuser of WP policies; I am not. I am, however, planning to do everything I can to ensure Wikipedia remains a civil, open, free and neutral encyclopedia. The Cap'n (talk)

Discretionary sanctions notification[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to pseudoscience and fringe science. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 02:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, Callanecc. Have I done anything inappropriate or is this a general heads up? The Cap'n (talk) 01:55, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Just a heads up. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 04:57, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Home again, home again...[edit]

Hello again, dear Wikipedians. I've got a new work schedule and anticipate having much more time to pursue my WP addiction, allowing me to actually dig into some of these tricky pages I've been wanting to work on. May His noodly appendage give me strength... The Cap'n (talk) 16:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

RE: "No."[edit]

I tried to post an update of what I'd found out after I dug into both the Tumbleman issue and the various editors who have been blocked (in my opinion without proper consideration) under suspicion of being sockpuppets of his. I posted it onto the Tumbleman talk page, since it concerned that case (after erroneously posting to the archive I was reading, I acknowledge).

It was not a puff piece for Tumbleman, indeed I described how I had confirmed his use of multiple accounts and included all his confirmed aliases to allow further policing to get more accurate policing of any actual sockpuppeting. My main point was describing my concern over innocent editors who have been blocked under suspicion of being Tumbleman, but at this point do not appear to be. I was as transparent as possible in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety, and explained why I was posting it.

The response was a blanket revert with the explanation "No."

I'm not sure why the editor in question felt compelled to do so, what makes them think they have arbitrary policing authority over public talk pages, or what offense they felt I had committed. I am not promoting a blocked user nor acting as a proxy (the data I included was hardly complimentary to Tumbleman); I'm including information on my own examination of a case that has been the basis for many blocks and informing editors that this basis may need to be more carefully scrutinized to avoid losing innocent editors to the hunt for Tumbleman. The Cap'n (talk) 14:06, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe just post it here. We shouldn't lose your good thinking, and we shouldn't tolerate bullying, even by owners of a group of pages. Lou Sander (talk) 14:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Lou Sander, I think I will. I appreciate the feedback! The Cap'n (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Tumbleman Sockpuppets and Collateral Losses[edit]

NOTE: I tried to post this to the Tumbleman Talk Page, but it was promptly removed without explanation (obviously not by the page’s owner). I’m not interested in starting a revert war. Therefore I’m reposting my comments here, as they contain interactions I’d like to be transparent about and information that I feel is highly pertinent to how editors are treated going forward. These are my thoughts and conclusions, except where I explicitly reference the opinion of someone else. When I do, I am bringing up information relevant to these concerns, not serving as a proxy to air their grievances.

There are a few issues about these recurring sockpuppeting claims that I'd like to address and examine. Does anyone have any proof Tumbleman has had more than one account active on Wikipedia at the same time? As far as I can tell, the records show that he has not; the disputed charge of sockpuppeting was not the reason he was blocked. The reason I ask is that under the assumption that Tumbleman has countless aliases a large number of users have had sanction threatened or levied against them. Since his blocking an unreasonable number of editors have been accused of secretly being Tumbleman and blocked, in many cases with only cursory, arbitrary or biased evidence. As I've mentioned before, I've noticed that most editors who argue for similar purposes as Tumbleman end up getting slammed with warnings, sanctions or blocks. I strongly feel the chilling effect this has had on certain WP articles is more disruptive than anything Tumbleman or these other editors did (what exactly did they do that was so disruptive again?). I've been trying to look into the situation whenever I can and reached out to Tumbleman to get his perspective, as I noted on my talk page. I also reached out to several of the editors who were accused of being socks for Tumbleman, and the ones I’ve contacted appeared to be clearly separate people.
Tumbleman argued that he felt his indefinite block was the result of harassment by Vzaak and others who worked to damage his personal credibility and silence dissenting positions on the Sheldrake article. He acknowledged to me that he did not accept his blocking as just and has created new Wikipedia accounts when his previous accounts got banned so he could continue contributing to Wikipedia. He insisted that none of his accounts have done any disruptive editing and asked admins to peruse his activity to prove as much.
Out of respect for WP policies I requested that Tumbleman create no new accounts or contribute on WP except through transparent avenues (appeals, etc), to which he agreed out of a belief that upon closer review his blocking would eventually be reversed. Since he is going to refrain from editing anyway, I asked him to list every account he has had on WP so that we can determine how many editors have been unjustly blocked after accusations of being a sockpuppet and identify a pattern for CheckUser. He lists the following as the only accounts he has used: 'The Tumbleman', 'Philosophy Fellow', 'Halfman Halfthing' and 'No more scary monsters'. He states he has not performed any IP edits. I think it’s obvious that he has nothing to gain from admitting to some blocked accounts and denying other blocked accounts, so the conclusion is that those blocked as Tumbleman socks other than the above were wrongly blocked, including Oh Boy Chicken Again, Shaynekori, Alfonzo Green and Barleybannocks.
Aside from the question of Tumbleman's blocking in the first place, it's clear that there's a serious problem with the fact that a large number of innocent editors have been blocked as collateral damage in the search for someone who was never clearly abusive. As I've said from the beginning, it's better for WP to give the benefit of the doubt to any given editor as opposed to robbing the community of whatever knowledge and insight they may possess. I'm not proposing blanket amnesties, but this is an issue that's going to need to be addressed for future editors. By all means we need to look out for sock/meatpuppetry, but the priority has got to be maintaining an environment where people feel free to contribute without fearing they're going to be accused of something.
As a postscript, I read in the archives that Tumbleman's IP is based in Los Angeles, so I felt it pertinent to point out that I live in the greater Los Angeles area (which is home to 18 million people, more than 3 times that of the entire nation of Ireland). Given the level of suspicion other Angelenos have received, I welcome any CheckUser reports to make it clear that I am not yet another sock (a deep cover sock… waiting for 5+ years before I began trolling/proxying). The Cap'n (talk) 22:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey again Capn, not to discourage your efforts, but one conceivable flaw in your logic (especially your sock-counting) is that you are taking Tumbleman's on-wiki and off-wiki statements at face value. This is of course, policy for User:Tumbleman and their on-wiki statements, per WP:AGF.
  But to my eyes, the off-wiki site (which I must 100% assume is in no way connected to User:Tumbleman per AGF) has the single sole primary purpose of promoting the person's consulting business, and in particular, of selling their new software-package, which you will see mentioned prominently — and incongruously — in their volumnious tale. Obviously, this software-package has nothing to do with fairness on wikipedia, nor Sheldrake for that matter; it sticks out like a sore thumb.
  Your participation or non-participation in any off-wiki activity (or on-wiki per WP:REQUIRED) ought of course be based on your own best judgment, but I did want to make sure you considered the fact that the owner of the website has fully admitted to have a) been trolling for years both on-wiki && off-wiki b) has for years been pushing same exact said software package as the end-goal of said trolling and c) is in particular trying to troll skeptic websites such as the Randi forums with the explicit goal of riling skeptics up, as a means to personally profit.
  ((u|David in DC)), one of our finest editors here on wikipedia in general and at the Sheldrake page in particular, an impeccable stickler for WP:BLP as well as all other WP:PG, was particularly horrified at this sort of involuntary psychological experimentation,[1] using unwitting wikipedians as foils. Now, per WP:AGF my firm and unshakable belief is that, were User:Tumbleman to ever return, they would no longer engage in trolling, and no longer attempt to rile up content-opponents as fodder for off-wiki badsites. In other words, there would no longer be any strong stench of WP:SPIP whatsoever, in all of Tumbleman's future on-wiki activities. Ahem.
  In any case, the current issues are deeper than one particular unfortunate person, and their variety of socks. As you say, and I fully agree, the priority has got to be maintaining (or... creating perhaps) an editing-environment where anybody can edit (aka fulfilling the JimboVision™). As every pirate knows, however, the key to a long and successful career is simple: concentrate on what matters most. If we are trying to create an edit-environment that follows pillar two, and pillar four, then what matters most? I would suggest that bans are not the solution to bans. Hope this helps, and thanks for improving wikipedia. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments, (talk), I appreciate your thoughtful and considered feedback. I have noticed several of the factors you mentioned above, and hope that I have made clear (if not I will here) that my comments off-site are limited to discussing what I see as an issue of improving WP, not promoting/endorsing any one person and certainly not a product. While I don't agree with everything about the way the Tumbleman case was handled, and definitely don't agree with the behavior that's come after it, I also acknowledge the problems Tumbleman represented. I don't accept and don't expect others to take at face value the word of someone that I myself only agreed to speak to in return for divulging prior accounts, but I also see no logical sense to someone admitting to a number of accounts that were banned but declaring other banned accounts to be unaffiliated. None of them are coming back online, he'd have nothing to gain by lying, so I felt that lent at least an air of legitimacy to the scenario.
Again, at its core my argument is not that Tumbleman be reinstated, but that we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater regarding edits on the Sheldrake page. I put forward this information because I feel it makes the case that there's at least some evidence worth some consideration that several of the banned editors were innocent. If even 1 was not actually a sock/proxy, then future policies need to be reassessed.
Again, thank you for your points. The Cap'n (talk) 03:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Yup, right back at you. I'm not saying you promote the person behind Tumbleman, or the product that person is selling. You are not. I'm saying that the long-term goal of the person behind Tumbleman (since 2005 or so) has been to promote their product, and their most recent tactic (since 2007 or so) is to troll skeptics as a means of drumming up controversy, faux or otherwise, which in turn is a means to sell the product in question. Does this make sense? There is logical sense to divulging some socks, but NOT others, if the end result is Moah Controhvahsy... because the creation of controversy is itself a goal, in the service of selling the product. I have little opinion either way, about the particulars of any given account, as being a sock or not. I don't think these questions matter, much, in the long run, because even if zero of the banned folks were innocent, current policies still need to be reassessed. No need to bring Tumbleman into it: WP:NOTFACTIONS applies. Plenty of people were driven away, without actually being de jure banned; baiting and booting is no way to run a railroad, eh?
  The problem is not that Tumbleman was banned; that was necessary, and justified. The problem is not that socks (the actual ones) were banned. The core problem isn't even, as you posit, that mistakes might have been made, in the zeal to catch them all. I think the core problem is simply the existence of sides, which happens when people believe *only they* are defending The Real Encyclopedia and WP:The_Truth. Without sides, there would be few zealots, no baiting content opponents, no spending endless hours hunting socks, and no fighting to rewrite policy... if the factions simply weren't the case. See the type-one versus type-three philosophies, below. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 19:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Entirely fair assessment of your views[edit]

