User talk:JzG/Archive 93

This is an archive of past discussions about User:JzG. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 90

Archive 91

Archive 92

→

sheldrake and NPOV

Hello Guy, you can call me 74. Saw your comment over on David_in_DC's talkpage, where you said that the problem was on Sheldrake's end. But... did you see the next sentence David wrote? About David himself being satisfied with the rewrite-by-ten-BLP-savvy-uninvolved-editors. Because at the moment, David nor myself nor various others are at all satisfied with mainspace. So when you say that the problem is on Sheldrake's end, I definitely agree, but his end is not the *only* problem. We at the moment have a problem on our end, too, methinks. Do you see the current mainspace article on sheldrake and morphic juices as fully NPOV-compliant and BLP-compliant? Or are you just pointing out that our editing-standards should not be to satisfy Sheldrake, in revising his BLP? Thanks. You can reply here if you prefer, ping my talkpage please if I don't respond promptly. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

{{sofixit}}. Just remember that what Sheldrake likes is irrelevant. Respect the individual while documenting the nonsensical beliefs he touts Guy (Help!) 00:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I would of course, but the page is semi-protected; I may return to ask if you'll unprotect, once things settle down. Actually, it looks like folks are finally seeing the light; David is embarking on a big rewrite of the page, and pro-telepathy and pro-skeptic folks are both giving him a little rope to play with, rather than WP:NINJA reverting. We'll see if that lasts longer than the weekend, but it's very exciting to see. Long time coming. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Never forget that skepticism is a neutral POV. Skeptical activism may not be, but skepticism (as in: prove your claim, please) is the default in both science and Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 17:32, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with this. Barney the barney barney (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Guy, anons cannot have watchlists. If you reply to one, and they don't get back to you, that's probably why. Barney and Vzaak will tell you, they are not sceptic activists, they just want the readership to know the truth (lowercase), and stick to reliable (again lowercase) sources. Do you classify them as activists, or do you think they stick to the definition of pillar two like a rock? If the latter, perhaps this will help "prove my claim" that some folks believe NPOV==SPOV, but not everybody does -- WP:MAINSTREAM, formerly known as WP:SPOV. The key there is what TRPoD calls 'academic' RS, and what Barney calls 'serious' RS, and what vzaak calls 'npov' RS, and what Josh-aka-jps-aka-QTx calls 'mainstream' RS. Just like you (perhaps?), Vzaak is convinced that WP:NPOV and WP:SPOV are identical. The first sentence of WP:NPOV does not read that way to me. But what I actually came over here to mention to you was this serendipitously-related factoid.

I remember Martinphi, and I also remember ScienceApologist. The two had diametrically opposing views and baited each other relentlessly, as far as I remember it. The project would be better if both had learned to compromise a little. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, Martinphi is gone for good, but not only is the author of WP:SPOV and of WP:MAINSTREAM still here, ScienceApologist is still here, and in fact they are busy editing Rupert Sheldrake. Tom Butler also believed that ScienceApologist was gone, so you are not alone. User:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV/Previous_Accounts. I don't believe Josh is controlling you and Barney from afar, any more than I believe that Barney is secretly the emperor, and Vzaak is secretly his vader. The pro-sceptism folks on the Sheldrake page are an emergent phenomenon, loosely tied together by WP:FTN and by watchlists, and by leaders like Alexbrn and Mangoe and Dougweller and Bobraynor... no Susan Gerbic at all, that I have seen, just people with similar viewpoints who happen to be attracted to the same articles.

But I do know that ScienceApologist is still working on equating SPOV with NPOV, though I sometimes seem to be the only one (besides Josh himself). Furthermore, I submit to you that the reason that myself (plus formerly David before he lost heart) and various other folks disagree so often with Vzaak and Barney (plus TRPoD before *he* lost heart the day after David left), is purely and simply that core question. Does NPOV==SkePOV? Or, does NPOV==WP:RS without eliding any of the wikipedia-first-sentence-definition-of-Reliable-Sources.

That core conflict is the reason why Barney feels he can ignore perfectly WP:RS-compliant newspapers that say 'biologist'. Basically, this is the application of WP:MEDRS standards, to everyday WP:RS questions, such as scientific credentials, political claims, and so on. Not surprisingly, the key to WP:MEDRS, which is the ability to delete otherwise-Reliable-Sources when it comes to medical claims, was personally authored[1] by the one and only ScienceApologist. Hope this helps. I'll add you to my manual watchlist, but if you reply and I fail to respond promptly, ping my talkpage please.

p.s. I myself once wished that NPOV was equal to SkePOV, and if we can get ArbCom to assert that is the case, and that WP:MEDRS now applies to *all* fields not just medical claims, and WP:FRINGE now applies to *all* fields not just to claims that impinge on specific sciences, then I'll be happy to join Josh and Barney and Vzaak. I'm not sure wikipedia will retain her hundreds of millions of readers per month, of course, but truth-o-pedia is an appealing concept to me personally. That said, as *currently* written, the de jure definition of NPOV does not equate to SkePOV, nor to SPOV, nor to WP:MAINSTREAM. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

good luck with putting up with the bizarre ramblings of 74 too. Definitely the Tumbleman (talk · contribs) approach of chopping up the textbook into tiny pieces and sticking it back together again at random. Barney the barney barney (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Barney, you are free to comment, when and where you wish. But when you say I am bizarre, and identical to the troll Tumbleman (that you worked hard to ban -- thanks for that btw), and that I'm so ~~redacted redacted~~ that I just chop books up before reading them... you have left the path of WP:NICE, and gone down the dark road of WP:NPA. This is not the first time you have offered your version of "friendly advice" to people, myself in the past, as well as several others besides myself.

advice Barney has heard from me before

But you need to understand, that there is a difference between giving *actual* friendly advice, and merely couching your intended attacks in subtly-polite language, so that they seem to just barely stay within pillar-four-policy. There is no rubber in pillar four; it is a rock. If you cannot refrain from anger, and lashing out, you are heading for trouble.

