User talk:ජපස

Statements of support and good wishes

I wish you wouldn't leave, Joshua. You are one of the ten smartest people at Wikipedia. I respect your right to vanish, however, and I wish you well if that's what you want. If you ever want to get together for a cup of coffee and a bagel in the Upper West Side, drop me a line.

All the best. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Say what, you're vanishing again? I regret your right to vanish; the tens of thousands of people who somehow take WP and its commercial scrapes as providing reliable information need more defenders against silliness and fraud. -- Hoary (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I support the endevour of SA, but I wish he was a bit more timid. One important aspect of debunking is to actually cull all the myths about a subject first, and then inform about what is actually known about it. I also love to learn about myths, but CSI and friends are not good sources if you want to learn about the cutting edge of a subject. And most of the objections that skeptics raised are well known in the field already; you are your best critic after all. There IS a lot of fraud in the field, booksellers, morons, etc; and I support the job to seperate these from the science of the subject. However a priori motivations just doesn't cut it. The old pals in CSI also hated these. But the new generation of skeptics are just booksellers just as the UFO crowd. I hope SA keeps on finding good sources on stuff, because it is good. So I hope we can actually cooperate in the future instead of fighting over each others different POV. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 01:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, found a paper from my fave, A Plea for Pluralism in Philosophy and Physics Arne Næss - He is showing how unified science or consensus science is problematic and suggests pluralism instead. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

This is to inform you that you have been included as a party in a request for Arbitration here ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

Hello ScienceApologist. It is really a sad thing that you retired from Wikipedia. Your contributions will be remembered. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:HOPE

Policy proposal: WP:HOPE. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs you

In an exchange with Benjaminbruheim, I told him that CSICOPers were my personal saviors :)

In your user page list I would add JFK conspiracy theories, such as those debunked in Vincent Bugliosi's Reclaiming History. JFK conspiracy theories also belong to your category "Conspiracy theorist claims of suppression of true-science".

And I would add also Scientology-related articles to your category "Religious-based explanation of observable events".

WP really needs editors like you...

—Cesar Tort 18:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't take the bait of assumptions of bad faith

I've seen a lot of editors make bad faith assumptions of others, mostly as a method of baiting and gaming the system. I recommend you get a third party involved when this happens, or at least make a mental note that they're acting from the perspective of assuming bad faith on your part. They're just trying to escalate conflicts, making the conflicts personal, to create an excuse for their own incivility. Best to keep cool and calm. --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Crohn's disease

I don't know if you work articles like this but if you know anything about Crohn's I would appreciate some help in making this article readable for the everyday person. Right now the article is ok but the problem I am having is how to make it less medical, it was originally written by a GI, at least that's my understanding.

I've been trying to work on it occasionally but with flare ups and so forth, I get delayed because I am usually unable to focus well enough to keep thoughts in my head with my meds. Anyways, if you can think of a way to keep the article with the knowledge in it but make it user friendlier I would appreciate it. I've been trying to get people interested in the Inflammatory Bowel Diseases (IBD) article because to be honest I feel it' important to get people to understand these diseases. Knowing about an incurable disease gives empowerment and I guess this is basically what I want this article to do, explain how Crohn's disease is a life altering disease. If you don't know or you are not interested, don't worry about it. I understand if you are too busy (with Wiki and real life). I am just asking incase maybe you are interested in an article like this. --CrohnieGal^Talk 23:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to take a look at it tomorrow. A little to much meds for serious thinking right now. ;) Plus it's time for bed! You are the type of person though that I want this article to reach out to, so you know about this disease and what people go through, esp. the little people. I am talking about little people who are born to the monster or get diagnosed at such an early age that they don't understand. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 00:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Heads up again

You are being discussed here. Cardamon (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Don't you think it would be a good idea to ask other editors if homeopathy references belong in some of these articles? To not collaborate and claim wp:weight and wp:fringe in an attempt to mass delete homeopathic entries is a POV edit. Some of these herbs are better known for their homeopathic use and in a few cases you have deleted only one sentence in attempt to withhold information to readers and push you "skeptic" agenda forward. Before you continue deleting, discuss. Thank you. --travisthurston+ 18:06, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Editors attempt to make the claim that Homeopathy works. Utilizing articles that are not reliable and do not in fact show anything, should not be used. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