Well, I think it's an entirely fair assessment of your views.

IMHO, you're a self-appointed WP:BLP warrior who's fighting to stop Wikipedia libelling people. While this is superficially honourable, your self-viewing yourself as a BLP warrior means you elevate yourself and your views above everyone else and theirs. This isn't helpful, nor is it productive.

This is an entirely fair summary:

  • Smith (aliases have been used for BLP purposes) says "cats are can time-travel" (replace "cats" and "time-travel" with any other bizarre and unsupported claims). This is the central claim in his best-selling book "How Cats Time-Travel".
  • A Wikipedia editor writes "Smith claims cats can time-travel" [citation to several of Mr Smith's books]. If he's good he applies WP:FRINGE.
  • Meanwhile, Mr self-appointed BLP warrior comes along, reads this, and realises that the claim "cats can time-travel" is only supported by vague anecdotes ("Mrs Jones says her cat disappears for days on end!") - and is entirely unsupported by modern understandings of physics and biology. It is a claim that is utterly stupid.
  • Mr Self-appointed BLP Warrior brain logically leaps from "Smith claims cats can time-travel" to "Smith makes the stupid claims that cats can time-travel", and then just for good luck, a little further to "Smith is stupid".
  • But oh no!!! Wikipedia can't say "Smith is stupid". Therefore Mr BLP warrior concludes that original quotation should be removed!

No doubt you view yourself as a complete genius for this "application" of knowledge. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:53, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't consider myself above anyone else, as evidenced by my consistent calls for consensus, moderate edits and respectful behavior. If that makes me a BLP Warrior, what does it mean if you don't provide any compromise/alternatives, resist any changes without explaining why and call people names without understanding what they're arguing? As I mentioned on your talk page, I don't know who or what you're responding to, but it's not any argument I've made. You've been calling me these names for awhile, so I'll break this down for you through your own summary:
  • Smith (aliases have been used for BLP purposes) says "cats are can time-travel" (replace "cats" and "time-travel" with any other bizarre and unsupported claims). This is the central claim in his best-selling book "How Cats Time-Travel". I assume you're referencing the Sheldrake statement on telepathy in the lead.
  • A Wikipedia editor writes "Smith claims cats can time-travel" [citation to several of Mr Smith's books]. If he's good he applies WP:FRINGE. There are numerous paraphrases and accurate quotes about inherent memory and connections to telepathy in the article. The quote in question was not one of them, as evidenced by the fact that the entire block of text it comes from is presented a little lower on the page, indicating the quote was referencing Sheldrake's perception by his peers, not a definition of his hypothesis.
  • Meanwhile, Mr self-appointed BLP warrior comes along, reads this, and realises that the claim "cats can time-travel" is only supported by vague anecdotes ("Mrs Jones says her cat disappears for days on end!") - and is entirely unsupported by modern understandings of physics and biology. It is a claim that is utterly stupid. I don't care whether or not Sheldrake's hypothesis is scientifically feasible or not. Whether I believe in telepathy or not is irrelevant, though a quick perusal of my profile should have made that obvious. This is a biography page, not a critique of a hypothesis in Scientific American.
  • Mr Self-appointed BLP Warrior brain logically leaps from "Smith claims cats can time-travel" to "Smith makes the stupid claims that cats can time-travel", and then just for good luck, a little further to "Smith is stupid". No, actually. My brain logically leaped to "Huh, right here Quote A is presented as saying X, but a little further down the page Quote A is presented as saying Y. Quote A = Y includes the full context, while A=X is only a snippet, so it's logical that A=Y.
  • But oh no!!! Wikipedia can't say "Smith is stupid". Therefore Mr BLP warrior concludes that original quotation should be removed! My conclusion, in point of fact, was to keep Quote A = Y in its entirety further down the page, then find Quote B that actually DOES say X to replace it. I didn't remove information, I only increased it, including the original quote and introducing another that fit the original intent better. To make it simple, I edited it so that Quote A=Y, and Quote B=X.
I am fighting against libel, and I won't apologize for that. But I'm also fighting for accurate citations in an encyclopedic entry, NPOV, civility, collaborative editing and an avoidance of stagnation-through-wikilawyering. With that in mind, call me whatever you want. The Cap'n (talk) 20:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Case Files #1 2152014[edit]

literary merit[edit]