WP:OMG! Look at that, I just told *you* not to give people forboding-yet-on-the-surface-'friendly'-advice, and then I turn right around and do the same damn thing! Define irony! And well, ironically, the truth of the matter is that I actually do kinda like you, because you work hard on sourcing, because you care about article-quality, and because you like science. But I like pillar-four more than I like you, because I like wikipedia herself. As it turns out, wikipedia will survive, even if you get so angry and frustrated that you are blocked at some point for a clear-cut pillar-four violation after a long string of "friendly advice" which does not look so friendly in aggregate.

So my advice to you, Barney, is perfectly sound and good methinks, even if you dislike the messenger at the moment: respect pillar four, and respect other editors. WP:NICE is not up for discussion; it's one of the most pro-Wikipedia things you can do. Hope this helps. p.s. JzG can probably confirm that what I say here is true. If you'd rather take their advice, than mine, I will be just as glad. :-) HTH. — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure this won't be the last time I have to remind someone of this, but skepticism is not an extreme, at the other end of the spectrum from true belief, it is the default, neutral point of view in matters of science. You can't be "pro-skepticism", you can be pro-science or you can be anti-science. Guy (Help!) 16:24, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate the reminder, but is sounds more like an assertion. There are skeptics, and then there are sceptics, after all. What kind are you speaking of, when you say that NPOV==skepticism-of-some-sort? As for the reminder itself -- I would definitely like to have that if you've got it -- where is the specific sentence of policy which says that NPOV==skepticism, and more importantly, the sentence which defines the sort of skepticism the policy means?

Also, with all your talk of pro-science or anti-science, you sound like a battleground-participant, to my ears -- albeit WP:NICE about it, unlike Barney. Are you seriously saying that there are pro-science Good Guys, and there are anti-science Bad Guys, and nothing else is possible? That on wikipedia, *everybody* is one or the other, *every* content-dispute in the end *always* boils down to figuring out which side is anti-science? Perhaps you are using "skepticism" in the dictionary-sense, of WP:PROVEIT, and thus not understanding that when I use it above, it is merely shorthand for "militant scepticism" when mentioned over on the Sheldrake talkpage, or here in this conversation above.

The most encouraging thing you said, to my ears, was when you specified "in matters of science". Because the big problem at the Sheldrake page, is that most of the pro-skepticm editors there during October and early November do not accept that limitation, to purely scientific and medical fields of inquiry. They want to be able to apply logical, skeptical, scientific standards of rigorous proof with a very broad brush indeed, including to whether or not *credentials* related to science are still "valid" as Reliably-Sourced material or can be downplayed, whether or not *political* proposals related to the proper funding-mechanism for research are "valid" as Reliably-Sourced material or can be derided, whether or not *philosophical* stances related to pedagogical and methodological portions of the philosophy-of-science can be "valid" or must instead be bagged-n-tagged, and so on, ad infinitum.

There is at least one person who holds a similarly-strict viewpoint about *religious* questions, and insists that all the 'serious' sources agree with them, and all the Reliable Sources which disagree with them are not really Reliable. Pragmatically, I agree with WP:MEDRS being a necessary evil for claims of medical efficacy... people could die, if we aren't careful what wikipedia says about the field of medicine, after all. But nobody will die if we report that fifteen newspapers dared to call Sheldrake a biologist, even when it was proven that Nature in 2006 *failed* to call him that. WP:FRINGE is not a license to delete Reliable Sources, nor portions thereof, just because a wikipedian dislikes what the Reliable Sources actually say.

WP:PROVEIT is definitely policy, and furthermore, I fully support that policy with no reservations. But that is just colloquial skepticism (we don't even insist on truth nor logic... just verifiability plus fact-checking-of-some-basic-type!). Colloquial skepticism is not at all related to militant-scepticm-we-must-silence-or-drive-away-the-anti-science-Bad-Guy-editors. Barney is not calling me bizarre, and threatening for the umpteenth time to ban me, because he got a call from Captain Einstein, informing him that I'm with the evil league of anti-science pro-stupid bad guys. He's lashing out because he does not yet see there is a difference between WP:PROVEIT colloquial-type-skepticism, and WP:MEDRS-applied-with-a-broad-brush-to-every-field-of-inquiry-including-basic-demographic-factoids, which is militant-skepticism-bordering-on-BLP-violation. Are you in the same boat as Barney here, that WP:NICE is not important when driving away "anti-wikipedia" folks that disagree with WP:SPOV, and if not, what boat are you in, exactly, when you say that NPOV==skepticism-of-some-unspecified-sort? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

An issue

I am ready to leave Wikipedia as a result of this.[2][3][4]

Long story short:

An admin issues a discretionary sanctions warning;
I ask what my misconduct has been;
the admin indicates that he didn't realize the warning was for misconduct, while pointing to a new ArbCom draft which is not in effect;
the admin stonewalls all attempts at further communication, refusing to admit the mistake or retract warning for misconduct;
fellow admins protect their own kind -- including an ArbCom admin! --, refusing to remedy the situation while telling me to "drop the stick" and accept the mistreatment.

The admin shows a strong bias through harsh comments to jps over inocuous WP:EDITCONSENSUS changes that the admin construes as "reverts" amounting to a 3RR warning. According to the admin, "Technically, any change, no matter how small to the text of an article, is a revert." The same absurd rationalization was used against me. People are trying to legislate the problem away instead of dealing with the obvious individual problem with this admin.

I was very intimidated by the warning, and no doubt others were too. TheRedPenOfDoom has seemingly left, and jps has backed off editing. It's a slap in the face to those who have mindfully adhered to WP policies.

The warnings are surely a contributing factor in the recent evidence-free ArbCom case, where the complainant has cited "threats", which I can only think refers to these warnings. If I made a statement at the ArbCom case then it would have to include the problem with this admin, which may be explosive.