One might say that the act of editing, in itself, invites collaboration and provokes thought. Antelan ^talk 18:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think each disputed piece of text should be joined with up to date science on the subject instead of outright removal. Perhaps that a lot of mentions are un-notable, the WEIGHT does not warrant out right removal just because it is non-mainstream, but reduction of mention. This way the text will be more informal and verifiable. I would love success stories about this as well. I agree with all three above, and I hope not the edits will remove verifiable material. But if this is done right, and SA rather updates than removes it can be very good. The alternative are noise because editors who are knowledgable feels notable aspects are removed. --Benjaminbruheim (talk) 18:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am also concerned about removing what are usually very brief mentions of homeopathy from these articles. I would interpret the policies you are citing to say that the homeopathic uses should not be given undue prominence and that the articles shouldn't imply that they work, however, simply briefly mentioning a verifiable piece of information seems entirely acceptable. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

But what was the rationale for removing the mention of homeopathy from the Aconitum napellus article, but leaving the traditional Chinese medicine? Or similarly, leaving that excremental section on herbal medicine in Calendula officinalis, but only removing the homeopathy? I'm puzzled about why you are applying this so selectively. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I hate bickering and am hesitant to weigh in on this subject but here goes. A statement like "x is used as a homeopathic remedy." seems to me a statement of fact. It says nothing at all about whether or not it's effective. If an editor is worried about wp:weight then just add a statement like "There is no evidence of it's efficacy". As far as wp:fringe goes, Homeopathy may be stupid and untrue, or may actualy be a kind a faith healing, or whatever and not science. But I can't see why that means there should be no mention of it. That would be like talking about Columbus and not at least mentioning "flat earth". Even with the debate raging over at Homeopathy no one is argueing a total ban on the topic. A scientist must realise that any theory should be open to change or even rejection after a period of acceptance. It seems fundamentaly unscientific to quash all discusion on a topic. That's more of a religious tactic.Darrell Wheeler (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

heh. I thought you retired. You just decide to act as a force of one. "Uses" is relevant to the article whether you like the uses or not. Mayby it comes down to whether or not you take a "proscriptivist" or "descriptivist" view of wikipedia. I try to assume good faith but seriously. get over yourself.Darrell Wheeler (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I noticed your comments on Tim's Talk page ("Deleting homeopathy from mainstream articles") and thought I'd offer my two cents, although I'm probably going to regret this :) You mean the final product does not verifiably contain [...], right? ;) Wasn't the plant/whatever material used in some stage of preparation? FWIW, I do think such mentions are relevant and harmless, and I don't think this constitutes advertising of homeopathy. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt and detailed reply. I happen to take a slightly different view, particularly with how controversial such statements (so-and-so is used in manufacturing a homeopathic remedy) are and the characterization of homeopathy as fringe theory, which I think is quite inaccurate; surely, as a ScienceApologist, you are well aware that not all pseudoscience is fringe theory, even if it damn well should be. Right now I have to work on a Sunday, so I'll leave a somewhat more coherent and long note here when I have time :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, please allow me to be the Friendly Uninvolved Admin™ who tells you to step back and mind 3RR., the number one reason why good editors are unnecessarily blocked. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Please don't missunderstand me. I don't have a vested interest in either view point. As to my argument being specious. see comment above. also just as a note. Although the flat earth thing and Columbus is a myth it still merits mention in the article on Columbus. Good luck on your crusadeDarrell Wheeler (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hair of the Dog

Good spotting. Wow, I can't believe that article was so polluted. Nice job. Tparameter (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Bleep

The problem is that this is the rule for writing about films or books -- for anything contentious we find secondary sources, and we don't rely on our own descriptions and analysis if someone objects to them. If there aren't any sources who have covered these errors, they may have to stay uncovered, or perhaps could be dealt with in footnotes. I know this is a very contentious area, but people really don't like to see editors impose their own views of how a particular movie or book should be approached.

I only watched 20 minutes of the film myself, so I should probably get hold of it again and watch the rest before commenting (I had trouble getting through it, to be honest), but so far as I could tell, it's not about science at all. It's philosophy, although not in any kind of rigorous academic sense, and really very mixed up -- a Sophie's World written by a non-philosopher. So the criticism of it that it's not scientific is making a category mistake, in my view. Plus, all the ideas they talk about e.g. that what we regard as the external world is really just a series of perceptions; that there may be parallel universes; that the objects of knowledge can't be known independently of the observer etc -- these are very old, and very respectable, philosophical ideas. They're just not well-presented in Bleep. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if the film were all about "science" (and let's say all BS) our NOR policy would still demand that we find a verifiable secondary source that said either "All claims about science in this particular film are false" or "Some of the claims about science in this particular film are false" or "This — particular claim about science in this particular film is false" or something like that. It is not for Wikipedians to argue that the science in the film is false (regardless of whatever evidence we marshall to support our view) because we editors do not put our own views into articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

