User talk:Becritical

Talk to BE——Critical

Be critical of the uncritical, of gullibility. Be critical of the imPOV rished critics. Be critical of criticism, of criticism's lack, of selective criticality (used merely to attack). Be critical of everything till criticism comes full circle into knowledge, and into knowledge of fallibility.

• Archive 1

Sources for Arbcom case

Hi,

You mentioned you're unsure of sources for Arbcom (Jerusalem), I'll provide you with some good sources later today. --Dailycare (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks (: I only need enough info to post. It's not really about sources and stuff, that's for you experts to fill in once the case is accepted. I only have to format the request in such a way they may hopefully accept it. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Here we are:

• 1("Jerusalem is not recognised internationally as the capital of the Jewish state" (BBC))
• 2 ("Seat of government: Jerusalem, though most foreign embassies are in Tel Aviv" (BBC))
• 3 ("Though the annexation has not been recognized by any other country, Israel insists that the whole city is its capital." (The Independent))
• 4 ("cette «capitale» autoproclamée n'est reconnue par pratiquement aucun État étranger", "«territoire disputé»" (Le Figaro))
• GA resolution 63/30 ("the proclamation of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel (is) null and void" (United Nations General Assembly))
• SC resolution 478 ("(..) the recent "Basic Law" on Jerusalem (is) null and void" (United Nations Security Council))
• 7 (""Jerusalem is Israel's capital" he said, stating an Israeli position not recognised by world powers" (Al Jazeera))
• 8 ("Jerusalem must not be used as a metonym or variant for Israel. It is not internationally recognised as the Israeli capital, and its status is one of the central controversies in the Middle East." (The Times))
• 9 ("Jerusalem is not recognised as the legitimate capital of Israel by any foreign country" (Inter Press Service))
• 10 ("Canada court: Jerusalem not Israel's capital")
• 26 ("Capital: Tel Aviv" in an infobox on Israel. (El Pais))
• 11 "(Israel) claims the entire city as its capital but the move was never internationally recognised" (Daily Telegraph)
• 12 ("Israel has declared all of Jerusalem its indivisible and eternal capital, a claim not recognized internationally (Reuters))
• 13 (""Jerusalem is Israel's capital and will remain as such." That position is universally rejected by other countries" (LA Times, see page 2))
• 14 ("Jerusalem, the capital recognized as such by no government but Israel itself" (USA Today))
• 15 ("Israel insists (...) east Jerusalem (is) part of its own capital, a view disputed by the international community" (New Zealand Herald))
• 16 ("La comunità internazionale, inclusi gli Usa, non riconosce la rivendicazione di Israele che sia Gerusalemme la sua «eterna indivisa capitale»." (La Stampa))
• 17 ("Nel 1980, Israele proclamò la città sua "eterna e indivisa capitale", uno status non riconosciuto dagli altri Stati" (La Repubblica))
• 18 ("The battle for Jerusalem has always been a battle that Israel has waged alone, since even the United States has not recognized the city as Israel's capital" (New York Times))
• 19 ("No major foreign government has recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital" (New York Times))
• 20 ("Israel (...) considers Jerusalem its sovereign capital. This is a claim rejected by the international community" (CNN))

--Dailycare (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! That does serve to strengthen the position that the sources do not unequivocally endorse saying that "Jerusalem is the capital of Israel." Thus I can feel ok about presenting the case, since the claim in the article is such a blatant example of Wikipedia taking sides in a dispute. I'm not going to try to argue the issue before ArbCom except for a brief description, because they won't be interested. They'll be interested almost entirely in user behavior. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 17:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Article Tahash Timeline

Please look at the article Tahash, and on the Discussion Page: "Consensus on Timeline" give your opinion about the Timeline. Thank you. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 14:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration Enforcement sanction handling/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 01:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Town Seriff

B-Critical, You are one of the few editors I see at [1] who is seriously trying to understand the problem and offer reasonable solutions. I also see that you have been a major contributor to Town Sheriff.