There does not appear to be any recourse available. RFC/ADMIN is non-binding and will just result in fellow admins rushing to defend the indefensible again. vzaak (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

This is part of the imbalance of motivation that necessitates robust policies on fringe views. If you are an advocate of a specific fringe view, it is very important to have that view portrayed favourably on Wikipedia. So fringe advocates have a much greater emotional investment in the subject and tend to be more persistent. As long as Wikipedia reflects the consensus view, it will be like a burr under their saddle. The only solution is patience, fortitude and focus. There's no point arguing that fringe view X is mainstream, so what specific text would you like to change, to what, and based on what source? Guy (Help!) 09:16, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

JzG, are you trying to say that Bbb23 is pro-Sheldrake and thus anti-Science, per our conversation above? Please note that Vzaak is on the pro-Science side of things, and explicitly believes that NPOV===SkePOV, with the triple equals syntax meaning identical at a deep level. Vzaak has persisted since July, and is only now becoming unhappy; as for myself, I only lasted about a month, and only on the talkpage at that! Craig Weiler is as pro-Sheldrake as a person can be, and he left after about a month. David_in_DC is no fan of Sheldrake, and he tried hardest, and lasted longest; Vzaak, perhaps you might consider the possibility that TRPoD left at the same time as David, for *that* reason? Neither of them was spooked by the warning-spam, they've both been around long enough to know it's just a spam.

p.s. Vzaak, nobody wants you to leave (uhh... not counting Chopra and Sheldrake themselves :-) and that talkpage thing you got from Bbb23 really and truly *is* just a warning-message. AGK already told you that you can appeal the warning-message retroactively, and have it downgraded to a mere alert, in April or whatever. You don't even have to wait that long -- JzG or Mangoe or Dougweller or whoever can use their admin powers to revoke the warning this very second, if they thought it really mattered. It does not really matter. Everybody on the page, or even somewhat-recently on the page, has a similar warning by now, roughly speaking, either from Bbb23 or from 134. As long as you stick to the five pillars, you'll be fine.

p.p.s. If you want, I can give you the TLDR explanation of why Bbb23 handed out the warnings the way they did... but you'll have to ask on my talkpage if you want that, I've already filled up JzG's disk-quota. But I suggest you take the long view -- the "remedy" for the situation is not to have Bbb23 desysopped, but to clarify the meaning of 'edit war' which jps and I and yourself are working on, and also, to clarify the distinction between 'warning' and a mere alert, which AGK and Bbb23 and others are busy working on. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 21:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Update, TRPoD has said that a combination of computer problems and vacation-time are mostly responsible for their current relatively-low degree of participation. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

In matters of science, the scientific POV is the neutral POV, and skepticism is inherent, the default position in any scientific investigation. The lack of skepticism, and rejection of the idea of the null hypothesis as a suitable default view, is a lot of what makes Sheldrake a pseudoscientist.

Emailed you

about an editor you blocked and who is back as a sock. Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Spot on, I reckon. Let me know if anyone queries it. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Warning

Hi, you recently warned me about tendentious editing. Could you give an example of a tendentious edit to the article and your reasons for thinking it is tendentious. Many thanks. Barleybannocks (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

You are now wikilawyering. Your inability to understand the problem notwithstanding, your edits are routinely being reverted and you have (as I pointed out) falsely portrayed insistence on your own text as "compromise". The problem is your end, as normal with single-purpose accounts. So, get consensus before editing or leave it to someone else. That way you might not get banned. Guy (Help!) 20:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not wiki lawyering. I am asking for examples of the tendentious edits you feel I have made so that I may avoid this in future. As far as I can see, my edits improved the (currently appalling) article and brought it more in line with the multiple reliable sources detailed extensively on the talk page. Indeed, I was thanked by another administrator for the very edits you have now reverted. Grateful if you could explain what exactly you have a problem with. Barleybannocks (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

And since I gave one with the warning, your profession of innocence won't wash. Like I say, I am trying to make it possible for you to remain editing Wikipedia. You have caused sufficient drama and reversion by now on the one article that you edit, a ban is really the only other option. This is a long way from being the first time Wikipedia has gone round this loop, don't take it personally. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not professing my innocence. I am asking for an example of some tendentious edits so that I might not repeat my error. Your refusal to provide such an example is strange since if what you say is true, you should be able to produce numerous examples rather than none. Barleybannocks (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The way not to repeat the error is to discuss changes and achieve consensus first. I am not in the least bit confident that arguing the toss about whether one particular edit meets the standard of tendentiousness in your opinion will save either of us any time, and it will piss me off. So, take it at face value: I, an experienced Wikipedian with a non-trivial history in handling sensitive biographies, including as an email response volunteer, have looked at you edits and I concur with the judgment of others that they are tendentious. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

It's hard not to repeat the error when you won't tell me what it is in any specific way. Why not just pick a few edits you feel match your description and say a few words about them. It seems only fair since you are threatening to ban me - something you surely would not have done were there no actual examples of what you claim. Thus I am genuinely perplexed and asking for some clarification which should cause you little trouble to provide. Thanks. Barleybannocks (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The talk page has hundreds of kilobytes of people trying patiently to explain to you where you are going wrong, it hasn't worked yet. Instead, let me give you a very simple rule that you can follow without any difficulty. If you want a sentence or para in the article to change, create a section, put the old text and the new text, identify the sources that support the change, and wait for discussion. If the debate goes agianst you, accept it and drop it. Do not raise more than one at a time. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem being, of course, that the implicit falsity you have just inserted into the article has no consensus either, and has multiple reliable sources showing it to be false. All this has been explained to you, and others, on the talk page many times. Thus you appear to believe that hundreds of kbs of emotionally charged, and very poor, arguments from editors can override multiple reliable sources. I can't see the policy/guidelines that support such a thing. Perhaps you could direct me to it. Barleybannocks (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is closed. You should think long and hard about exactly how clever it is to piss off the admins. Right now, I am wondering if prolonging the agony of your presence is worth it. I have been here before, more times than I can count. Go back to the talk page and ensure that any changes you propose are specific, actionable, supported by reliable sources, and do have broad consensus. That is all. Guy (Help!) 22:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Guy, if you don't mind. I've thought that Barley's edits, while not perfect, were generally helpful to the article. And although they were changed I don't really think that they were reverted in their entirety. In this case it was his edits to the article which moved past the war over the POV template to actually trying to improve the article. Personally I think he's more disruptive on the talk page than he is in the article. Also whilst I don't want to question your impartiality so please excuse me, but I think you might be a bit too involved to impose discretionary sanctions, given that you are actively engaged in content discussions on the talk page. Also for full disclosure, the I've been talking to the user on my talk page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