That is precisely the type of claim (i.e., a well-sourced claim) that is written in the article, and that people are trying to keep out of the lead. Antelan ^talk 20:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

There are two separate issues: N, and the lead. Let us keep them separate. SA, you wrote, "a myriad of sources which detail (nearly point-by-point) where the film misrepresents science from Physics Today to the American Chemical Society" - do these sources explicitly refer to the film, what the bleep do we know? if they do, I agree they are appropriate sources. On the second, separate matter of the introduction, I think as a rule introductions should not get into details. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

(Am not SA but replying anyway.) Yes, the sources in question explicitly refer to the film. The proportion of this type of material (reviews, reception, criticism) in the lead seems appropriate (about 1/3 of the lead) relative to the amount of coverage in the article (about 1/2 the material). Antelan ^talk 23:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you SA, I appreciate your telling me. My suggestion is, review them extensively in an appropriate section in the body. When various editors can collaborate together to write an NPOV NOR compliant section in the body of the article - Wikipedia is a collaborative process! - when diverse editors reach a consensus about the section in the body, I think then is the time to work out a sentence to add to the intro that signals that there is controversy covered later in the article. look, there is no rush! Have the patience and good faith to take time to work out s extion in the body. i really believe that it will be easier to do this first. And I believe that once this is done, it will be easier to modify the intro second. One step at a time! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:39, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Stone Tape Theory

I dropped a comment on the talk page and will fix it up in a few days. Doesn't anyone watch X-Files? : ) --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 20:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

ANNALS OF EMERGENCY MEDICINE

See http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/623278/description#description

After you have had time to look it over, I will return the info you are working very hard to find a reason to exclude - for some reason; maybe in a day or two. Hard to work on the page with edit conflicts. Hardyplants (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You took the bait

You might want to consider refactoring this. Cardamon (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool it

Please. I'm begging you, just cool it. You're letting "them" win by falling for the attempts to wind you up. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

re:sheep

I just revised it, and added a pubmed source Adam Cuerden provided. Best regards, VanTucky —Preceding comment was added at 07:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for for violation of your ArbCom editing restrictions. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Revolving Bugbear 15:08, 20 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:

What is it with not getting an opportunity to respond to arbitration enforcement requests? This is the second time I have been blocked without being able to respond to accusations. Has anybody here actually studied civility? Is anyone aware that there are differing interpretations of what civility entails? Civility is a culturally generated standard and here at Wikipedia we have cultures galore: not one megalithic culture that can determine immediately what is and is not civil. But aside from that, this block was so hasty and so personally insulting as to leave me almost confused. There is no link to the supposed violations (I had to go to WP:AE myself and hunt around), so I didn't even know what the instances of civility were that people were discussing. So here are the issues. One) incivility about a rather bizarre comment from Rlevse that I subsequently removed. I recognized the comment I made could be considered uncivil and apologized and removed it. However, it was in response to a rather bizarre interpretation of my edits as "edit warring". The other commentator at WP:WQA pointed out that it was strange and we still don't know what it was supposed to mean. In any case it was repeated at WP:AE#Martinphi as well where yet another administrator pointed out that it was a misinterpretation. "If this is not edit warring, I don't know what is" is a comment that looks to me like an extreme insult to my reputation as a Wikipedian, but that comment remains preserved while mine was removed by me. The second set of instances of apparent incivility was for my use of "foul language" (by which I assume the reader means the use of the word "fuck"). If I had used the word "friggin" would this have been considered as uncivil? How about "hay", "flip", "heavens" as in "What the hay" or "That's flippin ridiculous" or "For heaven's sake." Try it out. Replace "fuck" with another word in those instances of civility and you tell me whether it's still problematic. Are people really all that concerned by the use of fuck -- we have an article on the subject! The claim was that it was directed at other users. I was under the impression that directing foul language against other users was considered to be something like: "fuck you" OR "you're a fucking asshole". "What the fuck do you want?" does not to me seem to be "foul language directed against other users. It's emotive, it's dramatic, it's illustrating my frustration, but it's not uncivil. It has been acknowledged time and again that Wikipedia is not censored and that it is questionable for someone to be blocked simply for using foul language. I point out that profanity has been used historically at Wikipedia to great effect. I have used language that some people object to for years and this is the first time anybody has claimed that its use is uncivil. I have every reason to believe that this posting at WP:AE is in retaliation for User:Rlevse leaving Wikipedia (who also seemed to dislike profanity and I respect his dislike). User:Sumoeagle179 is a good friend of Rlevse and while I regret that Rlevse left, I don't think all this had a chance to be aired before being punished once again. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm sorry, SA, but the block is good. To make certain that you will not be denied any opportunity to defend yourself, however, I will gladly forward any comment of yours to the appropriate page while you are blocked— but please try to keep the tone of your language one notch higher. You may be correct that some amount of foul language has always been tolerated— in limited circumstances— but at this point you're not achieving any rhetorical effect by using that language; just making more people angry. — Coren ^(talk) 17:12, 20 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.

