This page has been removed from search engines' indexes.
Archive 14
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is an archive of past discussions about User:Valjean. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Though I know precisely what you meant, your most recent comment at AE inadvertently compares Wikipedia squabbles to global disasters and massacres, while equating Ludwigs with an earthquake/tsunami and Quackguru with a genocidal dictator. Because of your great efforts at remaining civil, I think you should consider revising without the analogy, to avoid anyone taking it as it was not intended. Unless you're feeling more frisky than usual. Ocaasi (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh my! That's certainly not my intention. I was only referring to a present situation where one well-known event distracts from another well-known event. The actual events and persons have no other relation in any manner to our current situation. It's only the "distraction factor" I'm trying to illustrate. Do you really think anyone would take offense? -- Brangifer (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
It's always possible when using an analogy of much more significance than the actual incident that instead of relating a:b to c:d (tsunami is to dictator as Ludwigs is to QG, they will associate a:c and b:d--Ludwigs is a tsunami, and QG is a dictator); or that they will just think mentioning c,d (online dispute, no real harm) in relation to a,b (real world disaster, extreme suffering) is using a nuclear weapon to take out a molehill. But I know what you mean! Who knows how sensitive people are around here. Whatever, just add no offense intended after the comment and don't worry about it. Ocaasi (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
OMG! You were right. Of course we're seeing yet another attempt by Hans Adler to smear me by missing the obvious point. He's intelligent enough to get the point "if he wishes to", but he'd rather attack me yet again. Very sad and it does detract from his credibility. He has a problem with AGF. When he was new here we often had very serious problems with communication. He would attack me again and again and nothing I could say would get him to understand the situation. He's a German speaker and at the time it was likely a language problem. We could discuss forever and get nowhere because he didn't understand English well enough. What continues is a basic attitude problem. Unless one agrees with literally every single word and thought process of his, he bears a grudge forever. It would be nice if others would point out that his systemic and habitual failures to AGF toward me are not good. He needs to drop the axe and warlike behavior. This is very sad. Right now it appears that he's trying to use me as a diversionary tactic by coatracking an old situation to save his friend now. In the process QG gets ignored. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I believe Ludwigs and Hans think the levee has broken, or the front crossed, and now they are releasing all of their artillery (WP:Battleground?). It would be less sad if it also wasn't going to fail and backfire. Next time around addressing QG will be marred by this spectacle. Whatever. The center must hold. Let them move to the left and try to stay neutral so people know where to gather next time. Ocaasi (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I fear you're right. Even as a battleground tactic it's very poor. They are operating on an emotional level and that won't work. It only makes them look bad. They need to stay focused and deal with what's relevant right now. They need to save their ammunition for other subjects/people for the right time, AND they need to deal with current problems, not bringing up old battles. That's a formula for failure because ArbCom always shoots that down. They don't get fooled that easily and such attempts only damage their credibility in the eyes of ArbCom and all other editors and admins watching the situation.
The only reason their current attacks on me are relevant now is that they are a blatant attempt to divert attention from Ludwigs2's problem with persistent threatening behavior and personal attacks. In that sense they really are guilty of creating a smokescreen. It's a dirty tactic and logical fallacy, but some editors fall for such dirty tactics. In the end, QG gets off the hook yet again and nothing serious can happen to me. They end up losing all around. They can throw mud at me, but it won't stick because there is abundant evidence that I have a positive learning curve. They are just revisiting old and dead issues and end up with mud on their own hands. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm just going to guess that that olive branch you offered to Ludwigs a little while back never made it to Hans. Have you ever been through that with him? Ocaasi (talk) 18:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
This discussion is surreal. Certain types of metaphors are simply off-limits because| they are in extremely bad taste. Try comparing someone being blocked on Wikipedia with the Holocaust and see how long you will stay unbanned. It won't help you if the metaphor is correct on a technical level. BullRangifer, your metaphor wasn't quite as bad, but it was still so bad that anyone with a little bit of sense would have self-censored it. I can assure you that my indignation was real and had nothing to do with any strategy or tactics.
Ocaasi, you are getting things totally wrong. I actually have a certain amount of sympathy for BullRangifer, but I am constantly distressed by his assumptions of bad faith and his general lack of competence. With that NSF thing he caused widespread disruption, and I spent a two-digit number of hours on detailed research for a user RfC. (BullRangifer actually gave constructive input to that, which contributed to my sympathy for him.) In the end I stopped work on that RfC because I got the impression that he had understood his mistake and was not going to repeat it in the near future. It now appears I even left some of his OR in astrology and possibly other articles so that the matter could die down. HansAdler19:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
IIRC, I believe it was deleted and others restored and defended it since there was no question that it very clearly applied to astrology. I haven't had anything to do with that matter or exact quote since then. There is nothing to prevent you from adding other good sources to bolster the case against astrology, but I don't know of any other national science organization that so clearly calls astrology "pseudoscience" like the NSF does in their section specifically addressing the problem of pseudoscience. I didn't take it out of context. That was the context! (NOTE: even though we still disagree on that matter, I have not entered that fray anymore, so I am not a problem. Please don't make me out to be one now.) Most national science bodies and organizations just ignore it, hence our FRINGE guideline which allows skeptical sources, since they are often the only ones which counter fringe claims, like their BS claim that astrology is not an example of pseudoscience. I know we both agree that it's a prime example. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Analogies are a matter of taste, logic, and intent. Brangifer intended to show that something bad was being overlooked because of a new distraction. I got that. I also get that it was way too loaded, too soon, and too mis-matched to be wise.
I know nothing about the NSF dispute, but since I started editing a year ago, BR has been nothing but even-handed and well-intentioned. It's clear to me that if he used to have more of a POV or less of a grasp of anything, it's vanished. Whatever sympathy you have for him, stick with it, and drop the rest. Wikipedia being a battleground is a waste. I'm hereby ordering both of you not to mention good faith or bad faith in reference to eachother at all. Just go back to editing; you're both good at it. Ocaasi (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
BR, although I am sympathetic with Hans Adler in his battles with QG, I wanted to offer you my support in this recent issue over your analogy and the claims by Hans that you assume bad faith. Your analogy seemed perfectly understandable to me... and I am simple minded enough to be a chiropractor :) Further, in my past discussions with you I have seen nothing but assumptions of good faith, fairness, open-mindedness, etc. I may not be aware of discussions you have had with other editors, but your discussions with me, even over disputes, have left me with nothing less than respect for you as a wikipedia editor. Regards Puhlaa (talk) 21:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
(1) Calus just "explained" Herbxue and his (and the other 10 Sock/Meats') showing up to (admitedly financial COI) "change the bad image of TCM at WP", or some such initial wording. Herb explained that they were responding to a discussion forum, then changed it to a face book page, or some such. Calus finally showed the post they all responded to, here[1]. Note that the post date is Feb 8, and they all showed up before Feb 8.
(2) Ludwigs2 advised a COI something like "wait for those skeptics to do a bunch of edits for a few months and then undo them, piece by piece". He argued long ago against including the medicinals that reveal what TCM really is just by listing them for a reader to see and be informed by, without any commentary needed. TCM is 90% family self-use, and about 10% doctors. Of the doctor part, 75% is the medicinals and theory behind them. The medicinals make no rational sense as they relate to symptoms, so are essentially a list of categories - human, animal, mineral, vegetable, plus alchemy and astrology to combine them. TCM is a list plus acupuncture, and a few minor other things, like allignment of the home with the stars, or date and hour of birth. Now the COIs have gotten a small handfull of others to "rewrite" the lead, writing out all science, anatomy, physiology, qi, alchemy, astrology, cannibalism (a main theme of criticism of TCM in 20th century Chinese literature), superstition, ... and medicinals. And the medicinals section has just been threatened to be removed to a CFORK, preserving the "dirty little secret" nature of TCM for those readers who come to the article. Ludwigs2 threatened me today to bring in other editors to "win an edit war", and I left. The article is a whitewash without showing what TCM is by showing examples. The theory is so misunderstood that most people don't know whether to believe it or not. What do you recommend? PPdd (talk) 08:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Not sure exactly. It's a bit complicated. There is obvious meat puppetry going on, but we can't do anything about that now. A number are blocked and the ones who are staying should just be treated as ordinary editors. "Herbxue" obviously has a huge COI as a licensed L.Ac. whose website comments instigated all this. His explanations have been deceptive, but again that's in the past and you should just make sure he sticks to using the talk page. As to Ludwigs2's enabling of fringe editors, that's nothing new. In his own way, he's just as bad as QuackGuru, but on the other side of the fence. I suggest you back off on the rhetoric, stop defending unessential points, condense your concerns to the absolute essential and leave a comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. More eyes are needed there and you should stop feeling it's all on your shoulders. Ludwigs2's actions are all on record and he's getting a chance to reveal his real tendencies, and the picture isn't pretty. He's just digging his own grave, but let others bury him. Any attempts by you will only get you dirty. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
In case the two of you are not aware, there is a new case open at arbcom that got started by the block of Ludwigs2 by Sandstein and the unblock that soon followed. You can read about this at Ludwigs2 talk page and you should also be able to find the arbcom case there. HTH, --CrohnieGalTalk17:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm aware of it and was the first one to comment there hoping to avert a lot of wasted time, but to no avail. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I remember now that you did make a comment which I didn't remember when I wrote the above. I see you and a bunch of others are at AN/i now. What a mess that is. --CrohnieGalTalk18:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
A mess it is indeed. but, whatever. I don't imagine there is anything to do at this point except to forge ahead until something snaps somewhere.