And who do you think is best to handle the situation Callenecc (talk · contribs) - an experience editor who is clearly understands the subject and the dispute, or some other admin from outside who arrives with the presupposition that "these things resolve themselves by discussion because everyone must be reasonable, and therefore will eventually agree", combined with the post-modernist view that "both sides must be wrong"? (( preceding unsigned comment added by as of 11:48, 6 December 2013 by User:Barney the barney barney ))

Or a whole bunch of uninvolved admins who will look at the evidence presented and decide on what is the best outcome: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

AE seems inevitable, but unless we get over the SPOV===NPOV difficulty, that methinks is the primary cause of friction, that may not help much. Can we ask for a decision on whether WP:MAINSTREAM is policy, over at AE, or is that only for existing enforcement? NPOV *is* existing policy, of course, so it seems at least plausible that such a decision could happen. Anyways, Guy, add me to the list who considers you involved, and thinks that your treatment of Barleybannocks is in the same ballpark as Mangoe's efforts. You clearly have a lot of experience, but I honestly think you are mistaken here, the Sheldrake article is not NPOV, as I grok the policy. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again, in science, SPOV is NPOV. That is the definition of science. This will be resolved in the end, and I confidently predict that it will be by the usual mechanism: those who can compromise and disagree respectfully, will write the article, those who cannot, will be excluded, if necessary by force. I have no dog in this fight: I am one part skeptic and one part BLP knight. My concern is fairness and accuracy, and I will make that happen with cudgels if I have to. Guy (Help!) 00:00, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiCudgels, presumably -- but it should not come to that. As any good wikiKnight, I ask that you please help correct me, if I've gone wrong. There is no disagreement that I see, with your definition of science, or with your insistence that SPOV===NPOV in science, and therefore in wikipedia's coverage of such things. But the emphasis, in science, is crucial. Such as, in the science of experimental physics, the hypothesis of subquantum morphic fields, about which sub-topic, about the *best* we can say is to quote Sokal-speaking-seriously, who says that "Sheldrake's theory of 'morphogenetic fields', though popular in New Age circles, hardly qualifies as 'in general sound'. To call it 'occasionally speculative' is a massive understatement." There are also some folks who are ever so mildly positive like Durr, and rare others, but the mainstream-scientist-view is somewhere between Sokal, and the book-for-burning-Maddox-guy (or even Coyne the skeptic).

Now let us speak of something that is not itself science, and is not in science. Sheldrake published some co-authored books about angels, christianity, spirituality, and so on. Is your position that we must apply WP:FRINGE standards to our coverage of those works? Is your position that we must apply WP:SPOV to our coverage of those works? In short, are you willing to call those works "in science" to exactly the same degree that subquantum morphogenetic fields are in science? Barney, for instance, is quite strongly of the opinion that WP:FRINGE applies to every field of inquiry, even to basic statistics. "Everything in this article is covered by WP:FRINGE - that's locked in." That is the same attitude as found in WP:MAINSTREAM, but applied with a broad brush *outside* sciences like physics, chemistry, biology, cognitive science, etc. There is no room for BLP as currently written, nor for fairness as it is usually understood, if you apply WP:MEDRS standards to whether Sheldrake has two kids. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Guy - I wanted to see if I could clear up some of the confusion around this. Philosophical Skepticism, Scepticism, and debunking Skeptics is not the same thing as a neutral point of view. Skepticism in a broad sense is a useful and necessary tool in science. Scientists by definition must be skeptical in the true sense of the word. "Skepticism" however is also an ideology and a movement. We should not conflate the two. I believe it's a huge leap to suggest that such a brand of skepticism means the same thing as neutrality on Wikipedia. To make matters more confusing, the skeptical movement, which is comprised of atheists and debunkers of alternative medicine and claims of parapsychology, is absolutely NOT identical a NPOV when editing on wikipedia. The neutral means having 'no belief' or 'no opinion' on the subject matter. It's closer to 'objective journalism' where we try as hard as we can to remove our personal viewpoint on an issue. If what you're suggesting is true, then it means that all religious articles need to be framed from the POV of skepticism since skepticism is identical to NPOV. I think the problem here has been one of semantics. The word skepticism is used in unique contexts and instances, while NPOV only has one context - having absolutely no opinion or belief and simply stating the facts found available in resources. 23.241.74.200 (talk) 19:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

It's like the difference between an agnostic and an atheist, really. Consider: someone believes they have psychic powers. They consider that belief that they have, or may have, psychic powers is the neutral point of view. They are wrong. The neutral point of view is that there has never been any credible evidence that anybody has psychic powers, or ever has had them. Skeptics all accept that, some go further and believe that there never will be any evidence. But the neutral view remains that there's no reason to believe in psychic powers, and to try to split the difference between this and belief is the fallacy of false balance. See the quote from Stefan Schultz at the top of my talk page.

But in the case of Sheldrake, it's not really relevant. He makes extraordinary claims which are also novel. 100% of the burden of proof lies with him, and he has to date failed to convince more than a tiny handful of people outside the credulous ranks of new-age believe-anything types.