Your story is pretty sucky.  :-)   ((Notice how I focus on the content, not the contributor?)) But the big question is, how does the story end. Or is this one of those infinite-series kinda novels, that drag on and on through the decades, each book more and more predictable. I do like the combination of sci-fi and film noir, though. Sci-noir, you should call it.  ;-)   That sinebot character is a hoot! — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback, 74.192.84.101, I always like negative reviews the best. I particularly like the distinction between "you're a crappy writer" and "your writing is crappy." I think that point is just as useful and pointful (that's the opposite of pointless, right?) as the very subtle connection you are/aren't drawing with my recent ANI on hostile editors.
As far as how the story ends, that remains to be seen (I mean, stay tuned for more exciting installments!). That said, if I'm still writing this decades from now please tell our robot overlords to end my sad, inconclusive existence.
Finally, I'm actually rather fond of the term sci-noir, now. Though since this is current day cyber-noir might be more accurate. Less sexy, though... The Cap'n (talk) 02:59, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Are you the guy who used to edit encyclopedias under the name User:Ike Asimov? Lou Sander (talk) 03:57, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
No, this is the only account I've had since I began editing WP, other than a few IP contributions when I forgot to log in. Who's Ike Asimov? The Cap'n (talk) 14:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
There was a prolific science and science fiction writer named Isaac Asimov. I was joking. Lou Sander (talk) 14:41, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Wow... that'll teach me to edit before work...  ;-) Actually a big fan of Asimov, I just thought some editor had used the name. The Cap'n (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Case Files #2 2232014[edit]

Timewasting[edit]

It would be helpful if you could stop wasting people's time by flogging dead horses. I don't know what your motivation is, and I don't really care, but we've been there, done that. Move on please. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I thought I'd enunciated my motivation pretty clearly. I feel that there's still a problem present with conduct on the Sheldrake page (along with a few others). I'm not pushing for Tumbleman's reinstatement nor trying to defend him, I'm referencing him in a discussion of a problem that included him and persists today. So long as editors don't feel welcome on certain pages due to WP:OWN, I'm going to continue spending time that I don't consider wasted. The Cap'n (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
How about this then - there isn't a problem. There is needed a very deep understanding of the subtleties of how WP:BLP and WP:FRINGE interact, and you don't seem to realise that you don't have the basic competency level required. A fair assessment of Sheldrake's work is always going to include lots of criticism because his "work" has received lots of criticism from prominent mainstream sources. Attempts to change this either by (1) making him appear more mainstream by excluding his wackier ideas or (2) attempting to make him appear more mainstream by removing criticism/portraying criticism as unjustified or quantifying it as "only a few scientists" (3) attempting to give an impression of support which his work lacks. I'm not entirely sure which of these you're pushing, but none of them is a good idea.
Also, don't remove my comments on noticeboards especially when they relate particularly to yourself, your timewasting, and your self-appointment as a "BLP warrior". Barney the barney barney (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
First off, you are posting your comments to an archived conversation, which is against policy, AND posting your comments above an older comment by another editor. I don't care what you say about me, and feel free to shout it from the mountains, but don't do it there and don't violate core policies and fundamental decorum. If you can't understand why I reverted (and will revert) your edits than it appears I am not the one with a basic competency issue.
As to the arguments I'm supposedly making, if you yourself are not entirely sure what incorrect POV I'm "pushing" and are unable to come up with any abusive or inappropriately POV examples, then why are you claiming peremptorily that I am making them? I've tried to make every one of my edits neutral, every one of my Talk comments reasonable and all of my input focused on NPOV consensus. I haven't tried to say Sheldrake should be portrayed as mainstream, I haven't tried to delete his criticisms, I haven't tried to include support that doesn't exist. In short, I haven't done any of the things you use to justify calling me incompetent, so what are you talking about? Seriously, what are you talking about? It seems like you're just copying/pasting from some other argument, with some other editor, about some other issues. Heads up, not everyone who disagrees with you is an interchangeable troll, proxy or moron.
Finally, as to "there isn't a problem." Right... That's why this page has been one of the most contentious on WP, has resulted in nearly a dozen sanctions, edit warring, a half dozen ANI's, AE's, etc, and an exodus of frustrated editors. Because it's going so smoothly... The Cap'n (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Relatively, yes. Certain editors have been banned, others have taken the hints that have been dropped by the banning of others. Taking hints is a very good personal attribute to have. The "exodus of frustrated editors" simply does not exist. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:47, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Askahrc, this is silly. Your off-wiki antics [[2]] have done wonders to ensure that no one assumes you to be operating in good faith anymore. You can’t just pal around with a known troll like Viharo and still expect people to give you the benefit of the doubt. The benefit of the doubt is for people who haven’t dispelled all doubt.

While I can’t defend Vzaak (as I’ve accused him of having an ownership issue myself), Barney’s behavior seems to be a perfectly appropriate response to your sympathizing with a scumbag like Tumbleman. You should leave the fringe articles alone unless you’re absolutely determined to martyr yourself in the name of morphic resonance. Would you really like to get your name on Tom Butler’s list of shame?

I will now translate that into pirate because you apparently get off on that sort of thing:

Well tickle me dick-hole and shit on a stick! I know of a troll who’s one hell of a dick!

He got himself banned for the spouting of lies, now it’s User:Vzaak that this troll doth despise.

This wretched tumble-troll hath not an iota of shame, so he seeks to recruit those who feel much the same.

He sends forth his minions to do his foul bidding, and it’s from Wikipedia that his minions need ridding.

So if thou doth enjoy editing here then it’s the arbitration enforcement noticeboard that thou has to fear.

For pseudoscience can be so labeled without further ado, so the one who’s being disruptive is in fact you.

Your cavorting with a troll will not soon be forgot, so your fringe-pushing efforts will all be for naught.

So, please stop pushing fringe and being a prick, just step away from the horse and put down the stick.

Yarrr!!!