• [1] - Revolving Bugbear 15:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Looks like we have yet another administrator that values civility over content, accuracy, and rationality. Feh. -- RG² 16:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

• I asked this particular user to stop editing here before, he outright ignores me once and again. Obviously simply asking this user nicely isn't working. I needed to be explicit. Even though I yelled and tried to illustrate my emotion by saying, "STAY THE FUCK OFF MY TALKPAGE" this particular user just didn't get it. Yet he is allowed to harass me on my own user space? I note that WP:USER applies. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't actually have the right to tell users not to post to your talk page. Your talk page does not belong to you -- it is a vehicle for the community to get in touch with you ... the entire community, not just the members you like. - Revolving Bugbear 16:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This was deliberate harassment of SA, in my opinion. Jefffire (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This comment is indicative of why I feld the need to say:"STAY THE FUCK OFF MY TALKPAGE" ScienceApologist (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC) I assume this means I have the right to comment here? Anthon01 (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The correct answer would be that you have the "technical ability to do so", but not "the right to do so". --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 18:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have the right to keep poking SA with a stick as you have been doing. Enjoy. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Jefffire. And as for the ArbCom report: I'm also part of the Scouting WikiProject, and they're not happy about Rlevse's departure. (Nor am I.) But some of them are looking for the "turd" that caused his departure. Guess who commented here, and guess who filed the latest report. -- RG² 16:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Four edit conflicts! I was just about to note that someone else would pretty quickly make a comment referencing WP:OWN, all the while dodging the real issue that while the block is in accordance with policy, it's clear that the block is the result of administrators liking their power to enforce the encyclopedia's policies a little better than the encyclopedia itself. -- RG² 16:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware that I can't stop a user from posting to my talkpage (see the last thing done by this user again) but I certainly have the right to remove it from my talkpage and forcefully state my preferences, or is that not allowed now either? By the by, User:Anthon01 is in serious violation of WP:POINT and is basically harassing me. If anybody is a distressed user right now, it is me. Where's his block? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll also note that I worried at WP:ANI#User:Rlevse making veiled threats about me to other users that "I hope that doesn't win me a whole new batch of enemies." Obviously my worst fears about the petty, vindictive nature of people in this community was realized. Rlevse left on his own accord. I didn't even want him to leave. Now I'm made to suffer for it. That's civility for you. This place sucks ass. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you let your arguments speak for themselves, and avoid giving your opponents straw man arguments about rude words? Stephen B Streater (talk) 16:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So why are straw men allowed to rule at Wikipedia? Is saying that "this place sucks ass" so rude that I should be shown the door? If so, this is not the Wikipedia community I remember from the past. Maybe the cultural climate has changed. Maybe it's now commnunity agreement that anything that can be interpreted as profanity should be blockable offenses. Is that really what's best for the encyclopedia? Am I violating WP:POINT by writing George Carlin's seven deadly words? The last person to directly say to me that something I said something rude to which they took offense was Rlevse. He didn't like that I used the word "hell" in an edit summary connected with his talk page. I apologized. I will never do that again (provided he comes back). Every other comment about my "civility" has been to the tune of: "don't do that because someone will use it against you" instead of "don't do that because I'm offended". Ironic, huh? No one seems to be offended, yet I'm being blocked for causing offense. People seem to be under the impression that if I just suddenly changed online personalities everything would be fine: like there's some switch I can turn on and off at will to stop this nonsense. Well, I've got news for you, this is so petty and vindictive that there is no end in sight. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not a "straw man argument". SA is under an editing restriction imposed by ArbCom. ArbCom decisions are binding. He is of course welcome to bring up what he considers problems in the proper forums, but if he does so in clear violation of his editing restriction, he will be blocked. - Revolving Bugbear 16:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a straw man because civility is always contextual. The problem is that the editing restrictions imposed by arbcom require an administrator to interpret what they think is uncivil. There is no due process: it's simply applied when someone feels like it without any standard or consistency. Imagine if ArbComm had said "this user can be blocked for any comment that is deemed by an administrator to be cryptic or adorable." It's that level of pettiness. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