As far as my 'real tendencies' go, BR - I've never hidden them, and am perfectly and completely honest about why I do most everything I do even uncomfortably so, at times). If you guys weren't so infernally busy trying to make me into a player in your fantasy fringeball league, everyones' lives would be a hell of a lot nicer and easier. but I suppose that's that's too much to expect. --Ludwigs219:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
No, it's not too much to expect. If you'd resist the temptation to do such "uncomfortable" things (you're also making others uncomfortable and thus defeating your purpose), you'd save lots of grief. If you'd be a bit more civil, less threatening, and often acting like you know better than others (never wise!), IOW show some respect, we'd all get along better. Attacking other editors, especially science based ones, only places you on the other side in everyone's eyes. That may not be fair, but you place yourself there. It's not necessary. What you're often doing is encouraging and enabling pushers of fringe POV, instead of doing what you could do, and that is to teach them how to properly get their POV included using good sources, without encouraging their whitewashing attempts. Instead you justify them in their mistaken ideas of what an article should look like. It's not supposed to be a sales brochure. Criticism is allowed and you shouldn't encourage them in seeking to delete or hide it. You may not intend that, but that's what's happened.
It's possible to help such editors without encouraging their mistaken views about the purpose of Wikipedia. I have plenty of experience doing it. I've helped many a pusher of the weirdest nonsense to learn how to do it properly. If sourced properly, it may even have a right to mention here! (OK, not always, but sometimes.) You may wonder why I mentioned you. Well, I see you constantly deprecating many others, maybe not by name, but we all know who you're referring to, and it's getting old. When I see you attacking, hounding and threatening others like you did to me, well, it's irritating, and I'm sure you'd feel the same way. You need to AGF more often.
You are very intimidating and it's not right or justified. It's become so much second nature to you to threaten and intimidate others that you don't even notice you're doing it. I was just pointing it out this time, AFTER others had done so first (you got blocked for it). If you'd stop doing it, I wouldn't have had anything to point out. I usually don't do it, but this time I did. Place yourself in others' shoes a bit more often. Heck, we would all be better off if we all did that! I'm certainly not perfect. I've made plenty of mistakes here. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, when other editors stop attacking me (e.g., referring to me as a vandal, fringe advocate, enabler, trouble-maker, jumping on me like muggers or trying to block or ban me, etc., etc.) then they can rest assured that I will be as tame as a house cat. If I am intimidating, it's because I am cognizant of errors in reasoning (both in myself and others), intolerant of personal abuse, and able and willing to speak my mind clearly under pressure. Frankly, these should be good things, and it's only because I run into a lot of stubbornly irrational (but well-connected) opposition that I come off looking bad. it's not my fault if the Wikipedia Science Club bit off more than they could chew when they tried to frame me as a fringe advocate; their bad, their loss, cue the violins. I will simply continue doing what I have always done - that is, try to create neutral articles (including on fringe topics), and poke holes as needed in people's arguments to deflate ridiculous personal attacks, Machiavellian political ploys, and stunningly bad logic. I will continue to hope for some possibly mythical point in time when people figure out that attacking me without cause is just not worth the effort, so that they'll stop and we can all relax.
I might hope that people would become high-minded enough not to attack me without cause on principle, but I suspect that might require a complementary belief in unicorns.
So, you go talk to people (you know who I mean, generally speaking) and get them to start being reasonable and get off my back, and everything will be sunshine and roses. I don't make fights. The problem we're having is that I don't back down from fights that people pick with me (not unless I realize I'm in the wrong). clear enough? --Ludwigs222:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
It's certainly clear enough that you think you get picked on "without cause". That's your perceptual problem. You think it's everyone else that's wrong. BTW, since when have you ever apologized or realized that you were wrong? That would be out of character. I just don't see your ego allowing for that since you consistently think you know so much better than everyone else that you give yourself license to habitually threaten them. That type of behavior is a deal breaker. You end the possibility of collaboration when you do that. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I've seen Ludwigs note incorrectness several times. Never to a hardened skeptic though. This is partly a paradigmatic issue, since Ludwigs' worldview is sufficiently nuanced that I think he thinks others not only will reach his conclusions, but that they should share all of his rational/reasonable assumptions to get there. The problem is that there are other rational/reasonable assumptions--not to be post-modern about it--I mean that there are other priorities some editors have besides presenting a round encyclopedic overview. Some people are just more, literal, to use an ironic word, since they don't evince much in the way of liking words to explain complex subjects; instead they prefer literalism, which is sometimes fitting, and sometimes strangling. QG is a virtual sadist he squeezes words so tight. Sometimes I think I lose blood flow. Ok, far enough. Ocaasi (talk) 00:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
My god you put that well! That's a large part of the problem. If one doesn't agree with every twist and turn along the way, one gets bullied and accused. It's just so tiring. In reality, if the journey were more pleasant, we'd likely arrive at the same end point. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
You know, I was going to say something pithy, but I've got to give Ocaasi his due - that was well put. I am in a pissy, crappy, steamed-like-a-lobster mood, so rather than huff and puff further I'm going to go see if I can sneak in a couple of days wikibreak without queering the commitments I have on project. ciao for now! --Ludwigs200:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it was Ronald Reagan, not Jesus, referring to the MX missile program, which did have his blessing after all; "inherit the earth" might refer to Reagan building so many underground peacemaker silos that there would be no earth left to be buried in, so the MX would inherit all the dirt. :) PPdd (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Brang, what do you recommend when an ex girlfriend hears Ludwigs2 complained that I am "fascinated with the penis", goes in to edit only as a joke on me regarding that one thing, reads what is really going on, edits from an IP, then opens an account, and (I'm guessing) forgets to log in at the next internet cafe? I in no way asked her to MEAT argue for me. Instead I actually expected her to join Ludwigs2 in insulting me further still on this. My strategy was to then outdo both Ludwigs2 and her by self deprecating in such a superior fashion that they would be vastly inferior, thus winning the joke. I have to go now to try to borrow a magnifying glass somewhere, since I have to pee. PPdd (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
LOL! Put the whole mess behind you. Nothing really serious happened. Some mixups and confusion going on, and it is rather ironic that you'd end up with sock charges against you, when you've been dealing with a whole pack of them, most of whom were blocked. No one is in doubt that you're trying to find good sources, but just slow down. Working at such a frenetic pace on one article can frustrate other editors. It's usually better to do a little bit, see how it's received, work out any differences, then continue. That way everyone gets their say and the article usually benefits from the collaboration. You need to diversify your interests for a while. Be more careful with your sourcing. Keep the historical stuff in perspective as historical. Work with the other experts on this on the talk pages. They too know stuff and should be heard. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Well....of course your continued minority position (you against a large number of other editors) that skeptics at Wikipedia are acting as pseudoskeptics when they don't completely agree with you is offensive and a gross personal attack and assumption of bad faith, but you know that. It would certainly be more helpful if you refactored that and focused on QG's disruption. In principle, you are misusing the term when you label skeptics as "pseudoskeptics". (It also encourages/enables the real pushers of pseudoscience here, and other editors might think you're allied with them.) You're misusing the words in a similar way as those whom Robert Todd Carroll criticizes below. Using it that way reflects badly on yourself:
Commenting on the labels "dogmatic" and "pathological" that the "Association for Skeptical Investigation"[1] puts on critics of paranormal investigations, Robert Todd Carroll of the Skeptic's Dictionary[2] argues that that association "is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and [their] criticisms of paranormal studies."[3]
I side with Carroll, and if you continue to label me as a pseudoskeptic, then you are also labeling him as a pseudoskeptic, and I'm certainly in good company, because the whole skeptic movement uses terminology in the same way. Maybe in German there's a different nuance, but in English the very definitions used in the modern skeptic movement have evolved and moved on from the definitions used by Truzzi. By modern standards he was too open in his thinking, although very insightful for his time and still a good example in many ways.