Seriously though, you should leave the Sheldrake page alone. The forces of reason won “the battle for Rupert Sheldrake’s Wikipedia page” and it’s time for you to accept that. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 03:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I apologize, Barney the barney barney, for making light of competency issues above. I don't appreciate it when people do that, and generally try to observe WP:CIVIL. After reviewing your confusion about the rules regarding posting to archived conversations, I see that what I took for belligerence was actually just a lack of knowledge. I should have assumed good faith. Even veterans like you have areas of ignorance, and I can't castigate someone who honestly didn't understand that what they were doing was wrong. If there's ever anything in the future you're not sure of, please feel free to ask. Maybe I can help, maybe I can't, but I'm happy to try. The Cap'n (talk) 21:03, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
As for 76.107.171.90 (talk), I honestly don't know what to say to your threatening, vulgarity-ridden diatribe, but I'll give it a shot.
I don't "pal around" with anyone other than my actual pals, and listening to the arguments of people under discussion isn't collaboration, it's getting an informed opinion. Setting that aside, your entire justification for assuming my bad faith is that I have spoken with Tumbleman and also have concerns (different concerns, by the way, or have you bothered to read the discussion?) with behavior on the Sheldrake page. I have voluntarily disclosed every exchange I've had with this person in the name of transparency (which all echo points I've made on WP itself), and yet you claim that these very declarations make me inherently untrustworthy? Double check that logic, friend.
Then there are the three, count 'em three, separate threats you made stating that if I continued editing the Sheldrake page or critiquing behavior therein, I'd "martyr myself in the name of morphic resonance," or add myself to Tom Butlers list of banned editors, etc. Let me get this straight; you're saying that my arguing that dissenting editors get harassed/banned is complete hogwash, then you proceed to harass me with threats of banning if I continue to dissent? Gotcha. Brilliant argument.
Also, your statement that your side "won the battle for Rupert Sheldrake's Wikipedia page" is a perfect indication of what I'm concerned about. There are no sides here, 76.107.171.90 (talk), just collaborative editors with different ideas on how best to proceed. Finally, please don't presume to declare my personal views on these WP topics, it's presumptuous and ignorant. I can edit Vlad the Impaler without agreeing with his behavior and I can weigh in on abuses on the Sheldrake page without being a believer in his ideas.
P.S. It takes more than base profanity and poorly constructed rhymes to talk like a pirate. Don't bother trying, you don't have what it takes. I've known pirates, and you, sir, are no pirate. The Cap'n (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

What’s the matter Askahrc? Don’t like your own medicine? It’s not so cute when I talk like a pirate now is it?

Predictably, you’re feeling desperate to convince yourself that you’re “the victim” of a coordinated effort to silence “intellectual dissents” or “free thinkers” or “non-conformists” or whatever the fuck you call yourself. Or perhaps you have chosen to cower behind WP:BLP? You wouldn’t be the first “BLP-warrior” to try to excuse their fringe-pushing by claiming to protect a pseudoscientist’s “human dignity”. [[3]] And in your increasingly desperate attempts to convince yourself that you’re being “victimized” you have decided to claim that you’re being threatened.

You aren’t being threatened Askahrc. I have no intention of taking any action against you. I don’t have a reason to do so as there are others who will more than happily take you to WP:AE or WP:ANI. I am simply telling you that you’ve come to a point where you need to decide if you really want to commit “Wikipedia suicide”. If you persist in your fringe-pushing behavior then the decision to ban or block you was your own. Is getting yourself blocked really going to make you feel better Askahrc? Is it something that you feel you need to do to gratify your delusions of victimization? Dude, look at what you’ve done. You started pushing fringe on Sheldrake, and when you lost that fight you went to WP:AN/I where you were soundly (and rightly) defeated again. You’re not the victim of anything when you were, in fact, pushing fringe.

You are also misrepresenting WP:battle. WP:battle suggests that one should not approach editing as a battle, but once a battle has erupted we are not required to deny that it has occurred or that there are opposing sides.

You’re also making one of the clumsiest straw man arguments I’ve ever had the misfortune of witnessing. You suggest that you aren’t being dishonest because you have disclosed your interactions with Tumbleman. I’m not accusing you of being dishonest about that. I’m accusing you of having an agenda that conflicts with Wikipedia policy and I’m basing that accusation on your own words. I’m also making it clear that people hold grudges. If you post pro-fringe rants on Tumbleman’s website then Barney is justified in viewing you with suspicion.

Oh and “you, sir, are no pirate” has to be one of the lamest insults in the history of lameness. You’re damn right I don’t “have what it takes” to be a pirate. I lack the moral corruption, poor personal hygiene, and the willingness to associate with lowlifes that it takes to be a seagoing bandit. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 04:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, 76.107.171.90 (talk), you're such a charmer. As far as my own medicine, I don't mind piratical language (which I've yet to see), but I don't particularly respect or appreciate crass insults by people who don't understand what they're talking about.
As for your statement about "whatever the fuck" I call myself, I call myself a reasonable editor who is able to provide diffs, examples and justification for my points, a better alternative to slinging profanity and personal insults like a 15 year old on a blog comment section. It's fascinating that you take up Barney's baseless "BLP-Warrior" claim (exactly how many times have I mentioned BLP?), then go on to denigrate me for caring about the "human dignity" of pseudoscientists. What exactly is the alternative? They're human, and any reasonable person should try to respect other humans who aren't engaged in rape and/or murder. The implications of your disdain for such a basic aspect of humanity is disturbing.
You keep calling me a pro-fringe pusher, but I'd love to see some diffs of unreasonable fringe positions I've taken. I have declared that I find the behavior of certain editors (yourself particularly included) to be unacceptable, but my issue has always been with keeping the page neutral and welcoming, not legitimizing fringe science. My "pro-fringe rant" that you mentioned had nothing to do with fringe issues, at all. It had to do with the increasingly hostile nature of editing on the Sheldrake page, which you illustrate beautifully. Try paying attention to what people are actually saying, kid, it'll make your arguments less silly.
I'm not a victim, nor have I claimed to be. I disagree with several people, but I'm looking for compromise and feel no hostility toward them (well, you & I won't be sharing a pint anytime soon...). I have to point out the ridiculousness of trying to claim 'I'm not threatening you, I'm just warning you that if you don't do what I say, someone will do bad things to you,' for comedic purposes if nothing else.
By the way, as a historian I'd be interested in seeing your copy of the History of Lameness, particularly if my statement is featured so prominently. I had no idea! Cheers. The Cap'n (talk) 07:36, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

You’re new to this whole sophistry thing aren’t you?

When I said “try to excuse their fringe-pushing by claiming to protect a pseudoscientist’s “human dignity”” the implication was that fringe pushers hide behind the claim that they are enforcing BLP when they are actually pushing fringe. Not that BLP is a bad policy or that humans have no dignity. That’s another straw man on your part.

I also didn’t “take up Barney's baseless "BLP-Warrior" claim”. I listed it as one of the excuses that you might use to justify your behavior to yourself. I do not, in fact, know what goes on in your head so I judge you by your actions instead. For all I know your actions on Sheldrake might be motivated by noting other than the love of trolling.

I’ve already provided you with a diff of your anti-Wikipedia behavior. Here [[4]] it is again.

And once again, no, I’m not threatening you. You misunderstand my motivations entirely. When User:David in DC was pouting because he wasn’t getting his way on Sheldrake I went to him and asked him to “rejoin the mainstream”. When I mistakenly thought that your buddy User:74.192.84.101 might be willing to reconsider his position I went to his talk page and asked him to switch sides. And so I came here to talk to you in the hope that you might stop your disruption and become a productive editor once again. I can be strangely optimistic sometimes, and I like to think that people can change.

Askahrc, this is not the first IP I’ve edited under. I’ve actually been around for a while. When I was new I did see a veteran editor bully a newbie by falsely accusing them of fringe pushing. The veteran was apparently too damn lazy to actually read what the newbie was inserting into the article and he simply assumed that the newbie must be a fringe pusher. The veteran was more concerned about attacking people then about attacking the right people. So yes, sometimes Wikipedia has its problems. I’ve seen them happen. But that’s not the situation you’re in Askahrc. If you get yourself blocked for fringe pushing when you really were fringe pushing then it will mean nothing.