In the mean while we have the issue that he was obviously provoked into incivility when he was clearly frayed, and there is no consequence. SA's efforts keep a lot of the nonsense out of Wikipedia, and those who want it to stay now have an easy and consequence free way to remove him. Jefffire (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

If you believe there is a legitimate complaint to be made against another user, make that complaint in the proper forum and in the proper way. If you do so, it will be reviewed and dealt with accordingly. However, this still does not excuse SA's behavior. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. - Revolving Bugbear 16:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So, uneven enforcement of policy is a good thing, because otherwise it would be "an eye for an eye"? Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that there isn't a proper forum for subtle poking and prodding. Jefffire (talk) 16:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:WQA or WP:RfC. - Revolving Bugbear 16:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Good luck. User RfCs are a complete waste of time (as I outlined in detail in the not too distant past) and WQA is not a place meant to enforce policy but is rather a place to try to diffuse conflicts. Begin again, Finnegan. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, don't blame Revolving Bugbear for his obsequiousness. This is simply the standard cop-out that administrators have been taught or taught themselves to employ because admitting that issues may be more complicated than they first appear is not something out of the RfA handbook. That makes sense, since most vandals and disruptive editors try to game the system, they tend to have their radar screens for sanity switched completely off lest they fall victim to the stray logical argument that someone may make. I've seen it all before, an administrator gets criticized for not acting fairly and then immediately starts calling upon Lord God Procedure to save them. It doesn't matter that there is no procedure in place for handling the subtleties of the conflicts and actually encouraging a thoughtful evaluation of the situation. Rather, people make specious arguments and look at isolated diffs out of context in order to pass judgement. It's all so illogical and self-contradictory that it's practically straight out of Catch-22. For example, I can't report Anthon01 because I'm blocked, but it's perfectly legitimate in the fucked up world of Wikipedia logic to say that I should report Anthon01. I can't post to the proper forum because the administrator in question won't let me while at the same time the administrator in question tells me to post to the proper forum. And when I have, in the past, attempted to post to "appropriate fora" as yesterday, other admins tell me that it's the wrong forum, I'm being uncivil, that my complaints lack merit, or that I'm just as at fault (applying as much eye-for-an-eye justice as they can muster). Double standards and making sure to protect the integrity of the lovey-dovey nature of their playground Wikipedia is all that matters. And then, after I suggest being scared by the standoffish and outright opaque way punishment is doled out, valued admins pack up and go with the direct result that I get blocked. For the love of Zeus this is fucked up. So I'm left here complaining to anyone who will listen and administrators who coasted through RfAs by means of making friends with other administrators at the usual places give each other congratulatory picture cards of sunsets and daffodils. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Whilst I agree, I think it's time to go rest for a bit. You've been baited and you've bitten, the system is faulty but giving more excuse for longer blocks isn't whats going to fix it. Jefffire (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

SA, compare:

STAY THE FUCK OFF MY TALKPAGE

with:

I understand why you may think that way, but I would appreciate it if you stop posting comments and questions about these issues in my talk page. Any further such comments will be simply removed and ignored; if you want to engage in debates, please do so in article's talk pages.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, I find the second comment to be condescending, rude, and uncivil while the first one is to the point and clear. I much prefer the first one. My opinions don't matter though. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

How about

I am not interested in discussing this further with you. Further comments on the matter will simply be removed.

Straight(er) to the point, yet still civil. — Coren ^(talk) 17:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't convey the emotion properly. I'm not merely "not interested", I'm angry about it. I find such mealy-mouthed wording to be more than unpalatable, it's disingenuous. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

To all the people who in good faith are trying to help me. Notice this diff. Now if someone posts to your talkpage again, what is your response? ScienceApologist (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't ask someone not to post on my talk page. And if it's rubbish, you have no obligation to reply - leave that to your friends. Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I used to be of that opinion. But, frankly, I simply got tired of my talkpage being a dumping ground and a party zone for irrelevant and ignorant chatter. There are users who have posted here in the past whose every comment has been basically unhelpful. I don't want them posting here any more. If I don't put them on notice they claim ignorance. If I do put them on notice they begin poking me. Yet there is no concerted effort going on to get rid of them. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

