User talk:ජපස

AMNH Tour

I am not going to be there for it, thanks though. See you at the meet! michfan2123 (talk) 03:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey ScienceApologist, I am not interested in the AMNH tour so much, but the CU library tour was tantalizing... what are the odds of that happening still? • Freechild'sup? 04:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am still trying to find out if I can get anyone behind the scenes in "my" sections of AMNH. As far as I can tell, the paleontology section will not be a possibility because it seems that no senior staff members will be in on that Sunday to "sign off" on it. I will try for invertebrate zoology, but that may well be the same problem. (Of course if there is anything in the public parts of the museum I can talk people through I will do so, but it could be that the astronomy stuff will take up all of the time available.) In any case if you ScienceApologist have any suggestions I will be glad to consider them. Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 14:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I am so psyched about this. AMNH & Hayden have been one of my loves since I was in grade school, and I visited them the first time in the 1950s. However, I am desolated about the destruction of the old Hayden Planetarium from 1935. It was a wonderful and beautiful building, and I hated to see it replaced by something so high tech. It's harder to find references to the Hayden now, since it seems overshadowed by Rose. Sorry if you all feel differently, but I have a thing for old buildings. Thanks so much for all this work in setting it up. — Becksguy (talk) 04:08, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

I am just popping in to wish you and yours a very Happy and Healthy holiday! May 2008 bring everyone a wonderful year. Happy editing! --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wishing you the very best for the season - Guettarda 04:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes the good guys stand up

I hope you got a chance to read what Guy said here. Sometimes it's worth the effort. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

2004 DoE panel on cold fusion

2004 DoE panel on cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a personal essay on why the panel is wrong by a cold fusion advocate, and needs cleaning up. Can you help? Guy (Help!) 12:37, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Can't argue with science...

		The Original Barnstar
		And so it was spoken that "...The null hypothesis was rejected; SA is richly deserving of a Barnstar...", and behold, a barnstar fell from the heavens! — Dihydrogen Monoxide (Review) 00:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Force

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Force you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. I have just begun the review of the article, it may take a little while to completely finish. SriMesh | talk 01:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Force article

Sure, I'd be glad to help on the force article, but I may not be able to get around to anything these next week as I am pretty busy, I'll just do what I can. For the free body diagram on the article, I have made a quick beta, just tell me what you think of it and what else needs to be done: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Beta_of_Freebodydiagram2_pn.png Also, we probably should fix the the Free body diagram article as everything there is labled as Weight. -- penubag  02:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

For you

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Because every time a fringe view gets undue weight the wiki dies a little. Guy (Help!) 09:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Hint: the answer is both

Which is more annoying/disruptive: Inventing new physics terms ("thermodynamic history") or abusing difficult to understand physics concepts ("quantum" anything)? Antelan ^talk 09:51, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Incivility

Regardless of what you think of the edits of others, the incivil language used in this edit and its summary are not acceptable. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

His comments were an accurate description. The concepts Whig is trying to push are indeed "garbage" and "drivel." No need to sugar-coat it; to do so might imply that those concepts have a tiny shred of credibility, which they do not. Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

lol tell that to the ArbComm--feline1 (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed uncivil to label another's editor's edits as "garbage" and "drivel". Obviously. Dlabtot (talk) 19:37, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's outright garbage and drivel you just wrote, Dlabtot. Sometimes people write garbage and drivel. I myself have done it. Have I just now been uncivil to myself? God, I think sometimes the civility plea is so lame! ScienceApologist (talk) 19:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

LOL. To answer your question, yes, it is rude and uncivil to purposely repeat rude and uncivil behavior, in a conscious effort to offend and annoy others. Dlabtot (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not consciously trying to offend or annoy. In fact, I believe what I'm trying to do is describe. Is civility now purely in the eye of the beholder? I thought intent was important. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not really incivil to call a spade a spade... -- RG² 19:47, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not in any way uncivil to mercilessly edit fringe viewpoints inserted into an article. It is not in any way uncivil to demonstrate why they are fringe theories and in what way they contradict basic principles of science. Wikipedia policies are pretty clear, however, about insulting people or their edits. Dlabtot (talk) 19:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about anybody else, but this is the first I heard that we aren't allowed to "insult" people's edits. I mean, sometimes people make bad edits. Am I simply not supposed to talk about it? Or am I supposed to lie and say that they aren't bad when they bring them up on the talkpage? Seriously, are we going to resort to policing civility that carefully? Funny, I thought that Wikipedia was not censored. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is true that insults are uncivil. Not just in wikispace but in all contexts. This is a basic concept of social interaction - so basic that I deem it to be beyond my ability to explain to you. Dlabtot (talk) 20:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, as they say in my discipline, if you can't explain it then you might as well be wrong. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering the level of success you've enjoyed in attempting to explain things to Whig, you might want to reconsider the utility of that adage. Dlabtot (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no convincing true believers. I explained myself perfectly well. If he likes to stick shit in his ears and bury his head in the sand, that's his problem. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for passing Europa's GA

But Sandy Georgia has commented on the talk page that the pass was incomplete. Not sure what needs to be done so if you could connect with her on the issue, I'd appreciate it. Once again, thank you very much! Serendi^podous 18:08, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Howdy, and general discussion on Civility

Howdy. Saw your post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rational Skepticism re discussion of appropriate sources at Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!? and commented on that. Came here to say hi. Saw some discussion of Civility issues on this page.
I've been discussing Civility with various Wikipedia editors lately, and have come up with a "boilerplate" paragraph to use when the topic comes up -- User_talk:Writtenonsand#Civility.
IMHO at its most basic Wikipedia:Civility comes down to, "Participate in a respectful and civil way. ... Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress."
Another way to consider it is as a question of rhetoric: It's one thing to be right, and it's another thing to convince people that you're right. Civility is a useful technique for helping to convince people -- and on the other hand incivility is quite likely to make it more difficult to convince others that we're right.
It's also extremely important to remember that civility is not a 1-on-1 matter -- every post on Wikipedia is likely to be read by dozens of anonymous users, and anything that makes us look good by comparison with those who disagree with us might help to convince them that we're right. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 22:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If you spent more time dancing with the fringe theorists, you might change your step. I actually find it refreshing when people invoke WP:SPADE, because it's a reminder that there are people who actually understand and cherish (insert topic here) enough to become righteously angry. Antelan ^talk 11:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

'righteous anger' has no place at Wikipedia, obviously. Dlabtot (talk) 17:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I second that. These editors that take it upon themselves to "defend" a position, be that a mainstream position or not, are at the same fault as those that defend fringe theories. There is no need for "vigilantism" in Wikipedia, as there are many resources available to us: the extended community of editors. Ask for help instead of fighting the hordes alone. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would even venture and say that these attempts to be the "sole defender of science", or "calling a spade a spade", are counterproductive. SA: you may consider the possibility that you may be doing more harm than good with your attitude. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, no, no. SA is doing a service with the attitude that is brought to each one of their edits. When you coddle these fringe POV pushers for too long, pages get completely destroyed. For example, look at the homeopathy article. And every article on intelligent design. Or the articles on creationism. Or maybe the articles on astrology. All of these articles are in a state of constant attack from people who don't have to worry about constructively editing because we, at Wikipedia, don't want to hurt their feelings by invoking WP:SPADE and would rather nurse them along until they are eventually banned for being a sock or a DE but only after they have pissed off the royal lot of editors minding the pages in question. When people are hellbent on believing their own fringe beliefs, no amount of civility will ever convince them otherwise. Baegis (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Jossi here. Not because I give a damn about the delicate sensibilities of fringe POV-pushers, but because in the long run it's a more effective strategy to take the high road. If "our side" stays civil, it makes "their side" look even worse when we go through RfC, ANI, and so on. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Baegis, your rejection of WP:CIVIL is duly noted. However, it remains Wikipedia policy. Raymond arritt, I would also like to note that Wikipedia is not a battleground. You might want to remember that when you start thinking in terms of 'your side' and 'their side'. Dlabtot (talk) 19:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

For interest's sake, I'd love to know the extent of your involvement in contentious scientific topics. As a neophyte, I thought the same way you do. There is no a priori "us", nor is there an a priori "them." After months of editing, though, things do roll that way on certain topics. For what it's worth, this same mentality does not carry over between "sides" when they co-edit non-contentious articles. The mentality is topic-specific. Antelan ^talk 19:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground is not my opinion, it's an official Wikipedia policy. I acknowledge the fact that it is a policy that you are having difficulty following. Dlabtot (talk) 20:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that a single editor is doing any "service" to the project by purporting to represent and defend a POV in this manner. Wikipedia is a community of people, and when an editor becomes a "lone ranger" it sends the message that the community is not relevant, weak, and incapable to stand up to challenging disputes. Any such editor is in fact diminishing the community and the project by that type of lone ranger behavior and mind-set. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

^ And this comment applies equally to a 'posse' as it does to a 'lone ranger'. Dlabtot (talk) 20:53, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

He's not a lone ranger. There are a few others willing to take a stand, but they are too few, and too easily discouraged when faced with aggressive nonsense. Editors who tenaciously promote the idea that Immanuel Velikovsky was a great scientist, that we can use tape recorders to talk to dead people, or that the science behind global warming is a sinister UN plot (all of which I have encountered) are not building a better Wikipedia. To pretend otherwise is madness. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Editors who are unwilling to abide by Wikipedia policy are not building a better Wikipedia. To pretend otherwise is madness. Dlabtot (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but see, one can engage the swarm and abide by policy. That's the best way. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy also includes IAR, a lovely paradox that makes it impossible ever to be in full compliance with WP policy. This is intentional. Antelan ^talk 22:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If we really took Wikipedia:Civility at face value it would be unenforceable and therefore meaningless, because banning a violator would be "personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress" and thus uncivil. I like ScienceApologist's philosophy better than how he puts that philosophy into practice. Art LaPella (talk) 22:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who believes they are 'engaging the swarm' is clearly not assuming good faith. And Wikipedia policies are not meaningless or paradoxical. Dlabtot (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

<RI arbitrarily> What the hell is civility? Who decides what is civil and what is not? Why be civil, whatever the hell that means, to anyone proposing that Aliens have invaded the earth, that Bigfoot exists, that some supernatural being created the world 10,000 or so years ago, or that a superdilution of chemicals has any effect on the human physiology? Civility is a matter of interpretation, used by individuals to suppress ideas. This is well known. Nazis did it very well. I stand by ScienceApologist and others on this point. It's time to stand up to bullshit with verifiable, reliable, and widely accepted sources for anything written here. And those who chose not to do so, do not deserve anything but our absolute scorn. If they want to write bullshit, go to Conservapedia. If you want to write that Homeopathy violates every law of science (and I dare say every law of ethics), then that's a POV that is supported by a vast wealth of research. And if you have to be a little less civil because the other side relies upon Wikipedia legal system rather than reliable sources, then I say "fuck them" and get them out of the project. As Raymond said above, to do otherwise, is insanity. (OK, I paraphrased Raymond.) OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Free body diagrams completed

File:Option1 Freebodydiagram2 pn.png

Option 1

Option 2

Option 1 is simply what we have with the changed m*g, as suggested. Option 2 is where all instances of W is replaced with m*g. If Option 2 is chosen, I will fix some text alignment in the picture and the Freebody diagram article. Which one do you think we should use? Is there some further suggestions?

Also as another note, I got some work done over at the Force article, including adding additional images. I marked them over at the Talk as such.-- penubag  21:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:WQA alert

Be advised, I've posted an alert on WP:WQA. Dlabtot (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey S.A! I just saw something posted over at WA. I checked the difs that Dlabtot posted. I think there might be some minor issue. If I can be bold to suggest: be a little more careful with some of your comments that might be misinterpreted as judgmental of the editor. I say this because, as my momma used to say: you can kill more flies with poisoned honey than with poisoned vinegar.

Having said that, I went back and looked through the entire Talk Page, and I can see why you may have written what you did. Keep fighting the good fight. I think it was Donald Sutherland playing "X" in JFK who said "Fundamentally, people are suckers for the truth. And the truth is on your side, Bubba." Peace! LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a great XKCD comic on this topic: Flies. Antelan ^talk 04:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

You are being discussed here. Cardamon (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

This was renamed to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#ScienceApologist.2FMartinphi. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom restriction violation

You and User:Martinphi have both been blocked for violation of arbcom restrictions. See [1] for more details. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ජපස (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block by User:Rlevse was done despite my attempts [2] [3] to communicate with the user about his opinions vis-a-vis arbcomm restrictions. This admin has consistently ignored my requests for clarification, and, indeed, simply reiterated points without providing explanation. The admin then proceeded to block me without providing justification any more than a link to a rather extended discussion at arbcomm enforcement. I note that this discussion does not seem to indicate a consensus was reached one way or the other regarding arbcomm enforcement, and it was a discussion to which I was not privy. I see this as being nothing short of an administrator over-stepping his bounds and blocking without regard for procedure. I should be allowed to offer defense for supposed breaches of "incivility" and "personal attacks", something I was not permitted to do when the block was initiated. I fully reject the claim that rules of civility and personal attacks were breached by myself (see below in #Regarding civility and #Regarding NPA), so I ask for the following:

1. I be given an opportunity to defend myself against the accusations that I violated my arbcomm restrictions.
2. Rlevse respond to my queries I left regarding both warnings that were placed on my talkpage.
3. Rlevse get consensus before blocking like this in the future: especially when there is a controversial matter as this.

I'll also note that I'm currently trying to oversee the improvement of the force article which is under a deadline as well as organize the Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC meeting that is happening in two weeks from today. This block severely hampers my ability to contribute in these areas totally unrelated to the arbcomm. I also believe that User:Rlevse acted without proper consultation on the matter as I can see no other corroborating administrator.

ScienceApologist (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You are more than welcome to make your case here, on your talk page, but as per the Arbcom restrictions, the block is perfectly justified; any instance of incivility is just cause for a block. As an aside, stating that the blocking admin should be recalled over this isn't the best way to garner support or sympathy for your situation; it comes across as vindictive. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with my own comment) Arbcom rulings are factual and functional, the end of a long trail of dispute resolution. The ruling is intended to end the patterns of behavior that led to such a trail of dispute, and users are expected to take them as such. If breached, enforcement is usually going to be the norm that might be expected.

The decision after that is simply, do DIFFs of your editing show breach of those rulings. They do, clearly. The blocker has shown this and I concur the diffs evidenced are diffs showing incivility and the like. You have gone through the entirety of dispute resolution and the conclusion was you have spoken uncivilly and assumed bad faith unhelpfully, and that this was then directed to end. The length of block is reasonable, within the ruling, and not excessive.

I do hope you will discuss (civilly) and take on board what arbcom and community norms both say about these things. Anything you can achieve in your good editing (which I have experienced and found very productive I should add) will not benefit from incivility, nor will uncivil speech gain anything that could not have been gained equally without it. In many ways your editing is fine and above average, and usually not a problem. Your tendency to an problematic style of conduct is what is at stake here. Decline, with regrets. — FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I would appreciate you quote a diff that is supposedly incivil or assumes bad faith as I wholly reject the notion that this is the case. Further, is it right that an admin refuse to address my questions about warnings after being made? I find that attitude more than dismissive: it's unhelpful to the project. Finally, what's to be done about the unrelated activities that I coordinate? Are they to simply be canceled for want of an ability to communicate? ScienceApologist (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(Responded below - edit conflict) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding civility

[4]

This is the quotation:

How can you narrowly define the "subject" of the article to simply be the movie and nothing else? If we write an article about the theory of relativity, does that mean including a reference to a biography of Einstein is original research? How ridiculously fatuous can an argument get?

The point here is that one can make a fatuous argument following from this line of reasoning. I see nothing uncivil about me calling an argument I construct ridiculously fatuous.

[5]

This is the quotation:

Some critics who are in the know don't bother "calling them" on their inaccuracies because they are too stupid to warrant comment. See below.

The point here is that there are some critics who refuse to talk about things because they themselves consider the things to be too stupid to warrant comment. How is this incivility?

[6]

This is the quotation:

You obviously didn't do a very good job in my estimation, which is why I want you to explain what I consider to be a poorly considered position.

This is an honest assessment of Slrubenstein's contribution to that discussion. Note that I hold Slrubenstein in high regard, I just found that particular contribution to be poorly considered. How is this uncivil? Is disagreement and calling someone's argument "poor" now uncivil?

In short, I don't buy it, I don't think I violated my restrictions.

ScienceApologist (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Regarding NPA

[7]

This is the quotation:

"But I have no idea why you have a problem with me. Maybe you're upset that I criticized your attempt to get a "compromise" wording about the review by the pharmacist on QW. Maybe you're upset that I wasn't involved in the fake "consensus" discussion that you had with yourself, Levine, Anthon01, and a number of other alt-med POV-pushers. You seem to have a very short fuse and have hit upon me as someone you want to take down. I'm sorry, but I don't know why you decided things got so personal. Can you explain?"

This blows me away. I thought I was exhibiting traits of magnanimity in this post. Where is the indication that I am making a personal attack?