BTW, you may not realize this, but there was lots of controversy over the very inclusion and manner of dealing with the concept of pseudoskepticism here. Most skeptical editors didn't consider it a legitimate concept worthy of inclusion at all. I'm one of the few skeptics who felt it deserved a place here as an extremely legitimate concept. I understand the meaning and believe the phenomenon clearly exists and I fought for it. I still wish it had its own article. That all makes it rather ironic that you would label me as one.
Ocaasi made some insightful comments on this page in response to Ludwigs2, and I agreed with him. In the end, I suspect that we'd actually agree on many of these issues, but we just have different ways of arriving at the same conclusion, and our disagreements occur there. (I'm referring to myself, you and Ludwigs2.) That's unfortunate, and if you'd AGF in me, we could avoid lots of contention and actually work better together. Our previous disagreement accelerated largely because of massive lack of good faith toward me and lots of straw man attacks, posturing, and name calling. It wasn't very pleasant, and all the threats didn't help. Now Ludwigs2 got a block for making similar threats. He needs to stop doing that. Brute force and intimidation aren't good tactics here. It's become a habit for him, and it's not necessary or conducive to collaboration. He and QG are in some ways very similar, and you get tarred and feathered by your association with him. I wish that could be avoided because you are clearly more mainstream than he and less of an enabler who helps pushers of fringe POV. If he avoided doing that, it would increase his credibility.
I don't see much point in getting too involved in the current dispute as I haven't taken any side in the issue. My statement is quite neutral and was designed to head off a huge mess. One admin may have used an AE block when he should have just used an ordinary block, another admin violated the clear instructions to not unblock in the manner he did it, and then he apologized. I figured that should be good enough since he seemed to have learned his lesson. Instead a whole disruptive process has continued, and now you're piling on and dragging my name into it. Sigh...
I'd appreciate it and see it as an act of good faith if you'd refactor your use of the term and your use of my name. It's unfair to drag me into this since I have very deliberately stayed out of it. I was hoping that QG would hang himself, but unfortunately Ludwigs2's threats drew attention away from QG's disruption. Too bad. SBHB summed it up well:
GuackGuru's involvement has always muddied the waters and I try to stay away from where he's active, and I don't usually appreciate it when he gets involved in something I'm doing, because I then get dirtied by a seeming association. If this ends up getting him blocked I won't shed any tears... It should have happened a long time ago. He gives all skeptics a bad name, just as SA did. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:14, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to second Brangifer's advice, and maybe even go farther. Though I'm closer to the center, like BR is now, I have often clashed with QG and found Ludwigs opinions to be one of the few ways to break through the nonsense. But I think the current approach by you and L2 is a bit risky and unlikely to have the payoff you're expecting at that forum. It comes off as too grand, and since most people aren't addressing those themes, it makes you two look isolated and your evidence even conspiratorial in your summation of how big the problem is. You can't take on the entire pseudo-skepticism/SPOV wave in a single push, especially not by grouping in decent editors who happen to favor science with tendentious editors who happen to be skeptics. Most of the pro-science editors are equally frustrated with QG's style and tactics, and could concur on the need for some change in a proper RfC. But by lumping all of them in together, you make compromise or consensus unlikely. So I humbly suggest you gather up the notes not related specifically to Ludwigs, Sandstein, and the block, make a short comment that there's a bigger problem that needs to be dealt with later, and move the research to userspace, where it can be organized and added to each time there's an incident. That way, if/when there's another RfC, everything will be in one place. Its mere presence also might act as a deterrent. Just my thoughts... Ocaasi (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Ocaasi, where do you get this wisdom? You keep amazing me. I agree that this only detracts and sidetracks from what should be central now. I don't want to even defend myself there because then I would become more of a target and nothing would happen. Absolutely nothing would happen to me since it's an old issue, but even less-than-should-happen to QG would be the result. There should be no distractions. Besides that, bringing up old matters that are no longer a problem isn't very smart. It won't work and only makes one look vindictive and one who carries a grudge. I have tried to be quiet about the old conflicts between me, Ludwigs2 and Hans, and only mentioned it recently because they both continually refer to it with various snide remarks, and lots of editors know exactly whom they are referring to. I'm one of them, and the other editors don't like it either. We're tired of it. It's in the past. Deal with present issues and then move on. Right now QG needs to be dealt with effectively. I'd like to help, but when I'm getting attacked, I'm not exactly motivated to climb in the ring and be an ally of the ones attacking me, especially over something quite old which I dropped when what had been a very large consensus with me gradually faded away and a small consensus turned against me. I accepted it and have never returned to the issue. Give me credit for that. That demonstrates that I have a positive learning curve and deserve forgiveness. It's quite unfair to bring that old matter up now. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Hans, it's also doubtful that anything before 2010 would even be considered. QG's behavior, although just as frustrating today, is considerably more reserved from what I can tell. He's smarter about not obviously violating policy and doesn't attack editors directly. Any case will have to be more subtle and more recent to establish that the problem is still there. Ocaasi (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Which leaves us with a problem. He's still very disruptive with his IDHT and repetition of own statements without replying to new objections. He's an expert at stonewalling. He can tie up lots of editors on a few words for months. I think a topic ban would be the best solution. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Just from looking around the AE discussions and combining a little recent memory, I have seen the following editors say that they either recognize consistent problems with QG and/or avoid discussions where he is at completely. Here's my off-the-top-of-my-head list: becritical, bullrangifer, ludwigs2, whatamidoing, slimvirgin, mastcell, ocaasi, jojalozzo, digitalc, hans adler. That's a list of editors that you have to try really hard to piss off... at least to do so to all of them'. Not to create battle lines, but I've seen mathsci, scienceapologist, jps, shot info, and arthur rubin consistently defend QG, probably because they dislike anti-skeptic rhetoric like Ludwigs' and are more concerned about Astrology and Homeopathy running amok than they are a too rigid interpretation of V and MEDRS. This kind of score-keeping may not be appropriate, and I'll remove it if you think it's a bad idea, but I'm just trying to lay the landscape for potential future discussions. Ocaasi (talk) 12:37, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with your list. It's an innocent attempt to understand the dynamics of the situation and I'm sure you are onto something. Sometimes fellow skeptics have sided with QG's disruptive efforts because they felt he was making a good point that was more important than his disruption. This is an application of "the ends justify the means". Not good. When he's doing that I often just stay away, even though I'd like to defend the point. I don't want to be seen as supporting his behavior. I'm in a conflicted situation and choose to edit elsewhere.
I find QG's and SA's (now irrelevant since he's indef banned) form of disruption so destructive that I couldn't care less if they are skeptics. No degree of good contributions (and QG doesn't always do that much good) can make up for the problems they create. Sometimes when I'm too conflicted I have just chosen to stay away and let others deal with it. That doesn't mean I approve of what QG is doing. On the contrary, but I also have to think of my sanity! He drives me up the wall. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:10, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I doubt that you are aware of this but I'd prefer you hear it from me than anyone else. There was a request to help with QG by an editor. I thought I could help out so I volunteered to talk to him/her. This happened through email. I talked to multiple editors at this time. Unfortunately due to just getting out the hospital I was unable to have the proper stamina and health to properly treat the discussion the way it was needed so I politely backed out which was understood since I was still very ill at the time. I don't follow the articles that the problems were occurring at so I needed to be able to do the proper research to see who was doing what. I tried to do this but after a while I came to my senses and let them all know I couldn't do what was needed. I recommended then an RFC/u and was quite surprised by an arbcom case. I have to say I have serious issues with going to arbcom about this. I understand that the administrators needed to work things out but I also don't think arbcom was the way to do it. I know you BullBrangifer feel the same (I saw your comment after both administrators said their piece). I think some of what you all say about QG is right but I also think there is a lot of piling on by some of you. QG has changed esp. since the older times of 2009, 2010. S/he still needs to change more but I really believe s/he doesn't understand what or why you all get so upset about. I tried to explain it but s/he needs to understand what needs to change in order to make the changes. Does this make sense? I really believe this too. If everyone stopped for a minute to think about how they treat QG first maybe that would help. S/he is an outsider with no wiki friends here. Maybe it's deserved maybe it's not. That not my concern. What I would like to see is everyone treating everyone the same which shouldn't be too hard to do. I am watching the case and I see things of old, and I mean old, being brought up. I see signs of battle like what you speak of above. It's ridiculous. I know Ludwigs2 has had arguments with a lot of people. He has threatened to take a bunch of them to arbcom or ani or whatever. This is not good either. I remember the feud between you and Ludwigs2 and Hans. It wasn't pretty, nor nice either. I was annoyed then and I am annoyed at them now. I haven't decided whether I'm going to comment at this case. I am on the fence about it to be honest with you. But please, both of you think about how you would feel to be discussed like you are discussing QG now or at other times and then stop it. S/he has feelings too and I bet you s/he has seen what is being said by everyone. Just some thoughts I thought to share, --CrohnieGalTalk16:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
QG (he) is an old timer here who's been around the block many times under various guises. He's not innocent or ignorant, and still has the same basic problems. I suspect that it goes very deep, partially because of language/cultural issues, but even more so to personality issues, IOW he's incapable of doing much about it. This means that he lacks the WP:Competence necessary to be a good editor. He is basically disruptive and will remain so. I have long since given up hope and am more interested in saving the project. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
FYI
Hey BR, I thought you might be interested in some recent "happenings" in my "chiro world".