Think it over. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 10:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

There's no use in spending my time replying to editors who post walls of insulting text then claim they're doing nothing but offering helpful advice. I'm done feeding you, 76.107.171.90 (talk). Feel free to claim that as a victory and post more vitriol below. The Cap'n (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I’m not “offering helpful advice”. I’m telling you to stop being a fringe pusher. I recognize the value of trying to turn an enemy into an ally. However, I gather from your “Case File” that you’ve already made your decision.

Just remember, throughout his trials and tribulations Science Apologist (currently User:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV) has received considerable support and sympathy from the community. But if everyone thinks that you had it coming then you’ll receive no sympathy at all if you get yourself blocked. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Case Files #3 2252014[edit]

Warning[edit]

Askahrc, it has been found that you used an IP address in order to harass other users and waste the community's time. You are strongly admonished for this behaviour and warned that if you are found to harass other users, waste the community's time or edit logged out or with another account in contravention of WP:SOCK you will be blocked for an extended period of time. In addition to this admonishment and warning the following sanctions now apply to you indefinitely:

  • You must use the Askahrc account only (except with the explicit permission of the Arbitration Committee to use a different account or an IP address), when making any edit broadly related to pseudoscience or fringe science.
  • You are not permitted to alert or notify any user that discretionary sanctions have been authorised for topics relating to pseudoscience or fringe science.

This warning and sanctions will be recorded at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience in accordance with the discretionary sanctions authorised for this topic area. You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the enforcement noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 03:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

AE request[edit]

There is an AE request concerning you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Askahrc. vzaak 17:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously?[edit]

So, apparently I spoke too soon in removing the SPI tag according to due process. Vzaak appears to be disgruntled that I wasn't banned for their SPI accusation and so is now admin-shopping an AE to try to get me banned... again. All this in response to my statement that they tend to react to disagreement with excessive hostility. Ah, irony... The Cap'n (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, that sure went quick. While I will respect any admin decision, it's more than a little frustrating to have predicted what strategy would be used to silence oneself, then watch it implemented without being able to change it. You're one thorough sneak, Vzaak. I still wonder why it is you do what you do. The Cap'n (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
This is a personal attack and also canvassing on your talk page. Second Quantization (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your concerns, Second Quantization, and here are 3 points in response:
  • Saying someone's behaved in a sneaky manner is about the most benign 'personal attack' I've ever heard of, especially when Vzaak has called me incompetent, a proxy and a liar. If it's actually offensive I'll take it down; I didn't intend it as an insult and don't want to foster that impression.
  • If the statement above was objectively inflammatory, can I expect to see similar warnings on 76's talk page for making profanity-laden rhymes taunting me about my impending blocking? Or for their numerous direct personal attacks on my intelligence, competence or "lameness?" Or on Barney's for calling me a BLP-warrior?
  • How is it canvassing to make a comment about an AE that has an alert right above that comment? There's nothing in my comment that isn't included in the AE notification other than my opinion of it.
The Cap'n (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
It's kind of pointless, The Cap'n, you're on their radar. You can say the most benign remarks and they will be taken the wrong way. They have to have someone to target. I'm sorry you are in this position. Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
If I had called you a little sneak Liz, would you have thought that was benign? Somehow I think not ... One rule for us, another for those you support. Second Quantization (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I have been called far worse than a sneak, and I've also seen worse terms used against Liz for simply speaking her mind about procedural decisions. The difference is that I try to assume good faith and shrug off all but the most outrageously insulting as simple issues of communication.
Also, who is this "us" you reference? I've heard this from Barney, 76, and seen it implied by Vzaak & many others. "Those (I) support" are editors in general, skeptical and fringe; I don't approve of monolithic opinions regardless of what they may be or whether I agree with them personally (note that no one's ever heard me legitimizing Sheldrake?). As much as folks have recently tried to paint me so, I don't represent a broader ideological movement. Do you? The Cap'n (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
LOL! "A little sneak"? That is hard to be offended by except that it sounds like something you would call a child. In fact, that remark is more polite than you usually are to me, Second Quantization. I usually get a warning from you, little insults or a slap across the face (metaphorically speaking).
You know, I'm not "skeptical" or "fringe"....I've never edited any articles that are labeled "pseudoscience". All I've tried to do is speak up for people I think are being bullied. It doesn't mean I agree with their opinions or support the changes they want to make to articles. I just don't like to see Wikipedia's procedures used as a way to drive editors with certain points of view off of WP. Content disputes should be resolved on talk pages and in dispute resolution, not by bringing editors you disagree with to WP:AE and applying a hammer approach. And, you know, discretionary sanctions cover all editors working on certain topics, not just ones with particular opinions. That is a fact that seems to be frequently forgotten.
Sorry to address SQ on your talk page, The Cap'n, but I see no reason to bring my comments to their talk page. Glad to see you survived AE...I know it's unnerving to become the center of other people's conversation and find yourself scrutinized. Wikipedians are a judgy lot. Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I do apologize for using language like "they" and "their" that implies some sort of unified effort and total agreement. While it's clear there is a group of editors who share a similar outlook on pseudoscience topics, you are individuals, not some anonymous group. Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
"All I've tried to do is speak up for people I think are being bullied". From what I can see, you've only ever spoken up for people who have abused sock puppets and are caught out. When there is real bullying on wikipedia, you are nowhere to be seen. I'm not going to reply here further, but it's good to know I can call you a little sneak. Second Quantization (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad we established that's not a personal attack. Who says consensus is hard to come by on WP? The Cap'n (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
That's highly inaccurate, Second Quantization. For example, I spoke up for The Cap'n and he has not abused sock puppets. There is only one user that fits that description who comes to mind and I spoke up for Tumbleman before his account was blocked and he used alternate accounts. I didn't agree with his views, by the way, I just thought he was being treated poorly.
As for "when there is real bullying on wikipedia, you are nowhere to be seen", I'm sorry but it's hard to be everywhere on Wikipedia simultaneously, 24/7. Impossible, really. But I'm not trying to be a policewoman. I just speak up when I see bullying, where I happen to see it. So, I'll cover the areas I edit in, and maybe you can speak up for people on the other 99.9999999% portion of Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 15:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Liz, The Cap'n was warned and sanctioned for use of sockpuppets just 10 days ago [5]. I think that says enough about the superficiality of your coverage of events before you comment. I will no longer be responding since this is going nowhere; you will continue to support people who appear pleasant on the surface while ignoring their POV pushing and sockpuppetry. You will continue to say you don't support their edits despite the sympathetic leanings you have expressed. Second Quantization (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

FWIW and to clarify, I thought you initially were a "BLP warrior", who I imagine as an editor who is very keen on ensuring that WP:BLP is implemented. This isn't in itself a bad thing, however WP:COMPETENCE is supposed to be required, otherwise you just become annoying. Unfortunately, it is quite clear that you (like Lizzy) basically just don't have a clue. If you're feeling "bullied" here's a big hint; go away and get some fresh air, stop the WP:BATTLEGROUND (or in Lizzy's case the whining and the pathetic predictions that this is "going to blow up again shortly" because of some bizarre belief that your warped version of the WP:TRUTH must ultimately prevail). Of course failing to see the warping is the key to the basic WP:COMPETENCE problem, and thus the loop is closed. Barney the barney barney (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: it's pathetic and clueless to whine about being bullied, and if folks do feel bullied, they should just shut up and "go away." Gotta say, I'm not a fan of that position. The Cap'n (talk) 18:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

asketh for diffs and thou shalt receive[edit]

Before telepathy-iz-real-POV-pushing by TheCapn:

The Spartans could not of known, as we do, that it would be Thebes that would break her at the Battle of Leuctra.