[8]

This is the quotation:

"It is becoming increasingly clear to me that a concerted group of paranormal POV-pushers including User:Dreadstar, User:TimidGuy, User:Nealparr, and User:Martinphi are holding this article hostage in order to prevent meaningful information about the subject matter to be presented to the reader. I have therefore added the NPOV tag to encourage broader realization of these problems. In particular, I think that there has been a lot of good information removed from the article since July 2007 that has been excised simply to allow for a sympathetic rather than a neutral point-of-view. This is wholly unacceptable according to WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. The scientific community owns quantum mechanics and the interpretations of it. This needs to be made clear in this article. Currently it is not."

I stand-by this evaluation and others corroborated it. Assuming bad faith would be coming to another article where these editors did not have an editing history as I described and automatically assuming that they were out to have agenda-driven editing practices against NPOV. But is if evidence is presented that people are acting in a certain way, how can it possibly be "assuming" bad faith if they actually are demonstrating their behaviors? I also point out that these issues of WP:OWN require that we discuss who we believe the problematic group to be. Is it really a personal attack to point out the evidence-based affiliations of the group of editors who are acting in a way that is contrary to our stated goals as an encyclopedia?

[9]

This is the quotation:

Voting (not a measure of consensus)

Note that I object to the enfranchisement of more than a few of the people voting "no" as obvious disruptive editors and POV-pushers.

This was just an reiteration of my concerns about the way the listing was being conducted for the RfC. We all know that consensus means that voting is evil. My complaints about POV-pushers and disruptive editors attempting to stack the vote were corroborated by others. I presented my evidence above. How is this a "personal" attack?

In short I do not buy it, I don't think I violated my restrictions.

ScienceApologist (talk) 04:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Section break (continuation from unblock discussion)

(edit conflict) Calling another editor's argument ridiculously fatuous, or telling one editor that it would be nice if user:X would cut out that crap are two diffs cited by the admin that are uncivil. Those two diffs, regardless of others, evidence that the breach of ruling took place. If this is not clear then please understand it is our view of what the word entails, and make arrangements to not breach it more, even if it is not the word you would use. The rule here is you seek consensus; if you can't get it, seek advice or dispute resolution, but stay civil - which is about manner of speech, not agreeing or differing. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 04:49, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I was calling an argument I made ridiculously fatuous. Secondly, I did think that it would be nice if the user would "cut out that crap" with regards to his continued personal attacks. So I still fail to see how either of these things can be considered breaches of civility/NPA. If someone had told me that "cut out that crap" was a problem, I'd have struck-it-through since I was writing that lightheartedly in reference to the continued ridiculous POV-pushing at that page perpetuated, in part, by said user. But now that I'm blocked, I'm not even permitted to do a simple thing as that. Your last two sentences about "the word" totally confuse me and also your vague reference to "our view" is extremely confusing. I'll note that I tried to get input from Rlevse about his view and he ignored me. Why can't I get someone to answer my questions when I ask them? ScienceApologist (talk) 04:54, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The reason you ended up art arbcom is summed up here, evidenced in your words and understanding: "I did think that it would be nice if the user would 'cut out that crap' ... so I still fail to see how [it] can be considered breaches of civility ... If someone had told me that 'cut out that crap' was a problem, I'd have struck-it-through"

And therein lies the problem. I thought it was right so that made it okay to say it that way. If someone had said that to me I wouldn't have minded. But here whether it's right or not, it must be said with civility, and whether or not you would easily strike out a crude expression is not rationale to assume others should have to handle it too. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, but the versions are identitical?!?!)I'm really confused now. I don't know how it wasn't said with civility. Can you explain. You even say you don't have a problem with it. Does that mean you think it is civil but others don't? Who sets this weird standard of civility? ScienceApologist (talk) 05:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'll further point out that I did not get a chance to defend myself before the block was in-stated. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Correct. An obvious and clear breach of a norm does not always need discussion. As also stated, arbcom rulings are non-trivial things. They are the end of the line on behaviors that no lesser measure has managed to convey are not okay on the wiki. The arbcom ruling is "don't do that, this is what will happen if you do". If disagreed, there is unblock appeal. But in this case consensus seems to disagree with the view proposed. May I suggest instead of seeking to argue the block that's gone... look at the broader picture? This block isn't for fun. It's because nobody has any better idea how to explain "you don't speak these ways here" that you have at times made a habit. It's that simple. Just learn what's needed, and genuinely change, and it's in the past. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you please explain what aspect of each of the six offending diffs should be changed? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Though Rlevse provided six diffs in his blocking summary on the noticeboard, some of them were a bit of a stretch, as he took Martinphi's bait and failed to separate commentary on content from commentary on other contributors. These diffs were made even weaker by the fact that you weren't afforded an opportunity to explain them. However, your block isn't going to be lifted, since you clearly called other editors disruptive and accused them of being POV pushers.

Remember, when fringe theorists disrupt Wikipedia and push a ludicrous point of view, we can't actually say they're disrupting Wikipedia and pushing a ludicrous point of view. Please realize that it's more important to coddle trolls than to spend time doing something productive. -- RG² 05:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC) This statement is profoundly unhelpful, and knowingly so. It's also "disruption intended to make a point". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

In contrast to FT2, I support this characterization. I think that this is exactly what's happening here. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Confusion with edit conflicts

I think that User:Evula and User:Jossi are trying to edit this page, but I cannot see their edits. Is there something wrong with how mediawiki handles a blocked editor writing on their own talkpage?

Dunno... But you have deleted EVula's decline notice four times already.... ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No. Use "show changes" next time; if it shows that you're removing a large chunk of text, copy what you've said, go back to the talk page, and hit edit again, that way you're not removing the denial notice again. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am using show changes. These two edits came up with an edit conflict, but I don't see any other changes... what's going on?

Stop editing from diffs (clear out whatever you're looking at by just clicking your "discussion" tab) and there shouldn't be any more edit conflicts. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:16, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have an EC, do not hit save. Is that simple. Copy Your Text to the clipboard, go back to the talk page and click edit again. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally saw what you were trying to put in, Evula. It turns out that you were commenting on an earlier version of the unblock request. I'm restoring a more current version and since I notice that your decline is to the previous version, much of what you are trying to say is actually irrelevant. Please provide new rationale. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Unblock templates

Due to the fact that you're continuing to use {{unblock}} even after multiple declines, I have protected your talk page for the duration of your block. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 05:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Per email, SA was confused by edit conflicts and was not intentionally abusing the unblock template. Page unprotected (good faith and all that). Thatcher 06:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What is civility?

I was wondering what exactly is civility, and why we use it as a tool to control one another on here. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (I find online dictionaries to be particularly worthless), civility is Behaviour proper to the intercourse of civilized people; ordinary courtesy or politeness, as opposed to rudeness of behaviour; decent respect, consideration. You see, that's about the most subjective group of words I've ever read. Behaviour I understand. Intercourse, I also understand. Civilized people. Not so much. Ordinary courtesy or politeness? No clue what that is. Rudeness? Yeah sometimes. In other words, I cannot tell what is civility.

I used to deal with patients. I'd work on their coronary arteries, and find them smoking outside of the hospital. I would say, "if you want to fucking kill yourself, take a knife, a slice your worthless wrists." To me, I was being about as civil as I could command. What I wanted to do was shove the cigarette up their ass. Nine time out of ten, I'd get yelled at by the patient or family. One time out of ten, they'd be scared into ceasing their smoking (at least while in the hospital). Civilized people don't smoke after getting an angioplasty. Some might disagree, some might agree. But what was civil?

I live in California. We don't honk our horns at the car in front of us 2 nanoseconds after the light turns green. In New York, you get one nanosecond. What's civility there?

So SA is getting blocked for 72 hours. Some of you more aggressive and judgmental admins think that's appropriate (but you probably think he deserves more). Some admins are too frightened to stand up to this subjective interpretation of rule. And some admins may not care one way or another. But it is unfair that SA gets blocked based on an interpretation of events, some of which were specious, some of which were intemperate as a result of goading of another editor (whom I also think doesn't deserve blocking, but who does need to get a grip on reality).

I think this block is ridiculous. SA is a strong, intelligent editor of this project. And since I expect my block to be coming within the next 10-14 days, I'll state this very plainly. The POV-bullshit from certain quarters is getting out of hand. NPOV is being violated in so many areas, and we are fighting so hard to to keep it NPOV, that it is getting frustrating. Actions against SA is causing the burn-out of good editors. The POV warriors win through attrition. And because most admins now are "elected" based on the ability to fight vandals and not really do anything special rather than provide any sort of leadership (and leadership takes risks, takes integrity and takes teamwork), no one stands with the individuals that have to fight the POV warriors. So instead of someone jumping on the POV warriors, so you don't burn out editors like SA, you leave them alone. The admins that used to take a stand (there used to be a few dozen, but I noticed more and more are leaving, and a lot more are keeping low) are scared of the supporters of the POV-warriors.

So guess what? SA and others get frustrated by this and leave. We have other things to do in life. SA has a real life doing real things. I do the same. If I don't play around here, I'm still who I am. And Wikipedia gets to be known as the tool of the risk-averse. The place to find useless articles. Where Dinosaur spends several paragraphs discussing how Noah brought the Dinosaurs with him on the Ark. Or where other articles let you know that a salve of ear-of-bat and eye-of-newt will cure non-Hodgkins lymphoma, because someone heard about it, then read it in the Journal of Junk Science.

So, I know you all will pat yourself on the back, congratulating each other for keeping Wikipedia safe from the incivility of ScienceApologist. But you actually did nothing, but make the project worse. Someone will replace him, fight your administrative bureaucracy and milquetoast decisions, and also get burned out. I hope you all are proud of your actions. I'm embarrassed by each and every one of you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

If you don't like the civility policy, the best place to suggest changes to it would probably be at WP:CIVIL. Dlabtot (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the response of 9 out of 10 should be you guide as to civility. Anthon01 (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No. But thanks for asking. Since someone will accuse me of incivility let me rephrase. Why? I have read it, and I'm kind of insulted that you didn't assume I had. But I'll get over it, which is a big part of the point of the policy. Moreover, if the policy is read carefully, it is full of subjective, judgement calls. My point exactly. One person's incivility to one admin will be another person's normal conversation to another admin. How can admins make the judgement call? Are they smarter than me? And others? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

You've said that you can't tell what civility is. I believe you. But I didn't accuse you of incivility, nor did I say or imply that you haven't read WP:CIVIL. I'm sorry that I phrased my comment so clumsily that you were able to get that impression. What I meant was that if you believe the civility policy should be changed, you should actually participate at WP:CIVIL and attempt to achieve a consensus for the changes you envision. That's how Wikipedia works. Dlabtot (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you. We try to define civility, but there is NO definition that fits all the time. Someone mentioned above that my example of 9 out of 10 patients complaining about my civility. I'd go back to them to apologize, but they're all dead. Sorry. My point exactly. As for biting my tongue, why? Why should anyone spend 2 seconds trying to consider what is or isn't civil (and biting your tongue, which is going to be raw after awhile). Again, what makes civility? You can tell me to "fuck off", and I'd laugh. And I agree with everyone's comment. There is no place for personal attacks. I consider civility and personal attacks to be separate. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually there really does exist a consensus at Wikipedia on the question of "What is civility?. The fact that you do not agree with that consensus changes nothing. Consensus does not require unanimity. Dlabtot (talk) 20:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

OM: Your are arguing the exceptions to further your point and ignoring the rule. If you focus on the rule I'm sure you'll find civility most of the time, or 9 out of 10 times. Wikipedia isn't going to expire, because you haven't been allowed to uncivilly address editors who you deem deserve it. Anthon01 (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Whilst some points are valid, the thrust of this as a whole seems misguided. The fact there is some grey in the middle is not a terminal problem. The wider world of respected, authoritative science publications do have a view on civility. It is represented by the odds of Professor A getting his/her letter published by Nature or The Lancet if it starts "Dear Sirs. It would be nice if Professor B didnt talk crap". FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Very well spoken, OrangeMarlin, but I do agree with FT2's points. Creating a hostile environment by using insults, ridicule and personal attacks is not the way to go - it does far more harm than good, no matter how great of a job the editor is doing otherwise. ScienceApologist definitely crossed the line with his remarks, and is under ArbCom sanction for doing so in the past. As Jimbo put it, "all editors should always endeavor to treat each other with kindness, or else find another hobby. When we put up with this kind of behavior, we enable a hostile environment that drives away good people. We should be gentle, but firm: this kind of behavior is not allowed at Wikipedia." I fully support this block, and I hope ScienceApologist can contribute to Wikipedia without being uncivil, he made some excellent and valuable contributions. Dreadstar † 08:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

FT2, to my great amusement, they do this all the time, using synonyms of 'crap'. Dreadstar, science-minded editors notifying each other about problematic articles like What the Bleep is not canvassing. Your note to perfectblue, on the other hand, is perplexing. Antelan ^talk 08:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I guess let me put it this way. If an editor got into my metaphorical face and said, "your edit is fucking bullshit, it's not supported by that reference," I would read over it and if he were right so be it. I'm done. And I never once said there should be a hostile environment. Smart men and women, generally know where the line lies. It is the anti-social or dysfunctional sociopath who does not. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:42, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think ultimately the answer to "what is civility?" is biting your tongue when you really don't want to. Everyone wants to tell someone to go fuck themselves at some point, but if we all did it would read like the comments at YouTube. Comments at YouTube are not meaningful because users there talk shit just for personal amusement. That was my issue with SA's incivility. It wasn't that I was particularly offended by it. It's that, geeze, what makes him so special that I have to keep my comments to myself but he doesn't? I'd like to go around telling people off too. But if we all did it, nothing would ever get done. It'd look like YouTube. I've been rude here before and told people they just don't know what they're talking about. I try not to make a habit of it. Usually what snaps me out of it is when I realize I'm the only one being rude. If everyone else is biting their tongue, where do I get off taking the liberty in saying what I really want to say? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 10:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you. We try to define civility, but there is NO definition that fits all the time. Someone mentioned above that my example of 9 out of 10 patients complaining about my civility. I'd go back to them to apologize, but they're all dead. Sorry. My point exactly. As for biting my tongue, why? Why should anyone spend 2 seconds trying to consider what is or isn't civil (and biting your tongue, which is going to be raw after awhile). Again, what makes civility? You can tell me to "fuck off", and I'd laugh. And I agree with everyone's comment. There is no place for personal attacks. I consider civility and personal attacks to be separate. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

There's several reasons for biting your tongue even if you don't want to. Even if it's not a personal attack, and not damaging to the project as a whole, and even if you don't care about the person's feelings or whatnot, people just stop listening to someone who is negative, abrasive, or rude all the time. Eventually people simply stop listening to you, or don't take you seriously. So even if you really don't care about the receiving end, it's counterproductive to your own work at Wikipedia. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My personal goal on my Wikipedia editing civility is based not only on my own morality, but on the fact that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit…much less read. Would I say such things to my mother or grandmother, my ten year old niece (or any child for that matter), a priest, in a TV interview, in any live public forum such as a grocery store, a bus or subway? That’s the threshold I try to put on my civility.

I certainly wouldn’t be as insulting as some editors here seem to believe they have the right to be, much less use the f-bomb. The ability to remain civil under even the harshest conditions is a sign of self-control and true confidence.

There are a lot of public forums out there that welcome and encourage flame wars, Wikipedia is not one of these. Dreadstar † 09:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Resp to Antelan: Perplexing? First, I don't see what that has to do with this particular discussion. Second, it's simple; after seeing the canvassing (or notifying, whatever you want to call it - looked like canvassing to me), to at least five noticeboards or projects - including the very noticeboard mentioned in perfectblue's question, it seemed appropriate that I ask her what I did. Considering the views on Bleep, I have to wonder why WikiProject:Paranormal and WikiProject:Film weren't notified. Seems the right thing to do.... FT2's example in Nature is quite different than your "synonyms" rebuttal...if SA had been as careful, he wouldn’t have been sanctioned in ArbCom in the first place...much less blocked. It's irrelevant to Wikipedia anyway, violations of WP:CIV are not welcomed, no matter what Nature does or doesn't do..but it was a good example of external civility concerns... Dreadstar † 08:48, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Read what SA wrote in his messages and see if you think it is "written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion." or if it's acceptable canvassing. Dreadstar † 09:15, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with asking people that you work with to weigh in on an article. I don't think there's anything wrong with asking someone if they'd talk to their wikiprojects about an article. I do see it as perplexing that you would hammer SA for asking science enthusiasts to weigh in, while at the same time you would ask perfectblue to do the same among paranormal enthusiasts. Antelan ^talk 09:23, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Hammering? One little question to perfectblue that doesn't even mention names and you say I'm hammering SA? Can you please provide some diffs for this hammering I'm supposed to have done, I really don't recall doing such a thing. I agree, there nothing wrong with friendly notices such as you have described - however, there's a big difference between the wording of my single question and SA's multiple posts - that's where the problem lies. The fact that he posted to his work mates isn't the issue, it's the wording...and the fact that I thought other groups should have equal notification, as appropriate. Dreadstar † 10:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

What gave you the idea that I considered your post to perfectblue related to your hammering of SA? My point is that if you actually believe things are so straightforward, then you should have just notified the groups yourself instead of asking a third party to do so. You are an admin, no? Antelan ^talk 11:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Diffs please. As for your interpretation of my question to perfectblue, it is a distortion of my statement. This conversation is way off topic, SA was not blocked or otherwise sanctioned for violating WP:CANVASS, nor is this a civility issue, nor was I 'hammering' him. If you believe so strongly about this issue, then I invite you to take this up the chain. Dreadstar † 19:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Break

This is a symptom of a larger problem, in my view. We have become the number one most important place for proponents of fringe theories and minority views, to get those views across. There exists a significant number of editors whose mission on Wikipedia is to skew content to better reflect their POV.