First the bad news (IMO). The ICA and other dogmatic traditionalist chiro groups have successfully interfered with the passing of House Bill 127 in New Mexico. This bill would have permitted an expansion of the scope of chiropractic in that state to include the prescription of a limited number of "drugs" after additional training by interested chiros. Traditional chiros saw it as an attack on the "fundamentals" of chiropractic (drugless blah blah blah) and petitioned the governors in New Mexico to vote against the bill. Today the bill was officially tanked.
Now for some good news (again IMO). The council on chiropractic education (CCE)[2] has announced that at its Jan 2011 annual meeting it unanimously passed the proposed changes to their accreditation standards. This was the proposal I mentioned earlier that had the traditional chiros all pissed off because the changes 1) removed all mention of subluxation (the chiro kind), 2) opened the door for schools to offer Doctor of Chiropractic Medicine degree (traditionalists hated the inclusion of the word medicine), 3) removed any mention of chiropractic being "without drugs or surgery". **An added bonus is that the new guidelines have increased the minimum admission standards for students to be accepted into chiro colleges from an avergae overall GPA of 2.5/4.0 to an overall average GPA of 3.0/4.0. I was hoping that they would also mandate the requirement of a full undergraduate degree, however they chose to maintain the requirement of only 90 credit hours (3 years) of undergraduate study prior to admission to chiro college. All of these changes take effect in January 2012.
Thanks for the update. I was aware of this as it is being discussed on other discussion forums. There are both good and bad things here, but that's too long a discussion for here. Thanks again. Hope all is well with you. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Please do not post that information on-wiki. It has been removed. The matter is being handled by functionaries; if you have any questions regarding this matter, please email functionaries-enlists.wikimedia.org. Thank you for your understanding. Chzz ► 15:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Chzz, I'm going to AGF that you have User:MBMadmirer's page on your watchlist, which would explain the fast deletion of documented information, both on and off-wiki. It's public information, so why hide it? That looks very suspicious, but maybe there's a good explanation. His obvious COI should be declared. That doesn't prevent editing, but it should be done carefully. His real life identity, while published and well-known, can be kept out of this. Otherwise, any attempts to bury this, as it appears is happening, will only draw more media attention, so you need to handle this carefully. I have taken numerous screen shots and have the necessary diffs to blow this thing up all over the media if a single more edit or history is deleted. You would obviously be one of the admins mentioned. It won't look good, but I'll wait for your explanation.
A sock puppet investigation confirmed the COI, and other self-admitted co-workers from New Media Strategies (NMS) who edit here (paid by the Koch brothers to do PR for them) even confirmed on-wiki that the actions of MBMadmirer were problematic. I'll bet he's in trouble at work for being so obvious in his advocacy and whitewashing efforts. Some of the others just edit here, and some are more careful and follow policy well enough to not be worth pursuing for their advocacy.
So what's going on? Has an admin (a self-admitted libertarian) overtaken the role as the Koch brothers' apologist here, and other (possibly right wing) Wikipedia admins and functionaries are helping the NMS/Koch employed editors? This really looks bad, but certainly proves that Wikipedia's claimed liberal bias is being vigorously opposed by its own admins and functionaries who misuse their powers. My God, the media is going to LOVE this! This admin's actions appear to whitewash the Koch's cleaner than a newborn baby's bottom. He's far worse than MBMadmirer in that regard. As an admin he should know better. You're welcome to email me, because I don't want this to get more ugly than it is, but we deal in RS here, and facts are facts, especially when both off-wiki RS and on-wiki documented facts confirm this is happening. An on-wiki/off-wiki loop will quickly get established, with RS writing about this scandal (including them outing real life identities of admins and functionaries), and those RS then being used in articles here. I suspect we could write an article entitled Koch brothers' activities at Wikipedia, and use good RS. Very interesting possibilities, and not the first time it's happened. I suggest you reply by email, and get any other functionaries who can provide information to do the same. If you can give me a good explanation, this can stop here. Openness here will avoid the likelihood of even more openness elsewhere. The media loves to dig where there is denial. If there is no denial and cover up, they usually lose interest. PLEASE tell me that isn't happening, because it sure looks like it. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure MBMadmirer was assigned to do public relations on Wikipedia for the Koch brothers nor whether the public relations firm he works for was actually hired by the Koch brothers to do public relations work on Wikipedia. There is public information alleging those things, even assuming both are true, but looking at the edits and ips used does not actually confirm such assumptions. There are problems though, and MBMadmirer needs to make a comprehensive delaration of his interest if he is going to edit Koch brothers related material. User:Fred BauderTalk23:51, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Fred. I'll try to bring you up to date on this matter. The off-wiki sources make the claim, which is backed up by his co-workers here, and by himself. Here's what his userpage says:
"I am an admirer of the Koch family and Market Based Management. I have worked in politics and contributed to a number of wikipedia pages in the past. One of my employer's clients is Koch Industries. The purpose of this account is to contribute to articles related to these subjects. Of note, Koch Industries is a client of my employer, and with this in mind, I have carefully read through Wikipedia’s policies regarding WP:NPV, WP:V and WP:COI, and find it important to follow these closely. Keeping this in mind, I intend to seek the input of fellow editors when approaching potential edits, only moving forward after reaching adequate consensus." [3]
One of his co-workers at NMS (a sockmaster) said this about him:
"The activity of MBMadmirer seems to have drawn warranted concerns (and perhaps rightfully so), which should be handled directly." [4]
They have been caught, so they are throwing MBMadmirer under the bus. Pretty dirty.
The co-worker also admits they are all editing from an NMS IP account:
"While I may share an IP address with the other accounts, each account is indeed separate, and each pertains to a specific individual human being. In accordance with these policies, multiple accounts have been created under the same IP address for multiple, different editors."
What kind of excuse is this? So they all sit at their individual desks at work, having their own PCs, and edit Wikipedia? And the Koch brothers are paying them? And they just happen to make the Koch brothers look good at Wikipedia? ...BUT... they are individuals with individual accounts.... SO THAT MAKES IT OKAY???
Of course it is, by their reasoning. That's what they are paid to do, and here's how Lyndsey Medsker, a senior account director for NMS, described their work:
"She explained that NMS also maintains the Koch Industries Twitter page, Facebook page, and has an active team working on promoting Koch Industries in the comment section of blogs and news websites." [5]
Just because she didn't mention Wikipedia doesn't make all the evidence that Wikipedia is also in their targets less than factual. They are proven to have edited here in a manner that whitewashes the Koch brothers. That's against our policies, and when admins and functionaries help them, it's doubly bad. What's done is bad enough, and it's documented with screen shots and diffs, with all the code. If ANY of that is disturbed and deleted, it's going to look much, much worse.
What's really worrying is that [refactored...inaccurate details deleted] at least one admin and certain others are communicating with NMS employees by email (also proven through diffs), and their editing is obvious whitewashing using lots of wikilawyering. One admin is all over everything Koch here. He's even worse than the blocked sock puppets. This is now all over the internet and anymore whitewashing is going to make Wikipedia look really bad. Mainstream media is going to start digging into this and when the NYTimes and the New Yorker get this, holy shit! Big trouble. Instead the Koch brothers and their NMS employees editing here should take the blame for what they are doing before it gets worse. They need to be stopped, all documentation of their actions found in RS included in articles, and some editors here may need to lose their tools, and the quicker the better. Personally I don't care what anyone's political POV is, but it shouldn't be so obvious that it affects their editing to such a degree. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC) (Refactored Brangifer (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC))
I am not a functionary. I am not an administrator - hence, I cannot delete pages. I had not heard of Koch Industries or NMS until a few weeks ago, when a user asked for help and I responded. I still know nothing about the companies - I don't even know what they do, what they make, or whatever. Nor do I have any interest in them whatsoever. I've just tried to help a Wikipedia user.