From my experience, the idea that a society is based on the rule of law means enforcement of rules. Social norms only happen when there is meaningful accounting for behavior. Wikipedia has very good foundation rules, but it has no real system of enforcement that can be appealed to by most editors. The Town Sheriff proposal seems to be the missing component for building a meaningful society.

A few observations:

• I cannot get my peer group to become editors because they have seen the treatment I receive and will have no part of it.

• There are times I look in on an enforcement discussion, say around 9 am Pacific Time and there are already thirty or so new posts. It can take a long time to catch up, and most of the time I do not. Another response I get from potentially useful editors is that they have to work and simply do not have the time. It is not the time to contribute to an article. It is the time to argue with other editors. Science Apologist frequently challenged me to report him, as have many of his followers. He knew full well that I did not have the time to do so. He also knew he had the vote. Like Ludwigs2, it was more likely I would get blocked if I reported him.

• Many of the arguments are over a single edit that seldom has anything to do with the purpose of the article. For instance, QG's edit that started that case is for a reference for a point that is clearly an attempt to use the article to make a point in another article. The article for pseudoscience can be a good one without that item. A Town Sheriff could enforce an ordinance that any point of contention that turns into an edit war will be tabled for thirty days, and if there is still trouble after that, the item will be subjected to a panel of judges for a go-no go decision.

• The litmus test for an editor is whether or not he/she is a fringe editor. The way that translates is "Fringe POV pusher." The fact that this branding is allowed should be the first hint that there is an imbalance of influence making the community collaboration become one of majority view collaboration. That tyranny of the majority suppresses new ideas and has already hurt Wikipedia. It will continue to do so. Not having a realistic avenue of appeal, minority editors have and will leave. If they care, they will find other ways of seeking balance. I know that I have around 600-700 daily viewers on the website I manage and a large number of sympathetic websites that link to it.

• It is just a dominant editor ploy to argue that "fringe POV pushers" are trying to use Wikipedia to promote their subject. There may be a few, certainly people promoting themselves, but that is easy to spot. In most cases, if it appears an editor is pushing their subject, it is because they do not understand the perspective sought by Wikipedia. My rule of thumb is to seek a stable article that is useful as a quick reference. Making it pro anything makes it unstable. Making it anything other than who, what and why makes it useless as a reference. It is irrational to think that an article heavy with characterization of the subject will ever be stable.

I have spent the last twelve years of my life more or less 100% involved in working for the advancement of understanding in my field. One of my talking points to others in my field is to learn how to talk about our subject, and to do that, learn how our audience hears us. Do you really think I would stand up in a science conference and say I talk to dead people? What I would do is present research results directed at understanding anecdotal experiences and hypotheses. The problem is that I am talking to Wikipedia editors hiding behind masks while they hurl insults at me and it is difficult to get past that wall of ignorance.

That takes me back to my website and efforts to balance the story. An effort being joined by a growing number of people with growing access to the public. I think Wikipedia is an important idea but I think it needs a Town Sheriff to save the day.

Thank you for reading this. This will probably be my last attempt so no response is necessary. Tom Butler (talk) 00:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As an aside

I wrote this template a while back - {{nono}} - and I'm trying to encourage it's use. basically you can use it to make inline redactions of other people's ruder comments without disturbing the flow of the text. i.e. if someone posts:

• "I disagree with that stupid idea and I wish you would stop filling the page with such patent nonsense, and get back to real editing"

you can nono it to read:

• "I disagree with that Template:Nono idea and I wish Template:Nono get back to real editing"

Use cautiously and sparingly: reasonable people will accept it gracefully, but people in a rage will become further enraged. wp:CIV is on your side so long as you don't change the meaning of their post, but it's still a risky act.