As you don't decide what gets posted on this talk page, you will have problems if you try and control it. You don't even control the corresponding user page. If you want to communicate in a way you control, use a private email address with a spam filter (and set up your own website if you want your own user page). I've had massive debates between third parties on my talk page. Just move to a space where it doesn't bother you. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes - the trick is to provoke your opponents less than they have provoked you so as to diffuse the situation. Your lack of respect for the ignorant and opinionated should not show through into your impartial and well reasoned edits - the debate should be about the content, not the people. And Admin needs quite a low level of performance - mostly being uncontroversial. This is clearly a flaw with Wikipedia, but one which is easy to circumvent by obeying the rules they enforce. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like gaming the system to me. Sorry, I am who I am. It's a headache, but you get what you get. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Obeying the rules is not the same as gaming the system. And I notice you haven't changed over the years, so I wouldn't expect you to change now. But are you willing to sacrifice the end result in order to attempt to enforce your process? Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What end result? I don't see any end in sight. One cannot obey the rules if they aren't easily interpreted. That's why we need to have a better definition for incivility. I think my solution works. I'm going to ask that it be the new standard by which I'm held. Since I am so dense that I cannot figure this out despite it being so obvious to many other people including a great deal of people who seem to have some level of sympathy for me, I need to come up with a tool to help me figure it out. If the Wikipedia community refuses to let me do this, then I'm not quite sure what else I can do. It's like ordering a southpaw to write with their right hand. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What else can you do? Try something new. Ironically, you have the fervour of a fundamentalist, and this is divisive. I'm going to have a look at one of these controversial articles and see if I can square the circle. Can you suggest one to get started on? Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I like fervor. I don't think there is anything intrinsically wrong with fervor. Maybe the Wikipedia community doesn't like fervor, though. I'll think about that. Anyway, here's a nice little selection to get you started: Electronic voice phenomenon, Quackwatch, Homeopathy, WTBDWK, and, for shits and giggles, Potassium dichromate and strontium chloride. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

At first glance Homeopathy introduction looks OK - reporting the main principles and what mainstream medicine thinks about it. Electronic voice phenomenon is a new one on me. I'll have a look now... Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok I would like to make an objective comment here. First I would like to say that I have had barely any contact with SA. We had once on QuackWatch when I calmed the waters sort of with a suggestion and SA gave me a barnstar and thanked me.

Now I have been talking to Anthon01 about his talk page and comments on it about editors which I found rude, not in compliance with civility policy and not assuming good faith about editors. Him and other editors were behaving, IMO, quite rudely towards other editors that they consider being in the other camp.

Here are some diffs about complaints made Anthon about SA and some commentary. [2], [3], [4]. I think editors should look at this users talk page and follow the links that are there. To me I asked about what was going on because it looks like a group are trying to get others banned/blocked or to quit. So far one editor when you follow the links did quit. I think aallowing editors to be harrassed to make a pont or get things there way is wrong. [5] states that users tall pages are given more latitude. I have also read On ANI and other sites here that a user can ask an editor (s) to leave them alone and not post to them. I think what is going on here is unfair and a vendetta is going on. I am usually very quiet and stay away from things like this but this time I don't think the playing field is at all even. I can give more links if it is needed. Just my opinions, thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I am ignorant of Wikipedia's standards of civility

I've come to realize that what people have been saying to me since the last arbcomm, I simply am unable to understand. If this were a class, I would get a failing grade for the simple fact that I either have the wrong textbook or the language in which the textbook is written doesn't make sense to me. I simply do not see any of my contributions as uncivil. Others do. There is no amount of training that I can go through to figure this out. Jossi's comparison illustrated it perfectly to me. I'm simply not going to understand what people here consider to be civil and what people here consider to be uncivil. That's me. I just don't get why patronizing is civil while expressing negative emotions is not. Fine. I have instituted a mechanistic process below for determining when things are civil and when things aren't. I don't buy this "it's not offensive to me, but it may be offensive to someone else" bullshit. Since civility is in the eye of the beholder, the only time someone is truly being uncivil is when they cause offense. Unless we have a means for determining when that happens, we're shit out of luck. So now I have the means. After this block is up, I'm going to petition arbcomm to replace the vague and problematic restriction I'm placed under that rests on the (false) assumed monolithic nature of the few thousand personalities who are admins with a much more straightforward and fair process outlined below. What do people think arbcomm's response will be? Will they allow me to institute a process whereby if I offend someone in the same manner twice I get blocked? Can that be a reasonable way out of this morass?