I monitored the page of MBAdmirer because, previously, it was subject to personal attacks regarding a living person - which I removed (by editing the page), and have since been removed from the history (ie, suppressed through oversight).
When I saw your edit to the page, I was concerned that there BLP concerns, so I reverted it, and asked for the revision to be deleted, which it was, and I emailed the functionaries of Wikipedia to check my concerns. All of which is absolutely in accord to our policies in protecting living persons.
The article on thinkprogress.org which you refer to contains factual inaccuracies.
Your message, above, contains factual inaccuracies.
Your 'conspiracy theories' are, frankly, ludicrous.
I'm English. I like tea and sausages.
My knowledge of American politics and business could be written on the back of a postage stamp.
I advise you to be more cautious in making allegations.
Thanks for responding. I wish you had responded more promptly. At first I assumed you were an admin, since they usually have the tools to do some of the things you do. I later learned there was a difference between an admin and a functionary, and thought you were a functionary, but apparently I'm wrong. What are you then? You have the power to oversight, which is a pretty powerful tool. I believe you acted properly by deleting some of the things you deleted, but I disagree that oversight is necessary. It's being used far too much now, which not only deletes evidence, it also creates a void in which suspicions can grow. That shouldn't happen. We work on openness here. The history should give a clue about what really happened, and oversight that deletes information from the history isn't a good thing and should be reserved for outing, not ordinary BLP violations. Even most of them should still be available in the history. We may have to disagree on all that, but that's my opinion, and I'm seeing more problems resulting from this practice, including suspicions that could be avoided.
In this case the deleting was done at the bidding of a man (and a group of colleagues editing here) who are all paid to delete anything negative about the Koch brothers right here at Wikipedia. He was careful to not do it himself, but got you to do it for him. That's my main objection to your involvement. I find your very cooperative attitude toward helping people with a huge COI problematic, but you apparently didn't know what was going on. It's okay to be helpful, but it should be done with a bit more skepticism, because they can get you involved in their dubious actions without you intending any such thing. Otherwise I completely accept that you have no political motives and were apparently unaware of the big agenda that was playing out here. I fear they used you, and it might be good for you to start following the activities of all the colleagues mentioned in the SPI. They need close watching. The Koch articles are being whitewashed. We just need to keep in mind that those receiving the help have very clear financial and political motives. NMS is a very right wing organization known for spin doctoring right wing causes, and the editor you were helping works for them and is paid by them to further the interests of the Koch brothers (that's not a theory, but an admitted fact). The Koch brothers are a real threat to American democracy and its middle class. Anyway, just keep your eyes open. Take care.
BTW, I too was unaware of this matter before it popped up here. I had to do some research about NMS. OTOH, I was aware of the Koch brothers, their penchant for secrecy, and their funding of the Tea Party. Their father was a founding member of the John Birch Society. That's about a hair's breadth removed from the Ku Klux Klan! -- Brangifer (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Taking the JBS position on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in context, I think claims to overt or implicit racism on their part are overblown. Radical libertarians don't give a hoot about race, as long as the government's not enforcing it one way or the other and no one's negative freedoms are being infringed upon (including black people's negative freedom to not be owned by anyone else). They think individuals should be free to be as bigoted as they want, and typically also that individuals should view eachother not as members of groups (races) but as, individuals. You don't have to believe that, of course, but I think the quick connection between right-wing politics and racism is unfortunate. Rand Paul stumbled into the same mistake in discussing the CRA in the context of private property and was pilloried for being racist; something that I'm pretty sure was not behind the statement. (p.s. yes, you can be both open-minded to chiropractic and radical libertarianism, but it takes some stretching in the morning). Ocaasi c18:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
You're right that just being "right wing" doesn't automatically equal racist. There are still some very different and unrelated POV found on the right wing, some of which are also found on the left. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Note: The following was written in reply to BulRangifer's posting of 18:00, and at the time of writing I have not read the two intervening posts.
I didn't respond sooner (to your first posting), purely because I was aware of the complexities, and I wanted to make absolutely sure I was acting correctly.
I'm not an oversighter, either. I'm just a regular Wikipedian - albeit a quite experienced one. I do have those permissions you listed before, but they're all pretty trivial - I can rename images, and rollback edits, etc.
There is a common misconception that admins, oversighters, and other users with special user rights make all the decisions; they do not. Decisions are made by the community, and then those users act on their wishes. Anyone can request that a revision is deleted or oversighted; those users with the special flag will then act on that request, as long as it agrees with policy.
So, I didn't delete anything. I did ask someone to delete the edit, and to remove it from the history. Clearly they agreed - presumably re. WP:BLPTALK - and they performed the removal.
I need to clarify something here: there are two different ways of removing things from the history of pages; there is "revision deletion", known as "revdel", and that can be done by any administrator (851 of them). The deleted revision can also be seen and undeleted by any administrator. And then there is suppression, more commonly known as oversight - there are only about 40 people with that right (including developers, Jimbo, etc). They are very highly trusted, carefully selected (by us!), and they only suppress edits according to very strict criteria. If interested, see WP:REVDEL and WP:OS.
Now - in regard to revdel, I agree with you - I think, in some cases, it is over-used. I actually raised a query about that, just a few days ago - please see here.
I think Wikipedia is very open, but of course, sometimes there is a necessity for keeping some things private - and this is one of those cases where certain aspects are confidential.
For example - as you know, I have exchanged emails with Jeff Bedford (talk·contribs). I would not disclose the exact contents of those to you (without his express permission), because that would be a breach of confidentiality. But that applies to all my emails. What I can assure you is, there is no big cover-up going on. The user asked me some pretty routine questions about Wikipedia, and I answered. I can also, absolutely, assure you that I take enormous care over any requests from COI editors (appropriate skepticism, as you put it) and only act in accord with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
I wasn't ignorant of the big agenda, and in helping the user I made myself fully aware of the background to the situation. My actions were careful and considered. Although it is quite true that I lack knowledge of American politics, etc, I am confident that I gathered sufficient information to make an informed decisions - and for anything I was uncertain of, I made damn sure I checked it out with other more knowledgeable, trustworthy users. And I shall continue to do so.
I understand your desire to monitor and investigate this "whitewashing". Indeed, I'm very glad that somebody is watching out for it. But, I think you are misjudging some aspects of it - those that I have been involved in.
Please read Wikipedia:Advocacy - and remember, it applies to you, as well as "them". Thus, please avoid comments like "The Koch brothers are a real threat to American democracy and its middle class" - that is not appropriate on Wikipedia.
I do hope you will keep monitoring the articles. However, I also hope you'll remember that there are real people behind user-names, and that is why we need to take great care, to protect everyone's rights.
Like you, I love the open nature of Wikipedia - and defend it to the hilt. I imagine you and I actually agree on most things. But there is a real need to balance openness with the needs of privacy - which I hope you will consider, in future postings.
Anyway, that was all very long and probably boring for you to read; I'm sorry I rambled. Now I'm going to have a cup of tea, and a couple of sausages - and go edit some articles. Thank you for listening, best wishes, Chzz ► 19:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Definitely not boring and very informative. I learned a few things, especially the actual differences between oversight and the newer revdel. It is the last that concerns me. It's being used too much. Thanks for the explanation of the sequence of events and I totally accept your explanation. Respect!
As for expressing my personal POV on my own talk page...., I keep that out of articles and don't use it for editing, and there's no point of using it in discussions on article talk pages where such discussions can then get out of hand, with advocacy and POV pushing dominating the discussions. That's bad! I can respect others' POV. We just need to avoid whitewashing, and an overly strict interpretation of BLP, combined with wikilawyering, is often used to do just that. Our goal is to document the sum total of human knowledge, some of it negative and even nonsensical, and we do it by citing RS. If it's a matter that's on the fringe, then FRINGE applies and allows the use of sources that might be iffy in other situations. Alternative medicine, the paranormal, and even political controversies, can all be subject to such conditions. Even if not used to document clear facts, we use them to document opinions, including negative ones and criticism.