This is a notionally scientific subject. In science, the null hypothesis must be refuted. It is the default position. The problem for Sheldrake's supporters on Wikipedia is that he repudiates, rather than refuting, the null hypothesis. That and the enormous amount of past history showing that precisely this kind of self-belief is strongly correlated with being wrong. See N-rays for example. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

This discussion seems too abstract to help me. Here are some specific cases. Pope -- "First Bishop: According to traditional Christianity, Saint Peter." We do not ask only mainstream tenured physics professors, in determining whether it is 'scientific' to state that according to Catholicism, the first bishop of the Catholic Church is in fact stated to be Saint Peter. Saint Peter -- "...one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ according to the New Testament." We don't rely on the really-truly-reliable truly-professional-academic seriously-peer-reviewed-no-kidding journal Nature, as to whether that sentence is thumbs up or thumbs down. Malchus -- "Also, Luke is the only gospel that says Jesus healed the ear [that had been cut off with a sword]." Note that WP:MEDRS standards of evidence are not applied, to this claim of the medicinal efficacy of the Messiah... because it is a claim made in the field of theology. Are you saying, when you talk about agnostics and atheists, that we should apply science standards to articles about religion? As opposed to, *just* applying science standards to articles -- or specific subsets of articles -- that are actually, you know, *about* some scientific field of inquiry?

Sheldrake has published in a bunch of different fields of inquiry, several of them science, but several of them not. Others, who have published *about* Sheldrake, in Reliable Sources (not counting the Peer-Reviewed Journal Of Sasquatch Believers), are being excluded from mainspace... because FRINGE... including those woo-meisters at the BBC. My position is that Sheldrake's religion, and his works that are in fields of inquiry which are *not* in science, cannot be tarred with such a brush. Barney's position is FRINGE applies to everything; I believe I'm safe in saying the same about jps. But where do you fall, Guy? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake's distinctive conjecture is morphic resonance. He has, even his best friends would surely have to admit, entirely failed to gain significant support for this. His reaction is to denigrate the entire scientific community and denounce science as dogma. Compare this to Higgs and Englert, or Marshall and Warren. Their reaction to skepticism from the scientific community was to do better science and bring better evidence. Sheldrake knows, I think, that he cannot do this, so has gone down the route of "different ways of knowing". It's hubris, I'm afraid, and that is one thing the scientific community finds very difficult to tolerate. Guy (Help!) 14:34, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Agreed it is his distinctive conjecture, and that the popular success of his books on it have made him Notable. ... but disagree therefore the article about the *BLP* must concentrate on debunking morphic resonance. Sheesh, even Sheldrake knows that his conjecture is not complete, until it is mathematically formalized, and knows he himself cannot do it! 1999 interview. Rather than comparing the real-life-careers of Sheldrake versus Higgs, we instead methinks need to compare the wikiverse articles on Rupert Sheldrake versus Wilbur_Glenn_Voliva, and see which one has a neutral tone, and which one deserves it. Do you not see any distinction in the tone, the neutrality, the lack of point-counterpoint stuff? Sheldrake is not just morphic resonance, after all. That is his most Notable, but not his only. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 01:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that morphic resonance is not independently notable. Therefore the article is a game of two halves: Sheldrake is a person, but he is known primarily for crank ideas (of whihc MR is not the only one) and now also for attacking the basis of science, in apparent retaliation against the scientists who dismiss or (more often) ignore his crank ideas. Guy (Help!) 22:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

(( Actually, my personal theory is that Sheldrake *specifically* decided to play the philosophical skeptic in his 2012 book, as a way to rile up folks like Coyne, and generate publicity for Sheldrake ... similarly methinks he is delighted to see the TEDx framing-vs-censorship battle, and now the wikipedia SPOV-vs-NPOV battle, both making international news. ))

Be that as it may, your assertion that morphic resonance is not independently Notable seems just incorrect. Don't we have a hundred Reliable Sources that specifically talk about morphic fields? I've heard this argument before, that #1) morphic fields just ain't *really* Notable and thus #2) we deleted the articles covering it, and #3) redirected it all to the BLP article instead. Furthermore, the next phase of the argument goes, Sheldrake is only *really* Notable for morphic fields, and the *really* Reliable Sources called it pseudoscience three times between 2006 and 2010, so we can therefore delete anything which is not critical/negative/offended completely, because FRINGE.

The counterargument is, we still mention he has two kids, not related to morphic fields. And that he's published some books on Angels, and identifies as Anglican nowadays, again unrelated to morphic fields. Yet when it comes to mentioning something Reliably-Sourced but non-negative, like the fact that the bulk of journalists call him a 'biologist' without hedging, there is a huge battle to delete both the sentence and the Reliable Sources which supported it. What gives? Once a topic satisfies WP:N, such as Sheldrake, the mere event, that some journalist/publisher/academician saw fit to mention a related factoid, thereby makes that factoid WP:NOTEWORTHY, unless the *entire* source itself it ruled WP:FRINGE at RSN per the Journal-of-Sasquatch-Believers exception. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 10:54, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not a counter-argument. Having two kids is a minor fact about him, not a thing for which he is known. He is not known as a biologist. To describe him as a biologist when he is writing about MR is a problem. To state that he is qualified in biological sciences and has achieved recognition in the field, is fine. The issue is separating his valid biological work from his MR conjecture. The biologist thing is just a part of that. Guy (Help!) 12:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm - not sure how convincing your argument is here Guy - consider, The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting perspectives . Personal POV is stripped from a NPOV. Therefore, the NPOV in the case of the psychic would simply be nothing. A person taking a NPOV does not ever enter into the debate. It would just report "So and so said they had a psychic experience. To date, scientists claim there has been no scientific evidence for psychic phenomenon." Ironically - 'RationalWiki' - which claims to edit to a Skeptical POV like the one that appeals to your sensibilities, does not even agree with you. I quote "RationalWiki articles tend to reject the idea of NPOV on the grounds that they are not encyclopaedic in nature. These articles and their authors are uncompromising in its point of view that science and reason are superior methods for generating knowledge. However, this is not a rejection of covering facts equally and giving due weight to conflicting opinions when they are valid and relevant. Indeed, the rejection of NPOV is more against the dry and humourless tone developed by Wikipedia in the name of neutrality." I'm following the Sheldrake page - the problems are easy to clean up. I think the real problem is that one set of editors has a different understanding of the semantics of what NPOV means than the other. 23.241.74.200 (talk) 06:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

This is science. In science, the consensus view *is* the neutral point of view. It includes all relevant valid views. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Follow instructions for how to be like Tumbleman (talk · contribs):

Take one introductory level philosophy textbook
Cut it up into lots of tiny pieces
Put it back together again, at random.
Repeat what you see all over teh internets until you get banned from every site you ever go to.

