User talk:Askahrc

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


Discretionary sanctions notification[edit]

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

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

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


Warning[edit]

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

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

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

Seriously?[edit]

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

Well, that sure went quick. While I will respect any admin decision, it's more than a little frustrating to have predicted what strategy would be used to silence oneself, then watch it implemented without being able to change it. You're one thorough sneak, Vzaak. I still wonder why it is you do what you do. The Cap'n (talk) 14:39, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
This is a personal attack and also canvassing on your talk page. Second Quantization (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing your concerns, Second Quantization, and here are 3 points in response:
  • Saying someone's behaved in a sneaky manner is about the most benign 'personal attack' I've ever heard of, especially when Vzaak has called me incompetent, a proxy and a liar. If it's actually offensive I'll take it down; I didn't intend it as an insult and don't want to foster that impression.
  • If the statement above was objectively inflammatory, can I expect to see similar warnings on 76's talk page for making profanity-laden rhymes taunting me about my impending blocking? Or for their numerous direct personal attacks on my intelligence, competence or "lameness?" Or on Barney's for calling me a BLP-warrior?
  • How is it canvassing to make a comment about an AE that has an alert right above that comment? There's nothing in my comment that isn't included in the AE notification other than my opinion of it.
The Cap'n (talk) 04:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
It's kind of pointless, The Cap'n, you're on their radar. You can say the most benign remarks and they will be taken the wrong way. They have to have someone to target. I'm sorry you are in this position. Liz Read! Talk! 04:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
If I had called you a little sneak Liz, would you have thought that was benign? Somehow I think not ... One rule for us, another for those you support. Second Quantization (talk) 11:09, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
I have been called far worse than a sneak, and I've also seen worse terms used against Liz for simply speaking her mind about procedural decisions. The difference is that I try to assume good faith and shrug off all but the most outrageously insulting as simple issues of communication.
Also, who is this "us" you reference? I've heard this from Barney, 76, and seen it implied by Vzaak & many others. "Those (I) support" are editors in general, skeptical and fringe; I don't approve of monolithic opinions regardless of what they may be or whether I agree with them personally (note that no one's ever heard me legitimizing Sheldrake?). As much as folks have recently tried to paint me so, I don't represent a broader ideological movement. Do you? The Cap'n (talk) 17:33, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
LOL! "A little sneak"? That is hard to be offended by except that it sounds like something you would call a child. In fact, that remark is more polite than you usually are to me, Second Quantization. I usually get a warning from you, little insults or a slap across the face (metaphorically speaking).
You know, I'm not "skeptical" or "fringe"....I've never edited any articles that are labeled "pseudoscience". All I've tried to do is speak up for people I think are being bullied. It doesn't mean I agree with their opinions or support the changes they want to make to articles. I just don't like to see Wikipedia's procedures used as a way to drive editors with certain points of view off of WP. Content disputes should be resolved on talk pages and in dispute resolution, not by bringing editors you disagree with to WP:AE and applying a hammer approach. And, you know, discretionary sanctions cover all editors working on certain topics, not just ones with particular opinions. That is a fact that seems to be frequently forgotten.
Sorry to address SQ on your talk page, The Cap'n, but I see no reason to bring my comments to their talk page. Glad to see you survived AE...I know it's unnerving to become the center of other people's conversation and find yourself scrutinized. Wikipedians are a judgy lot. Liz Read! Talk! 21:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I do apologize for using language like "they" and "their" that implies some sort of unified effort and total agreement. While it's clear there is a group of editors who share a similar outlook on pseudoscience topics, you are individuals, not some anonymous group. Liz Read! Talk! 22:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
"All I've tried to do is speak up for people I think are being bullied". From what I can see, you've only ever spoken up for people who have abused sock puppets and are caught out. When there is real bullying on wikipedia, you are nowhere to be seen. I'm not going to reply here further, but it's good to know I can call you a little sneak. Second Quantization (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm glad we established that's not a personal attack. Who says consensus is hard to come by on WP? The Cap'n (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
That's highly inaccurate, Second Quantization. For example, I spoke up for The Cap'n and he has not abused sock puppets. There is only one user that fits that description who comes to mind and I spoke up for Tumbleman before his account was blocked and he used alternate accounts. I didn't agree with his views, by the way, I just thought he was being treated poorly.
As for "when there is real bullying on wikipedia, you are nowhere to be seen", I'm sorry but it's hard to be everywhere on Wikipedia simultaneously, 24/7. Impossible, really. But I'm not trying to be a policewoman. I just speak up when I see bullying, where I happen to see it. So, I'll cover the areas I edit in, and maybe you can speak up for people on the other 99.9999999% portion of Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 15:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Liz, The Cap'n was warned and sanctioned for use of sockpuppets just 10 days ago [1]. I think that says enough about the superficiality of your coverage of events before you comment. I will no longer be responding since this is going nowhere; you will continue to support people who appear pleasant on the surface while ignoring their POV pushing and sockpuppetry. You will continue to say you don't support their edits despite the sympathetic leanings you have expressed. Second Quantization (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

asketh for diffs and thou shalt receive[edit]