In the medical areas where I usually edit, some mainstream/skeptical editors (my allies) use an overly strict application of MEDRS to keep out descriptive details about fringe/alternative medicine. This is an unfair raising of the bar for sourcing. Not all content in such articles is governed by MEDRS, only the biomedical claims. Likewise in political controversies, RS applies, but the bar shouldn't be raised so high as to disallow mention of real and widely publicized controversies, just to protect public persons from some slight negativity. The law doesn't afford them such protection, and neither should Wikipedia. In the USA public figures rarely win in cases of libel against them. Only clearly libelous information of a gross nature should be kept out of Wikipedia, unless very strongly sourced. In that case it's likely true and not really libel... Minor negative information, if widely cited, can be included here in the "public interest". That's because public figures have very limited "privacy" rights, with the public having a greater "right to know", especially when the actions of such figures impact on the public welfare and interest. The Koch brothers are very much such figures, and it's their own fault. We are trying to document ALL things that are published in the public sphere, and it shouldn't be suppressed.-- Brangifer (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC) (Refactored Brangifer (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC))
This is great analysis by both of you. Where BLP meets FRINGE, the deciding factors become how well known and powerful the LP is (in this case, very) and how Fringe the source is (I wish I had followed details more closely to say). You're both very good editors. Glad you cleared this up, for the most part. Ocaasi c20:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
As with many things here, just citing policy isn't enough. Editorial judgment can't be avoided, and I obviously tend to side with the public welfare, much like the law does in society. When in doubt, our application of policies can often use legal precedents and common law as models. If it's legal, then we can do it, including adding sourced negative information. BLP is only to protect from vandalistic or careless inclusion of TOTALLY undocumented negative information. The degree of documentation and the widespread citation of the sources then come into play. We don't want to get involved in yellow journalism or become a scandal rag like the National Enquirer, but we don't want to be the last place people can find the information. We still want to be near the top of searches, just not THE first place reporting something (OR), otherwise it looks like we're involved in a cover-up if we're too late with the information. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Ahem. As Wikimedia's and Wikipedia's policies on copyright are stronger than required by law, so may the positions on "libel". I haven't checked precisely, but Section 230 clearly makes reposting libelous comments on the Internet legal, even if intentionally reposting libelous comments. Only if there is collusion between the initial libeler and the posters, might there be liability against the poster. However, our policy is that we can only report controversial statements about a living person if reported in a reliable source; and that this applies to talk pages, as well. — Arthur Rubin(talk)21:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
They were found to be a group of NMS employees, editing from the same IP. NMS is employed to edit for the Koch brothers on many venues. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Gosh do I wish, 'it's legal and in the public interest' was enough to slide through Non-Free Content Review (WP:NFCR), Wikipedia's board for applying Fair Use exemptions. It turns out that our rules are actually significantly more stringent than US law, at least when it comes to Copyright. I totally agree with you though, that as long as BLP is not an issue--and for global tycoons it rarely is--we should present a broad swath of sourced criticisms. The more I edit here, the less concerned I'm becoming about WP:NOTNEWS as long as WP:RS is met and the content is significant to the subject.
Arthur, I have some libertarian sympathies, enough to know that libertarians often get incorrectly lumped in with ultra-conservatives. It's a common misconception, one which your conservative policy interpretations, particularly about BLP, could be misunderstood to be about. Ocaasi c21:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Disputed claims
Whether or not there is someone alleged to be paid by Koch forces who is editing Wikipedia, repeatedly posted from unreliable sources in spite of the fact that it is a clear WP:BLP violation, it isn't me.
I am not paid by Koch Industries (or, actually, anyone, at the moment; I'd probably accept an offer from Koch, but it wouddn't affect my actions.) I'm receiving unemployment and some self-employment income for Internet writing. (And, yes, unemployment knows about the self-employment income.)
I am not a conservative (I'm a libertarian.)
I have not deleted any material from the previous revisions, although clearly required by WP:BLP. I've removed it from the active copy, but you're perfectly able to refer to the previous revisions. I requrested someone else removed, at the consensus at WP:OVERSIGHT seems to be that oversight would be appropriate in some of the manifestations, but there are too many copies where would require deleting too many revisions.
No one has claimed you are paid to edit for them, or even that you are acting on their behalf. This was primarily about NMS and their paid editors here. You were only mentioned because your editing and their agenda were so similar. (Note I didn't write "your agenda". Crucial difference!) That you were communicating with them by email didn't make things look any better. Why would they contact you? Maybe they recognized a kindred spirit? That's not your fault, but you should be careful about any association with such editors. Your edits are just consistently favorable to the Koch interests across many articles. It doesn't look good and I think you should avoid the appearance of anything that looks like whitewashing. Appearance means a lot and the end result is the same, regardless of your motives. I have no doubt that you mean well, but I just happen to feel that your involvement may tend toward overprotection of the brothers Koch and their POV. That's just my feeling. I'll go back over what I wrote above and refactor where I can. You may not be completely satisfied, but we'll just have to agree to disagree. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Service award level
There has been a major revision of the the Service Awards: the edit requirements for the higher levels have been greatly reduced, to make them reasonably attainable.
Because of this, your Service Award level has been changed, and you are now eligible for a higher level. I have taken the liberty of updating your award on your user page.
Thanks for the heads up. I left a comment, but didn't deal with much more of what (s)he said as (s)he has conceded the point. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
I actually liked most of the attempted argument but your point was more clear, that the controversy was not relevant for the list article. Also, s/he was somewhat backwards in saying that since universities have AM departments that therefore it's not pseudoscience; if only the world worked that way. It would be interesting though if there had been a change towards EBM or an evalution using it, and the main article should review them if they are decent sources. Ocaasic17:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, indeed the world should work that way, but it doesn't. Some/many universities will do whatever draws more money or draws more students, including compromising their ethics by including pseudoscientific subjects in the scientific curriculum. Whether it's "scientific creationism" or homeopathy, it lessens the credibility of the institution. In the last couple years there has been a movement in England to drop unscientific courses from universities and to defund homeopathy. The process isn't complete yet. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
There are no such sources in American colleges. Go America! Otherwise our higher education system, aside from the top tier, is actually pretty poor. Ocaasic06:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
You're right (unfortunately). Our American educational system is not only deficient, as compared to many other nations, higher education is inaccessible to a large part of the population. I've lived in Denmark for more than two decades and can compare the two systems. In the USA, physicians are most often from physician or wealthy families. A large percentage of MDs have MD parents. That says something. In Denmark anyone can become a physician if they have a high enough GPA. The state pays for all education, all the way through graduate school, medical school, law school, or whatever. In fact one gets a living expenses stipend while in school. It's enough to maintain a decent, simple, lifestyle. Strictly speaking one can get out of grad school with no debt, but it's common to also take a low interest state guaranteed loan. No one wants to feel real poverty while in school! The populace is thus highly educated. No one is uneducated because they couldn't afford it. The Danes have the same human rights as American citizens, but add two more: free education and health care. These aren't considered a privilege, but a right. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
Your comment at Talk:List of topics characterized as pseudoscience
Sorry for splitting it. I thought I had messed up the formatting somehow and was trying to get back to "right". You see when I first replied I had registered as two independent comments from different users. Where I got the idea there was someone else writing, I don't know. I blame it on too much TV throughout my life. So, this is to say sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asinthior (talk • contribs) 21:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi there! After you gave me a couple of links to read from I've been up to no good, reading the arbitration on pseudoscience. Scary stuff, if you ask me, how things can go so wrong at times. Anyway, I've learned a couple of things here and there and I would like to present them to you. I mean, you probably already know them, but I want to comment on them, so I'll quote them.
From WP:Lists,
Listed items
Lists, whether they are embedded lists or stand-alone lists, are encyclopedic content as are paragraphs and articles, and they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies such as Verifiability, No original research, Neutral point of view, and others.
Difficult or contentious subjects for which the definition of the topic itself is disputed should be discussed on the talk page in order to attain consensus and to ensure that each item to be included on the list is adequately referenced and that the page on which the list appears as a whole represents a neutral point of view.
The principle of Neutral Point of View requires that we describe competing views without endorsing any one in particular. Wikipedia:No original research applies equally to a list of like things as it does for the content article on each individual thing listed.
The verifiability policy states that if material is challenged or likely to be challenged, it is the responsibility of the editor who adds or restores the material to an article to cite sources for that material. Inclusion of material on a list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying. In lists that involve living persons, the Biographies of living persons policy applies.
As I interpret this and the arbitration to which you provided me a link, even if this is just a list (and not an article about Antrhoposophic Medicine -AM) and even though (or maybe because) wikipedia refrains from determining what is pseudoscience and just documents what is characterized as pseudoscience, the list should include evidence (if available) that AM is not characterized as pseudoscience by the whole scientific community.