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It depends how much time they have. The more "high maintenance" you are as an editor, the less they will feel like helping you. If you like, I can help you on civility. Stephen B Streater (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Tried it before. It didn't work. You aren't going to be around all the time to help me. While it would be great to have a shadow that switches all my comments to ones that Jossi seems to prefer when problems arise, I need a tool that is independent of other users and the incidental nature of when they are available. I don't think that it is very "high maintenance" to have a place prominent on my talkpage where people can air my grievances and I'm bound to respond. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because one experiment has a negative result, it doesn't mean that all will ;-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's see, there have been no fewer than five separate experiments. With each null result the null hypothesis gains strength and skepticism naturally takes hold. You can only waste so much time trying to measure the changing speed of light before you decide it is constant. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this will help:

John Stuart Mill (1806–1873). On Liberty. 1869. Chapter II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion

Before quitting the subject of freedom of opinion, it is fit to take some notice of those who say, that the free expression of all opinions should be permitted, on condition that the manner be temperate, and do not pass the bounds of fair discussion. Much might be said on the impossibility of fixing where these supposed bounds are to be placed; for if the test be offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that this offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them, if he shows any strong feeling on the subject, an intemperate opponent. But this, though an important consideration in a practical point of view, merges in a more fundamental objection. Undoubtedly the manner of asserting an opinion, even though it be a true one, may be very objectionable, and may justly incur severe censure. But the principal offences of the kind are such as it is mostly impossible, unless by accidental self-betrayal, to bring home to conviction. The gravest of them is, to argue sophistically, to suppress facts or arguments, to misstate the elements of the case, or misrepresent the opposite opinion. But all this, even to the most aggravated degree, is so continually done in perfect good faith, by persons who are not considered, and in many other respects may not deserve to be considered, ignorant or incompetent, that it is rarely possible on adequate grounds conscientiously to stamp the misrepresentation as morally culpable; and still less could law presume to interfere with this kind of controversial misconduct. With regard to what is commonly meant by intemperate discussion, namely invective, sarcasm, personality, and the like, the denunciation of these weapons would deserve more sympathy if it were ever proposed to interdict them equally to both sides; but it is only desired to restrain the employment of them against the prevailing opinion: against the unprevailing they may not only be used without general disapproval, but will be likely to obtain for him who uses them the praise of honest zeal and righteous indignation. Nbauman (talk) 18:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Makes me feel like I'm in the right and everyone else is in the wrong. That's obviously not very helpful. ;) ScienceApologist (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

People who are right when everybody else is wrong are in for a difficult time in life.

It's too bad you're not wrong when everybody else is right. Then you could admit your error and be accepted. Nbauman (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

That's basically what I was getting at. Believe me, I've tried to "admit my error and be accepted." Short of getting on my proverbial hands and knees and begging for forgiveness (which is so hard to do in text form), I'm not sure what more is possible. John Stuart Mill may not be the best person to read at this juncture. I'm pretty sure he also thought he was right while everyone else was wrong, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Tell me how you are offended

Note: I invite everyone in the community to post the diffs of where I've offended them personally here. That's everyone, including those I asked in the past to stay the fuck off my talkpage.

This is the place to tell me about where I offended you. These are the only places I will assume legitimate evidence for incivility. You should do the following:

1. Provide a diff of the comment.
2. Explain what was offensive about the comment (for example, it was insulting to my grandmother)
3. Explain why it was offensive (for example, comments about my grandmother hurt my feelings because she is a very important person in my life.)

This will help me measure who exactly is taking offense to my supposed incivility. Only postings that contain all three criteria will be considered legitimate complaints.

If you do this I promise never to offend you in that way again. If I do, I will ask an administrator to block me.

ScienceApologist (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Those wishing to express that I've never offended them

You have never offended me, just to comment that I commend you on this initiative of yours, as a good step in the right direction. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Jossi. I know you have friends in what I would call "low places". Can you encourage them to post here all their grievances? Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You have never offended me. Have I you? I know you're being serious, so I won't throw in my usual joke here. But civility is different than a personal attack, IMHO. A personal attack can be defined objectively. Civility is merely a tool of certain individuals to extract punishment on your opposing their POV. Civility is impossible to define except in extreme cases. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, well if I remember correctly you, me, and User:Filll had a little tiff over Level of support for evolution and Misunderstandings about evolution a few years (!) back. Don't think I was offended, though. Frustrated, but not offended. Anyway, water all under the bridge now. Sometimes I miss those days when I could argue with sane people rather than what passes for discourse these days. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You've never offended me. It's a sad fact that Wikipedia exists in it's own little world and thinks everything is going to be sunshine and puppy farts all the time. We are failing to recognize that there exists a problem with fringies trying to gain their way here and many would rather make barnstars to trade with other editors than acknowledge the problem. Anyway, remember this SA...every time you get blocked, God forces a mixture of potassium dichromate down a kitten's throat and gets it published so it can be argued to death for inclusion on the Homeopathy article. Don't let any more kittens get hurt. Baegis (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's worse than that. God dilutes a solution of potassium dichromate to the point where it is indistinguishable from distilled water and then forces that down a kitten's throat! ScienceApologist (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Come gather round children and I'll tell you a tale of how administrators at Wikipedia turned into puffballs