Obviously clearly patently blatantly disruptive editing nudge nudge wink wink say-no-more by TheCapn:

It is doubtful that the Spartans could have predicted that it would be Thebes that would someday pose a serious threat, later defeating her at the Battle of Leuctra.[6]

Current sorry state of the article:

It is doubtful that the Spartans could have predicted that it would be Thebes that would someday pose a serious threat, later defeating the Spartans at the Battle of Leuctra.

Emphasis added. Wikipedia is drowning in woo-pushers! There is no doubt here! We know exactly what the truth is, and exactly who is in charge, and yet TheCapn keeps injecting disruption! Sigh. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

That is what pirates have always done, whether in the New World or the Old, raiding galleons or supertankers. They are lying, thieving, murdering scum. Except for the baseball team. Lou Sander (talk) 05:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
That's a little harsh, Lou Sander! Let's be fair, now, some pirates were too drunk or incompetent to actually get around to murdering anyone. That said, I plead the Fifth on the lying, thieving and generally poor hygiene... The Cap'n (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Shameless woo-pusher and Sheldrake fanboi! Thankfully we have empowered fellows like Guy to keep you in check. If yer claimin' drunkenness, you should take THIS fifth. It makes UFOs easier to see, morphic resonance easier to feel, and phrenology easier to perform on the scum that make up yer opposition. Lou Sander (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Coincidentally enough, I have that exact bottle in a drawer in my study. I have found it is helpful when listening to both skeptical and fringe arguments. And when listening to agreements. And when sitting quietly by myself, muttering the words to old songs and occasionally saying "Ah, the sea..." with a sigh.
Sorry, did I go off on a tangent? The Cap'n (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Oniest pirates that drinks Scotch is the pussified ones. REAL pirates drinks rum. Lou Sander (talk) 23:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Aye, well said! That's why I have a bottle of Scotch in my study, but a case of the sailor in the galley! 92 proof and smooth as mother's milk. The Cap'n (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Aargh! Ye probly got that Scotch from some sissified English captain that ye made to walk the plank. I hear they like that stuff in the higher ranks. Grog fer the sailors, though. Them Englishmen tend to be little sneaks. Lou Sander (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

two three kinds of philosophy[edit]

There are a bunch of intertwined questions which matter, when writing an encyclopedia, the summation (additive summary) of human knowledge at any given time. However, there is also the broader question of philosophy: the selection-mechanism for who can edit, and how the term "encyclopedia" is defined. Here is one approach:

  • Editors agree with each other: all having the same politics, same religion, and same philosophy-of-epistemology ("what knowledge is and how knowledge is acquired by humans")
  • Therefore, the contents of the encyclopedia educate the public about the truth: true politics, true religion, true knowledge
  • Only editors who agree are permitted to edit; in particular, arguing one of the positions held by a heretic (any position of any heretic) is grounds for banning

Diderot and the Reasoned/Rational Dictionary of the Sciences, Arts, and Technology is a perfect example of this sort of philosophy in action. Written in the 1760s, it was the first general encyclopedia to lavish attention on the mechanical arts (aka what we now call the industrial revolution). The stated aim was "to change the way people think". Encyclopédistes promoted the advancement of science and rationality; they opposed religion (aka promoted secular thought and supported tolerance), which in France at the time meant opposing the Catholic church and the tightly-intertwined State.

  I don't know of any 'banning' amongst the Encyclopédistes; edit-histories and electronic pseudonyms weren't as common in the 1760s as they are nowadays.  :-)   But if you look a few years down the road to the 1790s, you find the political equivalent of the Encyclopédistes. Old ideas about tradition and hierarchy were abruptly overthrown. Uber-rationalism was enforced from the top down; central decrees in Paris were used to enforce Cult of Reason, the metric week, and similar schemes. Church privileges were eliminated; church lands were nationalized. The royalists and aristocrats got similar treatment, but for different underlying mob-motives. See Law of Suspects and Émigré-type-two.

  Remember, though, that the Committee of Public Safety wasn't named sarcastically, or ironically, whatsoever: the members really did firmly believe they were protecting the poor dunderheaded public from being tricked by the rich and the religious (tricked into believing Wrong Things). However, the *internal* bickering amongst the most fervent defenders of The Truth, were more vicious than with people they *actually* disagreed with. It is a question of mindset: if one believes that only people who agree belong, and that disagreement is heresy, and that clear facts are obviously facts, angry hysteria-driven battles are the inevitable natural result. Infighting and focus on ideological purity always lead to the same place, in politics: Napolean engineered a coup, and reinstated absolute monarchy.

Thankfully, there are alternative approaches to writing an encyclopedia, which are different in subtle and seemingly-minor ways. Here is a second model:

  • Article-authors have no interaction with each other: for each article, administrators select "the best" author, who writes the content, all alone (save copyedits)
  • Therefore, the contents of the encyclopedia inform the public about the topics: but the slant of any given topic-area is a mishmash of different authorial-POVs
  • Only authors who are picked by the administrators are permitted to edit; administrators tend to pick famous names, and in return, promote those named authors

This type-two model isn't much like wikipedia, of course, but it is a reasonably close caricature of how EB is run nowadays, methinks. Third model:

  • Editors stay neutral (with content and with each other) at all times: they don't play politics (wikiPolitics or the real-o-verse kind), they neither denigrate nor promote religion (gasp!), and they mutually follow the pragmatic-epistemology that involves reflecting what the wikiReliable sources say, like a mirror
  • Therefore, the contents of the encyclopedia exemplify the current published consensus, or lack thereof: lamestream politics, lamestream religion, lamestream knowledge
  • Anybody can edit; in particular, WP:NICE and WP:BLP apply at all times, on all pages.

Now, not every regular at WP:FTN is against this type-three approach. Plenty of those folks are in favor of pillar two (as written!), and don't see wikipedia as a means to promote science by snarking religion. But by my count, about 40% to 50% of the FTN regulars would be more happy to follow the type-one approach, or in some cases the type-two approach. They don't want the dunderheaded readership to be misled, after all. Newspapers aren't really seriously academic actually reliable sources (except when we agree with what they say in which case they are). Sigh.

  There are disadvantages to type-three encyclopedias: they tend to be filled with cruft, and they tend to be a reflection of the median-level-intellect that is published on amazon or in online editorially-check zines (hint: not very friggin' high). But they have a key advantage: low drahmahz, and ease of entry. The disadvantage to the type-one encyclopedia is high drahmahz, high intrigue, plenty of screaming hysteria, and a very slanted end-result (often misused by politicians with ulterior motives the generation afterwards). The disadvantage of type-two encyclopedias is uneven quality and high cost. Maybe there is a type-four encyclopedia, but I've yet to see it proposed, let alone implemented.

