User talk:Lou Sander/Archive 8

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

Notifying user about missing file description(s) (bot - disable)

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 22:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Block Review

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Lou Sander (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

My account has been blocked for about a year, during which time I have been totally inactive. I'd like to start contributing again. I don't remember all that much about how to get unblocked, but I guess that making this edit is a start. Lou Sander (talk) 00:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I am the CheckUser who dealt with the SPI case, and have been observing this discussion with the intention to contribute.

I feel that an indefinite block is a little harsh on a long term editor's otherwise clean record. I see that you have revisited this situation after a year, during which time you have apparently respected the block. With these two things in mind, I am unblocking you.

However, it is really rather only those things which merit your unblock, in my opinion. Behaviourally and technically speaking, there is nothing to suggest that the accounts which were marked as confirmed as yours were operated by more than one individual, and your recent comments barely demonstrate any understanding as to why what you were doing was unacceptable, and acknowledgement and ownership thereof. The fact that you have respected the initial block is commendable, but there almost certainly won't be another chance should this happen again. Stick to this account as you say, and good luck. WilliamH (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
What lead to your block, and what steps are you planning on taking to correct it? SQLQuery me! 08:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I was signing on with other accounts, using them in what I regarded as non-malicious ways under the purview of "Be Bold." Others interpreted it as malicious, and blocked me. When I attempted to explain myself, it just seemed to anger them. (I knew about the other accounts because at one time I was very active in signing up new editors, mostly academics from other countries who often used my computer in signing up. There are tons of explanations, and I'm happy to revisit them if desired, but I don't want to be seen as making excuses.)
I want to resume my past activities as a substantial and non-controversial contributor to the encyclopedia. I intend to never again sign on with any account but the one I am using here. I also intend to be extremely careful if I ever again assist a newbie in becoming an editor. Lou Sander (talk) 16:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Please list all of the accounts which you have used. --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 20:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I am happy to cooperate in any way, but I would like to understand your question and why you are asking it. I have probably introduced at least twenty newbies to editing, many of them from my own computer (arousing the concern that they are my socks). They include people who contribute in Russian, Arabic, Spanish, Japanese, and maybe more. It would be next to impossible to identify them all. I can easily identify the ones that were named in the sockpuppet investigation, and possibly a few more.
I have a concern that if I miss one, somebody will say "Gotcha!" and use it as evidence that I am not cooperating. Also, some users named as my sockpuppets are people with whom I have no known connection, or from whose locations I legitimately edited. If we can all work in good faith here, there should be no trouble, but I still have scars from a year ago. Lou Sander (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
A few minutes later... I've forgotten how to get into the SPI where the other accounts are identified. Can somebody help? Lou Sander (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Just to reiterate -- I am finished forever with logging in as any account but this one, and from dealing with my students in any way that might confuse their work with my own. Lou Sander (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lou Sander  Ronhjones  (Talk) 22:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I'll be very busy for a few more days, and will return to this soon. Lou Sander (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I am back, with time to address this matter over the next few days, at least. I see that when the discussion went stale, my unblock request was (reasonably) declined. I don't know if I have to resubmit it or not, and am hoping that somebody will clue me in on that. There are two things I want to do right now: 1) Answer the question about identifying the accounts with which I have signed on in the past, and 2) Archiving the considerable amount of unrelated stuff on this page. Lou Sander (talk) 15:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

These are the users who are suspected of being my sockpuppets (list copied from SPI). They are basically people I have introduced to editing. I have certainly signed on with or as some or all of them from time to time.

