User talk:Middle 8

(What's So Funny 'Bout).... The Golden Rule

Wonderful essay: WP:DGAF

Note: I've edited WP in the past with another account. I left in good standing, and have returned with a new account because of privacy and harassment concerns. My preference from now on is to edit WP pseudonymously. For further explanation, please see my user page. Thank you, and happy editing!

Old alternate account, no longer active: User:Bodhi Agonist.

Formatting tricks: User:Middle 8/Notes

If you leave a message here, I'll respond here unless you request otherwise; it's much easier for me to keep conversations in one place.

Serious question

My hypothetical question on User talk:VirtualSteve was very serious. I had been thinking of raising it in another forum. Particularly if the user may have committed fraud in real life, do you think wikipedia should allow them to reincarnate and possibly move towards an admin role? Looking forward to discussion. Kevin McCready (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You're asking what WP policy should be on editors who "may have committed fraud in real life"?? That's a topic I hadn't pondered, to be honest. Are you asking whether a background criminal check should be a prerequisite to adminship, or something? Again, I really hadn't given the matter much thought. --Middle 8 (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. - I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind above, but in any case, be sure to refrain from naming any editor with their real name, or implying that any editor broke the law. You don't want to run afoul of WP:OUTING or WP:LIBEL, among other things. I suspect the result (for any editor violating these) would be a significant block or ban. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the email

I'll keep your secret that you are a member of Politburo, best friends with Michael Jackson, and was formerly known as the Fifth Beatle.  :) However, despite your credentials, I am going to strongly disagree with you on Acupuncture. There's just not enough reliable sources supporting its usefulness. But, let's not get into a discussion about that article here, I've replied to you at Talk:Acupuncture. But if anyone asks if you did a bong with Ringo, I'm going to have to give you up. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Reported to AE

You have been reported to WP:AE for violations of the Pseudoscience Arbitration. Please look here. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously a WP:POINT violation, and dismissed as such.[1] Your approach continues to be heavy on the heat (drama) and short on the light (anything having to do with calm exchange of ideas). Obviously, you're intent on continuing the behavior that got you topic-banned in hopes that the community will decide to embrace you, but you offer a false choice between poor content and being an asshole. You need to develop more constructive ways of dealing with people with whom you disagree. Driving us all off with a stick isn't going to work, dude. You're certainly not going to succeed in driving me off. All I need to do is edit as I usually do; you can file all the petty complaints that you want, but no one's buying into them. So, as long as I don't bait you and don't get roped in by your attempts to bait me, I think I'll be acting in the best interest of the project. --Middle 8 (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) General comment: Belatedly, here's one of the best diffs ever about SA's recent misadventures, by User:FayssalF. The last sentence is particularly apt: "We just don't want this project to become both a battleground and a kindergarten." --Middle 8 (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfair and unethical treatment of your complain

Are you aware that ScienceApologist was instrumental in having MartinPhi permanently banned because Martin talked about what was/is common knowledge about SA. See [2] In fact, SA has pissed so many people off and has been such a braggart about his qualifications that his name is plastered around the Internet and it is unrealistic to call who he is a secret.

Levine as much as said SA outted you here: With regards the WP:OUTING, I'd like to comment that before SA's post about Middle 8's occupation, I had absolutely no idea who this editor was in real life. Now, that I know this editor's occupation, I am fairly confident I know exactly who Middle 8 is in real life. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC) [3]

It is becoming an ethical question that the admins are supporting SA but running off his opponents. You also noted that you are less inclined to edit. I have virtually stopped and most people in the frontier subjects are gone. I am not recommending action, just informing. The best thing to do in Wikipedia is to go to CitizendiumTom Butler (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your support. I hadn't realized the exact circumstances of Martinphi's ban: that really does kick the hypocrisy up to new levels. Apart from that, I think it was OK for Jehochman to close the cases, but not to slander my motives. I also think that SA's continued misconduct should eventually be dealt with sternly, even if they want to coddle him for now (which I think is a bad idea). This was my comment to Jehochman.

As for CZ, I tend to agree in theory, but the place ranks depressingly low in search engines, and editors don't seem too prolific; they erred by not fully forking WP. Quantity matters as well as quality. They could have gone online with thousands of OK WP articles, and gradually improved them. As it is, the place seems dead; they lack articles on the most basic topics. Also, the user interface sucks. I don't really know how the editing environment is, but it appears to be a hell of a lot better than around here.