SA is struggling against a double source of frustration:

First, the fact that the new age crap is its own little world with virtually no external referents, no proper treatment by the scientific mainstream other than to laugh and point. Many of these articles and subjects are of little if any interest to those well-informed and supportive of the mainstream, for reasons which have been discussed at many articles over the months. Put simply, the scientific mainstream has close to zero interest in subjects like intrinsic redshift, non-traditional cosmologies, films which promote new age cults by pretending to extrapolate from actual science - as far as the scientific mainstream is concerned, these things are palpable nonsense and not worth the ink. This is desperately frustrating if you are interested in the subject form a mainstream perspective - I have had the same problem with SafeSpeed, a "speedophile" advocacy group where the only really solid source that gave them enough credibility to point out the abject nonsense they promote was Which?, a consumer magazine. And we've seen the same on the 9-11 conspiracies, where much of the rebuttal relies on Popular Mechanics, the only journal that actually dignified the conspiracy twaddle with a response.

Second, consequent on the first, most of these articles attract only those who are here to promote the non-mainstream POV. Look around the articles under the paranormal WikiProject and you will see the same faces time and again. True believers, with no shortage of sources promoting the fringe and non-mainstream stuff, because (like Christian "rock" bands and Christian self-improvement books) they have their own cottage industry in promoting and discussing each other. The paranormal is essentially a belief system, but presented by adherents as if it were reality. And there are very few well-informed pro-science editors who watchlist these articles, which means that those who do are in a more or less constant state of seige. They feel isolated and under attack, and not without reason.

Martinphi is one of a small number of especially zealous promoters of the non-mainstream. It appears that this small group has worked out that in order to remove a substantial barrier to their mission, all they need do is continue to provoke SA until he snaps, and then complain, bringing up the ArbCom restriction. Martinphi's complaints are querulous in the extreme, which is why the current block also applies to him. The major difference between the two, IMO, is that if Martinphi were banned, the project would not suffer, whereas if SA were banned, many articles would rapidly descend into chaos.

So, what we need to do, for the encyclopaedia, is to build up a support network for editors defending NPOV on articles under sustained attack. This is not to doubt the good faith of those promoting the on-mainstream - they sincerely believe that they are right, just as young earth creationists sincerely believe they are right - but their view is not the mainstream view, and NPOV requires that the mainstream view is used as a benchmark and referent when discussing these topics.

We cannot fix the problem of people coming along to promote their agenda. We can fix the problem of editors feeling isolated and besieged when defending such articles against this (innocent, for the most part) promotion. We need to be much more supportive of isolated defenders of the Wiki.

Now of course I know this will be disputed by some, some people think SA is evil. I don't think that. I don't think Martinphi is evil either. I do think that when comparing the two, the fact that SA is promoting the scientific mainstream is a serious and important difference between the two, and I believe it is this that accounts for the much firmer sanctions against Martinphi in the ArbCom case. The farce of Martinphi bringing an incivil complaint to the admin noticeboard about SA's incivility, much of which was not actually incivil, is evident to many, I think. We will never get SA and Martinphi to agree or to view each other as anything other than enemies, at least not for a long time, so we'll have to help them to avoid their personal issues spilling over into endless complaints of "look at the nasty man". I don't think I'm alone in having very close to zero time for people who provoke others, whether deliberately or because they can't help it, and then complain about the reaction.

Here's one way we can help: if anyone thinks SA has been more blunt than necessary, I suggest leaving a note here inviting him to refactor the comment in question to be less aggressive. This would apply especially where there is some ambiguity as to whether he is addressing content or contributor. Several of the diffs presented by Martinphi int he thread that prompted this are examples of something that could be interpreted two ways; Martinphi (naturally) interpreted them the worst way possible. So let's help SA to avoid such querulousness by noting and assisting him in refactoring comments that might be misconstrued, even if the misconstruction would require a basis of an assumption of ill-faith. And SA can help himself by doing that. I'm happy to do what I can to help - Martinphi should never post here and absolutely never request SA to refactor anything, that will simply inflame things, but if Martinphi takes issue with SA he can leave a note on my talk and I will talk to SA. I think if we were to adopt a policy of actively toning down comments some might see as problematic, rather than continually calling for people to be banned for it, we may actually help to fix the source problem without risking damaging the project by allowing the hounding-out of one of the major activists in maintaining neutrality on fringe topics.

So: response to supposed incivil, aggressive or other problematic comments by SA should be to point out, politely and calmly, that they may be misconstrued. No mentioning ArbCom, no threats, no condescension, no weasel words, just "SA, I believe this comment might be misconstrued, please consider refactoring". I think it's worth a try. After all, anything else would probably be assuming bad faith. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This is desperately frustrating if you are interested in the subject form a mainstream perspective. But is the purpose of Wikipedia to present its subjects from that perspective? or is it about presenting . the point of view that is neutral, that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better.

If Wikipedia needs a "ScienceApologist" to save the project from the hordes of paranormal, conspiracy theorists, and chiropractors, Wikipedia is doomed. I argue that Wikipedia is viable without such editors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Your perspective is admirable in its idealism but does not square with reality. My own perspective is summarized here. Having said that, I do believe we should remain civil, because it ultimately works to our advantage. (The first person plural refers to editors in the reality-based community.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The sum of human knowledge includes all these viewpoints that we may see as repugnant, nuts, and all the rest. you know, but I agree with your assessment, Raymond. Only that we will prevail by sticking to our guns, and not degrade the nature of the debate. If this is an impossibility (which I sincerely doubt), then we are doomed as a project anyway. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, a subject which purports to be scientific, such as remote viewing, must be grounded by reference to its reception by the scientific establishment. Most of these subjects have some kind of claim; crystal healing, intrinsic redshift, "What The Bleep", alternative medicine articles, articles on ESP and telekinesis, all make claims rooted in essentially religious belief but which run counter to the known laws of physics. To describe them in their in-universe terminology without adding the mainstream perspective is a failure of WP:NPOV. In articles on religions, we make it plain that they are belief systems. Most of the contended articles are not really presented as such, they are presented as real concepts which lack proof - as indeed they are, and I believe such proof will never exist because most of it is no more grounded in reality than the average Elvis conspiracy theory. If something is described in terms which make it plain that there is absolutely no assertion that it is anything other than a belief held by a tiny minority then probably that would be sufficient, but most of these articles are not presented in such terms. As a Christian I find that some articles reflect the scientific rationalist perpsective rather too well, but in as much as any perspective can be described as neutral, then the scientific rationalist perspective is it, due to the rigours of publication and the scientific method. Guy (Help!) 17:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

This illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the WP:NPOV policy - which does not seek to present a 'perspective [that] can be described as neutral' but rather seeks to present 'fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)'. Dlabtot (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy, I do not think you would find any serious Wikipedian that would disagree with your statement To describe them in their in-universe terminology without adding the mainstream perspective is a failure of WP:NPOV. Of course we have to present the mainstream perspective (if there is one specific to the article in question). The issue is that "mainstream proponents" (for lack of a better world), do not have a upper hand in content disputes: both mainstream and alternative proponents have to work together in articles in order to achieve the ideals of NPOV. It can work, if we have a welcoming, kind, and strong platform for debate and one in which we are not afraid to take the necessary time to educate editors on the advantages of NPOV. Calling fellow editors, nutters or other such names will not accomplish that: it simply polarizes the situation and escalates to situations such as this one. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is the constant assumption of POV pushing or assumption of what editor's beliefs are. That's often the first reaction in content disputes, "Oh, you're a POV pusher or a true believer and as such you don't have a valid opinion on the subject." The real problem of having to adequately address both beliefs and scientific reality in a neutral way gets lost in the process. It's not a small problem we're addressing here. Sense and soul have been at odds with each other since people first started thinking about our place in the universe. As the sum total of human knowledge, Wikipedia wants to cover both, when both are always at odds with each other. Honestly, I've only seen a handful of actual agenda-driven editors, editors that are here to promote a product or sell a belief. Most (in my opinion) are in good faith trying their best to accomplish what has historically been an extremely difficult or even impossible task, to cover both sense and soul in one place. Most edits on these articles I've seen aren't POV pushing, they're reactions to a perceived POV push from across the aisle. It's a push back. That's why I believe in WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL as good principles. If there were actually a way to use them in practice a lot of problems on these articles would disappear. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 19:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Human beliefs are, in many cases, not human knowledge. Cardamon (talk) 20:41, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Another fundamental misunderstanding of our purpose here at Wikipedia, which is not, in the case of 'beliefs', to categorize some beliefs as 'knowledge' and other beliefs as 'not-knowledge', but rather, to present all significant views about those beliefs that have been published by reliable sources. Dlabtot (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Dlabtot, I think you may have misunderstood my previous comment, which did not even mention Wikipedia or its purpose. But, if you want to talk about the purpose of Wikipedia then, as regards the articles about science, I do agree that all significant verifiable points of view must be represented, but I do not agree that they should all have equal weight. I feel that this principle, from an earlier case in which ScienceApologist was involved, "1a) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience", should be more widely applied. To further address what Neal said, I also think the purpose of Wikipedia is to become a reliable reference encyclopedia, rather than the "sum total of human knowledge". In other words, if someone wishes to acquire knowledge of a subject, Wikipedia should not be the last stop on their journey, nor should it aspire to become the last stop on their journey. We can, however, aspire to become one of the earlier steps in their journey. Cardamon (talk) 21:39, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't explain what I meant very well. It's my opinion that beliefs are never knowledge (information), but rather conclusions based on knowledge. When I talk about beliefs, I'm talking about knowledge about beliefs. The "sum total of human knowledge" goal came off one of the policy or guideline pages around here. I forget which. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's in a policy or guideline, but it's a quote from the man himself, "Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." - Jimbo Wales. Dreadstar † 09:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is a symptom of a larger problem, in my view. We have become the number one most important place for proponents of fringe theories and minority views, to get those views across. There exists a significant number of editors whose mission on Wikipedia is to skew content to better reflect their POV.
• So, what we need to do, for the encyclopaedia, is to build up a support network for editors defending NPOV on articles under sustained attack.
• So let's help SA to avoid such querulousness by noting and assisting him in refactoring comments that might be misconstrued, even if the misconstruction would require a basis of an assumption of ill-faith. And SA can help himself by doing that.

I didn't write the above statements - Guy did. I just copied them from above. I wish I had said them though. I see a lot of wisdom and fraternity in them. I will certainly be reflecting on them for some time. It has been frustrating to see these events unfold. I like hearing a good suggestion put forth to help the situation. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Martinphi's poking of ScienceApologist and cherry picking of his edits to make him look bad is disruptive to the project, as is ScienceApologist's repeated incivility. The community does not need this behavior. It does not need their intolerance of each other's views either. What it needs is constructive behavior and edits from both. Repeated attempts at resolution with these two editors has failed. Both blocks are completely justified. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 22:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

• ScienceApologist is an adult. His goal is admirable, and should be the goal of everyone who wants to see Wikipedia held to high standards of quality. But he is responsible, by himself, for adhering to the community standards. If your crusade, in which he participates, is important then he should take the steps necessary to keep himself out of trouble - including taking responsibility for his own attitude and mood, and having the self-awareness to understand when he is close to losing his cool. No one needs to perform this function for him (although they can if they are so inclined). We edit in Wikipedia, but we live in the real world. You abide by community standards as much as you have to, or you suffer the consequences. Our standards are not that strict. You don't get blocked repeatedly, restricted by an ArbCom, etc. "because Martinphi made me do it". Period. If ScienceApologist can't handle it, someone else will eventually take over. There is no deadline. Avruchtalk 00:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Yes they are. But this is not about that, this is about how we can help SA not to get blocked again. We can't make him any less impatient with POV-pushing, that would require spuerhuman powers, but we can point out where he has used words that may be misconstrued or misrepresented (as Martinphi misconstrued or misrepresented some of his innocent remarks) and encourage speedy refactoring. Getting ticked is human nature, but this is a Wiki and we can go back and fix and refocus so that the productive remains and the unconstructive is removed. Remove the heat, with an "oops, sorry, got carried away" edit summary, and I think we'd all call that progress. It's less clear to me how one would fix Martinphi's querulousness before he finally gets banned, and I am ashamed to have to admit that I don't actually care. Guy (Help!) 00:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
• Something that's hard for a lot of people to accept is that civility is the most highly valued trait in Wikipedia, and that writing credible, well-referenced material is sort of nice but strictly secondary. There's also a tendency for some to sympathize with the pseudoscience and fringe types as the underdogs, allowing them to get away with things that mainstream-science editors more readily get called down on. The bottom line for the reality-based community is that to keep Wikipedia credible we have to accept the fact that unfailing civility, even toward those who deliberately provoke us, is the only way to go. We have to at least pretend to respect others even when we don't. Is that cynical and Machiavellian? Maybe. But there's no other way. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Sad but true. Every time some fringe subject is subtly rewritten to sound as if it's "the subject of controversy within science" rather than the rejected and unsupported concept that it actually is, the encylopedia dies a little. WP has become the premiere, cost-free opportunity for the fringe to lift itself from the bottom of the search engine pile and gain instant visibility and credibility. I've observed fringe-pusher accounts increase over the last year, and some have learned to skillfully play the system against itself. I'm disappointed that a magnificently productive contributor like SA is unable to check his more immoderate outbursts. But I'm more disappointed that the new emphasis on WP:CIV has created somewhat of a straightjacket that discourages spades being called spades and enforces a climate where everybody is compelled to act like pollyanna -- the classical naïve optimist who always expects people to act decently, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Very discouraging. In the limited time I have for Wikipedia, I'll stick to improving low-traffic noncontroversial technical articles. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Raymond and Lucky. You two have, more than all of the fringe-pushing twits that I've run across on this project, made points that just caused me to give up. For Raymond, I just realized how right you are, and it is not in my nature to lie in that way. I would rather tell someone that smoking will kill them than try to explain it. For LuckyLouie, you're right. Wikipedia is just a repository of bullshit. A bunch of us try to keep it out, but the great majority of editors here worry more about wiki-rules and wiki-regulations than in responsible writing or are in fact the fringe people that push their idea of NPOV on us. I thought I could change this place. But if civility matters more than writing credible, well-referenced material, well then let Wikipedia be the worse version of Conservapedia. At least those nutjobs know what they want. Screw it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:47, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

OM, I wouldn't go so far as to characterize Wikipedia as a repository of bullshit. One disturbing byproduct of the "AGF/CIV Over All" climate I have observed is that the battles continue and bitter opponents have evolved a form of newspeak which allows them to insult each other yet retain the appearance of CIV by using clever grammatical constructions laced with disclaimers. How strange. But I honestly believe that even with all its faults, WP is still a terrific project. As the song says, there's a time for everything, and my personal choice at this time is to avoid the drama. YMMV. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock Request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ජපස (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block by User:Rlevse was done despite my attempts [15] [16] to communicate with the user about his opinions vis-a-vis arbcomm restrictions. This admin has consistently ignored my requests for clarification, and, indeed, simply reiterated points without providing explanation. I submit that the block was administered through a misinterpretation of my actions and assumption of bad faith in terms of my edits. I note that current discussions do not seem to indicate that consensus was reached one way or the other regarding arbcomm enforcement, and it was a discussion to which I was not privy. I fully reject the claim that rules of civility and personal attacks were breached by myself (see above in #Regarding civility and #Regarding NPA)

I'll also note that I'm currently trying to oversee the improvement of the force article which is under a deadline as well as organize the Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC meeting that is happening in two weeks from today. This block severely hampers my ability to contribute in these areas totally unrelated to the arbcomm. A simple ban from certain article spaces would have been more appropriate if indeed arbcomm restriction violations occur (which, again, I wholly dispute). I also believe that User:Rlevse acted without proper consultation on the matter as I can see no other corroborating administrator.