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

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

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

It is doubtful that the Spartans could have predicted that it would be Thebes that would someday pose a serious threat, later defeating her at the Battle of Leuctra.[2]

Current sorry state of the article:

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

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

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

two three kinds of philosophy[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SPI[edit]

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

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


Check out Sailor Tattoos?[edit]

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

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

Clarification[edit]

Given some issues that have arisen, this seems a prudent time to clarify some information (the majority of which is found on my User Page) that, given my lack of activity, hasn't been relevant until now.

  • In August 2014 I was approached by ISHAR, the online library that was represented by user SAS81. They'd seen that I referenced being a historian, saw I had some experience with online referencing and offered me a job.
  • At that point I stopped editing anything on WP but my own page in order to prevent any possible COI's. I welcome any Userchecks to verify this.
  • My work was based on my experience as a historian and archivist, not with Wikipedia. While working on ISHAR I was never asked to assist SAS81 in any work on WP, nor would I have.
  • For reasons I cannot disclose, user SAS81 is no longer affiliated with ISHAR and has not been for some time.
  • Please note that I am not here to emulate SAS81. I am here to A) Contribute to Wikipedia on matters that interest me personally and B) Provide appropriate references and resources to articles covered in ISHAR's academic library, clearly noting anytime I am doing so in any way that approaches COI. While I may point out places where current content does not match the sources I have, I am not here to troll, edit war, be tendentious or promote.
  • Regarding the issues facing SAS81, I want to reiterate that my work on Rupert Sheldrake and Deepak Chopra (the two articles I've edited that were contentious) predated and was unconnected to my future work on ISHAR, during which time I did not edit WP. It's important to point out that ISHAR's own policies embrace Wikipedia's, and any violation of WP policies is despite ISHAR, not for it.

The Cap'n (talk) 09:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Exit from A Quagmire?[edit]