Suspected sockpuppets

If asked, I will be happy to identify each of them and provide details of my activities with them. To reiterate, I will never again sign on with any identity but my own. Lou Sander (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted the procedural decline so that you don't have to mess with adding another. Kuru (talk) 18:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I think you expressed interest in what editing I might have done since being blocked. As far as I recall, I haven't edited anything at all, even anonymously, since the discussions about my block last May. I learned back then that it might not be wise to volunteer any information, and I'm still in that mode. I will be happy to answer anything that is asked of me, in as much detail as is desired, but I don't want to volunteer anything that might be seen as an excuse. Lou Sander (talk) 18:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm curious how I got onto this list. I'm certainly not Lou Sander, I wasn't introduced to editing Wikipedia by Lou Sander, and I don't even know off the top of my head who Lou Sander is. I certainly hope Lou Sander has not been somehow using my username! --Yaush (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Yaush: Somehow, for a while last May, somebody thought you were my sock because we both edit in Navy or military articles, and because you edited or made a comment on the article on Michael Belleisles. They ended up thinking better of it and clearing you. There is a discussion of this above, at User_talk:Lou_Sander#Collateral_damage_to_innocent_bystanders. Lou Sander (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Further research into old material shows that User:USBibliophile was briefly suspected of being a sockpuppet of mine. He came out of nowhere and made a comment on the Michael Belleisles article, quickly arousing suspicion. I have no idea who he is or was, but I have some guesses on where he might have come from. Lou Sander (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Kuru: I don't know how to reach you except by posting here. Discussion of my unblock request seems to have dried up. I have a feeling that your finalizing it and then reversing that may have something to do with this situation. I'd love to invite those who commented here previously to renew their interest. But, being blocked, I don't think I have a way to do that. Lou Sander (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
WilliamH: Thank you for unblocking me. I am very willing to discuss and hopefully clarify what you said about "Behaviourally and technically speaking, there is nothing to suggest that the accounts which were marked as confirmed as yours were operated by more than one individual, and your recent comments barely demonstrate any understanding as to why what you were doing was unacceptable, and acknowledgement and ownership thereof.", but I don't know if it would do anything to clean up my reputation, and I don't want to get in deeper by saying anything that people could take as evasiveness or improper excuse-making. I'm thinking that what is best is to just shut up and move on, never again using any account but this one (or the occasional anon, if I forget to sign in). What do you think? Lou Sander (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
No problem, and I think that's probably the best idea. Cheers, WilliamH (talk) 17:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again. I am shutting up and moving on. How can I get my user page back? Lou Sander (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Restored. You can view previous revisions of how it looked simply by clicking the time stamp. WilliamH (talk) 10:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Oddfellows

(Almost) nothing to do with you. A vandal did two edits - you reverted one of them, saying it was a typo. It wasn't: both the one you fixed/reverted, and the other one, are/were vandalism. Does that address your concern(s)? Pdfpdf (talk) 15:08, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back

Good to have you back. I admire your patience working with the bureaucracy that Wikipedia supposedly doesn't have. --Ronz (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing. I pretty much live bureaucracy-free, so I don't do real well when I encounter one. I figured I'd stay away forever, but after a year I had second thoughts and gave a shot at getting my block lifted. I thought I'd probably not do much more article creation, but old habits die hard. Lou Sander (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Datura...

the source says literally: No other substance has received as many “Train Wreck” severely negative experience reports

as if "Train Wreck" is a quote from elsewhere. And Train Wrecks and Trip Disasters is one of Erowid's trip categories; when you add talk like 'experience reports' it is too much like erowid. I'd be surprised if it were an actual coincidence; then again Erowid does not actually support that picture. Then, where are his 'overwhelming majority of experience reports' from? probably the people ended up in hospital/noticed by police. Naturally they will be the ones who overdosed. Erowid provides a much more balanced picture of Datura use — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrobutane (talkcontribs) 00:24, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Rogue comma

Have come across one on your user page, followed by a bracket (as we Brits say). I have resisted the urge to remove it and will now continue reading (interesting stuff). Rothorpe (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Good work Lou

I really appreciate your effort on the sheldrake page and very impressed with your wikipedia experience. Hope you stick around, there is a lot more work to do! The Tumbleman (talk) 00:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Getting nice thank you messages from banned trolls doesn't make you look very good does it? Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
See HERE. Lou Sander (talk) 13:32, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Ignoring trolls like Tumbleman (talk · contribs) is clearly a good idea, but you're praised by him. How supremely odd is that? Could it be that you are facilitating Tumbleman (talk · contribs)'s pathetic and bizarre attempts to subvert policy such as WP:NPOV? Barney the barney barney (talk) 16:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing

Information icon Hello. It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Rupert Sheldrake. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Evidence: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. vzaak (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Canvassing in a nutshell: "When notifying other editors of discussions, keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and don't preselect recipients according to their established opinions." and "In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus." Done. Lou Sander (talk) 13:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you denying that this is canvassing? vzaak (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks like canvassing to me. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:48, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Looks like bogus charges to me. Liz Read! Talk! 19:34, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Lou Sander. Thank you. vzaak (talk) 19:30, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

And now that foolishness is over. Liz Read! Talk! 23:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Ways to improve TAB Books

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. Lou Sander, thanks for creating TAB Books!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. 2

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 05:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

if it's true, it ain't bragging

"I bought my first computer, a Commodore PET, in 1979. Since then, I've spent over 30,000 hours at the keyboard."

I begin to detect the whiff of EssJay here! <dum-dum-dah-DUUUUUMMMMMM>

So, "Lou", if that even is your name, do you really expect us savvy wikipedians to believe that you've spent the equivalent of fifteen years of fulltime work-weeks typing on your Commodore PET?!?

 :-)

Or maybe you should just specify that 'the' keyboard is not a back-reference to an earlier-referenced-keyboard-of-a-particular-machine, but rather, is a colloquial way of saying, 'at various keyboards over the years', or some such verbose mouthful. Anyhoo, I blinked when I first read that, and then read it again, and then laughed. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:22, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"74": The 30,000 hours WAS spread over 34 years, after all. That works out to 909 hours/year, or about 2.4 hours a day, every day, for that period of time. That's not too far from the truth, I think, though I can't show any references to independently published reliable sources. I don't even have any logbooks, dammit. I've changed the 30,000 to 20,000, which works out to a little less than two hours per day (it goes without saying that "over 20,000" includes "over 30,000", and even "over 100,000"). And of course I don't know if it's legit to count as "at the keyboard" all the time I've spent dozing in front of various monitors. Never wanting to confuse any reader, I've also changed "at the keyboard" to something more specific.
I'm pleased to have made your acquaintance here. It's nice to know of another human being who might be somewhat appreciative of an extremely verbose, wall after wall of text but full of meaning, Wikipedia User Page. ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, nice to work with you also, despite the strained conditions. We'll get it worked out, soon enough. But no, I'm not questioning the 30k, if anything that's likely an underestimate. What I'm trying to point out is grammatical ambiguity. The sentences quoted at the top of my question, when I first read them, sounded like you were saying "I have spent 30k hours at my Commodore PET keyboard" ... which seems a tad unlikely.  :-)     74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:50, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
I got that, more or less. I only spent 10,000 hours on the Commodore. It was early in my career, and I had a lot of stamina, plus I was REALLY excited about computing. Also, the PET keyboard was more like a calculator keyboard, and it took a long time to type anything. 25 hours a day for 400 days sounds about right. ;-) Lou Sander (talk) 05:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
You thought the PET was bad, try the Atari 400 'industrial waterproof keypad'. p.s. I zapped some of your stuff over on my talkpage, I'm running out of space there, sorry, WP:AGF, remember I'm a pillar four nazi.  :-) Talk to you later, real life calls. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:43, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Wow. Maybe I spoke too soon.[7] That is what you spent 10k hours using? Have you ever used the IBM Model M buckling-spring machine-gun? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:47, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Zapping other people's stuff... who do you think you ARE, v****???!!! I've had better stuff zapped by bigger people than some %&^%$# overly-verbose odd-numbered disruptive anon! ;-) (Sometimes zapping is in everyone's best interest. Read it, then burn it, so to speak, especially if it isn't very WP:NICE.)
The Commodore keyboard wasn't the hardship that it looks like now. Most of the typing was BASIC code, so fast touch typing wasn't needed. Also, the large number of specialized drawing characters made it fairly easy to draw stuff on the screen, which wasn't much done in those days, except on the PET.