ScienceApologist (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Block is justified. — Lara❤Love 18:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Are you going to respond to my queries? Can't I get an explanation? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

It appears to me that these questions have already been answered above. Lara❤Love 18:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

cold fusion

Please see talk:cold fusion, specifically the fork discussion, and let me know if you are aware of other sources to support what JohnAspinall says. I've asked for this apge to be unprotected so you can reply, I'm not sure why it's protected. Thanks, Guy (Help!) 00:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I asked LaraLove, she gave me permission to unprotect this but please tone down the rhetoric and don't use {{unblock}} again. The last thing we need is for your block to get extended or you to be banned. Rant to me by email instead, eh? You seen The Incredibles? You should know what happens when you segue :o) Guy (Help!) 00:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Why wouldn't she respond to me? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are some cold fusion resources regarding LENR:

• [10]
• [11]
• [12]

Notice that the titles of each of these mainstream articles and presentations is "cold fusion". It's the advocates who have changed the name in order to distance themselves from the bad-taste that many scientists got in their mouths from "cold fusion" as a topic.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ghost Light merge is backwards

Will-o'-the-whisps are forms of ghost lights, which have been reported all across this world for a long time, not ghost lights being forms of Western cultural will-o'-the-whisps, which effectively smacks of eurocentricism. The order needs to be reversed. EDIT: Also, upon further review, your merging them to begin with is incorrect, as will-o'-the-whisps are, as stated in the article, seen over bogs, but ghost lights have been reported over all kinds of terrain, specifically grassy plains and hilly mountainous regions (the Brown Mountain Lights being only one such example). --Chr.K. (talk) 13:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Will 'o the wisps aren't just in bogs. That is a popular misnomer repeated by certain sources due to their country of origin not having a lot of deserts. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Things that haven't been addressed

1. Why was I blocked instead of banned from specific article/talk spaces? Should I really be prevented from editing force and discussing the IRL meetup I'm helping to plan?
2. Is the unblock template really allowed to be used for 2 requests per year per block as it says it is?
3. Is there a way to discuss problems with individual users that isn't a personal attack? Please see #Regarding NPA in particular and tell me what I should have done differently.
4. What is civility? Is it always in the eye of the beholder? Please see #Regarding civility and tell me what I should have done differently.
5. Why didn't User:Rlevse respond to my queries?
6. What behavior on this page justified page protection?

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Some replies:

1. You where blocked as per the ArbCom restriction imposed on you;
2. Re-adding the unblock template after several admins rejected the request to unblock is grounds for protecting the page. That was explained to you several times. See the template pages which say: You may request another review, frequently up to a maximum of two per year per block, by adding another unblock request. As well as: Abuse of this template may result in your talk page being protected.
3. Of course. Just use tact and given the comments made above and elsewhere, be very cautious so that you are not perceived as attacking, diminishing, or flaming fellow editors;
4. Read the many comments made on the subject above;
5. You will need to ask him that question
6. Your insistence in challenging the block, by mis-use of the unblock template, and by ignoring the numerous warnings made.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Some re-replies:

1. Wouldn't it make more sense to allow me to work in the areas that are unrelated to the conflict?
2. I didn't readd the unblock template except when there were edit-conflicts and problems with the media-wiki software. I did not believe many of my concerns were addressed (and they continue to be ignored) and so I re-edited the unblock request and added it a second time per the rule that one may add an unblock template twice per year per block.
3. Can you respond regarding the specific instances?
4. They aren't conclusive. I believe that there isn't consensus on this issue. Again, can you respond regarding the specific instances?
5. He doesn't respond to me.
6. The unblock template was not misused. There have been no warnings issued on this page that I see.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally alerted you several times. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, as can be seen above, there was a problem with the Mediawiki software that prevented me from seeing your contributions due to the particular way the edit-conflicts are handled. The "replacement" of the unblock template was not intentional. What ever happened to assuming good faith? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

1. The ArbCom ruling specifically said that you would be blocked for violating your restriction. Not banned from particular articles, but blocked.

2. Not really sure what the issue is here.

3. Is there a way to discuss problems with individual users that isn't a personal attack? It depend on what you mean by 'problems with individual users'. Are you asking if there is a way for you to discuss what you perceive to be the shortcomings of other editors without it being a personal attack? The answer to that is probably not. But of course, on article talk pages, your perceptions of the shortcomings of other editors are completely off-topic, anyway.

4. Even if you don't agree with the Wikipedia consensus on civility, you still have to abide by the policy.

5. Rlevse is under no obligation to respond to you, of course. Especially if all you are doing is asking questions that have been already answered. Like the questions you ask in this section.

6. The page protection question being a good example. It's already been answered repeatedly. Dlabtot (talk) 19:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Completely non-responsive. I have six instances of violation which I responded to. No one has stated where my error was. You have ignored those parts of my queries.

One issue you did respond to was whether it is possible to discuss the shortcomings of other editors without it being a personal attack. This is very important because there are a lot of agenda-driven editors out there who consistently deny their positions. This is point number 2 under #Regarding NPA. Is it appropriate to simply bring these things up to the completely ineffective User:RfCs and let them fester until arbitration? Why can't we simply apply judicious use of WP:SPADE when dealing with editors who are so obviously driven to push their own POVs. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Despite your protestations to the contrary, your incivility has in fact been pointed out to you. Yes, those type of personal attacks are indeed personal attacks, and the proper way to resolve disputes is indeed the dispute resolution process. Dlabtot (talk) 19:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is getting nowhere fast. I can see all you want to do is repeat without explanation. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

To chime in, agenda driven editors are certainly in my opinion the biggest source of outright misinformation on wikipedia, and there is a weakness in the system when it comes to dealing with them. This is I feel a very important matter, since it is often very difficult for admins without a scientific backgrounds to realise the sometimes blatent nonsense with can be purveyed. There is currently no accepted way to say that a specific editor is simply completely deluded and so they are usually free to continue inserting misinformation, which makes editing sometimes feel like holding back the tide. This requires a community level review I feel.

That all said, it also appears to me that the unpleasant business of this block has been slightly mishandled. It's not a serious issue, but it is not proper to assume a petulant misuse of the unblock template by an experienced and well respected editor. Jefffire (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What can we do about this problem? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, just talk to try to form a consensus that it is a problem. Beyond that, a number of potential approaches come to mind. I think we need a specialised admin or user group specifically to look at purported scientific disputes, since most of the problems I have encountered have been about issues to which the scientific position was quite clear. That's perhaps slightly idealistic, and doesn't really address the issue of determined true believers. Jefffire (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec**2) To answer one of your questions -- no, we can't apply WP:SPADE without leaving ourselves open to WP:NPA. You, in particular, can't because your behavior is under a microscope. Is that fair? I'd say no. But it's how things are and we need to deal with it. We have no choice to be unfailingly civil, period, full stop. You'll be much more effective if the other guy is uncivil while your own conduct is above reproach. You may find it useful to reflect on this approach. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

So how do we handle it when editors who are clearly violating neutrality campaign to the point of confusion. Do we just let them have their way? One way for one's conduct to be "beyond reproach" is to simply avoid all conflict. There are obviously cases where a person experiencing a judo throw will consider that to be uncivil. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The way to handle it is by using the dispute resolution process. By the way, WP:CIVIL is a policy. WP:NPA is a policy. WP:SPADE is neither a policy, nor even a guideline. It's simply very poor advice. Following that advice in the future would be very likely to result in additional sanctions like the one you are experiencing now. I'd recommend following the advice in WP:NOSPADE instead. Dlabtot (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nah, the dispute resolution process doesn't work because this is the end result. There seem to be too many incompetent people in charge at Wikipedia making decisions that are based on superficial conduct idealizations rather than what is best for the encyclopedia. You haven't really been around long enough to see what I mean. It's okay. You'll learn in due time. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the dispute resolution process has worked perfectly in this instance. You violated your ArbCom restrictions against incivility and disruptive editing and were subsequently blocked. Dlabtot (talk) 20:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You know, for someone I just met a week ago, you seem to have a lot of opinions about me and the justice of this particular situation. I also notice that you seem to have taken an extreme interest in this case judging from your recent contributions. I notice you edited depleted uranium a lot. You don't happen to be named James by any chance? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my name is James. Dlabtot (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Rubbing salt into wounds is unseemly. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec**2, again...) We don't let them have their way, but respond by adding impeccable references and the like. All while remaining civil beyond Miss Manners' wildest dreams. I don't want to go into too much detail here but we have to use the system (including the so-called dispute resolution process) to our advantage, instead of letting them use it to their advantage. Too many of the reality-based editors have been giving the woo-woo artists free ammunition by engaging in uncivil conduct. We have to stop that. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that user:MastCell is quite deft at puncturing false arguments without coming close to personal attacks or incivility. Perhaps it would be useful to study his/her techniques. Cardamon (talk) 20:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The core of the problem at hand...

... is ScienceApologist recent comment above:

Nah, the dispute resolution process doesn't work because this is the end result. There seem to be too many incompetent people in charge at Wikipedia making decisions that are based on superficial conduct idealizations rather than what is best for the encyclopedia. You haven't really been around long enough to see what I mean. It's okay. You'll learn in due time. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If SA believes that, then his behavior is not surprising. Unless SA accepts Wikipedia norms, such as WP:DR, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:CIVIL, and the principles it represents... what can we do but end up were we are now? (i.e. the ArbCom restriction, and his latest block) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, you have always had a problem with me since we first interacted. I think the core problem at hand is that the community thought it wise to give you a mop and a bucket. Yeah, consensus can be a major problem, especially when consensus ends up being abused in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:V, for example. I really do find you to be arrogant and condescending and your administrative actions in many cases have been less than helpful. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Um, I don't think that helped. Maybe you do have a problem with Jossi, but there are much better ways of suggesting that you would prefer is someone left you alone. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The key is that he doesn't have to accept those norms, he just has to follow them. And SA, I have to disagree with you regarding Jossi. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Back during the issues with plasma cosmology Jossi had the audacity to revert and then protect the article in what could only be described as taking sides. I have never once seen Jossi do anything except oppose my activities on Wikipedia. I also know that I'm not the only person who finds fault with this behavior and this piling on by him seems a bit pottish. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand why you would see my comments as "arrogant", SA. Problem is that you need to look at the mirror, and the mirror is the feedback given to you by your fellow editors. The point is SA, that you can be an asset to this project, by making a commitment to work with others in a manner that really helps the project. As it stands, you are not helping much, are you? What do you think will be the next action against you if you continue in this manner: longer and longer blocks. How can you help the project if you are blocked from editing? Change, SA, change! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

What I don't like is the insinuation that I'm not helping the project as though it is solely my fault. You seem to think that I'm somehow the only one responsible for these problems and ignore the issues of writing a good encyclopedia. I feel preached to and I don't like it. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand. It is not easy being the target of criticism, and no one is expected to like it. Of course that there are systemic problems, problematic editors, and all the rest. Just that what is being said (no only by me, but by many others) is that you are not going to be successful in helping the project in this manner. I would say that it is quite mild criticism, and not accepting it makes it quite difficult to understand. Why not say, "Yes, people, I hear you, I take it to heart" and move on? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, it's not the criticism, it's the tacit message of "change or else" that I find ridiculous, especially considering the "mildness" of the criticism. What I don't accept is the message that other users are free to interpret my comments however they wish and if they decide I'm being uncivil I am subject to restriction. If someone thinks I'm being uncivil, why won't they just tell me and we'll try to discuss it? Maybe I'll even edit my comment (Lord knows it is a wiki). ScienceApologist (talk) 21:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Cardamon, Raymond Arritt, Jefffire, JZG, and others have, I believe, identified a much more far-reaching problem in Wikipedia. The problem that they have identified is one worth laboring to remedy. Antelan ^talk 20:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone point to some clear examples of this problem. Anthon01 (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can start by looking at the arbitration cases for pseudoscience, paranormal, and SA-Martinphi. That's just touching the surface. Most of the decisions hang on personal behavior, but the behaviors get their fuel from the issues that we've all been talking about here. Antelan ^talk 21:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And it's probably better if, in the first instance, those offering to help out are unambiguously not part of the problem. Anthon01's input on Quackwatch has been less than warmly welcomed by those who have defended the article against determined attacks by fringe pushers. Guy (Help!) 23:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Where did I offer to help? I think your jumping to conclusions ... again.

IMO, your behavior towards me is unjustified, beginning with your accusation that I was a sock or meatpuppet of Ilena Rosenthal and your refusal to clarify or retract your accusation that I "attacking those who promote the mainstream."[13] SA was wrong in trying to spin a neutral-to-critical review of QW into a positive one. When he couldn't prove his position on the merits, he decided to just edit the article, anyway. I have not been involved with SA in any significant way on any other pages, so can only comment on that interaction with him. But if his recent behavior on QW is any indication of what's happens elsewhere, then the problem here is much more than just fringe pushers. Admittedly you have stated that you "have a big problem with fringe pushers." Your belief that the "dominant scientific point of view generally is the neutral point of view," doesn't seem to jive with [WP:NPOV]]. From your statement, it seems that you believe there is no place for minority views, at least in scientific articles. Anthon01 (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If blocking one of our best editors due to disputes with some of our worst is "wikipedia norms", then something is wrong. I've read the purported "incivilities", and mabey it's my scientific background talking but I don't regard that kind of language as counterproductive. Jefffire (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The core of the problem (in my judgement as a rationalist who has only come into this debate in the last week or so) is not just ScienceApologist, (although his behavior is the most egregious example), it's the consistent unwillingness of one faction to assume good faith about the pposing faction. Dlabtot (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sometimes good faith has been a problem, although even that guideline says there can be evidence to the contrary, and arbitrators have agreed by banning some of ScienceApologist's nemeses. But that doesn't explain why the system has yet to produce a coherent response to ScienceApologist, despite years of melodrama. He fills a real need using questionable tactics, and his issue will continue with or without him as an individual. Art LaPella (talk) 06:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Handling problem editors

Focussing on the root of the problem, SA and others wish to act when poor editorship arises. Few people wish otherwise. But the actions have at times been uncivil, leading to arbcom and beyond. So there is clearly a problem here not of anyones "fault", that it's perhaps not clear how one can be firm in one's stance, and effective in rebutting bad editorship..... and yet also be civil. Maybe this is one of the things coming up here. That some editors actually don't believe it's possible, or are not skilled how to achieve it.

I don't know if this directly helps, but it's an observation from an editor experienced at handling disputes. perhaps it might. The contradiction described (essentially "how can we deal with problem editors if we have to be nice to them in speech") is a non-problem. The trick is, state the evidence, point out what the issue and concern is, and if after reasonable effort you have no success, sum up the problem neutrally and seek further input from RFC, ANI, 3O, or wherever seems best. "You reverted twice and did not give due weight to X viewpoint" is actually more effective than "You're talking crap and edit warring". More so, since others will see it as a measured statement rather than hyperbole. If there is tendentious editing, gaming, or the like, state it (non aggressively) and note it, too, with an example. A few clear examples of what you mean, will speak better than many medium ones.

One thing I can attest to is my own personal experience, that I've never found myself having the slightest problem making clear my views on unsourced nonsense, bad editing, problematic conduct, or edit warring/advocacy. I've never needed to use coarse speech, or personal attacks, or "labels", to effectively describe a problem editor. And I have taken some really major edit warriors through dispute resolution and off the wiki in that time. So I can attest it is a skill that can be learned. As for SA .... I had one of my best editing sessions of 2007 working with him on the 'metric expansion of space' article, and look forward to a future collaboration. My hopes he will wish to in future :)

Maybe focusing on this positive issue ("advice and discussion how can it better be done?") than the negative one ("we think this | they think that, let's argue") will be useful?

Best,

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Nicely said. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem I'm having is that a lot of the things I say get misinterpreted. For example, in one instance (referenced at #Regarding civility) I was referring to an argument I made in a disparaging sense. How can one be uncivil to oneself? I think that often editors yank diffs out of context to make a point and then administrators don't have the time to really look into what is going on. I also don't understand why we tolerate problem editors for so long. If someone has a consistent history of advocating for promoting pseudoscience as verifiable fact, why do we let them continue to disrupt the project? I have an ever-growing list of problem editors like this and new ones come by every day. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Have you consider placing a user RfC for these "problem editors", so that they can get feedback from the community at large? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes! It's basically exhausting and unfruitful. I documented the problem here. No one seems to care, though. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've never seen a WP:RFC/U that attained its stated purpose of "dispute resolution" (though I'm willing to believe such examples do exist). But the process does have its uses: it puts objectionable behavior on the radar of many other editors, and it fulfills a step along the path to arbcom, where meaningful sanctions can be imposed. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the problem is not so much that you are being misinterpreted as it is that you are engaging in ongoing uncivil behavior, and when it is pointed out to you, rather than try to learn from the experience, you just continue to make uncivil edits. In other words, you might want to consider the possibility that you could be wrong. Dlabtot (talk) 21:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The way I think about it is based on two things:

1. The policies and norms are almost always, all that are needed. (Every problem almost without exception has come up before in the past 2 million pages.)
2. Patience is more needed here than elsewhere because its collaborative-consensus, rather than hierachical.