Hey Cap'n it's kind of funny that you state- and I quote: "Askahrc is not an anagram for chakras, and the notion that I'm that cheesy is painful" As if being connected to something Yogic is that cheesy?
Considering that ISHAR has hit up the Yoga community all over the web and exploited a "Yoga wave" to get donations I am surprised of your disavowal and your characterization of a connection to things Yogic as being "cheesy".
I thought you were a Yogi, pirate and extraordinary Wikipedian? So what does ASKAHRC mean?
And speaking of disavowal, you continue to act like ISHAR was not built on a foundation of intending to pro-actively correct Wikipedia in areas of pseudoscience and flaky alternative medicine practices -particularly those having to do with imaginary energies. Are you now saying that this is not the case and that ISHAR will not be co-ordinating and providing a place for people to discuss and represent and defend these things on Wikipedia? I suppose it is possible that ISHAR and Deepak and the Chopra Foundation have been embarrassed out of the idea of using ISHAR to correct Wikipedia. And maybe Rinaldo has pounded some sense into the project after reportedly firing Viharo. If so and ISHAR is now mostly a charitable write-off for Chopra and there will no longer be "pro-active" canvassing, proxying and pseudoscience pushing on Wikipedia... no online discussions and advocacy dealing with The Wikipedia Problem .. well this would be a higher centered path to take. especially in light of the recent exposure of Tumbleman/SAS81 as being such a deceit.
But if that is the case it would be a huge let down for the Energy Psychology people and the bio-field people and the life after death people.. and the Indigo Children people, and the Homeopathy people and the dowsers and the Qi affects at a distance people.. and the EFT-ers and the magical Intent and Consciousness studies people. And Rupert and Dean and Bernardo and Robert S. and the rest that have donated and put their hopes on it. How are you going to satisfy them if ISHAR does not correct the Wikipedia problem and bring them some justice? Is ISHAR still going to actively push for topic and source justice on Wikipedia? Or are you now just going to hope ISHAR featured source materials osmote and morphically resonate into Wikipedia? Since you say at Deepak Talk "Anyone is free to discuss this on my Talk Page if they are so inclined" - after giving it some thought and meditation I decided I would come by and provide you the courtesy of doing so. Sincerely, Ptarmigander (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Ptarmigander, as for "askahrc" being an anagram, it's not cheesy to reference chakras, it's cheesy to make a user name out of an anagram. Askahrc doesn't mean anything in particular, it's a username based on my personal life that I've been using for many years.
As for the rest of your post, I'll preface this by saying I am not SAS81, I am not going to get into a tit-for-tat discussion of the internal details about ISHAR, which you seem unusually focused on. Nor am I going to assume responsibility for the things SAS81 may have said; that person is no longer with ISHAR and I cannot attest to the applicability of everything they said. Therefore there is no "Now I am saying _____"; anything I say here, I am saying for the first time.
  • ISHAR was not founded on the premise of proactively editing Wikipedia, canvassing and pushing pseudoscience advocacy on WP, ISHAR was founded as an academic online archive where visitors could determine what the scientific research into Integrative Studies actually says. Despite what you seem to think, ISHAR is not centered on Wikipedia, nor is it "anti-wiki" in any way.
  • We have a function that will provide citation information that can be used on Wikipedia (as most modern archives do), and myself or others may occasionally offer references or additional information on various topics ranging from medicinal honey to cortisol levels during meditation. That's it. There's no massive conspiracy, no secret base to coordinate and plan attacks on Wikipedia, just an archive making its sources freely available and an editor or two facilitating their appropriate use. You mockingly reference osmote and morphic resonance bringing ISHAR's sources to WP, but I think a simpler way of putting it is that we trust Wikipedia to reference reputable sources, and are thus expanding the availability of them.
  • This may be a bit repetitive, but the assumption of advocacy and confirmation bias has been prevalent in your posts, so I wanted to address it. ISHAR is not screening its sources for positive results, nor are we advocating any studies, whether energy psychology, ayurveda or the benefits of eating broccoli. We are presenting all the peer-reviewed research we have on these topics, whether it confirms or denies the topic. Where we differ from some groups is that we feel open access and critical evaluation of these topics and all the evidence is beneficial, rather than dismissing topics a priori as "pseudoscience," and thus unsuitable for examination.
  • As for your interest in ISHAR's supporters, we'll manage our internal affairs, though I appreciate your obvious concern.
Though I admit I'm more than a little perplexed by your intense focus on ISHAR, I hope this addressed most of your points. Best wishes. The Cap'n (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi Cap'n Thank you for your reply. Best wishes to you too.
I suppose my interest began when Deepak invited me and others to come to his Wikipedia page. As he said "see you on the page!" He also said at that time that he had been approached by a team of researchers and archivists: "A group of researchers and archivists approached me awhile back to explain how Wikipedia works and offered to mediate."
I did not know that Rome Viharo was a researcher and archivist so I was not thinking it was he who approached Deepak. I thought Rome was more of a media consultant. But I do notice that he now says: "This year Deepak Chopra was one of many individuals who contacted me regarding their ‘problem’ on Wikipedia and asked for my advice." and he also says: "I advised to a strategy – and an architecture for a community platform, that could resolve this very real problem for him as well as the entire ‘mind/body’ community all over the world.." So Deepak says he was approached. Rome says Deepak approached him. Deepak says it was historians and archivists.