  Personally, I think that wikipedia ought to be a type-three encyclopedia, and would argue it always has been such a thing. I don't want it to be written by the "experts" like a type-two encyclopedia. I don't want it to be written by militant atheists, like a type-one encyclopedia. Does that mean that wikipedia would be better off without such folks? No, actually, I think we need experts, as many as we can get. I think we need militant atheists, as many as we can get. Now obviously, if it is a choice between keeping pillar four, or pillar two, or pillar three, or pillar five, and the retention of such folks, I'll pick the pillars every time. But I don't see any reason we cannot have our cake and eat it too: that is what what internet is all about, right? I can edit the encyclopedia, without taking that away from the other folks.

Black-Beard. Pirates of Emerson Haunted Adventure Fremont, CA.

  So at the end of the day, my recommendation is to be philosophical about things. You've been treated shabbily. You'd like there to be resolution. But the way the wikiCulture is at the moment, you'll not be getting it. For one thing, you suck at writing up noticeboard reports.  :-)   I say that with deep respect. You just don't really have the killer instinct, as much as you'd like to be the vicious pirate, or the hardened private eye. That's actually an asset, which shows your character. It would be a shame if you got good at writing up stuff that got people banned, to my mind. For the other thing, though, I don't actually want to ban the woo-fighters. Any encyclopedia worthy of the name needs to have woo-fighters.

  That said, they need to be the sort who follow the pillars (as written!), rather than the sort that snarks to the "win" for "their" forces. Trying to drive away content-opponents is only appropriate in a type-one encyclopedia, which is intended to promote a specific worldview, such as SkePOV. Wikipedia is a type-three encyclopedia, which is intended to neutrally reflect the current relatively-sorry state of the world, just the facts. In the long run, the facts speak for themselves, methinks. Arguably, therefore, the type-three encyclopedia will lead to a modern enlightenment waaaaay faster than a POV-pushing type-one encyclopedia ever could. Hope this helps, thanks for improving wikipedia, lemme know if you want to help me with some non-telepathy-related tasks. I've been morphing you all week, and you act like you cannot receive my signals!  :-)   So I figured I would leave you a message the old-fashioned way; some of the choice bits were lifted from elsewhere on the 'pedia, though. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of the tie-in to Enlightenment philosophes and Revolutionary approaches (fun note, I got to look through one of the original Encyclopédie), and an equally big fan of your input. Thanks, 74.192.84.101, I appreciate the nuanced, practical feedback, here and above. My apologies for missing your prior attempts to contact me, lack of sleep is a helluva thing. I wouldn't mind picking your brain further, if you ever have the time/inclination. The Cap'n (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm jealous about you getting to see the Real Deal, that's pretty awesome. You can just call me 74; pinging doesn't work for anons, plus, why be formal?  :-)   I haven't tried to contact you except here, to which I think you've replied each time... maybe you have me confused with somebody else? My brain is available for the picking, leave a note on my page if you get the urge (try to use only the letter R if you want bonus points). Also, watch out for Hafspajen, if they get wind of your page they'll decorate it with pirate gear like you wouldn't believe.  :-)   Thanks for improving wikipedia, talk to you later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Here is a pirate for you, greetings. Hafspajen (talk) 11:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thankee, Hafspajen, ye be a true gentleman o' fortune! The Cap'n (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

SPI[edit]

The Cap'n, in case you want to respond, there is a case being pursued at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Askahrc . Most of the charges seem easily dispelled but you should know that it is occurring. Liz Read! Talk! 02:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Liz, I appreciate the heads up and support. This is the 2nd SPI vzaak has issued against me without alerting me to its existence. Not sure if that's against policy or just rude. In any case, it looks like the admins have established I had no connection to this incident. These continuous accusations (death threats?!) are beginning to get preposterous. Ah well. Sorry you keep getting lambasted by these guys for simply being a decent, reasonable person. You deserve far better, Liz. The Cap'n (talk) 18:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't think it is standard practice to alert editors that they are the subject of an SPI. I don't agree with that practice as it doesn't let a person to defend themselves and so SPI are, by their nature, one-sided. It's not often that I'm familiar with an editor who is being investigated but when I am, I let them know.
As for being attacked, it's so over-the-top and reactionary that it's hard to take seriously. You know what is strange? I've never actually edited a "pseudoscience" article, ever, I just made some comments on a talk page. And I just went looking for them (I think they were in October 2013) but nothing shows up in my Contributions so I don't know what happened to them! So, it's not my editing history, what really sets off some folks is that I speak up for people I think are being unfairly dismissed as being "pro-Fringe" (which, on Wikipedia, is as bad a label as "sock"). So, by association, I must be pro-Fringe even though I've never edited any of those articles. I don't why these topics hit the same emotional buttons as edits on Eastern Europe or the Israel-Palestinian dispute. But I've looked through past cases of the Arbitration Committee and there have been some even more odd topics that got editors all worked up.
At least the situation isn't as feverish as it was six months ago. Despite SPIs, AN/Is and AR/Es, things are not as volatile as they were last fall, so that's good news. Liz Read! Talk! 19:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
P2

Notification question[edit]

I'm a new clerk for ARBCOM, checking to confirm that notifications were complete. If I read correctly, you re the filing party for: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Battleground_Off_of_Rupert_Sheldrake

and you notified most participants.

Including yourself

User_talk:Askahrc#AR_Notification ?

but not User:JzG

Am I missing something?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Answering my own question, I see that someone else added User:JzG.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Arrr thankin ye fer yar trables and helves[edit]

Piratey, vector version.svg Its a pirates rewaaaard matey
oh my goodness I see you've done this before. I'm glad you're here and keeping it light. SAS81 (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! No worries, glad to help. The last time I saw this kind of thing brewing it went absolutely bonkers, so I'm hoping to try to keep this discussion sane and productive. I hope I can count on you to understand that the work on Deepak Chopra is by consensus and will likely not end up exactly as you hope, nor nearly as quickly. Look forward to working with you! The Cap'n (talk) 12:40, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
You can't mediate. You are a user with a checquered history. What you're actually doing is advocating, which is different. And wrong. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Did I insult your mother in another life, Guy? Seriously, what is with this hostility? I'm assuming you haven't actually read what I'm doing on the Talk page. I'm getting sick of these aspersions without any grounds, like telling noticeboards I'm TBANNED when I'm not, calling me obsessed, saying I'm incapable of mediating, claiming I'm supposedly advocating because I'm... what? Not endorsing any perspective? Agreeing with the most skeptical editors on the page that academic, independent sources are the most important? Working civilly and openly with editors from both sides of the spectrum? Going through the COI's sources as requested and filtering out primaries? The one thing I'm not doing is advocating. What are you talking about?
With all due respect, Guy, this ANI is out of line. You're out of line. And wrong. The Cap'n (talk) 05:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

AN notice[edit]

Information icon This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Sir![edit]