What that means is, if someone is a problem, for me its always "what are they doing?" They didnt give something due weight (WP:NPOV), they aren't working with consensus (WP:CONSENSUS), they're misassuming badly (WP:AGF), they're inserting dubious own views and not verifiable evidence (WP:V, WP:OR), they're stonewalling discussion (WP:GAME), etc. I don'tattack them with it, I try first to see if I can reason with them, or find why we differ, or if they have a misunderstanding or a good point (WP:AGF). But if I can't get round it, then one can name it -- again neutrally without attacking -- at ANI, RFC, wherever... "I tried but they refused to cite sources and instead stonewalled...." and show diffs of the attempt and the response. There is no need to label them:

"User X is trying to over emphasize viewpoint Y, I have tried reasoning but its going nowhere. Here is me stating a source, here is his response where he tries to give weight to a fringe view. Here is him adding a synthesis that breaches OR. Advice or help sought, rather than arguing."

And allow that it will sometimes take more time than if it was one summary "department manager" dealing with it, since consensus decisionmaking often does look to see what can be fixed, if possible, before assuming it can't. Any use? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 21:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you know that it took me almost two years to get redshift to FA status? I think that was mostly a waste of time. I would completely abandon Wikipedia except my students use it and I see the need for it to be as accurate as possible from the get-go. I am an agenda-driven editor: I want Wikipedia to be as reliable, verifiable, and neutral as possible because even as we speak thousands of high-school and college students are looking up topics on this encyclopedia to help them with their homework. I don't want to see another report that is riddled with pseudoscience because some editor didn't take WP:WEIGHT seriously. Am I impatient? You bet. Because no matter how many times I tell my students to research the cited sources and not use Wikipedia as a sole-jumping off point they refuse to listen. If we don't fix the problems in a timely manner, they affect the education of many individuals. That's as clear as I can be about my agenda. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

That is a wonderful agenda, and I doubt you will find anyone here disagreeing with it. The issue we are discussing is not the agenda, but the means to achieve it. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright, so how do we expedite the process? Notice that the big issue I have is when problem users roadblock revamping articles. For example, look at what currently passes for acceptable at Electronic voice phenomenon. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

If the problem is that your students are refusing to properly research their work, I'd submit that engaging in uncivil behavior at Wikipedia will not solve it. Maybe a better solution would be simply to grade them accordingly. Dlabtot (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Like it or not, Wikipedia has a place in the education of my students. This is open-access so I have every bit as much of a right to affect change here as anyone else. I'm not going to ignore this problem. No one seems to think that it is uncivil for a pseudoscience POV-pusher to promote their ideas on Wikipedia, but I do. When I point this out, I get called uncivil. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No one has suggested, either explicitly or implicitly, that you don't have "as much of a right to affect change here as anyone else". However, the incivility that has gotten you into trouble in the past, will likely get you into trouble in the future, if it is continued. Dlabtot (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocking someone for 72 hours definitely sends the message that I have less of a right to affect change at Wikipedia, at least for those 72 hours. More than this, your one note samba is getting tired. Try moving on. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a good point. No one actually has a 'right to affect change here'. Participating in Wikipedia is not a right. It is a privilege. You might want to consider the possibility that unrepentantly repeating the uncivil and disruptive behavior that lead to this block will lead to further restrictions of that privilege. Dlabtot (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I've read just about enough from you. Further comments in this vein will be relegated to the history tab. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if you are not interested in considering the viewpoints of those who are not in 100% agreement with your method of expressing yourself, then I can understand why you might prefer that those views were not expressed in the first place. But, in the interest of furthering the Wikipedia project, it should at least be noted that disruptive behavior and incivility is, in reality, counterproductive to the goal of producing a good collaborative encyclopedia. Dlabtot (talk) 05:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you on an endless loop repeat cycle? ScienceApologist (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(exponentiated EC) I have precisely the same agenda as you. But to advance this agenda we have to play by the rules, as frustrating as that can be sometimes. It can be maddening to have to spend so much time explaining something that ought to be obvious to someone who has taken a high school physics course, or being patient toward an an aggressive promoter of utter nonsense. But there's no other way. Grit your teeth and think of it as beating the system

Also, part of the problem is a culture clash: scientists are accustomed to stating things directly and forthrightly, and do not take offense at language that others would consider overly blunt. Many of us are revolted by the unctuous dissimulation so typical of diplomatic speech. But sometimes we have to project ourselves into a different identity. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The culture clash I have dealt with before. I do think that Wikipedia should have content-forked to different projects long ago, but that's not going to happen (I have no doubt that "civility" would be handled differently at a science-wiki than here, for example, and citations wouldn't be such a headache). So what I think is needed is some minority rights. Scientists deserve to be accommodated just as much as anybody else. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)What is the problem with Electronic voice phenomenon? Seems to be a very informative article on the subject. Sure, there are many unsourced statements there, but these can either be supported by sources, or deleted for the lack of them. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

One of the problems is that it treats the subject as if it was an academic discipline. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Jossi, the problem is the long-term influence of true believers and people who act as evangelists for the paranormal. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

So how would you like the subject to be treated? Anthon01 (talk) 22:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

As a pseudoscientific hobby and a subject for pulp fiction. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you do that and keep it encyclopedic. Do you have a good example of that? Anthon01 (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design is close, for one. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a question out of curiosity. You've mentioned before that you are a science teacher, and as such you want Wikipedia developed into a reliable source for your students. From that standpoint, I completely understand your interest in topics like Big Bang. My question is, if that's your goal, why do you worry about Intelligent design or Electronic voice phenomena, and consider them such great threats to the project as a reliable source for science students? Why would any of your students ever read those articles, much less think they'd make great sources for a science paper? Isn't that like begging for an "F"? I guess my point is that if you're concerned about the reliability of Wikipedia for science papers, it seems like a waste to spend so much time on the debunking point of view in articles that'd never be considered for that purpose anyway. Everyone knows ID inflames scientists, and everyone who's heard of EVP knows it is New Agey. A student would have to be pretty far out of the loop to submit a paper like that. If the article clearly conveys that submitting it as a source will earn them an "F", what's the big problem in relation to your stated goal? I can see how'd the insertion of ID views into an article on evolution would be damaging to the project as a reliable source, or EVP views into an article on audio, but I'm having trouble imagining a scenario where a science student would happen across their main articles while doing research for a paper, and why those main articles would be of such concern. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You obviously haven't taught a science class. A few students invariably come into the class with a rather large chip on their shoulder and will try to disprove the content of the course. Yes, they do use Wikipedia articles on EVP and ID to do this. I've seen it first hand. I'm not interested in just giving out bad grades, I'm interested in having the first resource they turn to explain to them clearly why they will receive a bad grade if they go down the pseudoscientific alleyways. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I've never taught a science class like what we're talking about (computer science isn't the same thing). But my point is that science students are already aware that barking up that tree isn't going to get them a good grade. They have, as you say, a chip on their shoulders, and are purposefully trying to be contentious. It's no big secret that mainstream science doesn't involve itself with paranormal or religious-based things. That's something that everyone with the least bit of common sense is aware of. Here editors are making it seem like these articles are a danger to actual science, by way of corrupting science students. I just don't see it. If they're not just contentious and wanting to pick a fight with the teacher, a student isn't going to cite a paranormal article at Wikipedia as a source for their paper. Now, I completely agree that articles about these topics need improvement, and that's what I spend most of my time at Wikipedia doing. But I don't think they pose any danger to anyone, which is what's being suggested. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have plenty of anecdotal evidence that contradicts your uninformed opinion. There are a great number of students who, in many cases, actively believe that their peculiar fringe belief is truly science or backed by scientific understanding. They are acting under good faith even as they spout their ignorance. I had one student use as a starting off point a previous version of the EVP article in particular as evidence that "other dimensions" exist. She wasn't trying to get my goad, she actually believed that these sources were scientific. Lord knows AAEVP encourages that perception. This presentation she made was so horrible I had to stop her in the middle of it and confirmed my suspicions on where she got her information. That's when I arrived at the EVP article for the first time and started making enemies. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

(Responded below) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I also teach science, and I also must agree with S.A. The problem isn't so much teaching as it is the cognitive development process. A younger child will see something extraordinary, and develop a scheme for how that works. Trying to divorce from them that pre-conceived notion is exceptionally difficult, and even more so when there are adults who are reinforcing it. It is an example of someone embracing only the evidence (even when it is very poorly collected) which panders to their belief system. One of the core ideas of science is that an idea can only exist so long as there is carefully collected evidence to support it. This is where the paranormal and science really diverge.

Once a year, I show students a video about the work of James Randy, as he shows how psychics perform their ability to read the future. After seeing it, there was still a young lady who refused to buy it. When I asked why, she described an experience an aunt had that was exactly like some of the victims in the video. She saw how it was faked, and yet refused to be shaken from her beliefs.

I suspect that this is partially why S.A. does why he does. LonelyBeacon (talk) 21:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks LonelyBeacon. I understand you're disagreeing with me, but your example is my point exactly. Even after seeing the work of James Randi, your student was still convinced that psychics can/do exist, despite a demonstration that showed faking it is easy. The people who arrive at these articles already have their minds made up. I submit that SA's student who submitted a paper on EVP was also already into EVP. She didn't arrive at Wikipedia, learn of EVP for the first time, and become corrupted through Wikipedia. My (unverifiable) claim is that the only people who reads these articles are people already familiar with the topic who've made up their minds one way or the other already. Showing them Randi's video -- or what is often the case at Wikipedia, beating them over the head with Randi's point of view a million times in an article -- isn't going to convince them otherwise. If a student is in a class where the teacher actually shows a video saying this is what I accept, and the student continues to say I don't accept it, they're fully aware that it's not an accepted view in the classroom are arguing in spite of that. It may be a good faith debate on their part, but they are aware that it is a fringe view. The idea that they're going to arrive at Wikipedia, stumble upon the article (not already into the topic), and somehow discover that it is actually accepted by scientists is just a little far fetched. Remember, I'm just disagreeing with the idea that these articles are somehow damaging. I submit that whatever damage there might be was done already. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it could be that my student was lying to me, but according to her she had decided to do a report on extra dimensions. She didn't know anything about the subject and in reading through various Wikipedia links found the EVP article to be the most interesting. Her baloney detector obviously was not well-tuned yet. Just because to you or me something is obviously outside the mainstream doesn't mean that everyone is able to figure this out without having it spelled out explicitly. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If that's the case, the simplest solution is explaining to her the concept of notability in relation to the topic at hand, or in other words explaining that EVP is an inconsequential blip on the extra dimensions radar, rather than a notable topic in relation to extra dimensions (neither article makes the claim that EVP is notable in relation to extra dimentions). It's simpler to tell her that if it's not in the main article, it's probably of no importance to the topic and shouldn't be used in the paper (rather than going on about reliability issues). The option of seeing the overall problem as being pseudoscientific conjectures in obscure articles is blowing the topic of EVP way out of proportions, committing the same error that the student made. The real issue in the example your describing isn't scientific inaccuracies, but rather notability issues. She should get an "F" for making something seem more important than it is before she gets an "F" for being factually wrong. Again, I'm just responding to the idea that pseudoscientific conjectures in obscure articles makes Wikipedia unreliable and is therefore a huge problem. The only Wikipedia articles that should even be considered for reliability on the topic of extra dimensions is the main article and topics it links to. EVP doesn't make it in there. If it did, that's where the concern should be centered around. Both WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE protect the main articles at Wikipedia from EVP conjectures (it does this pretty well), and science itself is protected from Wikipedia's EVP article by basic concepts of notability in science. I don't think it's a big problem. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've had this disagreement with others before. Most tend to be fringe-proponents (and I'm not saying that you are). The basic idea you are proposing, as I understand it, is one of walled-gardens with in universe prose -- ideas that are at least in principle counter to the policies adn guidelines of Wikipedia. This argument had been made by my opponents as their almost pointy response to weighting I advocate for in mainstream articles that excludes fringe viewpoints. In other words, fringe advocates believe that because they aren't allowed to comment on the mainstream, the mainstream shouldn't be allowed to comment on them. I wholly reject this idealization because pseudoscientific pathologies should not be treated as though they exists in a vacuum of their own advocacy groups. Such accommodation inevitably leads to misconceptions being perpetuated unchecked and I see the results in my classroom. Explaining this stuff to the student after the fact can always be done and will continue to happen even if we include skeptical, mainstream opinions in articles devoted to fringe topics. However, I'm interested in addressing the problem before it gets to the point where I have to stop presentations as they descend into pablum. That means pointing out that EVP is not science on the page devoted to EVP. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, not at all. I'm not advocating for walled gardens. I completely agree that every article where skepticism is a notable view needs to have that. I also agree that every article that invokes science, especially fringe science, deserves the mainstream science perspective as well. I'd like to see every factual inaccuracy corrected and every pseudoscientific conjecture placed in context. I'm not even saying it needs these things as a concession. I want those things in. What I am saying is that it's not a huge, fundamental problem with Wikipedia if it isn't corrected. It doesn't make Wikipedia any less reliable a source for mainstream information. It only means obscure topics are less reliable. Since they're obscure anyway, it's not a -huge- problem with Wikipedia as a whole. The only reason I'm mentioning these things is because the conversations above seem to indicate that a lot of editors feel these (in my opinion) relatively small problems are crippling the Wikipedia project as a whole severely. Some editors get pissed off and leave because of it or think that the issue deserves skirting the guidelines and policies because it's (to them) a big deal. I was hoping that thinking about the issue in terms of it not really affecting the mainstream reliability of the site might diffuse that way of thinking. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 00:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

In short, choose your battles. I spend more time on the global warming article than anything else because it's one of Wikipedia's top articles and gets tens of thousands of hits on a good day. When someone add stuff saying it's all a UN conspiracy or some other asinine crapola it can have a big effect. The trick might be identifying a core of scientific or pseudo articles where the efforts of science-oriented editors are best spent. Other articles could get the occasional dusting and polishing to undo whatever damage has accumulated. But trying to be everywhere all the time can drive you crazy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

^Exactly. If you're burnt out on dealing with what you consider to be POV pushing in dozens of articles, on a regular basis, consider cutting your watchlist to just the mainstream ones and the handful of fringe noticeboards where editors post serious problems and disputes occuring in the more obscure articles. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 05:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Well, Neal, as they say, YMMV. You have your own opinions on what is needed to be focused on at Wikipedia and I have mine. We likely aren't going to convince each other. I see it as a huge problem, you don't. You seem to think that fringe articles that are obscure should be left to themselves. I see that suggestion as equivalent to giving up the fight to the people who are true believers in those subjects. That's that. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Btw, thanks for providing talk page space to hash out these issues. I would have told everyone to take it someplace else a long time ago if it were mine : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Handling problem editors break

I don't see any reason why the article doesn't have a RS comment to the effect that no science exist to support the explanations for EVP phenomenon. So why can't those comments be added? The problem I have is when fringe articles become heavily laden with criticism. It makes the article harder to read and not enjoyable. For instance the content of the Alternative medicine article is about half criticism. Anthon01 (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Many people may believe in ghosts and spirits, but are they really under the misapprehension that science confirms their existence? Dlabtot (talk) 00:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I would say not. But are you suggesting that as a result a skeptical note or disclaimer is not appropriate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

"Many people may believe in ghosts and spirits, but are they really under the misapprehension that science confirms their existence?" Absolutely. Oh yes. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff : ) I think what Dlabtot might mean, or at least what I meant above, is that no paranormal enthusiast is under the misapprehension that science accepts the existence of ghosts and spirits. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 01:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Hiya Neal. In past interactions with real life paranormal enthusiasts, I found that a majority do not understand what Science is or how it is conducted, how scientific knowledge is accumulated, scientific method, what peer review is, etc. All they have to go on is what they see on TV, where anyone with a few letters after his name is a Scientist doing Science, and romanticized fictions where a lone geniuses working in isolation suddenly make earth shattering breakthroughs. This is admittedly the scientific mainstream's fault, as they have historically been disinterested in their own public image. Of course most of you know this having read Sagan's Demon Haunted World etc. but it's worth noting here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)\

No I'm not really talking about 'paranormal enthusiasts' who I just assume are beyond the reach of reason, logic, or evidence. What I mean is that no normal person who is in full possession of their mental faculties is under the misapprehension that science accepts the existence of ghosts and spirits. Even if they believe in such things, they are necessarily aware that the scientific consensus weighs against this belief. Dlabtot (talk) 03:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily aware. For example, Creation Scientists teach "it is logically obvious that structure cannot evolve randomly from chaos [though snowflakes are a familiar counterexample]; scientists are supposed to be logical; therefore, most scientists know (but for political reasons can't admit) that structure cannot evolve from chaos". If you are a layman and, say, your Pastor teaches that, you may believe it. It's false and pernicious, but there are honest people who believe that. Stated less blatantly, the logic is compelling to amateurs; recall that it used to be typical for scientists to concede (at least publicly) that the beauty of the universe was evidence for a Creator. In this case, what is now obvious darkroom sleight-of-hand convinced many people, in the late 19th century, of auras and ghosts, and it takes more than a generation of secular education to erase the misapprehension of a generation of grandparents. What you are taught from childhood has a great deal of weight; I expect that many of the pro-science editors were taught to respect science, as I was. I know many scientists who (at least on Sundays) profess what they were taught to profess in childhood; mostly it has no bearing on their work. Pete St.John (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd add to that "and just don't care". That's why you end up with other notable viewpoints that have to be covered in these articles as well. Regarding LL's example links, I think there should be a new rule added to the WP:RS guideline that says in order for a web document to be considered reliable, it must have a "comments" feature. That way someone can tell that poor guy at ZeroTime that eventhough Einstein said energy couldn't be created or destroyed, and eventhough the brain is electrical, that doesn't mean ghosts exist because the electrical energy doesn't get destroyed. "So what happens to the electrical energy that flows through our brain?" Um, it goes the same place that bolt of lighting that killed you went. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 03:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