People keep editing WP because they know others read WP, yet WP continues to suck. It's a problem, probably best solved at the demand end: what we should be doing is warning students, colleagues, family members et. al. about how seriously unreliable WP really is. There are some excellent criticisms around; I certainly plan on collecting and linking to some. I will recommend CZ to people with the caveat that it errs ridiculously toward quality over quantity. Beyond that, any one person can't really change WP, and is likely to go bananas trying. Sincere best wishes and thanks for your kind and sane words. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Martinphi deserved his ban. SA was hounded. CZ has terrible articles, mainly because expert editors are not so expert. The homeopathy article is written by potion pushers. And....ah, never mind. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

@OM: Yes, CZ has its own particular factors tilting it toward suck, and I wouldn't disagree that you've identified some. How seriously they operate, I'm not sure. Time for wb, catch you later. cheers, Middle 8 (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is one for your list. But be careful. They tend to eat editors who do not blindly support Wikipedia.

I agree that change will not come from within. The bigger it gets, the more funding Wikipedia needs for legal and server upkeep. The only realistic way to cause change is via an informed public cutting off donations.

I think Wikipedia is an excellent idea but there are too many people like SA who have no scruples about how to discourage new thought ... and too many people like Orangemarlin here who have no problem with being part of the Tyranny of the majority. They have driven off just about all of the editors who should be here to balance that NPOV everyone talks about. MartinPhi was about the last one, so what Orangemarlin is really saying is that Martin had to go so that SA would have less opposition to do what he did to you.

Sorry to turn this into a rant. Coming in close contact with people who exhibit such closed minds and willingness to "win" at any cost always makes me cranky. Tom Butler (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I appreciate your thoughts and think you make some good points. I agree that SA's entire M.O. is to drive editors he disagrees with off WP, and that he is going about it the wrong way: experience has shown that it is possible to improve content without being a dick or a hopeless drama queen. Off to real life for awhile. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 07:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've commented on Jehochman's page, pointing out one of the ways in which Tom Butler's description of events is flawed. That is that during the ban discussion, MP twice outed another editor. He was also found to have used a sock to attack other editors. As an aside, I'm a general supporter of SA (not always), and I have no idea who he is in real life. Verbal chat 08:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you'll find no disagreement from me that WP:OUTING should be scrupulously enforced. :-) I'm not familiar with all the details of Martinphi's conduct; I stopped following them when it became clear he was a habitual WP:POINT violator, something that SA now seems to be morphing into. Like you, my default tendency, believe it or not, is to like SA; he's clever and has a sense of humor. His methods are what I object to. There are dozens of editors who generate excellent content without resorting to SA's plainly disruptive behavior. And I don't have much sympathy for the argument that because he's just been through arbitration, he gets a black check to go wilding. That's not how it works. I think he should just stop editing if he can't maintain decent manners. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

POV-pushing at Quackwatch

Just some running commentary from myself; anyone else is welcome to join in. It will be interesting to see where this goes: Talk:Quackwatch#Selective_citation_of_sources. (diff) I'm certain Quackguru is aware of my request that he read it. [4] --Middle 8 (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

List of PS

Now that you mention it, there probably is an argument that sources could be found describing the Freudian model of the mind as, at least in some contexts, pseudoscientific. Certainly all the psychologists I know get a pained look and shift into pedantry mode when the media starts spouting such. I have no particular urge to pursue the matter right now, but it should be worth investigating at some future date.

Also, in case I do not get around to mentioning it over at Acupuncture - good reviews are better than good studies - good work. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I share your opinion that the psych stuff is worth a look... at some point; no rush. By the way, I'd been meaning to do this for awhile now. My admiration for your contributions here has only increased over time. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 23:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. There are probably some refs that can be used. The situation is that it qualifies as Questionable science, and because "some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized." Our current inclusion criteria would definitely allow sourced mention, especially since it is not us who are characterizing, but the sources. Who knows, at some point in time psychoanalysis may become a historical artifact that will easily fall into the "Generally considered pseudoscience" or "Obvious pseudoscience" class, and we'll then be justified in adding PS category tags to the articles! It's all a matter of how the mainstream changes its views on things, and on how the V & RS document that change. I suspect it may take some time.... -- Fyslee (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree... it will definitely take time. "Generic" counseling and caring bedside manner seem obvious; Freud's ideas, not so much so. Speaking of time, we're online at the same time -- how you doing? I just left a reply for you [5] over at Talk:Quackwatch. cheers, Middle 8 (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Quackwatch

Thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Quackwatch. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Thank you.