And, BTW, in a devastatingly telling example of parapsychological thought transference, I just spent $90 on a buckling-spring keyboard that I started using yesterday (really). I got tired of keyboards whose Shift-key springs made me constantly type TWo CApital LEtters at the start of every sentence. So far, I like the new keyboard. It's loud, and it takes some getting used to, but it types what your fingers command it to. Lou Sander (talk) 19:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, that's funny. And yup, the Unicomp is the modern equivalent, although I hear the high-end Cherry keys are also good. However, I think my thought-transfer is failing, because I specifically said you were to enter your name in the *billing* field, and my *address* in the shipping field. Control, control, you must learn control! There is no try; only do -- or do not. May the source be with you..... 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
So, do you like the Unicomp, now that you are used to it? Or did the machine-gun-racket get to you? I replied over on my talkpage with the URLs you requested, plus a totally fascinating popstar analogy, which I'm sure will soon be published in serious major real true academic peer-reviewed journal of bias... the meaty bit I'll paste here for ya.  ;-)   Coyne is here -- http://www.newrepublic.com/article/115533/rupert-sheldrake-fools-bbc-deepak-chopra -- and he gives a pointer to the online copy of the BBC-world-svc-radio-interview with Sheldrake including timestamps which was on-air Nov 5th and archived here -- http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01kb0bg -- Coyne says minutes 8 thru 13 are the Sheldrake interview by BBC interviewer Dan Damon. Thanks for improving wikipedia, Lou, see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
74: Yes, I like the Unicomp very well. It is a no-nonsense keyboard suited to fast, accurate typing. The noise is definitely there, but it doesn't bother me in the least. It has the normal complement of keys, but sometimes I wish it had Volume Up and Volume Down keys as found on many other keyboards. The lack of them is a small price to pay for the crisp action and high accuracy of the keyboard. Thanks for pointing me to the Sheldrake stuff. I'll check it out as soon as I'm done here. I had some hope for the Wikipedia article, but a new crop of wonderfully informed and articulate editors has shown up, and are now having their way with it. I still monitor it regularly, but I only rarely make any contributions to the article or the talk page. I try to be faithful to one of my guiding principles. And BTW, thank you for your constant emphasis on being nice. I have taken it to heart, and I work hard to suppress the urge to say negative things about my fellow editors. As the Bible (pseudoscience? fringe?) says, "The way of a fool is right in his own eyes." Lou Sander (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I miss those loud things; they make typing almost a sport, or at least, a "sport" in the sense that NASCAR is a sport anyhoo. Yes, the key difficulty here is, will our beloved woo-fighters ever admit that whether someone is, or is not, called a particular job-title in the press... has nothing to do with science? Even when the title is 'biologist' or similar. By the same token, musing about philosophy-of-science, are in fact claims in the field of inquiry known as philosophy aka meta-science ... and once again, not science, and once again, WP:MAINSTREAM is not policy.
  There is a subtle -- but not that redacted subtle[8] -- distinction between the science-claim that Earth and the Sun and the Moon and the Stars were created in 4004 b.c. proleptic Gregorian (*not* a claim explicitly made by the Bible -- though various theologians of the middle ages deduced such claims and then made such claims themselves), versus the theological claim that YHWH created the universe (definitely in the Bible -- and in no way subject to WP:FRINGE or WP:MEDRS or WP:SPOV).
  JzG seems like he might be willing to admit that distinction, and he's the wikiKnight, so I suspect the others will follow his lead, if he does. Morphic resonance is almost certainly generally-considered-pseudo, and at best morphic fields are arbcomQuestionableScience though methinks generally-considered-pseudo is more likely. As for his "novel phytomorphology" it is likely protoscience aka alternative minority view, because it draws directly from the 1920s stuff. Sheldrake's position on consciousness/etc is a mixture of philosophy, and parapsychology... that will be the hardest area to find compromise, methinks, but again, not that hard once everybody agrees that some fields/claims/sentences are science, whereas other fields/claims/sentences are not. I think that's the whole trouble.
  p.s. The article *is* considerably better now than it was Halloween night. Check this out.[9] I'm not sure if this is just a temporary lull in the watchful eyes, due to ahrbcohm & callanecc, or if we are getting close to long-term stability. Of course, the cite for 'biologist' is now the "Dogs That Hump" article by a critic... which strikes me funny, even though it cannot be BLP-compliant. Anyways, there is some possibility that success will be achieved without much active help from you nor I, and for one I would be very glad to see it! If not Callanecc is planning on making a draft-article, where all can contribute, even lowly anons.  :-)   Talk to you later. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And hey, what's with never outdenting? Is this some kinda waterfall-methodology? Whatever happened to incremental development, and goto 10, eh? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