While you may believe that the existence of some batshit crazy website is relevant to this discussion, I must respectfully disagree. Dlabtot (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say if it was relevant or irrelevant to this discussion. I was only responding to your question by giving a couple of examples. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

One of those websites you refer to as "batshit crazy" is that of the AAEVP, a strong proponent of EVP, and which was at the very heart of the fighting which underlies this debate. Its director was a frequent editor to the article and its talkpage and there have been many attempts to use the site as a WP:RS. It is very relevant for LuckyLouie to bring it up here. — BillC ^talk 01:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I'll admit that I'm not really that familiar with EVP, as a concept, article, nor am I familiar with the debates that have taken place over this article. But the website I visited, that I described as 'batshit crazy', is pretty clearly not a WP:RS. However, that discussion is more appropriately pursued at the talk page for that article. I'm more concerned with the issue of dealing with so-called problem editors, the subject of this section. To the end of discussing these so-called problem editors, I think it would helpful if they were named, so the discussion could move from a broad-brush attack against a group of editors that may or may not exist, and towards a discussion of reality. Dlabtot (talk) 03:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And if we name the editors we open ourselves to charges of WP:NPA, WP:CIV, not-WP:AGF, and probably half a dozen others I can't think of at the moment. Sorry, but nice try. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

So should there be a disclaimer in the article? It seems that SA would want that in the article. Anthon01 (talk) 01:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, pointing out instances where editors violate Wikipedia policy would not in any way violate Wikipedia policy, as long as it is done politely. I submit that this entire discussion of 'problem editors' is a steaming pile of bullshit. It's just a manifestation of the frustation felt by editors who are unable or unwilling to abide by policy Dlabtot (talk) 03:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Policy is always open to interpretation. For example, I thought Dreadstar clearly misinterpreted the WP:SELFPUB policy on the 'What the Bleep!?' page, and I told him so. He strongly disagreed, and after our discussion continued, he felt that I was harassing him. This was a minor disagreement, and you can see that the result was not pretty. You can just imagine what would happen if, for your reading pleasure, people began itemizing what they felt were policy violations. Antelan ^talk 04:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Well there is no point in having a policy if people are neither willing to follow it, nor willing to point out when others do not follow it. If you want to provide diffs for the dispute you reference, I would be happy to comment on the particulars. Absent a diff, it sorta smells like more bullshit. Dlabtot (talk) 04:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, Antelan, that's a total distortion of the discussion. The diff I'd like you present is where I said you were harassing me. The only time I even mentioned 'harassment was during your insistance that I "hammered" SA, and even then I didn't accuse you of harassimg me. Diffs, please.

Dlabtot, the conversation is still on the Bleep talk page.Dreadstar † 04:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think Dreadstar's post re-emphasizes my point - airing concerns publicly (as I did) when you do not feel they require an administrative remedy leads nowhere pretty. On the other hand, if there are concerns that need administrative attention, this isn't the place for us to raise them. Dlabtot, I imagine we'll at least agree on that. Antelan ^talk 04:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

this is a perfect illustration of what I'm talking about. As I've already stated, absent a diff, this is total bullshit. I want to be clear that I am not in any way a supporter of 'paranormal' beliefs. But neither am I supportive of unfounded or unreferenced attacks on what I perceive to be (based on the evidence presented so far) an entirely fictitious group of 'problem' editors. No I don't at all agree with your premise. Dlabtot (talk) 05:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that people who have grievances serious enough to state them publicly should do so in an attempt to stop disruptive behavior, namely by invoking some sort of organized support structure (like mediation or administrator intervention). Antelan ^talk 05:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The 'problem editors' at Wikipedia are the ones whose violations of Wikipedia policy are so egregious as to warrant ArbCom sanctions. Those who believe that Wikipedia policies are not conducive to writing a good encyclopedia should work to form a new consensus about those policies, not actively flout them. Dlabtot (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

More ArbCom sanctions have been applied to the 'problem editors' ScienceApologist refers to, than to those who resist them. I'm uncomfortable with "actively flout"ing policy, but "a new consensus" would probably have to come from someplace like here, not from a politically correct policy talk page. Art LaPella (talk) 22:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Hmmm, why is Dlabtot so interested in this discussion? I wonder.... ScienceApologist (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

He keeps poking at you, trying to get you to blow up. It's admirable that you've maintained your restraint. He's only making himself look bad. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought he was play-acting the part of a rude WP:SPADE-caller to make some kind of point. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I wonder if he is angry about Quasi-steady state cosmology. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

← FT2 makes sound points. And I've suggested what to do if your impatience does get the better of you. Try to follow the former, and use the latter if you fall down, and I think you will be in a much better position. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

But I don't understand why people are so willing to let problem editors stick around for years! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The basis is roughly, that cultural learnings take time. And 1000 people and 100,000 editors learning what norms best balance certain kinds of problems is not easy -- if we blocked all people who raise non-scientific theories on the spot, we'd have different problems long term. We can discuss the philosophy of it if you like, but there are genuine advantages to having all views included, and people who hold strong opinions on other stances, and then working out how to better deal with that. It takes time. Wikipedia itself -- the whole thing from start -- is only 7 years old. But the old adage about how if a complex problem has a seemingly simple solution, it's wrong, is part of it.

In the meantime, I've posted this, which I hope may help. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! If this block means that more editors and admins are made aware of the problem I'll be happy to have endured it. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Its a truism, if you know how to let it, the community will help you. Nobody can do everything alone. I can't do bots at all, and if I sat on vandalism patrol all day I'd go nuts. Others love that, and can't fathom how the edit warriors I work with are bearable to me, because they loathe those situations. Different people and all that. I hope this works out, and augers a better way forward. Please do keep me posted whether it helps. And note for anyone reading, this isn't just for SA. The same ability to seek help is there for all editors who have problems they can't handle, not just 'some'. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to the posting by FT2, I would be very willing to help. I'm not sure if I'm suitable, or whether I'm neutral enough, but if I can help in any way, then let me know. Addhoc (talk) 22:32, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, SA, I share your frustration with the oblivious pushers of pseudoscience; but the key is to notice when you are becoming frustrated and not let that rage guide your fingers in retaliation. Don't hesitate to call for help when you feel the pressure raising and the flash point approaching— I'm always willing to give a hand to defuse a situation before it goes supercritical. — Coren ^(talk) 23:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Have you ever tried mediation? I'm thinking about it for cold fusion. Guy (Help!) 23:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with mediation is that it is subject to who you get as a mediator. I've tried mediation twice: once on redshift and once on tired light. Neither were particularly successful experiences. I agreed to undergo mediation at cold fusion a few months ago under the condition that the mediator have familiarity with science (say, for example, a degree in physics or chemistry). I was told that this was impossible and the mediation was rejected. This may not have been a bad thing: the last thing we need is a mediator who is unfamiliar with science trying to wade through the inevitable barrage of obscure papers that will be thrown in their face by the cf-advocates. We need someone who can reliably winnow away the incessant argumentation and get to the core of the matter. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A good mediator does not need to know anything about he subject he is mediating. That is my experience IRL. A good mediator will make both sides work together to produce a well written and neutral article; maybe not the article each side would have written on their own, but one that they could live with. Now, if there is no intent to work in that manner, then yes, mediation is not for these parties. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:06, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Mediation is a good idea that unfortunately seldom works in practice. Most of the mediation attempts I've seen in Wikipedia end up with the mediator just sort of fading away after a while. It can be very frustrating to put in a lot of time and effort only to end up right back where you started. Also, in one of the attempts at mediation in a pseudoscience/fringe article, the mediator (no, I'm not saying who, or which case it was) clearly was partial to one side in the dispute. Better for SA to call in backup when he finds himself getting frustrated; it's too easy to slip into a siege mentality when one feels all alone. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree in principle with you Jossi, I think it can help the process greatly when the mediator does have a knowledge of both sides of a problem. I think from what I have seen (and I suspect this is where S.A. is coming from), is that a mediator, in good faith as they are, does not realize that one side of an argument is passionate, but not factual. The end result can be what on the surface seems to be a compromise, but leaves one side seething as the result is to allow falsehoods into an article that shouldn't be there. S.A. is also correct that with the sciences being as technical as they are, when an editor submits a paper as a resource, it helps the mediator to know when a resource is legitimate or not. To (sadly) many laymen, the difference between a genuine scientific article from a respected journal, and an article from a non-peer reviewed journal can very much look the same these days. Not knowing the difference could have an impact on successful mediation. Peace. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I am sure that SA will be able to present a good case about the quality of the sources proposed, and mediators can also ask questions to subject matter experts if needed. What is missing from your comment is that in Wikipedia we do not describe "truths" or "falsehoods", rater we describe significant viewpoints, including these that are not scientific, or that purport to be scientific without being so. When I read an article about cold fusion, as a person that does not know anything about the subject, I want to know everything about the controversy. And I am sure our readers would want the same thing. If the intention is to write an article that debunks cold fusion, it will not work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem lies in adding viewpoints that "purport to be scientific without being so," and omitting to mention the "without being so" bit in the article. That's the heart of the whole fringe/pseudoscience controversy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That is solvable... "Mr X says that his research is based on the scientific method saying this and that, while Mr Y and Mr. Z challenge that by saying this and that". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not always a good solution. The problem is taht unless the two views are simultaneously solicited by the same source, it is very likely that one view deserves more weight than another. Simply stating the two side-by-side it sets up a false dichotomy of sorts that can only be rectified through proper editorializing. We came across this very issue when writing the Eric Lerner article where the stature of those criticizing Lerner (even off-handedly) was much greater than the stature of those who supported him. Nevertheless, the Eric Lerner fan club refused to see it that way (in part because they dislike the mainstream so adamantly) and demanded that we jump through incredible hoops explaining why a review by an obscure reference librarian did not belong alongside a review made by a Nobel Prize winner, for example. It's still not ideal. Right now the lead off in the article is a positive quote by Van Allen who, while famous for space science, did not work extensively with cosmology or large-scale astrophysics. However, editors not so familiar with cosmology seem to think that his notability in other areas trumps his separation from the field. I guess the long and the short of it is that it doesn't work to just say "attribute -- it's easy" because fringe folks spend an inordinate amount of their time compiling quote mines that are not representative of neutrality in the least. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoever mediates will need to be able to tell the difference between a minor journal publishing at the fringes of, or even outside, its field, and a mainstream journal; understand the different reputations of various journals; understand whether and why Physics Today is important, as a reflection of mainstream thinking rather than as a first instance publisher of peer-reviewed science. It will not be an easy job for someone who is not familiar with the basics of science and science publications. They will also need the patience of Job, and the ability to tell when Pcarbonn is being helpful (citing good sources) and when he is POV-pushing, because, as he acknowledges, he thinks the DoE review did not properly follow the scientific method and he's all set to accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative in that source. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Guy, let's agree on something: it will not be an easy job for anyone, regardless. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

But why the objection to having someone with familiarity with science mediate the dispute? I just don't get it. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it is a pre-condition. And pre-conditions are not part of the mediation process, and worse they are perceived as a way to say no to an important process in DR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What about in the other side of the dispute puts a pre-condition: "The mediator needs to be familiar with cold fusion research." ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Pre-conditions are a part of mediation anyway. For example, a person needs to have familiarity with written english, have an account on Wikipedia, be chosen as a mediator, etc. I'm happy to consider other suggestions for preconditions, but I don't see why it should be a problem if everyone involved agrees to having a mediator who is science-literate. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

<<<< Mediation is not a binding process, it is a mutual agreement to work together to find common ground. Why not start without pre-conditions? and if it does not work you can always pull out from it. At least you can demonstrate that you tried in good faith. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been in situations where the mediator didn't understand the science and it was simply a waste of everyone's time. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So, what are your options? Leaving WP for good? No ... give it another chance. Some mediators are really good. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Or, I'll just request mediators that have a science background. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Just some greetings

Nice to see you still fighting for this to become an encyclopedia. By now I pretty much believe that Wikipedia just got/becomes a small scale WWW which everybody can edit. Just as in the WWW, there are brilliant pages, and there are abysmal pages. It has grown so much, that nobody has an overview, let alone plan and cohesion and consistence is missing everywhere. Also, writing what our readers expect often outweights writing an encyclopedia. But what I consider the most sad part of it, is the crackpot department. In a bitter twist of fates, WP:NOR which was designed to keep the crackpots out, is now used to keep the critique of their achievements out. A similar but less pronounce illness has struck WP:NPOV.

Anyway, the thing which keeps me continuing here (to some extent, I just made a large break), are the brilliant spots of Wikipedia, of which there are many. And crackpottery isn't by any quantitative measure a big problem. Unfortunately, you are working at a very busy crossing. There are many crackpots article on cosmology (e.g. compared to articles on category theory). But even in cosmology, they can't destroy all these fine specialised articles to be found at Wikipedia. Take this as sign of their defeat, even if we have to surrender some overview articles to them temporarily.

--Pjacobi (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it really that bad? I think progress to get reasonable guildline, "which help to keep the crackpots out", is quite progressed in the german version of wikipedia. And if the german can do this, why shouldn't it be possible for the english wikipedia. --80.133.151.44 (talk) 05:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

What is this German guideline? Guy (Help!) 18:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm unclear myself what 80.133.151.44 is talking about. From time to time there are attempts to give the accepted scientific consensus the weight it should have, but I'm not aware of more than short time success. In fact quite to the contrary, a rather bizarre multi-faction struggle regarding pseudoscientific theories is taking place. --Pjacobi (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Force

The article Force you nominated as a good article has failed , see Talk:Force for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of said article. If you oppose this decision, you may ask for a reassessment. SriMesh | talk 01:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to collaborate in bringing Force to GA-standard, in for example, the provision of references or the drawing of diagrams, let me know. — BillC ^talk 03:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Quackwatch 2

How do we make this easier to read and comment. Can we move the relevant section "Proportionally Reflecting the The Consultant Pharmacists Review" section down to the bottom? Anthon01 (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That discussion is somewhat stale. Best to start a new section. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I reworded my questions under the 'and that vs. wherein' sub-section in QW. I just edited my previous question. 18:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a very hard time assuming that others are acting in good faith in Quackwatch. Beware of feeding trolls there. Editors appear more interested in baiting others than working toward consensus. I think Guy wasn't too far off the mark when he wrote, "Actually the best for all concerned is probably to go away and never come back, leaving the article to a new community of editors; there does not seem to be anyone here who is not deeply invested in either rubbishing or defending Quackwatch." --Ronz (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Some things re: QW and meta-issues

ScienceApologist, first, sorry to hear about the (temporary) ban. You have been a complete PITA, arguing eristically and repetitiously, but you make a good faith effort to communicate your points and I believe you are sincere in your beliefs about what's in the best interest of the wiki. I'm having a much worse time with Ronz, and have had to give up on trying to argue with him (cf this item at my scratchpad). I think I've begun to figure out his PoV, but evidently too late. I was going to ask you about it to maybe intervene, but currently that probably isn't pragmatic. I definitely don't want to goad you (even indirectly) into a fight when you get back.

That said, regarding this (from Ronz's talk; boldface is mine):

Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett have got to be the most confounding controversy I have ever come across at Wikipedia. It needs to go through arbitration right now, there is just no other way this stuff is going to get resolved. The way that the Levine2112 group is operating is disruptive editing pure and simple and they seem to confuse the issue so much that well-meaning editors become vicious overnight (witness User:PeterStJohn). Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor the patience to go through such an ordeal and the accompanying megabytes worth of data that such an action will generate. I wish there would be a group of uninvolved administrators who would swoop in and shut down the article entirely (maybe even delete it from Wikipedia for some time). I cannot believe that there are no less than six people operating on those pages that deserve to be kicked out of Wikipedia. I haven't seen such a high concentration of problem-editors since my days fighting the plasma cosmology wars. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Obviously my POV is that contentious/tendentious, eristic, repetitive arguement, often over minutiae, and almost religious zeal in rebuffing every attempt at compromise in a hugely anti-scientific, anti-logic style, is what makes me angry. Inconveniently to your case that Levine's group is responsible for this, I point to him as an example of a sympathtetic-to-alternative-medicine camper who is not tendentious, eristic, or repetitive, and who is willing to concede points and make compromises. And I point to Ronz as someone in the protect-science-from-pseudo-science camp whose rhetoric is almost textbook dogmatic pigheadedness. However, what matters here is the word "vicious". I've been angry, dismissive, possibly insulting, irritable, stentorian, condescending, logicistic, and probably a bunch of other good bad words could apply, but I'm uncomfortable with "vicious". Please reconsider that word.