All this creates a fog of what to believe. You know?
Certainly SAS81/ Viharo did not do much to dispel this fog. So as I read his many writings on Wikipedia I found the issue more and more confusing. What is ISHAR? Is it something I would want to support? Or is it something that might end up casting a bad light on the field? And even on Deepak?
Now I should probably state that I am grateful for Deepak's invitation to come to Wikipedia. I have found it an amazing place. I have been studying the rules and how to edit and be a good Wikipedian and I have already branched out to research a number of other articles. Taking notes for future input/editing once I become more experienced. But in the mean time I admit I don't know what to think about ISHAR.
You say "ISHAR was not founded on the premise of proactively editing Wikipedia, canvassing and pushing pseudoscience advocacy on WP, ISHAR was founded as an academic online archive where visitors could determine what the scientific research into Integrative Studies actually says." "ISHAR is not centered on Wikipedia, nor is it "anti-wiki" in any way." But ISHAR was created by Deepak and Rome Viharo (and I assume some researchers historians and archivists?) with the aim of creating as Rome says: "a strategy – and an architecture for a community platform, that could resolve this very real problem for him as well as the entire ‘mind/body’ community." Which seems to me like ISHAR was originally created as a proactive activist organization.
And then I also see Robert Shwarz saying "ISHAR will combat misunderstanding (he clearly means on Wikipedia- see video.) with education and scientific studies." and "We are not passive observers but active agents.." "If facts are being misrepresented, ISHAR will be there to ensure accurate information is available and defended." "Ishar is designed to change the paradigm of online discussions.." "Ishar's staff are experienced Wikipedia editors who know how to work with hostile individual editors." "When bias and hostility take root on controversial pages ISHAR will be there to provide accurate information.." "Ishar provides the reliable sources that make Wikipedia informative and safeguards the ideals that make it neutral." "We will not compromise on either front."
So according to Robert Shwarz ISHAR seems to be pretty Wikipedia centered. And it certainly is involved with Energy Psychology and other new age commercial modalities that have had a problem with Wikipedia in the past. Are you saying you do not agree with Robert Shwarz.. who definitely seems to feel he is part of ISHAR... he says "we" often enough.
Here is another person that seems to feel they are part of ISHAR and that their field will be represented and helped by ISHAR:
"Six months ago the idea was cooked up to create, via collaboration, an Integrated Studies Historical Archives and Repository (ISHAR). The not-for-profit initiative is presented as a kind of "reliable comprehensive evidence-based information and research Wikipedia for subtle energies and alternative therapies. Among these: homeopathy, acupuncture, acupressure, energy medicine, energy healing, herbal medicine, and "numerous other kinds of integrative and holistic medicine." Running point on this is Melinda Connor (see auras!) PhD, who also serves as the chair of the annual science symposium of ISSSEEM (International Society for the Study of Subtle Energy Medicine). Deepak Chopra is a backer."
Also it says: "In Sikh, Ishar means "Almighty Supreme Being."
Is this correct? Ishar means "Almighty Supreme Being"? Or is this just a coincidence like Askahrc is a coincidental anagram of "Chakras"?
So I think you can understand my concerns. If not for these concerns which seem valid to me considering what appear to be numerous glaring contradictions, I doubt that I would give it a second thought. And I would not be asking you to please explain further. I mean you are the only "experienced Wikipedian" I am aware of with ISHAR right now. And you do have experience dealing with other so called "hostile" Wikipedia editors. And you outreached to Rome Viharo last year about this didn't you? And you are an archivist and historian. And you invited me and others to come here to your talk page and discuss. So I was hoping you would clarify things. So far you have only thrown me into what seems to be increasing contradictions. Ptarmigander (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
Wow, let no one ever accuse you of being laconic, Ptarmigander. After carefully reading your lengthy post, I can boil it down to 3 issues:
  1. Confusion about ISHAR's origin: You ask who precisely reached out to who, and when, and who had which part of which aspect of ISHAR? I don't know and I don't particularly care. At the point I was approached, ISHAR was the seed of an archive which needed significant work before it could launch. In response to your repeated insinuations about my role with ISHAR, yes, I am currently directing the majority of archiving work, as I reference on my user page. I don't know who had the first glimmer of a thought about ISHAR, but I know what will be launching: an academic archive.
  2. Supporters of ISHAR hope it will resolve their issues with Wikipedia: ISHAR's response to the numerous people who have been disappointed with certain Wikipedia articles has been to explain the value of WP policies and inform people that if they feel a page is inaccurate, they need to find appropriate references if they want it to say otherwise. What exactly do you disagree with there? The quotes you provide reference rejecting bias, embracing WP ideals, using reliable sources and elevating discussions beyond hostile bickering. Again, what is objectionable there? As far as these supporters defining ISHAR as Wikipeda-based, their particular concern was with Wikipedia, so they pointed out how ISHAR would resolve their particular concerns. You're obviously familiar with ISHAR's support videos, why didn't you reference the fact that the majority of them never mention Wikipedia, but embrace the idea of an archive of hard-to-find data?
