Is there a policy requirement for editors and Admin to (a)
substantiate their "opinions" against another editor (b) reply to
their questions?
For example, if an Admin claims I am "pushing pseudoscience", is
there a requirement for them to provide actual examples of where I
might be doing this, and at the very least, reply to my requests to do so?
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com
You may suggest recusal. It is up to the arbitrator to recuse themselves. We have never forced an arbitrator to recuse, even when there was reasonable grounds.
Fred
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Tresman [mailto:ian2@knowledge.co.uk]
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 01:18 PM
To: wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Indefinite ban problem
At 18:56 29/09/2007, you wrote:
>You may appeal at any time. However we may not accept your appeal.
Can I insist that certain Arbitrator recuse themselves on the grounds
of conflict of interest?
You can see that I might not feel fairly treated by an Arbitrator who
has already condoned the use of incivility with Ad hominems against me.
Regards,
Ian
>Fred
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Ian Tresman [mailto:ian2@knowledge.co.uk]
>Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 11:52 AM
>To: wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Indefinite ban problem
>
>
> >Ah. It appears quite a lot of it is explained here:
> >
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pse
> udoscience
> >
> >Probation, repeated violations, apparent inability to work with
> >others. Appeal to the arbitration committee is the way back.
>
>
>Yes, that's where I was found guilty of having an "orientation", and
>an Arbitrator condoned the use of incivility with Ad hominems against
>me. Again, no examples of improper editing.
>
>But if you have an indefinite ban, you are not allowed to appeal for
>a year. In other words, IF you are banned improperly, but
>indefinitely, there is no way back for at least a year.
>
>Regards,
>
>Ian Tresman
>www.plasma-universe.com
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Wikipedia-l mailing list
>Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
You may appeal at any time. However we may not accept your appeal.
Fred
-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Tresman [mailto:ian2@knowledge.co.uk]
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2007 11:52 AM
To: wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikipedia-l] Indefinite ban problem
>Ah. It appears quite a lot of it is explained here:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscien…
>
>Probation, repeated violations, apparent inability to work with
>others. Appeal to the arbitration committee is the way back.
Yes, that's where I was found guilty of having an "orientation", and
an Arbitrator condoned the use of incivility with Ad hominems against
me. Again, no examples of improper editing.
But if you have an indefinite ban, you are not allowed to appeal for
a year. In other words, IF you are banned improperly, but
indefinitely, there is no way back for at least a year.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com
_______________________________________________
Wikipedia-l mailing list
Wikipedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archi…
About 2-1/2 months ago, I was given an indefinite ban by the
community after 5 hours of "discussion". I feel it was wholly unjustified.
Editor Art Carlson noted that the banning editor had "refused to
justify his block", and, editor Bladestorm noted that he was "having
a hard time finding a single shred of evidence against him here".
How do I clear my name when editors will not provide actual evidence
against me, or make unsubstantiated accusations?
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com
At 22:08 20/09/2007, you wrote:
>We all know that if he did, people would.
>
>What I'm not so sure of is that Jimbo would agree with Mr Tresman here.
I have no idea either. But it is frustrating spending more time
discussing "non-notability" and policy, than improving and writing
articles, and a simple quick response would save a lot of people a
lot of wasted time.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com
At 20:21 17/09/2007, you wrote:
>On 9/17/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
> > Similarly, neutrality does not imply any need for long-winded
> > debunkings, nor does it require labeling with such epithets as
> > "pseudoscience". Certain avenues of scientific investigation eventually
> > failed when more information became available, and eventually faded from
> > public consciousness. It is grossly disingenuous to attach retroactive
> > value judgements on these failed theories. That these avenues were once
> > pursued remains as an historical fact deserving of a proper
> > explanation. Anyone reading old material will encounter literary
> > references to these concepts, and should be able to find an explanation
> > about what the author is saying without wading through a lot of
> > polemics. The failure of many of these theories can often be stated in
> > one short paragraph that undermines a fundamental premise for the theory.
>
>Ray;
>
>With all due respect, quite a number of these "theories" are never
>sufficiently credible to be properly called scientific in the first
>place.
In which case we do not describe them as such.
>I do not believe in being so neutral and open minded that our brains
>fall out and we fail to distinguish between serious science that
>turned out in the end to be wrong on one side, and interplanetary
>billiards a la Velikovsky, creationism, and the like on the other.
The credibility of Velikovsky's ideas have
nothing to do with the Pensée series. And
Velikovsky never described planetary "billiards".
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com
>Whether I agree with that depends on your definition of 'significant'
>(and 'reliable' as well). Basically, it's just shifting the discussion
>from relevancy to something that is almost as badly defined. Just like
>there is a level between "can be seen in one scene of a small movie"
>and "won an Oscar for best actress" where an actress becomes notable
>enough, there is a level between "got her name mentioned in two
>different articles in the Smalltown Weekly" and "had a biography about
>her published by a mainstream publisher" where her coverage gets
>'significant'.
>
>What I see as a major problem in this point is that people tend to
>have widely diverging opinions on where to draw the line,
Exactly. Significancy is subjective just as notability. The sum of
human knowledge includes items that are neither significant nor notable.
As Jimbo says, the criteria for inclusion is verifiability (excluding
original research).
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com
>This is indeed a real problem. We generally accept that we should give
>"due weight" to topics - relatively obscure theories, don't get
>treated at the same length as their more widely supported brethren,
>which is fair and even the fringe theorists mostly accept it
In comparative articles, absolutely. But NPOV "Undue weight" tells us:
"Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them"
Though it use to read:
"None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as
much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them."
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com
At 18:05 20/09/2007, you wrote:
>On 20/09/2007, Ian Tresman <ian2(a)knowledge.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > The sooner that "notability" is consigned to oblivion, the better. Or
> > it would be nice of Jimbo made a decreed, there are too many people
> > wasting too much time discussing a matter which should have been
> > resolved five years ago.
>
>I love this belief that Jimbo can issue an edict and everyone will
>fall into line... and, indeed, that he would be willing to, or that he
>would agree with you...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:POLICY
"How are policies started?"
"Declarations from Jimmy Wales, the Board, or the Developers .. "
Regards,
Ian Tresman
www.plasma-universe.com