Please drop me a note when you get back. I'd like your help in building a bullet-list of specific, citable, wiki-istic items that we can agree on; for example, you suggest deleting the QW article (only temporarily), so I'd suggest starting with the item "QW is notable" as something we'd agree on. Perhaps neither of us will touch the page, or even the talk page, just present an essay, or mere list, for consideration to whoever seems to have the stomach still.Pete St.John (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You're invited!

...to the next New York City Meetup!

New York City Meetup Next: Sunday January 13th, Columbia University area Last: 11/3/2007

In the morning, there are exciting plans for a behind-the-scenes guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History.

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues (see the last meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Force

The article is coming along at great leaps and bounds, since last I looked at it, and is awesome to see the quantity of improvements. It is especially nice to see the terminology in the units of measurement section cleared up, as it was hard to read! Good luck, with everything! SriMesh | talk 02:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I hereby decorate you with the Purple Star; in recognition of your willingness to step in front of the irrational bullets aimed at rationality and reason on Wikipedia. Remember to duck, though.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 00:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The Purple Star

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Cold fusion. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 19:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

NYC Meetup restaurant reservations

You probably noticed that there's been ongoing discussion on the restaurant choice at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. It would probably be good if you could pick a place, and make the reservations very soon (so they won't be booked up by someone else). I would have liked to help with making arrangements ahead of time with the restaurant, but I've had to be out for town for awhile, and I'll be very busy over the next couple of days for family reasons. I should still be able to help on the day of. Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you're going to get a very accurate headcount, but Sunday nights at The Symposium are usually slow, so I don't think they'll really have any trouble with accommodating us. I would just tell the guy that we'll be 15-20 people, because that's about the total number of folks who have indicated some interest along the way in the restaurant discussions and voting. I doubt that *many* more people will stick around for dinner on a Sunday night. If I'm wrong, the restaurant will be delighted, but we can fill up the booths around the central table before having to move to the back garden area. Thanks for organizing! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Add two people to your count - We'll be coming after a theatre matinee in midtown, so we might be a bit late. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Quackwatch and Wikiquette

While I appreciate the edit, [14], please don't get drawn into edit-warring about it. I'd already sought unbiased help in the matter. --Ronz (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikiliberalism

Check this out. Wikipedia:Wikiliberalism. Tell me what you think. For those of you who might consider you a "wikithoritarian" or "deletionist." I'm passing this on to several editors of the same mind as us skeptics and advocates of mainstream science. Zenwhat (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

IRC chat

There's an NYC-relevant chat on now; please see Wikipedia_talk:Meetup/NYC#IRC_meeting_tomorrow.--Pharos (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The log of the whole conversation is at meta:Wikimedia New York City/Chapters Committee.--Pharos (talk) 21:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Consciouness causes collapse

Hi ScienceApologist,

To avoid a problem here, please be advised:

• The threshold for inclusion at Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.
• NPOV and pejorative claims such as "generally derided as pseudoscisnce" imply consensus (in pejorative tone) and must be cited.
• The threshold for inclusion at Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. For all I know your statement is true, but it's not (yet) verifiable.
• Claims of "consensus" by scientists are generally considered to be "exceptional claims" (especially when using NPOV pejorative language), requiring the editor to assume the "burden of proof" in the form of exceptional sources. "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources".
• The source you provided was easily checked and it's author's clearly and flatly refuted your attribution throughout the introduction (explicitly on page 5.), so the source you cited is no source at all for your statement, unless you make an explicit reference within the text.

I further note you have declined invitations to provide a page number to support your attribution of consensus to these authors. I will attempt to help you here.

Here is page five of the text you cited, flatly contradicting your attribution. Also, the word "derided" appears in the text only five times, in reference to Einstein's having "derided spooky action at a distance", etc. These are generally followed by text showing how foolish this derision has (historically) turned out to be. So, if you found this text by a simple google search on "derided" (your preferred word) and "consciousness", you should know that this "hit" serves to work against you rather than for you. The closest thing to a statement supporting your attribution of "generally derided" is on page 190 of the text, and even THAT illustrates your attribution to these authors is far off the mark.

I repeat this because you are approaching the WP:3RR threshold for getting yourself warned and/or blocked, and before you revert again, I wanted you to be aware of the above. Thanks for the passion. riverguy42 aka WNDL42 (talk) 19:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

John Hagelin

Biographical page I've spent a fair amount of time on: John Hagelin. Thought you might be interested in making some of the points a little more straightforward. Rracecarr (talk) 21:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom enforcement report

A report has been filed on you on the ArbCom Enforcement noticeboard. Dreadstar † 23:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Better to use the active voice. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Why pseudoscience all the time?

This is in reference to the Consciousness causes collapse page, but why "pseudoscience" all the time? In the article you linked to, modern geocentrism it describes the situation very well: "The geocentrist view is contradicted by modern cosmology, and by the Copernican principle and the theory of general relativity, which together imply that the universe has no center." A similar wording was offered for this topic at WP:FTN, presumably as a peace offering. As Raymond Arritt pointed out, a smiliar wording is used at spontaneous human combustion. Why is it always "pseudoscience"? I just don't get it. It always leads to arguments. The above example for geocentrism seems to be a lot more useful to the layman. He/she can go and look up Copernican principle and see exactly what the problem is, an added verifiability bonus. I should add that every time we disagree and you post wikilinks to what you're talking about, I click the link. Sometimes after I've read the example you provided, I learn something. Isn't that a better way to go? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 23:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The p-word is a hot button even when it is plainly applicable. It may be best to state the matter in other terms. Part of me feels bad for not telling our readers that nonsense is nonsense, but Wikipedia's policies say we have to pussyfoot around. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Wikipedia policies do not say we have to pussyfoot around. That's why there is summary style and WP:WEASEL for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, but I gotta tell you, the way it's used in these articles seems more like a battle flag and I think it hurts what you guys are trying to do rather than helping matters.

The term, whatever it's technical definition, is used as a dismissive pejorative. Of course that will ire those who believe the ideas deserve serious scientific consideration, but that's not really the issue. The issue is that assuming the topic is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, it's notable enough to merit more than outright dismissal. I'm not talking about a dismissal in science. It's not about the science. Scientists use the label pseudoscience to tell other scientists that the idea is not worth serious consideration, and that probably works pretty well in those circles.

The problem is that the audience here aren't scientists. They're laypeople who need a better explanation of why the topic is nonsense because all they know is that the topic is popular (notable). Dismissing modern geocentrism as nonsense doesn't do anything for the layperson. It doesn't inform them, teach them, change their beliefs, or any of that. It just pisses them off and makes them feel like the topic is being supressed. It's counterintuitive that a topic that is popular is wrong.

On the other hand, if you tell them that it conflicts with the Copernican principle, they come away informed, educated, and even if their beliefs aren't changed, at least they know what the opposing argument is, and why no one takes them seriously. That's so much better than an outright dismissal in a Wikipedia article. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 06:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You seem to think that it is either one or the other. Either we point out the dismissal or we point out the methodological problems. We can do both. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Amen. Wikipedia shouldn't read like a skeptics encyclopedia. Saying X is pseudoscience doesn't convert them either. It simply turns them off to wikipedia. It is better to explain to them what the subject is and then explain how it fits or doesn't fit with mainstream thinking. The reader is left with an understanding of the topic and how it jives with the mainstream. Anthon01 (talk) 09:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No one is in the business of converting anybody. The fact is that there are some ideas (like a large majority of alternative medicine concepts) which adopt the mantle of science without adopting the methodology of science. To avoid pointing this out explicitly is to damage the credibility of the encyclopedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Plus, in my mind the ubiquitous labeling of articles as pseudoscience fosters the notion of science as ideology rather than science as methodology, with "pseudoscience" a synonym for heresy. This may distort science for a general reader rather than contribute to a better understanding. TimidGuy (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Poor methodology is what pseudoscience is all about. It's not like WTBDWK participants usually do any experiments to back up their claims, for example. More than this, the experiments they claim to do are shitty from a methodological standpoint (water crystals and the like). If you want to misread pseudoscience as an ideological battle cry, that's your prejudice and is not a universal. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Poor methodolgy isn't always the case as some things labelled such have no methodolgy. Anyway, The facts can be stated without the dismissive pejorative. Something to the effect "X has not been subject to scientific investigation" or "X is in contradiction to mainstream thinking" or "No scientific investigations have been undertaken," etc ... Perhaps there is a way for us to have a discussion of this issue; maybe a guideline will come out of it? Anthon01 (talk) 15:56, January 10, 2008 (UTC)

No methodology is poor methodology. Secondly, pseudoscience is just as much a fact as it is a pejorative. Just because people find certain facts to be pejorative doesn't mean we have to avoid including them. WP:NPOV does not mean that we censor facts when certain people find them objectionable. What you are describing in your association of "facts" are actually explanations. The fact is that such subjects are pseudoscientific. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is not a very precise word. It has a lot of issues and there are enough alternatives to the word. Pseudoscience is an expression that mainly adherents of "rational skeptics" and they hardly represent the whole scientific spectrum Benjaminbruheim (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong about pseudoscience being mainly a "rational skeptic" term. It is also used in most (if not all) non-major college-level introductory science texts. Unless you are going to argue that the spectrum of non-major community college texts from Physics for Poets to Rocks for Jocks to Kitchen Chemistry is not representative of the whole scientific spectrum, you are basically wrong in this evaluation. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are a lot of people who thinks the term is detrimental because it is often used to discourage science. Obviously there are dead ends, but that is often because science made it so. I claim "Consciousness causes collapse" is science because certain kind of philosophise disproves it. In certain philosophical modes the hypothesis would be just as probable too, and may be used as an example. Call it a WP:SPADE instead of WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE unless it is mainly known as such. Ie. here in Norway we are not big on rational skepticism, since we have a pluralism of sciences instead. I simply mean the term does not stand on its own feet and is highly criticized by anyone who has scrutinized the term. It is more used in soapbox contextes when people explain why THEY don't like a theory based on their subjective judgement of it. Once science or philosophy has done its job and falsified a concept then it should state so. And by that process it no longer qualifies as pseudoscience. Do you get my point? Benjaminbruheim (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

This is Truzzi's argument, certainly, but it is not an argument that works in contexts where there are people actively fighting against the scientific method to get their point across. I imagine that in Norway, the term takes on a different set of connotations because science is probably not as politically controversial as it is in the states. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, look up Arne Næss to see the ground rules for norwegian science. I certainly see that the private sector in the US is full of people who abuse bad science in order to make a profit. In such cases pseudoscience takes on a more valid meaning, because the science these people uses is "not science". Well, I do think the focus on getting "quick answers", such as "patently false" or such is leading the attention away from the empirical and logical proofs that one currently has. If people are so-so famous and notable is ok, as long as the science is stated. It is pretty much always possible to tell if it is patently wrong on basis of this. The term pseudoscience makes me just think that skepticist has accused t for something and somehow written off all possibilities that there might be empirical evidence they are not aware of. Compare to parapsychology tiny mystical empirical evidence is interesting enough to qualify the science as science. Perhaps it is just statistics fooling us, but that is a problem that is ripe in mainstream science as well. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 17:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

But parapsychology is not a science. In the late 1980s and early 1990s I used to be a parapsychologist and even published in the Journal of the Society for Psychical Research. Then I met Paul Kurtz, Ray Hyman and James Alcock here in Mexico City and started to read his works. After some years I gave up belief in the paranormal as you can see in this article that I overhauled. Take a look to the writings of Hyman and Alcock and you will se what I mean :) Cesar Tort 17:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Tagging ideas as pseudoscience

Joshua, when we meet this Saturday, I'd like to discuss ways we can work together to describe pseudoscience at Wikipedia. My main suggestion would be (1) cite published writers who say a given idea is (or is not) scientific and (2) let each reader decide how to evaluate the evidence given by each source. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

We certainly can chat about it. I have a wikipedia presentation on the subject. User:ragesoss will probably be an interesting addition as well. Add it to the agenda on the meet-up page. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed you added that to the meet-up agenda, I'm really looking forward to that. There's certainly a fine line between nonsense and pseudoscience (if any...). On a related note, I was wondering what your thoughts on this conclusion section were. To me, it seems to be both unnecessary and violate WP:NPOV, especially with a phrase like "it is impossible to ignore its importance in shaping our ideas". Looking forward to the meet-up! -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk &#149; contribs)} 16:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. It seemed inconsistent with the WP:MOS. People should be able to draw their own conclusions about the article by reading the facts, not by being told what their conclusions should be. I was told on the discussion page that it "is in fact a fair summary of the findings of 150-200 years of archaeological discovery." -- MacAddct  1984 ^{(talk &#149; contribs)} 16:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to add something which puzzled me greatly recently. I've been watching from the sidelines the science cleanup project, and was reading the article on fringe science which lists cold fusion as a contemporary example. Yet, on the cold fusion page it's tag is psuedoscience. How can this be? Beyond the fact that there's a disconnect, I am unsure that one could argue that cold fusion meets the definition of psuedoscience (as your explainng it, ScienceApologist). Should it not be tagged as fringe science? I believe it should. I also agree that there might be a huge benefit to really ensuring that we apply the term psuedoscience appropriately rather than generously simply because the theories of a given area of inquiry haven't born fruit(X900BattleGrape (talk) 16:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC))

One of the problems people have is that they tend to think in "all or nothing". Either the subject is wholly pseudoscience or it isn't. Well, that's just not the case with cold fusion. Some of the people who have worked on cold fusion in the past were in the community. Today, that's less true. There are certainly people advocating underneath the umbrella of "cold fusion" who are pseudoscientists. There are also those who are not. Just because Wikipedia has a subject categorized under "pseudoscience" does not mean that the subject must be wholly pseudoscientific. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:02, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I can certainly appreciate your point, but cold fusion grew up around actual science and it may be more beneficial to tag it as fringe, but note in the article that over time a large number of people or organizations doing psuedoscience in the field have sprung up. To me this would be a more accurate tag, provide more useful information within the article itself thus making it better, and remove the inconsistency with cold fusion being listed as an example of fringe science in that article. Alternatively, include the fringe science tag as well as the psuedoscience one. Thoughts? (X900BattleGrape (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC))

Including both seems like a good idea to me since there are aspects of both in it. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll go add the fringe tag in a bit. I think this makes more sense as well. Cheers. Bah, article locked. (X900BattleGrape (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC))

Weasel words on Global warming

Is it just me, or is this a really, really bad lead?

"Remaining scientific uncertainties include the amount of warming expected in the future, and how warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe. There is ongoing political and public debate worldwide regarding what, if any, action should be taken to reduce or reverse future warming or to adapt to its expected consequences. Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions."

There is no uncertainty worldwide that something needs to be done about global warming. Nor are there uncertainties that the warming will be particularly harmful to human civilization.

The climate change deniers seemed to have failed to push the claim that "there is no consensus." Now they seem to be falling back on, "OK, there's a consensus, but they don't know how bad it will be or what will happen." Zenwhat (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I read the edits and while I don't sympathize with those who don't think anything should be done, I'm not sure that it's a fact that "something must be done". If nothing is done it will be devastating for humanity, but if one is a misanthrope hoping for the destruction of huge swathes of humankind then perhaps global warming is a good thing, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we agree, actually. The response to global warming seems to be ignorant and reactionary on both sides. It's already clear what the right-wing thinks but the left-wing response has been just as much a knee-jerk reaction. The past issue of global cooling doesn't disprove global warming, but it does prove that the left is often ridiculously stupid when it comes to environmental issues. As an amateur economist, I am skeptical of Kyoto for the same reason as most economists. It appears to be based solely on ecology or the somewhat pseudoscientific school of Green economics (aka Ecological economics) which is little more than radical environmentalism supported by Neo-Marxian assumptions. Bush brought this fact up at G8 a while back, that there is absolutely zero consideration to the economics of Kyoto, which is important if America is to be the one (like most of the UN's programs) to primarily fund it. I was appauled to hear in a recent speech by Ban Ki-Moon that "there is no trade-off between long-run growth and a sustainable environment, we can only survive if we have both," and he specifically invoked Green Economics. There is a trade-off between anti-warming policies and economic growth if we adopt Anarcho-Primitivism. As it seems to me Kyoto will work in one of two ways (to see the partial basis for this reasoning, see The Road to Serfdom):

• It isn't enforced enough - The earth still warms, countries ignore the U.N.'s demand to pay the global carbon tax (which is what it is), and human civilization dies off or is at least severely harmed
• It is enforced too much - Since most countries in the U.N. are developing countries and Kyoto sets them at lower standards, if decisions regarding Kyoto are made democratically, it will be used to extort wealth from western, prosperous economies by dictators of developing nations who are insanely not going to care about their inevitable destruction.