I really appreciate your help and really sorry to see what is happening to you because of it! I understand if you need to back away, a few other editors here have contacted me about this kind of harassment. This is very disappointing to see Wikipedia work this way. You're a good man. SAS81 (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to see you have editors stalking your contributions. Or maybe you just have a lot of overlapping interests with some particularly prickly users. As long as you stick to WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V and WP:NPA, their accusations are baseless. Take the high road. And it doesn't hurt to diversify your editing interests. Liz Read! Talk! 01:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Liz! The only reason I'm still here after all these attempts is that I do my damndest to stick to the high road, regardless of PA's. I've been trying to keep away from these guys, and note that the majority of them had little to no involvement on Chopra until I started working on consensus there. And diversification has little effect. I'd been working on Vlad the Impaler's page for years, yet 76 mysteriously popped in there a while back, started accusing me of behaving inappropriately regarding Vlad's name and tried to derail a very nuanced consensus on naming practices. I marvel at the lives of leisure that these folks must lead, since they obviously have so much time they need to fill it with following me around. Ah well. The Cap'n (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, it kind of reminds me of department store security guards...once they view some shopper as "suspicious", they follow them around from department to department. Doesn't matter that the shopper never does anything wrong, they view their surveillance activities as preventing crime. So, their behavior is unfortunately predictable. What bothers me more is that no uninvolved admin shut down that AN complaint once it started spiraling out of control. It should have been nipped in the bud and not allowed to continue. Liz Read! Talk! 03:13, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Your AE request concerning 76.107.171.90 and Barney the barney barney[edit]

Could you please format refactor the section "If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)" of your request such that it is clear what applies to which user? Please don't file double requests again, it only complicates matters; instead, file one separate request per user. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:31, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Understood, Sandstein, will do. I wasn't sure, since they were doing basically the same thing at the same time. Should I refactor the whole thing, or just the sanction evidence section? The Cap'n (talk) 07:32, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Just the evidence, which you did, thanks.  Sandstein  10:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I was about to do the same thing myself after the current AfD closes. Barney has been highly antagonistic accusing me of the exact same thing, only worse by attempting to delete articles I restored claiming vandalism and ignorance. I haven't had a chance to usercheck that IP if it is him he has been sockpuppeting here and here.

Here is more information regarding other issues:

I disagreed with Atama interpretation per WP:DUCK, but dropped it as I think ANI is a board to avoid if possible. There was tremendous evidence his nomination were meant to attack me and not my article. Since this has continued I am more than happy to put in my two cents. If the IP is him the its about time to ban him. Valoem talk contrib 18:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Askahrc. You have new messages at Talk:Russell Targ.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Some possible references are in discussions above. You expressed an interest in the past here. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:50, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

If you engage in any more stale reversion I will file the following:

@Hipocrite Go ahead. It wasn't stale reversion, the other editor explained his position and I explained mine, then I reverted it, once. He responded with further issues and we've been going over it since. For clarification, one revert (in months) does not equate to edit warring. If you think I'm being abusive bring me to AE, by all means. That said, don't threaten editors with prepped AE's, Hipocrite, it's bad form. The Cap'n (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
It's not a threat. I want you to stop engaging in stale reversion. I'm telling you what will happen if you engage in stale reversion any more. If you don't want me to tell you what will happen, next time I'll just file. Hipocrite (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Either say "This revert is stale and can lead to an AE" or just file the AE. Don't prep out a full AE over a single revert (that wasn't stale, it was less than a day old and in active discussion) just to hold over my head. As I said, if you feel so strongly that this was abusive behavior, you have an ethical obligation to bring this AE. I look forward to responding to it there if so. The Cap'n (talk) 17:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Askahrc[edit]

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Askahrc[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Hipocrite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 15:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Askahrc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 14:44, 14 May 2014‎ Asserts consensus on talk page. At the time of said revision, the relevant section of the talk page was [7], starting at the 05:20, 14 May 2014 comment. Thus, despite Askahrc stating that he "wanted to discuss this on Talk rather than revert," he began reverting to his preferred version - a major modification from the historical text which appears to have been reasonably stable since the beginning of the year. I do not weigh into th underlying content dispute, only the tactic of reverting to ones preferred version while purporting to discuss.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 03:01, 2 March 2014 Sanctioned for using a strawman sockpuppet.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

0rr seems appropriate. Hipocrite (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a link to any active AE, what is this? If you're bringing an AE against me for my single revert, this is not how you notify editors. The Cap'n (talk) 16:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
This is very odd. Liz Read! Talk! 19:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
@Liz, I thought so too. Apparently it's some sort of "this is what I'll do to you if you..." warning that was based off of a single revert that was being discussed in a Talk page. There have been a number of strangely antagonistic interactions with this guy, which is weird since we've never really interacted much before a couple weeks ago and we've had barely any content disputes (until a couple days ago). Odd behavior. The Cap'n (talk) 14:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, it seems like attempts to intimidate are part of the territory here. Liz Read! Talk! 15:25, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC striking comments[edit]

I will not retract my statement. Your position was that there was lots of content that was non supportive of Chopra in the body so there didnt need to be lots in the lead. However, WP:LEAD says that the lead reflects the body and so when there is lots of content that is non supportive of Chopra in the body that necessarily means the lead should follow in roughly the same proportion - lots.

I struck LittleOlive oil because I misread the postings and thought she had also made the same claims based on the same argument. but she hadnt. she was making a wikilawyer process argument. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

First off, Littleolive oil wasn't making a wikilawyer argument, she (and I) were simply pointing out that RfC's tend to relate to heavily discussed or debated topics, not a positioning of criticism in the lede that had barely been mentioned on the page.
Secondly, the above was not my statement, and you are again misrepresenting me. This is what I said:
There's already a strong element of Reception (particularly criticism) present throughout, and giving that top billing is redundant given the prominence already noted in the lede and inappropriate given that a BLP is supposed to given priority to biographical details. I also agree with Littleolive oil, this has never been a significant topic on the Talk Page; the RfC is premature.
My position was that the lede already had a strong presence of the Reception throughout it, in both the first and last paragraphs, that making it more prominent was not warranted from the body content (ie. it'd be redundant to repeatedly emphasize criticism in the lede when one mention of the content's criticism is representative), and that prioritizing criticism in the lede violated BLP.
How does any of that sound like "there's lots of criticism in the body so there shouldn't be in the lede"? Not to mention that I don't care whether you agreed with the reasons behind my vote, you don't post in a Survey that another editor meant to say something opposite of what they said. The Cap'n (talk) 05:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Keep up the good work![edit]

Keep up the good work! Lou Sander (talk) 01:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Lou! I really appreciate that; it's been somewhat contentious, but we're actually getting things done. It's a nice change from the past! The Cap'n (talk) 14:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


Check out Sailor Tattoos?[edit]

I've been trying to tackle the monstrosity that was sailor tattoos for the past few weeks, and think it's getting better. I'd appreciate any reviews from an uninvolved editor, whether that's to critique it or push it to Good Status. Thank ye much, folks! The Cap'n (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I read the article quickly, and it looks pretty good to me. I don't know anything about getting "Good Article" status. I was a Naval officer for four years in the early 1960s, and saw many tattoos. The most memorable one was on a sailor's forearm. There was the head of a girl in a sailor suit, in front of which was a scene of a mine floating on the sea. Underneath it all were the words "Lay 'em and Leave 'em." Truly memorable. Lou Sander (talk) 23:08, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback, Lou, I appreciate it! I was just interested in looking at GA status because there had been a push to redo or delete the article due to its overwhelming terribleness, and I wanted to make sure its improvements were taken into consideration. My father was an old Navy man, and I lived the merchant sailing life for a while myself, so I'm interested in keeping this important (and fun) part of sailing culture covered on WP. The Cap'n (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Chopra foundation for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chopra foundation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chopra foundation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)