Remember, we're writing an encyclopedia here. Chopra's ad hominem's against Barrett are not suitable for an encyclopedia article. [6] --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense, Ronz. This may be a borderline BLP problem, but if you seriously think reporting a back and forth between two people in this way is libel against one or both of them, then I suggest you read Defamation. Does Time Magazine engage in libel? Here is how they wrote it: Deepak Chopra he dismisses as a purveyor of "Ayurvedic mumbo jumbo." (Chopra, for his part, calls Barrett "a self-appointed vigilante for the suppression of curiosity.") [7] If you don't have a template that fits what you want to say, then don't use a template. It's really very simple, and it's related to the difference between sentient human beings on one hand and robots and mindless bureaucrats on the other. Hans Adler 17:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC) (comments struck by Middle 8 (talk) to promote de-escalation - Middle 8 (talk) 03:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC))

(@Ronz and @Hans: please check your emails.) I've always advocated giving everybody, specifically including Barrett, a fair shake under BLP; it's the right and decent thing to do. At the same time, I don't think the article should shy away from including criticisms of Barrett/QW that have appeared in RS's we already are using, such as Peter Chowka in the Village Voice article and Chopra in Time mag.

Hans, I certainly agree with your point about BLP, though I would urge you to strike that last sentence for the sake of civility. Ronz, do you think that WP really should shy away from citing mild epithet-hurling between public figures in what is essentially a political debate, when said exchanges are in RS's? I really don't think BLP is meant to go that far, and am sure we can find ample precedent for Hans' and my position in articles about other public figures. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I would strike the last sentence if this behaviour wasn't typical for Ronz. I can understand if you don't like such clear language on your talk page, but given Ronz' general pattern of dealing out generously but demanding refactorings of any bit of criticism going his way I am not willing to strike it myself – he might take this as an admission that it was an attack, which it was not. You are very welcome to strike it yourself, though. Sorry for the complication. Hans Adler 00:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The article currently has no mention of Chopra. The reference mentions him in, "Deepak Chopra he dismisses as a purveyor of "Ayurvedic mumbo jumbo." (Chopra, for his part, calls Barrett "a self-appointed vigilante for the suppression of curiosity.")" I don't think it deserves any mention in Quackwatch, given this context. --Ronz (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Given the context from the article, I just don't think something like this belongs in any article, and certainly not Quackwatch, where we have to hold closer to the relevant policies due to all the problems the article has had. --Ronz (talk) 01:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ronz -- thanks, I understand your preference and am not especially eager to press the matter, although I think the BLP rationale doesn't fly. If we're already citing things Barrett/QW say about others and vice-versa, I don't see why we should exclude Chowka or Chopra , since they're mentioned in articles already cited[8][9]. The only thing special about Chopra and Chowka compared to other things cited is that they're critical of Barrett/QW. Excluding them seems to invoke NPOV problems, doesn't it? I tend to be an inclusionist no matter whose ox is being gored. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to stick to discussing this specific instance: Using the source given, it would be a violation of NPOV to add it. It's barely mentioned in the article and Chopra's response is even placed in parenthesis by the author.

Now if we had better sources, we'd still have the BLP concerns. WP:Blp#Criticism and praise covers my concerns fairly well, along with "whether, even if true, it is relevant to an encyclopedia article about the subject" (In the "Reliable sources" section.) We don't want the article to become a WP:COATRACK. --Ronz (talk) 16:37, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It already is a WP:Coatrack. This article has "site reviews" that are blurbs from internet directories that take money for listing. There is one "site review" that QuackGuru added where it is a "note" which consists of a quote taken directly from the site (Google Power). I notice Ronz has said nothing about this. These are not site reviews. They need to be removed so that the Quackwatch article is less WP:CoatRack. Also, QuackGuru rearranged all the site reviews so that the positive ones were first, and the few with both positive and critical comments were last - with the edit summary of NPOV!. [10] LOL. Sometimes he is funny. Then he added more positive "reviews" on top, bumping any negative review down further.[11]. Also, the Waltraud Ernst review is erroneous. IMO, the site reviews need to be ordered so that the more comprehensive reviews are first, then the blurbs follow. If you wish, we can continue this on the Quackwatch talk page --stmrlbs|talk 17:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)