Instead of focusing on compulsory global taxation (something that arguably violates the U.N. charter), the same goals of Kyoto could be achieved through international treaties to establish regional carbon-trading systems. This seems more sensible, because there tends to be less variation in GDP regionally, so standards could be made uniform, how carbon-trading was originally intended. Developing countries can STILL be given foreign aid to help with this on a voluntary basis. If countries aren't willing to do this, Kyoto won't work anyway. But if countries are willing to do this, Kyoto isn't necessary.

Furthermore, there seems to be somewhat of a false, unproven assumption that we can prevent global warming -- as if Kyoto is a magical solution -- and while it's repeatedly said, "Kyoto is just the first step," it's not quite clear why carbon trading should be the first step instead of establishing a global fund for research into climate change technology.

Also, I fixed the lead:

Most national governments have signed and ratified the Kyoto Protocol, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions and outside of the United States, there is considerably less debate over the effects and uncertainties of global warming. Zenwhat (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

There are a few points I would clarify. In my estimation, Kyoto is really a drop in the bucket in terms of both economics and the environment. Interestingly, the total cost-benefit analysis by many economists seemed to give a net positive effect as Kyoto would have stimulated technological development in the US to offset carbon emissions, for example. In any case, macroeconomics often has non-linearity, and so I view the Bush administration's position on the matter as purely obstructionist from a political angle. The business interests of the Bush-cohorts were in status-quo energy sector that would have taken a direct hit if Kyoto would have gone into effect: a headache for them but there was no way for them to say that it would have been an overall economic problem. Be that as it may, Kyoto was irrelevant because it didn't go far enough. This was the other tack the Bush administration took (mostly in private). Basically, Kyoto was a symbolic treaty because it does nothing to decrease greenhouse emissions. Nevertheless, this is how politics happens -- through primary steps that are inconsequential leading to more major movements in the future.

The economic effects of global warming have in fact been studied fairly in-depth. Interestingly, it seems that the country that will probably be devastated the most economically by even modest rises in sea-level will be the United States. Other countries will have to deal with population dislocation (Bangladesh, for example), but the US economic infrastructure in many places is tied very close to sea level. One particularly scary thought is that the California Central Valley could easily become an inland sea in even moderately conservative estimations of sea-level rise.

Undoubtably, there are wingnuts out there on the left who have no conception of the science and don't really consider this subject as carefully as they should. One of my personal pet-peeves is the continued opposition to nuclear power by goups such as Move-On. Nuclear power is one of the proven technologies that can actually reverse carbon emissions (unlike, for example, biofuels which are arguably worse than fossil fuels). I suspect that there is a considerable contingent of them which are neo-luddites as well, hoping to dismantle the modern, technological world in order to return to a "simpler" self-subsistence lifestyle. Of course, what these radical anti-modernists don't realize is that things were pretty shitty back then with private wars, frequent famines, and disease taking the lives of most people before adulthood.

In short, I think that there is definitely enough evidence out there that it would be better in all analyses to control our effects on the environment than to simply allow our climate to turn into a runaway greenhouse effect. However, if we don't do anything, the ones to suffer will be us. The Earth will continue on fine whether we're happy or not.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Relying on an assumption of technologically-driven growth is tricky, since while public investment overall in technology tends to lead to long-run growth, investment in specific research or if such funds have poor oversight (if they're given to pseudoscientists), it can be a waste. Also, as just noted, technologically-driven growth is long-run. The effects of global warming appear to be middle-run -- possible long-run. But either way, since investment in technology doesn't always ensure growth (if it did, why not just dump near 100% of the budget into research?), that's a tricky assumption to make.

Also, I don't doubt the negative economic impacts of warming. Like I said, I'm not a global warming denier. Just a skeptic of Kyoto. I agree with you about nuclear. One thing I will say, though: Ethanol is another good idea. The recent studies I've heard about suggest it's more fuel-efficient than gasoline and the market is simply slow to adapt to the technology because of institutional factors, like for instance, the oil companies. And yes, you're right about Bush. I'm well-aware of his tampering with climate change research and his appointment of an oil lobbyist to the head of the EPA.

I don't care, though, about Bush, the EPA, or the oil companies. What I care about is me. I don't want the U.N. to tax me so that such funds can go to the third-world dictators. Given the rampant corruption of oil-for-food, this is a definite possibility. And I support the continued existence of the U.N.. Zenwhat (talk) 15:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for all that you do around here. Most sincerely, ➪HiDrNick! 03:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies

I apologize for not responding effectively to the notices you've given me; I've been unexpectedly busy with the start of the school term, and my Wiki-editing has fallen to the wayside in response. And, I'm somewhat embarrassed to say, I honestly had no clue what on earth the consciousness causes collapse article was even about. Quantum mechanics (and the corresponding quantum mysticism that forms around it) are just beyond me, and trying to untangle the science from the hooey is a chore for someone with my lack of applicable knowledge. I really do want to help you with this sort of thing, but you should know that I may not always respond. Again, apologies. ♠PMC♠ 17:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Monetary crankery

It's the main thing I focus on Wikipedia, since it's so widespread. Just now, I've found two cases of admins who are apparently completely ignoring it. In the case of East718, his arguments are clearly spurious:

• User talk:East718#Austrian economics
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:karmaisking

You deal with this stuff a lot. Any advice on how I can avoid being blocked for edit-warring out of a false compromise when there is vandalism involving WP:FRINGE? It really seems like you can get away with pushing theories on obscure articles no one reads, but good editors who review these articles and say, "Waaaaaaaait a second now, there!" these are the people who either:

a) Are treated as if they were vandals or trolls b) Eventually become so disillusioned with the system that they leave, even though they're good editors.

Meanwhile, the vandals keep coming and coming. Zenwhat (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbstuff

Hi. I've commented on ANI. But... you are sailing too close to the wind. You need to avoid making comments that can be construed as insults etc etc. Just stick to the good editing, and tone down the comments William M. Connolley (talk) 19:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Losing the faith

See this. How on Earth am I supposed to deal with this?

I'm thinking of quitting and going over to Nupedia with Larry Sanger, where such wildly inaccurate pseudoscience supposedly is not tolerated. For one thing: The smallness of Nupedia could be seen as a good thing, since I have the opportunity to write so much stuff from scratch without having to deal with random, faceless IP addresses and trolls making one contentious edit after another, without debate -- which is then somehow used against me to scare me into not firmly standing by my edits in upholding Wikipedia policy. Overall, it's been an uphill battle to remove the monetary crankery on Wikipedia, which is why I've been considering writing an essay on the matter. Zenwhat (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Nupedia is dead. Citizendium would be where you'll want to go if you bail on Wikipedia (X900BattleGrape (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC))

Thank you!

Hello ScienceApologist. Thank you for fighting pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is not science. We cannot afford to be 'nice' to pseudoscientific theories. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Sent an e-mail

I apologize, I am not 100% sure whether I got it: was it about voting for a restaurant? As it turns out, I think I probably cannot come to the main part of the meeting, only to the pre-meeting at the AMNH. By the way, I asked in Zoology and Paleontology, and I could not find anyone who would be in on a Sunday, so that means I cannot take anyone behind the scenes. Invertzoo (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I just found the email and responded to it directly to Colin. I will cc to you too, just give me a few seconds. Invertzoo (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Something you might be interested in dealing with

Please can you take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Neutrality_vs_objectivity_--_please_clarify_in_article. You're far better at explaining such things than I am, from what I can tell, and if the changes are made and kept as suggested, wikipedia would only move further away from something I could support. LinaMishima (talk) 15:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, you put it beautifully! LinaMishima (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Tip

I've been thinking of ways to help you. This is just a friendly tip, please don't read anything more into it. You often refer to the paranormal editors as "POV-pushers". Well, let's assume that's true for the moment. The fact is they don't like and probably think the same about the science editors. All this does is inflame the situation and make it worse. Try referring to them as the "paranormal editors" or just "editors". Just food for thought. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Of those you listed, try "pro-paranormal editors", it's the least inflammatory and that's what we all want, peaceful editing on wiki. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we want terminology that will look non-inflammatory to outside observers. The smarter POV-pushers are learning that on Wikipedia civility trumps all else, so we can't cede that point to them. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of truth in that Raymond. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Remote viewing

I have deleted it. This kind of oversight is a common TfD mistake, thanks for pointing it out. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 03:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Parking near Columbia

I got an a-mail from User:Mblumber about parking near Columbia. Could you message/e-mail them, because I'm not really familiar with the parking situation in that area? Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 04:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Please undo your revert

With this amount of controversy, holding the pre-RFC version until consensus is reached clearly seems to be the best policy.Kww (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Email

Please check your email; I have a query about something in your field. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Cold fusion

I have accepted the mediation case regarding Cold fusion. Can you provide a brief summary of your view points regarding the issue here? Thanks, Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you need help?

Do you have any particular articles right now that you need help dealing with WP:FRINGE? Zenwhat (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's a little something to brighten your day!

File:Wikipediamao.png

Keep the faith -- Don't give up, don't give in, or get out!

Zenwhat (talk) 04:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your presentation at Wikimeetup/NYC

I took notes on your presentation, "Pseudoscience on Wikipedia," at the Meetup, and typed them up when I got home.

I could post them on the project page, unless you have any objection.

These are just my own personal notes; I didn't record it. But I got down a few important ideas. Of course if I made any mistakes you can correct them.<g> Nbauman (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring on What the Bleep Do We Know!?

I have blocked you for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule on What the Bleep Do We Know!?. I see from your prior block history that you really should already be familiar with our policies on edit and revert warring. --krimpet✽ 20:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ජපස (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This was not a 3RR violation ScienceApologist (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Looks pretty clear-cut to me. In addition, please refrain from threatening Dreadstar from now on. Instead, assume that he is working for the best of the project.— GlassCobra 20:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Unblock review

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ජපස (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Pursuant to the clause that you can have two unblock requests per block per year: I ask the reviewing administrator to look and see if the last diff really represents a revert. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm seeing clear 3RR violation, sorry. Furthermore, the sniping at Dreadstar isn't helping. WP:AGF and all that — Alison ^❤ 21:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

How can you say that the fourth diff is a revert? To which version am I reverting? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Alison, could you list the 4 diffs? Addhoc (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. From the edit history[15], you can see the term quantum mysticism being repeatedly inserted here, here, here and finally, here. All within 24 hours. As you can see from the talk page, it's quite a contested term - Alison ^❤ 21:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Who contested it on talk? I just see people contesting quantum quackery. The best you can do is point to SlimVirgin's oblique comment about not all connections between quantum mechanics and consciousness being quantum mysticism, but then Slim goes on to question whether the connection being discussed is sourced in any case! In short, I think you're relying on some rather nitpicking definition of a revert, one that is only covered by a stretch of the terms of WP:3RR where you would have to say that this phrase, in particular, was "deleted content" that I restored. However, I have made dozens of violations of 3RR in collaborating with certain people on articles like metric expansion of space where certain turns-of-phrase get deleted and reinserted as a matter of course. I find it more than a little absurd that this revert-claim hangs on the balance of a single wikilink. which was mentioned on the talk page one time. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, you reverted four times, for some reason. I've seen some articles get into an angry discussion which carry on for months ... all over one word. These things matter to people .. - Alison ^❤ 21:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Which person does it matter to? ScienceApologist (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

← ScienceApologist - would you please stop filling up my inbox with multiple one-liners? I'm kinda busy here, too and your constant emailing is not helping. Feel free to open up a third unblock request, by all means, and let's get another opinion here. I'm declining unblock based on the evidence I've seen here - Alison ^❤ 21:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I cannot open a third unblock request because it's not allowed. The last thing I want is to get this talk page protected. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

As unblock reviewing admin, I hereby authorize you to apply one more unblock request - there! :) - Alison ^❤ 22:03, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request (3) made with authorization from the above unblock-reviewing admin

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ජපස (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for apparently violating 3RR. Without going into details for each edit, the fourth revert listed was one where I was trying to address issues in a bold way without reverting. An unblocking admin has stated that because the edit had quantum mysticism as part of its content which was not in versions that I reverted, this qualified as a fourth revert. In other words, one wikilink was the difference between me being able to edit and me being blocked for 72 hours. While this is not a technical 3RR, and I acknowledge that 3RR is not an entitlement, it seems a little harsh that a block would be administered for 72 hours on such a precarious judgment call. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Having briefly reviewed your edits and block log I concur with the blocking admin and the two admins who have already reviewed the block. However unfair it seems, 3rr is not an entitlement, and edit-warring can never help build an encyclopedia. I suggest you take the good advice you have been given below and try to learn from this for the future. — John (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ජපස (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for apparently violating 3RR. Without going into details for each edit, the fourth revert listed was one where I was trying to address issues in a bold way without reverting. An unblocking admin has stated that because the edit had quantum mysticism as part of its content which was not in versions that I reverted, this qualified as a fourth revert. In other words, one wikilink was the difference between me being able to edit and me being blocked for 72 hours. While this is not a technical 3RR, and I acknowledge that 3RR is not an entitlement, it seems a little harsh that a block would be administered for 72 hours on such a precarious judgment call. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

(Edit conflict, but I would very much like to communicate my advice to you at this time) Your editing habits carry strong signs of utilising a long-term strategy for "dodging" the 3RR rule by technically staying clear of 4 reverts per day. This block is sending a clear message that such disruptive behaviour will not be tolerated, and I fully support it. To address a particular point of the reason you have cited as an unblock justification, "it seems a little harsh"; I beg to differ on that point. Your block log points towards disruptive editing habits in the past, with 3RR and/or edit warring featuring heavily in the summaries there. Thus, I am declining this unblock request, solely because any action to the contrary would have a net, negative effect on the project and the community as a whole. I urge you to drastically adjust your editing habits, and reflect on the methods by which you operate on Wikipedia during your block. Anthøny 22:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Bumping up against 3RR

I am aware that I often bump up against 3RR, but I am extremely careful to never violate that rule. Yes, 3RR is not an entitlement, but I don't think many of the admins know exactly how difficult it is to keep POV-pushing out of Wikipedia in certain areas. Certain agenda-driven editors go to great lengths to keep their agendas active on Wikipedia and if we really take NPOV seriously we have to be willing to respond swiftly and forthrightly to problems. I realize that the community doesn't have the stomach to ban problematic editors who have demonstrably pushed a certain POV, but if it isn't for editors like myself pseudoscience and fringe theories would come out of the woodwork and overwhelm certain aspects of this project. I have to use all the capital I can get or pages begin to degenerate rapidly. That's all. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

All the more reason why we can't afford to lose you. There are too few sane editors willing to endure the slings and arrows of people who think we can commune with the dead through tape recorders, that water develops healing properties by shaking, and other such nonsense. But you can't fight city hall. Try to slow down and relax. So, Wikipedia sucks for a few hours or days in the meantime -- that's bad, but the community as a whole doesn't care nearly as much for accuracy as it does for a precious devotion to "civility." We have no choice but to play the cards we're dealt. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

That's really not acceptable. POV-pushers are using the community's civility, personal attack, and dispute resolution policies against them. What happens is that instead of a few hours, a few years (!) go by where articles lie in stagnation including utter bullshit that is effectively protected by single purpose accounts. People want to cry "Patience! Patience!" but our patience is being abused. Dealing with admins who fail to see the forest for the trees, I'm having a hard time justifying wasting my time here any more. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Raymond. No reason to lose you as an editor. But like I said above, I don't know why you're chewing your own foot off. You're jumping in on these articles and doing things that don't make any rational sense. There's a consensus at Bleep to see the RfC on the intro through. Editors have told you about it. But you still edit war. Kww seems to agree with your point of view, but even he reverted your edits in favor of consensus-building. I don't know why you would want to burn out even the editors who agree with your edits. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 22:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't much care for the length of your block, but I can see why it was put in place. I think you should recognize by now that I am your ally on that article. How are we going to put a stop to the woo-woo edits if everyone freely edits the article while the RFC is going on? Now, all that's happened is the RFC is going to close out while you are blocked, and I'm not going to have as many voices for reasonableness while it happens. You have my e-mail address ... take a look over the proposals that are in the discussion section, and give me a detailed breakdown of what you don't like about each one. I'll do my best to see that your views are represented.Kww (talk) 22:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

When exactly is the RfC closing out? - Alison ^❤ 22:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping in the next day or two. No way to tell for sure. SA's fury is quite understandable, and generally not misdirected. The article truly does have problems, and I tend to think his edits help it. However, we got to the point where everyone was commenting on different versions of the lead, and you couldn't tell what who's comments were applying to, so I lobbied for a freeze. Pretty much everyone agreed to it but SA.Kww (talk) 22:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely hope you'll reconsider leaving. It's too bad admins don't seem to notice or care that polite or not, you consistently make articles better.Rracecarr (talk) 22:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

He's done this before...

He's done this before...[16], [17]. The issue isn't writing good articles, it's edit warring and incivilty, which hopefully he'll learn to face and overcome. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)