AN/I Notification

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Consensus by exhaustion at Rupert Sheldrake.

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 will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

This is a warning: Please note that your contributions are disruptive and if they continue on the Rupert Sheldrake page you will face blocking or banning. You had recently reduced your edits, it is suggested you continue that practice. Please note that talk pages count as editing. Thank you. 134.139.22.141 (talk)

No such page found. Sorry. Lou Sander (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration Request Notification

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Persistent Bullying of Rupert Sheldrake Editors and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Askahrc (talkcontribs) 20:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Your article submission USS St. Francis River (LSMR-525)

Hello Lou Sander. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled USS St. Francis River (LSMR-525).

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/USS St. Francis River (LSMR-525)}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Lou

Thanks for your thanks, and for the discussion of barley bannocks. It's a shame so many editors are driven off the Sheldrake page because I think, fascinating character that he is, the article could be a very good and interesting one. Barleybannocks (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Wanted to thank you again because it appears I am about to be banned for wanting to go with what multiple reliable sources tell us, by an administrator who is intent on excluding those sources/views from the article because he feels he knows them to be in error. No bullying here eh! [10] Barleybannocks (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Some have stated that you do a lot of tendentious editing. I've just looked closely at WP:TEND, and I have to say that I see little or no tendentiousness in you or your work. That may be due to my own blindness, of course. Recognizing my own faults, there's a whole list up there of "Characteristics of problem editors." I don't see those characteristics in you, except maybe not being given the benefit of the doubt. Personally, I attribute that to the others active in the Sheldrake world; they don't seem to give the benefit of the doubt to anyone.
You certainly don't seem to have that one great flaw of refusing to answer good faith questions from others. But I'm the first to admit that sometimes answering those questions is just too time-consuming for those to whom they are asked. Lou Sander (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Thoughts? [11] Barleybannocks (talk) 12:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
1) Keep up the good work. 2) I asked how one identifies a Sheldrake supporter, and somebody answered "if they think he's a scientist." That was the only reply. 4) One can only hope that an adult sees what's going on here and intervenes. But I'm concerned that the adults agree with it. 5) Anyone can edit, even unloved British schoolboys. 6) Try as I might, I can't completely ignore them. Their behaviour is SO egregious. 7) The way of a fool is right in his own eyes. Lou Sander (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This sounds strangely familiar. [12] Can't think where I've heard it before.Barleybannocks (talk) 22:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Woo! Bollocks! WP:FRINGE! Pseudoscience! This guy, not even a scientist, questions the basic facts of physics! Maybe he WAS a scientist, but he's not performing experiments when he's on camera. He's interested in cosmology, which is hairstyling and application of makeup. Plus, he's from Canada. All they know about, in addition to woo, is hockey. And all their ice is melting due to anthropogenic climate change, which this anti-scientist denies, even as the polar bears are invading suburban Toronto. Plus, they have some New Age churches up there. Lou Sander (talk) 00:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks again for your encouragement - your efforts are not in vain.Barleybannocks (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Request for arbitration rejected

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)

WP:ARE notice

Information icon There is currently an Arbitration Enforcement Request "Barleybannocks" regarding an issue in which you may have been involved. --Iantresman (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Your AE comment

You're right on both counts: it's all about conduct, at least as regards WP:AC/DS cases such as this, and we could make this clearer.  Sandstein  17:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I sort of sensed the behavior/content divide early on, but only consciously realized it, saw it clearly, etc. when somebody was criticized (or had their hand slapped) for focusing on content. Lou Sander (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