Back in the bad old days of Wikipedia when women were women and men were men, I used to edit pages on redshift, plasma cosmology, and Eric Lerner. Now in those days, there was a small group of Wikipedians convinced that modern astronomy was wrong, wrong, wrong and they were going to let the world know about this through Wikipedia. There were basically two camps: there were the bat-shit crazies who wrote run-on sentences, could barely spell, and were convinced that crop circles were evidence that the Big Bang was false. Then there were the polite-to-a-fault true believers who kept their personal weirdness to themselves and diligently and tendentiously kept prodding and poking with the hopes that I would someday give up the ghost and they would have free reign to declare their gospel to the world. Lo and behold, many moons passed and now none of these people are with us any longer (though your illustrious narrator stays on). This is because the community in the past had real administrators willing to make the difficult determinations required to stop this kind of behavior. Any more this is not the case: such administrators have vanished or are too scared to act.

What I learned from that episode is that civil POV-pushers are worse than crazy blowhards. I can handle editors who are so ignorant that they barely can form a coherent thought. In fact, there's some advantage to having them around because they tend to lighten the mood. However, it's the technically savvy and careful POV-pusher that's the real problem and the ones who really need to be shown the door. They are the ones who stay just below the radar screen and make great protestations whenever they get scolded. Back in the bad old days, there were a number of great administrators who were emboldened to scold these editors even as the editors complained about their persecution. Today, these administrators have gone on to other things: some of them are being battered themselves. We are left with a group that is in power who has very little understanding of how to sift through controversy and consequently I'm finding myself blocked at every turn. Administrators with good heads on their shoulders are afraid to act because they see what happens to the administrators who are brave. These are dark days for Wikipedia. What we need is a whole slew of sane and competent editors that are not wikignomes to be in charge of handing out blocks and bans against the true believers. The current system just rewards incompetence and mealy-mouthed love-in sessions.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Anyone can fix a typo. There are not enough Admins who can sort out controversial issues. It's a pity you didn't support my RfA! Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a pity you didn't support mine too! Then again, my support is often not that great to receive. If it comes to early, a certain group of editors tends to go in and vote oppose in rather large numbers, I've found. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I started off in support. But I was concerned by your difficulty in understanding the other point of view, which is important in resolving disputes and having a judgement accepted. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

What can I expect? Assuming good faith gets thrown out the window all too often in RfA discussions, as you no doubt are well-aware. Too bad I understand the "other side" better than almost anyone who isn't editing these pages. I have an account at creationwiki where I write all the time, for example, to glowing reviews. I know who the good editors are and who the bad ones are (and yes, there are good editors who have fringe beliefs and edit articles about them. There aren't very many of them, but they do exist.) ScienceApologist (talk) 19:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessarily a bad thing to tone down WP:AGF in an RfA, as an RfA is hard to reverse. I wasn't surprised by the level of paranoia and misinformation in mine. All I can say is that I've fixed up loads of dodgy articles, for example Creation-evolution controversy, without animosity. These people are not the enemy. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No one is "the enemy". There are just a whole lot of people out there with different agendas and don't have time to understand the problems of others. It's a very selfish world and full of a remarkable level of ignorance. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you can thank me for having no anmiosity at creation-evolution controversy because I worked really hard to get all the dyed-in-the-wool POV-pushing creationists off Wikipedia when I first arrived. You should've seen what the creationism pages looked like when I arrived! ScienceApologist (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the only people left were sweetness and light. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the puffball admins, I agree. There are times when I'm tempted to do what's right and damn the consequences. Perhaps someday I'll act on that impulse. May as well go out with a bang instead of a whimper. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

"Administrators with good heads on their shoulders are afraid to act because they see what happens to the administrators who are brave." Truer words have never been spoken.--Jersey Devil (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Too many Admins want the sysop bit for its own sake, rather than to actually do good stuff with. Why take risks? Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I would like to see the entire thing be abolished for one and an advisory counsel set up for people to handle disputes. The jobs of an admin are too varied to be bundled together like they are right now. Being a good admin does not mean you must have the GFDL memorized, though there are admin functions where having it memorized may very well help. Anyway, this is all a moot point, the community doesn't like us very much anyway (otherwise we'd be admins) so they're not going to take us seriously. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The community likes me. People who I've never met just thought I was too dangerous to be an Admin. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but people you've never met are also the community. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

But they don't dislike me. They have no opinion about me on a personal level. Basically, all the people I know supported me, and all those who didn't support me didn't know me. That's how RfAs can work. Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I knew you and I didn't support you. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was mistaken then. Why didn't you support me? Stephen B Streater (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)