Boy, that was a horribly long sentence. In any case, this is to give you the heads up that I plan to include such information. I hope you see my point and help me improve the paragraph in question. Asinthior (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
If you can do that without engaging in OR or SYNTH..... Keep in mind you'd have to find sources that state that the "whole scientific community" doesn't regard the aspects characterized as pseudoscience to be pseudoscience. That would be comparing apples and oranges and well-nigh impossible to do without a violation of WP:SYNTH. The purpose of the list isn't to determine whether something actually IS pseudoscience, so a defense of that non-issue would be rather nonsensical. Right now you're drawing lots of unwarranted attention to AM, and it's not good for the reputation of AM. The shorter the entry the better. What you're proposing would be off-topic for the list, but not for the main AM article. It would bloat the list in a way no other entry does and pretty much destroy the purpose of the list, but that has been tried before as a form of sabotage. Many don't like the list.... IIRC, those who tried it ended up getting banned for POINT violations. Whatever the case, I think you're seeing problems where none exist. Keep it simple. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Interesting - any refs?
Hello, I was interested to read your comment about US doctors tending to come from wealthy or medical families [6]. I had never made that connection, but I thought about my MD acquaintances whose family backgrounds I know, and indeed, only one out of seven doesn't fit that generalization. Of course, this is anecdotal - and, surely, the proportion isn't that high. (Or is it? Yikes.) Could you give me a ref or two? Thanks much, Postpostmod (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
My statement is also anecdotal, but I wouldn't be surprised if there is some form of documentation somewhere. I'm just not sure where to start. People make statistics on just about everything! I've grown up in medical communities and attended private schools all my life (even my PT school was private!) and large proportions of my schoolmates (sometimes over 50%) were doctor's kids. They could afford private schools. I was there only because my family had that tradition and sacrificed to do it. They weren't wealthy and I never went to med school, but I had the grades and scores (97-99th percentile in California) to get into any school. Unfortunately at the time I didn't have the guidance or knowledge to actually do it. After a winding path of experimentation through several colleges - and a Physican Assistant school - I ended up a Physical Therapist. If my father had accepted the offer made to him in his youth to pay for a medical education, rather than follow his heart and become a minister and missionary, I would have been a doctor's kid and likely become an MD myself. That's the way things work in the USA. I suspect that a comparison of statistics (USA vs Denmark - family backgrounds of MDs) would reveal a very different trend, with a smaller proportion coming from Danish MD families, but there would still be quite a few since it would be a family tradition. I don't have time to deal with this right now, but if you start with this (or a similar) search, you might find something. Please keep me informed. Good luck! -- Brangifer (talk) 15:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Indeed! It's amazing that an editor who's been around so long will engage in such blatant censorship of properly sourced information. It's quite unwikipedian. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Could you please stop adding in the information about his father? His father was not an important part of his life and thus shouldn't have such a large emphasis in the article. If you want to create an article about his father, and place the information there, please do so, but stop re adding in information that has been removed for a perfectly logical reason that is based in wiki policy. Thanks in advance! Jeancey (talk) 08:11, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
I notice you felt the need to change the indenting of my comments in a talk thread. Please try to educate yourself on wikipedia guidelines, particularly those pertaining to talk page etiquette and to threading (indenting). It is poor manners to alter somebody else's words, and should be reserved unless you have a good reason to do so. And the degree of indenting can be used to specify who a reply is directed at in a thread. (If you naively thought indenting was purely a way to visually separate each successive post from the next, try to realise that indenting would not be necessary at all - a blank line between posts would suffice.) In this specific case, by changing the indenting of my comment (which lazilly made use of pronouns) you alter who those pronouns are logically directed at, which dramatically alters the context and hence the meaning of "my words". Here I use scare quotes because, now that they no longer express the message I intended, they're actually in large part your words, which you are misrepresenting by leaving signed entirely to my name. The same goes for inserting the indent wrap-around, if that was you (it is only applicable if a comment is intended as a reply to the last rather than as a fresh beginning, and the history should make obvious which was the case).
For what its worth, your talk page banner (along with other red flags) seems to imply that you were at one point already aware that in any way refactoring other people's comments is something that is normally not met with approval (and is really only arbitrarily tolerated here in one's private namespace). Cesiumfrog (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about, but I definitely meant no offense. Please provide a diff to where the problem is located. I try to follow the guidelines for WP:REFACTORing. Any mix-up was definitely unintended. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
From looking at your editing history, it probably is located at Talk:Seventh-day Adventist Church. Is that right? I see that I did add a comment and also refactored some indents because several comments weren't noticeable because they had the same indentation as other comments immediately above or below them. I just did it to make them noticeable, which is considered a good reason for refactoring. I didn't change any wording in your comments. If I inadvertently made it appear you were responding to a different person, I'm very sorry for that. BTW, the rules for threading aren't absolute and there are several styles that are in common use here. There is no hard and fast rule. WP:REFACTOR allows a lot of leeway (and thus the use of good faith toward the one refactoring), and during the six years and 33,000+ edits I've accumulated here, this has rarely been a problem (I do it VERY frequently), but if it offends you, sorry about that. Feel free to fix it. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Alternative medicine meta articles
Please explains your actions at the talk page and what specific edits or literature you are disputing. A blanket revert like you did which erase hours of hard work without discussing it first does not appear to be in the spirit of Wikipedia. DVMt (talk) 08:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I have read the policies and disagree with your interpretation of them. What specific problems to you have with the scientific literature I have added? DVMt (talk) 08:12, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have to go now, but I left a reply on Puhlaa's talk page. All this discussion should be happening on the article talk pages, not here or his page. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:22, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I have begun a thread at Vertebral Subluxation and I would like you to specifically state the your issue the edits I made, the sources provided and the language that that used. DVMt (talk) 08:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
See [7]. Please be a bit more careful about your choice of sources. The following things in your original second source were clear indicators of unprofessionality:
posted "by admin" to a WordPress blog
First sentence:
"Beginning this 12 months, it will no more time be possible to get a diploma from a publicly-funded British college in areas of “choice medicine,” such as homeopathy, naturopathy, and reflexology."( WTF? Who writes like that unless they are running an automatic copyvio obfuscator over a source that starts "Starting this year"? See first sentence of original source for comparison.)
And it continues in this convoluted style.
What's the following doing in the text? And why is it partially in German?
"Bildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift:  Homeopathy relies on a smaller diluted solution as a treatment method"
Where do all these weird "&#one hundred" and "&#a hundred" things come from?
Finding the solution was as easy as entering the title into Google. The first hit was the original text, from German government broadcaster Deutsche Welle. As there was no indication of the original source, the text was automatically manipulated in an awful way and the names of the original authors were preserved as if they were responsible for this atrocity, this in no way covered by fair use but is an unequivocal copyright violation. Please make sure not to quote such copyvios again. HansAdler10:25, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Good catch! Thanks. I originally had all three, but decided to use the English version since they were nearly identical. I apparently chose to keep the wrong one. Thanks again. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Though the discussion on the acupuncture talk page was hatted...
I was in the middle of writing a comment and feel obliged to share it with you.
Have you ever considered that Dickmojo's conduct might be as a result of the way he's been treated? Put people in a crazy and unfair situation without consequences and they'll usually act crazy. I know, I've done it.
You publicly accuse me of being a sockpuppet because I "sided with Dickmojo"? And then you threaten a sockpuppet investigation onless everyone behaves according to some vague unrelated standards you set? I hope you never ever have power over people.
I cannot abide bullying. It's the main reason I'm following the acupuncture page and you acting like this is going to keep me around a lot longer.
I find your CoI argument fatuous. Why would anyone put up with this nonsense unless they're an anti-altmed zealot (I used to be one and understand people like you very well) or a passionate advocate of acupunture?
Both are biased, but at least practitioners have a good idea about what they're writing about. You seem particularly unqualified.