RE: the idea of a "pseudoscience court" there has been the occasional suggestion of similar structures over the years, but none of them has ever gained traction. As I see it, the roadblocks are primarily twofold. First, there is a long, long tradition in Wikipedia that administrators and the Arbitration Committee have no control over content outside of being just another user, in order to protect the wiki model and some other historical notes. (ArbCom was formed at the same time as MedCom, and MedCom requires all parties to be willing to submit to non binding mediation. One has grown in influence, the other shrunk). Second, we're all volunteers. None of us have the ability to direct staff to deal with thorny issues and the resources to attract people with the right skillsets. Dealing with difficult articles and their entrenched editors can be done through normal channels, but it requires a high degree of patience, policy mastery, and writing skills, and some dumb luck, with very little reward.--Tznkai (talk) 17:35, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

What he is talking about:
I posted this in a discussion about the current problems in the Rupert Sheldrake article and its talk page. The discussion was closed before I hit "Save", so my post never really saw the light of day. Hoping it will be useful, I repeat it here:
Statement by Lou Sander: There's a Wikipedia problem here. When claims of pseudoscience (the link is to the article, not WP:PSCI) are made, the rules require it to be backed by reliable sources. When, as is common, there are few reliable sources that make this explicit claim, but many that more or less support it without actually saying so, those making the claim are forced to engage in synthesis or original research to justify it. Those opposing the claim are forced to do the same. Battles over the reliability of sources result, which, if they ever end, require either claim to be abandoned or to die the death of a thousand cuts. The demarcation problem in pseudoscience makes it likely that such battles will occur between well-meaning advocates of either side. These battles can include bad behavior by some of the parties involved. The bad behavior lessens the chance for consensus, and drives away editors who might moderate or settle the battles. This is advantageous to the case of the badly-behaving side, but disadvantageous to their reputations, to the article under contention, and to Wikipedia as a whole.
I don't know what the solution is. Maybe there needs to be a "pseudoscience court", with a hammer, that encourages both sides to come to consensus. Such a court could work on a claim currently in the lead of Rupert Sheldrake. It says: "Morphic resonance is generally considered to be pseudoscience by the scientific community...". That claim doesn't seem either to appear in the body of the article or to be well-supported by reliable sources. Who will step forward to question it? Lou Sander (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Tznkai - I understand. A court would be hard to implement. Maybe there could be some sort of template or something where disputing editors, under a flag of truce, could be invited to discuss things. If done properly, it could be applied to ANY edit dispute, and could do a lot to reduce edit wars. Maybe it could be invoked by any editor, or maybe by any administrator. It could say "Hey, you guys, things are getting out of hand here. You are strongly encouraged to have a pow-wow under flag of truce. Here are the rules." Maybe the rules could include that at least one person from either side would have to agree to the pow-wow (refusal could maybe somehow impugn the refusing side). The rules should surely require abstention from personal attacks. Maybe there could be a limit to the number of participants on each side. Maybe the rules could allow the participation of one mutually acceptable discussion moderator. Maybe the whole discussion could be held outside the talk page, with a prominent pointer to it ON the talk page. The expectation would be that consensus could be reached. There could be some way of closing the pow-wow if consensus is reached, or isn't reached in a reasonable length of time. Maybe there could be a hammer if consensus isn't reached, or maybe not.
I think I have the skills to draft such a thing, but I'm not sure where to present it, or if anybody would be interested. If it were a tool that worked, it sure as heck would be useful. Lou Sander (talk) 18:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
As a general principle, editors could take the radical step of following the sources. Just a thought. Barleybannocks (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I can help guide you through the bureaucratic mess if you'd like, but I am not optimistic about your chances of success. If you are serious about it, you might want to look into what was done with the mediation cabal and the Mediation Committee. If your focus is specifically on a tool for entrenched disputes with behavior problems, there were some suggestions in WP:AERFC from 2009, and I'm sure several other proposals over the years.--Tznkai (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)