Congratulations, you now completed your own Tumbleman Guide to Philosophy Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

23.241.74.200 has been blocked as the fifth sock puppet of Tumbleman (talk · contribs). vzaak 03:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail

Re: your help desk query. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks mate, much appreciated. I replied with hints and pointed the gent to Graham's talk page. We should do more for visually impaired users IMO. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: Masaaki Hiroi

What's the OTRS ticket number so I could look at it and see how to properly reply to her request. Clearly I'm not restoring that article as it is overly ridiculous promotion. Maybe guide her to WP:AFC? Secret ^account 23:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, quite. 2013112510011879 The email is strident and the address invalid, it turns out. So, sorry, I wasted your time on this. Thanks for looking and confirming my judgment, anyway. I will drop a note on her Talk page. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Acharya S.

Could you please hold off making any deletions while discussion is ongoing. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you don';t understand the difference between deletion and editing. Edits leave all text in the history, where it can be seen. In a biography, that is the prudent course: defamatory material can be suppressed if required. Guy (Help!) 20:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Retail loss prevention, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Antoshi ☏ ★ 02:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Retail loss prevention. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Antoshi ☏ ★ 02:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Go away you absurd person. The "dispute" was resolved months ago. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

As far as WP:DTTR goes, all I saw from your talk page was that the earliest post was from this month so at first glance you did not look like a regular. I have a tendency to ignore userboxes and archives. Not to mention, what you did on Talk:Retail loss prevention was reminiscent of some recent drama concerning Tom Fearer, so I assume you were him on another new account or someone else looking to stir up trouble. As far as the article goes, I fail to see how any issues were cleared up in such a flimsy, shoddily written article. The "Civil recovery" section, which I posted the refimprove template in, sounds so disturbingly on the cusp of POV it's hard to read. Antoshi ☏ ★ 16:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Consider it a learning experience. You now know that a few seconds checking contribution istory may be time well spent :-) Guy (Help!) 18:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Tumbleman SPI

Hi, I realize you already blocked the new sock, but I made an SPI for the record, if you wish to add info about identifying Tumblemanian signatures. vzaak 02:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Reckon you're better at it than I am. I agreed with the evidence I saw, and blocked as uninvolved in Tumbleman. I think SP of the talk page is the only way to stop this from carrying on, so I did that, with regret as other anons may (possibly) be independent. Guy (Help!) 13:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

(Note Talk:Rupert Sheldrake is not semi-protected.) vzaak 04:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Semi protection of Talk:Rupert Sheldrake. Thank you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Clarification

re your comment [5] - the wording on the AE page closure and on the user's page are both "banned from RS article and RS talk pages", they are not "banned from the topic of RS" . -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Consensus is clear. It's the subject that's the problem. Guy (Help!) 19:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I dont disagree with you at all, but that is not what the sanctions actually stated. However, it seems likely that he will keep up the standard IDIDNTHEARTHAT on other pages, and it probably wont be long till other remedies will be applied just for being disruptive rather than specifically sanction related. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately a topic ban wasn't issued. I consider that a serious oversight that can still be fixed without reopening the AE. Guy, would you please suggest that to Callanecc and Sandstein? That really needs to be done immediately. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it is safe to assume this will get sorted out. Experience indicates that the first day or so after a topic ban, people try all kinds of crap. Let the dust settle and see what happens. It's covered by the general consensus against gaming the system. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with Guy on this one. Let's give Barleybannocks some time and let the dust settle. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

arbitrary section break

You wrote...

Having two kids is a minor fact about him, not a thing for which he is known. He is not known as a biologist. To describe him as a biologist when he is writing about MR is a problem. To state that he is qualified in biological sciences and has achieved recognition in the field, is fine. The issue is separating his valid biological work from his MR conjecture. The biologist thing is just a part of that. Guy (Help!) 12:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Guy, he is exactly, specifically, by any interpretation of the sources, "known as a biologist". That's what Reliable Sources almost always call him, with three WP:NOTEWORTHY exceptions. You are trying to use editorial logic here, and delete what the Reliable Sources say. That's inherently not "neutral", because NPOV is *defined* by what the Reliable Sources say. Is this not correct? Separating his axion-work, from his morphic-fields publications, is easy: we have a section called "biology" which covers his mainstream work, that Barney or somebody said involves peer-reviewed papers from 1959 through 1987, though Iantresman indicated that Sheldrake still gets invited to lecture on that stuff at universities, in 2010 or 2011 or something I believe.

Then, elsewhere, we have a section called "morphic fields" which covers the 1981 book through present. Do we lump his axion work in with it? No. Do we lump morphic fields in with the axions? No. Do we conflate Sheldrake's political position on science-funding, with morphic fields? No, that also gets a separate section ("politics & philosophy-of-science"), starting with his Hahvahd fellow award, and ending with his 2012 book. Half the book is philosophy-of-science, the other half is morphic fields. JPS/QTvX/SA cannot tell the difference, and wants to conflate the two. Ditto for Barney. Are you seriously telling me that, because FRINGE, your are insisting that when newspapers call Sheldrake a biologist, but a couple scientists once called him a psedoscientist, that therefore wikipedia must not describe the conflicting sources and instead we *wikipedians* will pick the winning sources? Please tell me you are not.

And yes... if pushed, I guess I would agree that "Sheldrake has two kids" is just a "minor" fact. But the reason the kids aren't removed, as being WP:SPIP from an overly-proud-parent, is because they are not challenged, nor likely to be challenged. Verifiability demands that reliable sources exist, and we can pretty much assume that reliable sources exist, government documents and other official paperwork that document the births in question, and document Sheldrake's connection to said births. When he dies, there will be an obituary, and *that* will mention the two kids. Incontrovertibly, methinks, and not at all WP:CRYSTAL, because we don't *need* the obit, we have the existing verifiability in birth certs, NHS identification cards, and so on and so forth.