Also, I do understand you're point - I don't think the act was blockable, but I recognize it wasn't all that brilliant of a move, so I can see the conceptual wiggle room. Most of the reason I'm being stridently oppositional on the point is that it's that wiggle room I want to bring under control. Regardless of what you might think of my comment, Sandstein's actions taken as a whole were fairly unsavory, and that kind of behavior needs to be delegitimized. --Ludwigs2 20:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It's a cool template, and I can think of a few instances where I might have used it. It would also make a nice addition to a Sheriff's toolbox. I hope we can get going on that project again soon. Thanks for bringing it to my attention (: BE——Critical_{__Talk} 00:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate to have two RFCs on same page at same time

This is entirely inappropriate. We do not need two Requests for Comment discussions going on — at the same time — on the same page. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Santorum

Just a point. In this discussion that you redacted it was mentioned that the previous proposal to rename the article had failed. It hadn't. Discussion was ongoing and the IP 24 closed it early. SlimVirgin reverted him [2][3][4] In the end, though, SV restored his closing [5] to make way for her proposal, with the agreement of the original proposer. [6] --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Geez, what a complicated situation. Thanks for explaining! BE——Critical_{__Talk} 20:04, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Like Jayen466, the editor who proposed renaming, and you, I think renaming is a more easily-reachable compromise position. But, like Jayen466, I've come round to SlimVirgin's view that the term itself doesn't deserve its own article. It seems virtually no one uses it. If we are to cover it, it's the prank that is the subject, and so little of actual note can be said about that, it belongs as a small section in Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. I just wanted to make the point your argument for renaming has merit and may be the most politically (art of the possible) sensible position. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Personally, I think the renaming proposal (followed by tidy-up of the at times execrable sourcing and quote farming) has merit. But then I would think that, as I originally proposed it! That earlier discussion was not an RfC by the way. I believe a significant number of editors who would not support deletion, because the campaign is notable, would, like you, support renaming, especially now that we know that the neologism hasn't actually made it into the Partridge Dictionary of Slang ... despite the article giving everyone the opposite impression. (There should be a law against summarising a source in such a misleading way that the article implies the exact opposite of what the source says.) That spurious piece of info was part of what informed the previous discussion. Renaming is right, regardless of whether the article gets redirected or not, and it will be hard to get the community's attention twice. So I for one am sorry to see the section with your proposal gone. --JN466 20:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I see Off2riorob concurs. I'd prefer to back the SV proposal for now, as it's the position I believe best fits this situation. I hope clear and sensible arguments, like those from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, will eventually persuade enough editors over the course of the RfC. If that doesn't fly, I'll support simple renaming. But I'd like to give the full SV treatment a good shot first. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah we'll see what happens. I think he is wrong in this case, but Jimbo may swing things into a consensus for SV's proposal. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

You wrote at the pseudoscience talk page: "*Remove This is a general article on pseudoscience. The source seems relevant to an article or section on Quackery, but is not a source for general statements on pseudoscience. Also, we do not use patently false generalizations even when published in a reliable source which most likely depended on the common sense of readers to make valid meaning out of the statement. It is not a threat to public health for people to believe in the Loch Ness monster. Nor is it true that a superstition that does not threaten public health is not pseudoscience. We need sources dealing with the subject in general, not throw-away rhetoric in the introductions to articles on specific subjects. I could point out other problems such as the lousy writing, for example the statement that irrational beliefs are pseudoscience (they might or might not be). That example is just a start. It's a terrible paragraph. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 03:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)"

The article is on the topic pseudoscience. The source is about pseudoscience The peer-reviewed sources states pseudoscience issues "are a serious matter of public health." There are many examples of the pseudoscience issues. Do you agree the peer-reviewed source must be restored and summarised at the pseudoscience article. Matute H, Yarritu I, Vadillo MA (2010). "Illusions of causality at the heart of pseudoscience". Br J Psychol. doi:10.1348/000712610X532210. PMID 21092400.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) QuackGuru (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

As a motion amending the above-named Arbitration case, the Arbitration committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to pseudoscience. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 14:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)