  3. Secret meanings behind names: I can tell you exactly what ISHAR really means: The Integrative Studies Historical Archive & Repository. I don't know how else to respond to these repeated insinuations that we have secret meanings behind basic names, nor why it would be relevant even if we had done something that silly. As far as my username goes; again, why would I craft a username with a secret yogic meaning, then never edit yoga/chakra pages and wait 6 years before having anything to do with something loosely connected to them?
I don't see how I've contradicted anything I said. I've told you before that I am not trying to follow in SAS81's footsteps, and that his views are not necessarily those of ISHAR. If you have more specific, concise issues, please let me know. I'm trying to be helpful. The Cap'n (talk) 04:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Cap'n, I can see how it is convenient for you to not care about contradictions regarding the origin of ISHAR. Every response you make seems to say "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" just look at the adherence to model Wikipedia policies. Even your user page is a perfect example of touting model Wikipedia behavior.
Yet behind the curtain you have already been warned for wasting the community's time and other less than model behavior.
If you were such a model Wikipedian you would not have refrained from reporting Rome Viharo's deceit and sock puppet activities as SAS81. Nor would you have joined in to create an organization that featured a permanently blocked editor acting as it's head Wikipedian. And you would not have waited until the blocked editor was exposed to make the disclosure of your own involvement.
Also you would not be employed creating tools that will further waste the community's time. Formatting studies like this and this and this for easy Wikipedia inclusion is pointless. They offer no evidence of any bio-field or Qi or intention energy and they are flawed for other reasons also.
As for "the secret meanings behind names".... that is your interpretation. There is no secret. Another editor mentioned that ASKAHRC is an anagram for Chakras. You have not offered any more compelling explanation of the name. In any case your repeated reasoning about you not ever editing anything yogic makes zero sense.. My user name is ptarmigander but it doesn't mean I ever need to edit anything to do with ptarmigans or even birds.
And as for ISHAR meaning "Almighty Supreme Being". That was not my suggestion. It was mentioned in an announcement about Melinda Connor- CEO of the National Foundation for Energy Healing and author of "See Auras!". I asked you if Ishar meant that (Almighty Supreme being) and you went off denouncing conspiracies and again saying that any connection would be "silly". Seems an over reaction to me.
I do suppose the symbol used for ISHAR is quite "yogic" looking. I guess that is purely coincidental and any connection would be "silly" also.
Pay no attention to what is behind the curtain. It is not even there. Right? Ptarmigander (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
As far as the continued focus on "yogic" meanings behind ISHAR, my username and the logo, all I can say is A) The name of the archive is a simple acronym, not a reference to a Sikh term for the Almighty, B) I have already stated that askahrc is a name that came from my personal life that's been in use for decades and has nothing to do with chakras, I don't owe anyone an "explanation" for who it refers to, C) The ISHAR logo uses the twined serpents of the caduceus and a stylized atom, and the image you brought up was just the Greek caduceus image with a kundalini interpretation overlaid. More important than the silliness of whether there is some hidden reference to yogic traditions (of which it is an extreme stretch to claim Sikhs are), is the question of why would it matter? I find your repeated claims of obfuscated "yogic" connections implicitly offensive, as if there was something wrong that needed to be concealed about holding yogic belief systems. I don't, but would my positions be less valid if I did?
I don't make any claims at being a perfect Wikipedian, no one is. What I do state is that I believe in Wikipedia's ideals, mission and goals. You refer to the fact that I consistently encourage adherence to WP policies as if that's part of some Machiavellian plot to conceal sinister intentions toward WP. No, I didn't post information about SAS81 to WP after I began working on ISHAR, I didn't post anything to WP, and I explained why. I have obligations outside of Wikipedia so I can't go into greater details other than to say user SAS81 is no longer affiliated with ISHAR, and the reason I came back to WP at that time is obviously not a coincidence, I needed to clarify that lack of a relationship. I'm not trying to conceal the "man behind the curtain," I'm trying to pull back the curtain to show that the man already left.
As for your personal analysis of some of the studies housed in ISHAR, with all due respect, it is irrelevant. Editors cannot and must not act as peer-reviewers for scholarly articles; if you want to contest the specific journal's academic credentials or applicability to WP:MEDRS, that is entirely appropriate, but it is not appropriate to use your own opinion about whether the methodological approach and conclusions are scientifically sound. That is precisely why we are compiling an archive of everything on these topics, from top journals like Nature to small publications like JACM, so that readers (and WP editors, if they choose) can directly see what the scientific research says without relying on armchair assertions. Again, ISHAR is not trying to promote any of the individual sources housed in it, so I don't know why you seem to be arguing to me that you disagree with some of the articles within it. There's going to be a lot there that people disagree with, a lot that people agree with, and even more that people don't understand/care about. It's a research archive, after all.
This conversation seems to be going in circles. Is there anything you wanted to discuss besides yogic messages, the former staff of ISHAR or an undefined nefariousness on my part? The Cap'n (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)