There *was* a challenge, on the other hand, about whether or not "Sheldrake is a biologist" can be included. Sources were found. The fact that, according to most journalist-based sources, Sheldrake is nowadays invariably described as a biologist, is not contested. The fact that the media-publications in question are mainstream, is also not questioned. The only thing that is questioned is if Sheldrake can *really* be a biologist, since hahaha morphic juices hahahaha.

But wikipedia is not about truth, wikipedia is about reflecting what the sources say, because that is what WP:NPOV says, that *defines* the wikipedian meaning of neutrality. It is a "minor" but crucial fact, that Sheldrake's academic credentials with Cambridge/RoyalSoc/Harvard/etc are oh-so-highly respectable, and that he spent twenty years doing oh-so-mainstream scientific research — because *that* is what separates him from the run-of-the-mill parapsychologist. Many parapsychologists have popular books. Sheldrake is notable for his popular books, it is true, but Sheldrake's science-cred is the big reason *why* his books in particular got so popular, for thirty years and counting, whereas thousands of other parapsychologists fall by the wayside. Of course, that doesn't mean the books contain science, in terms of their contents. But we should stick to the sources, when we describe what the contents of Sheldrake's works actually are, and we should stick to the sources, when we describe what those same sources call the author of said works. Hope this helps. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

No, he is virtually unknown as a biologist. He is known primarily because he writes ridiculous pseudoscientific nonsense and then attacks the scientific community for failing to accept it as valid. If he did not write cobblers, I doubt anyone would have heard of him at all. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

And your point is, that because only the BBC and a dozen other churnalists call the BLP a 'biologist' that therefore "Sheldrake is a biologist" is therefore not WP:NOTEWORTHY, because every individual factoid in wikipedia must satisfy WP:N? You are mistaking wikipedia for truth-o-pedia. We stick to the sources here, you know that. We strive to also stick to the objective truth; my preferred phraseology would be "biologist-and-now-parapsychologist" but I would be fine with "biologist-and-now-pseudoscientist" as long as we cite our Reliable Sources for both terms. We've even *got* the sources.

So what is the hold-up? You seem to insist that, because *one* Reliable Source says one thing, and *another* just-as-impeccably-Reliable-Source says another thing, that as wikipedians *we* get to pick and choose the winner. I say that wikipedia has to describe the conflict amongst Reliable Sources, never decide the conflict amongst Reliable Sources. (( WP:MEDRS is possibly an exception ... but of course that does not apply to Sheldrake or morphic fields or any of his stuff ... WP:FRINGE is *not* an exception, it permits us to say that Journal-of-Sasquatch-Believers is not a Reliable Source ... it does not permit us to say that for *this* paragraph the BBC counts as Reliable but for *that* paragraph the BBC doesn't count as Reliable ... cause fringe! If I'm wrong here, show me the sentence of WP:PG please. ))

Speaking personally, you and I disagree about the explanation for Sheldrake's fame: you say that his writings are popular because they are nonsense. I say his writings are vastly more popular than reams and reams of very similar work by others, because of the highly-respectable two decades in mainstream science that Sheldrake has, which gives him street-cred *even* amongst people.who.hate.science(!). Fine; we can chat about which of us knows WP:The_Truth™ over wiki-beer or wiki-OJ while we munch wiki-cookies or wiki-tofu, someday when this stupid battlefield basket case of an article is far behind us. But the article... has to follow policy... and policy says that wikipedians do not pick and choose the sources they personally believe are illogical for deletion from anywhere in mainspace. This *is* the article about morphic fields, morphic resonance, and other WP:FRINGE topics, because of a foolish delete-n-merge. Those topics should be balanced by mainstream scietific views, backed up by Reliable Sources; this has been done, and all support it, for the most part.

But it is *also* the article about the two kids, the job-title, the spirituality, and the philosophy-musings of the BLP. Such things (even if the job-title is "biologist" and even if the musing concern philosophy-of-mind or even philosophy-of-science) are not themselves science, nor scientific claims, and therefore are utterly outside the purview of WP:FRINGE; you say so yourself, FRINGE only applies "in science" aka to science qua science. Am I wrong here? Then please show me the specific sentence of policy, or even of a guideline. But not essays, and not your personal logic and rhetoric, no matter how well-written and clear-thinking they may be. Wikipedia cares about verifiability. The first sentence of NPOV seems clear to me. So does WP:FRINGE. You keep saying I'm wrong, but show me where, if you please. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

No, my point is that he is not known as a biologist, he is known as a crank. I can't really say it any more simply. Guy (Help!) 19:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

As simple as possible, but no simpler, Guy. Here is one source, straight from the talkpage. Marc Bekoff, PhD; worked with Jane Goodall. Writes a 'science column' for Psychology Today. Quote: "...the well-known biologist and author Rupert Sheldrake's research...". Self-identifies as a 'hard-core scientist' in that same piece. Quote: "Perhaps we need to demand of the skeptics that they mount a better defense of their positions." You are a wikiKnight that defends BLP; do you also defend BLPTALK, or perhaps, you have an RS that explicitly says quote 'crank' unquote? Again I ask: what specific sentence in WP:PG permits you to elide what Reliable Sources[6] explicitly say? *I* can think of one policy that could justify such action, but I'd like to know what sentence in WP:PG *you* are relying upon here. (Pillar two, WP:YESPOV section, on conflicting RS, seems pretty clear.) Danke. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Is he known for being a biologist? No, he's known for being a crank. Conversation over. Bye. Guy (Help!) 09:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Guess that would be a 'no' to one of my questions, at least. Wish you would specify which sentence(s) of policy you rely on; your reply to me at the barleybannocks talkpage suggests you and I have a policy disagreement (i.e. that you interpret the words of WP:NPOV policy differently than myself). I just don't know which words are at issue. I'm not a beginner like barleybannocks, but I just flat don't understand your position that eliding what WP:NOTEWORTHY sources say about the exact topic of the exact article in question ... can be justified by policy. WP:ONEWAY only applies to *other* articles about broader topics e.g. phytomorphology should not mention morphic fields, though of course, it might mention ICRISAT legumes. Anyhoo, although I cannot catch your policy-drift, I'm catching your other drift, so I'll leave you be. I do appreciate your attempt to help here, even if I disagree with your methods & policy-stances. Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 13:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

You don't agree with the policy stances of people whose conclusions don't support the agenda you're trying to promote. This is not a surprise. I've been a Wikipedia user, admin and email response volunteer for long enough to know that this is entirely normal and expected. As is the special pleading, appeals to other crap and so on. The principal effect of the input of advocates for fringe views, is to encourage ever greater scrutiny of the sources; this usually results in the article becoming steadily more supportive of the scientific viewpoint, because the way science works means that the scientific viewpoint inherently includes all significant opinions. In this case the main problem has always been that Sheldrake's opinion is scientifically insignificant. Guy (Help!) 13:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Your incorrect assertion that I am an advocate of fringe views pisses me off, to paraphrase an experienced wiki-weary admin I once spoke with. :-) I'd never heard of Sheldrake before October 22nd or 24th or something, and do not advocate for him, don't accuse me of it again. My goal here is to advocate for pillar two, and pillar four, and if you think those pillars favor Sheldrake, and therefore I must be a Sheldrake fanboi, YOU ARE WRONG, TOO BAD, do the work to rewrite the pillars properly, with *actual* consensus not just five-against-one-local-to-some-talkpage-"compromise"-consensus. Please focus on the content... or even better, the policy, since that is the core dispute... not the contributor. I swear up and down, I don't think 'you're advocating *your* personal the-guy-is-a-crank-POV, in mainspace at least, either. You're trying to improve wikipedia, and you firmly believe policy is on your side. You want mainspace to reflect objective truth. That's exactly the sort of wikipedian I like.

But that doesn't make you infallible, so please check your premises; the real conflict on the Sheldrake page right now is WP:MAINSTREAM-fka-WP:SPOV believers versus anybody-not-a-WP:MAINSTREAM-believer. Latter category to include myself, David_in_DC, and various other folks who could care less about Sheldrake, but care deeply about wikipedia as embodied in WP:NICE or WP:BLP or whatever their pet pillar is. 99% of everybody's frustration and pillar-four violations stem from that core disagreement over what WP:NPOV actually means. Anyhoo, I'm trying to skedaddle from your talkpage, and leave you be as you requested, now let me go, you are free to have the final word, by try and keep the assumption-of-bad-faith to a minimum, eh? I'm not pro-Sheldrake, I'm just anti-WP:MAINSTREAM, because it is not a good essay for wikipedia, WP:MEDRS excepted, WP:FRINGE on hard-science-claims excepted, necessary evils, but that is all and no ~~redacted~~ further shalt it go. If you cannot see the difference between *that* actual stance, and ShellyFanboiz, well, you are free to dislike me personally, buy try not to let it cloud your wikiKnight judgment of good-faith versus bad-faith. HTH, TFIW, see you around. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

So you're not an advocate, just someone advocating. Silly of me not to notice. I guess that makes you a tone troll or something then? I'm fresh out of givable fucks, I'm afraid. Guy (Help!) 18:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement warning: pseudoscience

Hello, Guy. I very much appreciate your longtime work as an administrator, and I know that to work on pseudoscience-related articles, which like many controversial topics tend to attract editors of a ... very particular disposition, requires especial resilience. However, I would like you to know that from the standpoint of an uninvolved observer, your actions on the talk page of Rupert Sheldrake, as discussed in passing in the recent AE request made by you, did not meet what I think are the community's expectations in the conduct of administrators, as described in the policy WP:Administrators. Seen from the outside, your statements to Alfonzo Green can be read as an attempt to use your administrator status (which, being involved in content disputes, you should not have mentioned) to gain an advantage in a content dispute. I must therefore tell you that I am of the view that future actions of a similar nature may be grounds for discretionary sanctions concerning you, as authorized in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions. Thank you for your understanding, and I nonetheless wish you happy holidays. Sandstein 22:30, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I have mad eit very clear to Alfonzo several times that this is not me-the-admin, but my advice as a long-standing Wikipedian. Obviously a single-purpose account with few edits is unlikely to understand that, but I have made it clear more than once. As you know, it is not necessary to be an admin in order to make an AE request. I let the AE discussion run with a bare minimum of input, as I have no doubt you noticed. Newly restricted editors are wont to kick over the traces. I completely understand this, and have advised others to allow time before escalating after previous topic bans. So: I don't think I have done anything wrong. But of course I will be mindful of the fact that less experienced editors may not be aware that carrying the mop is not in any way an endorsement of my opinion, only a recognition of my experience, which is the way I have endeavoured to frame it every time. It does look as if I was right. This gives me no pleasure. I want to improve the article, not play whack-a-mole or endlessly rehash stale debates. Unfortunately I don't think that will be achieved without excluding off-wiki partisans from the page. Guy (Help!) 00:44, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Not speaking for Sandstein, but this diff: [7] where you said:

"One of us is an admin. It's not you. I strongly suggest you take the hint."

...could be seen as an involved admin trying to use that status to intimidate someone. That's more or less how I read it. The rest of it was, IMHO, more or less all OK.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:55, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair point, but that wasn't how it was intended. An excess of brevity, I fear. The context should be clear from other statements: I speak as one with non-trivial experience of handling contentious Wikipedia biographies. If a single-purpose account believes they have a better understanding of Wikipedia policies than I do, they should seriously consider the possibility that they are wrong. Is that unfair? I'm happy to clarify this. I am not threatening to block anyone, and would not do so because I am involved. In every case, I hope, I allow others to make the final judgement. What that article needs is fewer warriors For Great Justice and more really boring edits that steadily improve the article. Guy (Help!) 01:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

What, less heat, more light? *gasp* Say it ain't so... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:01, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I know, shocking isn't it? I put it down to hitting the half century in a couple of weeks. Guy (Help!) 01:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)