I have not threatened with starting an SPI. I specifically disavowed doing such. It appeared someone was thinking I intended to do so, so I made it clear I wasn't. Nor have I accused you of being a sockpuppet. In the beginning Dickmojo's behavior worried me, but I was quickly convinced by the comments of others that such (sockpuppetry) was not the case. His behavior is still a problem. There is likely no other problem. You need to read the whole thread, not stick with the start. Read to the end and stick with the end. That's the part that counts. Even then I wasn't accusing anyone or threatening anything. Read my last comments. My main concern was about the rhetoric. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I appreciate your comments about accepting the conclusions of the long-closed sock puppet investigation that you recently brought up out of nowhere and that did not have anything to do with the current discussion, but I can't help noticing you came very close to outing my personal identity as well as attempting to invalidate the contributions of 3 editors that had nothing to do with that old skirmish by suggesting they were sock puppets. Please don't do that. Herbxue (talk) 08:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
??? Seriously, I haven't intentionally or unintentionally attempted to out you. I don't do that. I don't know who you are in real life and it really makes no difference to me. If by mentioning that old SPI did that, well, that's unfortunate, but outing you wasn't my intention. Sorry for any inconvenience. Dickmojo and Mindjuicer are the ones causing problems here, not you. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I apologize for the accusation, it just seemed irrelevant and out of the blue to me (hence, seeming to be an intentional distraction), and I thought 'here we go again, I'm gonna have to prove I'm not dickmojo and others. Herbxue (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Not at all. You're okay! We need professionals editing these articles, but it's a tough row to hoe for beginners who don't understand Wikipedia's rules and culture. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Brangifer, following our exchange I'm continuing this here as I don't think it's the right approach to conduct our discussion on another's talk page. I personally take the position that talk pages should be left entirely intact as a record of what has gone on there. I don't get many comments that I regard as unpleasant, negative or even attacking or vandalistic, but when I do I prefer to leave them there as I think they say more about the writer than they do about me. I take it from the heading of your talk page that you feel broadly the same way.
However the letter of WP policy at WP:OWNTALK, echoed in your talk page header when you say "While I reserve the right to delete comments, I am normally opposed to doing so and choose to archive contents" does confirm that users may remove most material posted by others. Telling other people that they should not be doing something which is explicitly permitted by policy (and which you reserve the right to do yourself) just isn't right. Most particularly because in my opinion Mindjuicer's talk page is best left well alone at the moment, to let the fire die down rather than piling more fuel on. I agree Mindjuicer's attitude bespeaks a battleground mentality but to be very strict for a moment, so do the posts left post-topic ban by Famousdog and yourself. S/he has been banned - dignified silence from the rest of us on his/her talk page would be the best way forward. Continuing to post there when it's not strictly necessary feels like rubbing salt into the wounds. Kim Dent-Brown(Talk)09:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi Brangifer! Long time no see. I noticed that a few weeks ago on Talk:Acupuncture you said that one user had a COI because he was an acupuncturist. But that's never been true...see the section of COI linked in this header. cheers, Middle 8 (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes....?? It's not as simple as that (and that particular paragraph is a real minefield). The potential for COI is present and the situation needs to be handled with care. When one's professional relationship with the subject affects the quality and POV of the editing, then a COI may become evident. I have repeatedly told people in this situation that we need professionals editing these articles. They just need to learn our policies and stop using the articles and talk pages for advocacy, whitewashing, promotion, etc.. If they can do that, their professional knowledge of the subject matter is valued here. Unfortunately some cannot do that. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with you. Yes, many conditions can create COI, and some quite naturally may be correlated with a person's interests and professions. Re-reading your comments on Talk:Acupuncture, I can see that you weren't saying that professional affiliation is a sufficient condition COI; I just misread your comments, so sorry for the gratuitous appearance of my comment on your page. It's nice to say hello, though.
COI is used, as far as I can tell, as an aggravating factor for tendentious editing. It means that an editor may be so wrapped up in their "field of obsession" so much that they are likely to continue to be tendentious. But that definition lends itself to circular reasoning (Joe Blow edits X topic area tendentiously because he has a COI in that area because he edits tendentiously). Although I understand and edit within COI, I question its usefulness. WP's definition of COI is much broader than it is anywhere IRL because it includes, basically, passion that makes someone a pain in the ass. It might be better just to call those editors "tendentious" and leave it at that. OTOH, aggravating factors are relevant. But they should be specific.
BR, I'm sure that you meant well in this edit, but I'm sure it's inappropriate to comment about a user on that user's talk page when that user is (however justifiably) unable either to respond or to delete. Indeed, I wonder if the talk page should be deleted. I'm in no rush to propose deletion, but I'm pretty sure the page shouldn't be added to (perhaps other for than factual information that's likely to be of direct help for other editors). -- Hoary (talk) 09:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I see your point. I'll delete my comment and you can feel free to do whatever you want with the rest. I imagine there are certain warnings, or at least a statement about the block, that should be left in place. Thanks for the good advice. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
hello, thanks for your input on my talk page, but could you please recommend a more suitable way to phrase what I am trying to say? I am dealing with a sort of burn out and need help with putting this together. It's kind of a baby of mine because the city recently closed down this part of the hospital and I find it interesting as to number of well known people who were born there, not to say others will find this of interest though.
Pumkinhead001 (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I saw your comments on Salimfadhley's page about him accidentally using the minor edit tag. I just wanted to point out that your a pompous douche bag. " I will pursue this. I've been giving you a chance, and acting as an ally, but your ignoring my advice isn't a nice way to treat a potential ally. I'd hate to do it, but I will seek to have you blocked if you force my hand." Who says things like that? Who do you think you are? hahahaha--Jacksoncw (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you're coming here and attacking me about something that happened in 2010 and was worked out. It's not as simple as you seem to believe. You're engaging in battlefield behavior and this is a personal attack. Here is more about that matter, which is none of your business. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:08, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Re: User:Medicalstaffcc
Re your message: Thank you for bringing it to my attention. While the links were different, it obvious that the accounts are related and I have blocked the new one for being a spam-only account. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello Valjean. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
You say that your page has been removed from search engines' indexes but I was able to google your page with the string Welcome to BullRangifer's user page. The reason I tested it is because I've been trying to remove my page as well, without success. Me too I take privacy dead serious. SlightSmile23:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
You're right that it's actually quite easy to find my username on the internet. Originally that might have offered some protection, but no longer. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea how to fix what was done there, your talk page comments (well put BTW) were removed. I left the user a warning, but now the talk page is messed up. I was not sure a reversion was in order, because he had changed his own comments, then deleted yours.Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I have fixed it and added a few comments. Let's see if we get a collaborative response, or just more battleground behavior. We're dealing with a newbie, so patience will be necessary. We've all been there! -- Brangifer (talk) 18:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You're receiving this message because you commented in the RSN discussion of sourced criticism at Secular Islam Summit. There is now an RFC on the subject at the article's talk page. Please consider visiting the RFC to help build a consensus. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Quackwatch crits
Closed here and continuing at the QW talk page.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You reverted mention of the Cheers and Jeers page in Quackwatch. The given reason was "Editorial use of a primary source without any inspiration from a secondary source? OR?" How on earth do you make that out? The section is "Criticism". The section mentions criticisms from the likes of "The Village Voice" and "alternative medicine" without editorial comment. All the deleted text did was to mention a far wider range of crits both positive and negative. It provided no evaluation positive or negative. Please explain why I should not revert your deletion. JonRichfield (talk) 06:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
(1) Per WP:BRD, you should not restore your edit, but discuss the matter on the talk page until a consensus has been reached. So far your edit has been rejected twice. This restoration by you after twice being rejected was an act of edit warring. Not a wise move. Discussion is better. BRD isn't BRRD. Current status: We are now at D and it should stay that way until a consensus has been reached, or some other decision has been made. I suggest you just drop the matter. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion. I shall indeed take it to talk unless you reconsider independently (in fact even if you do I think I should, to avoid pointless conflict with other correspondents; you are the second already. However, please mind your counting: I posted the text. Someone reverted. I contacted that person and reverted. You reverted back again. Schluss. That is ONE reversion. Right? Not even counting the fact that it was a correct and reasonable reversion.) Your tone in this matter is hardly friendly, but I don't know the appropriate abbreviation. In your reversion summary you even spoke of OR, leaving me totally nonplussed. OR!???! For relevantly reporting the presence of particular content at the site in question? JonRichfield (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
(2) The Village Voice and other content are secondary sources. We can include them, and have done so. It was difficult finding RS which criticize QW! Generally only very non-RS do so. The content you wish to add is a primary source. That page only has non-RS content (the cheers and jeers of whomever aren't RS here). It's simply not significant content. Mention of that page would only be of use as part of a description of the website, and there are literally thousands of pages. Which ones deserve mention? Why this one, which, of all those pages, happens to have ONLY non-reliable content? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
You and your predecessor in this discussion appear to be regarding the matter as a case of POV or partisan support of QW. That is curious in context, because there is no element of anything of the type in what I wrote. The title of the section is "Criticism", remember? You plausibly peak of its being difficult finding RS which criticize QW. I am glad to hear that of course, but it is hardly relevant, or if it is, then it is relevant that there is a range of positive and negative criticism. I do not discuss the pro or the con support. I do not evaluate it. I do not even quantify it. I mention its existence and supply a link. Its content is not material and therefore there is no question of whether it is a primary, secondary or imaginary source. JonRichfield (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
(3) I don't see any point in you pushing this. If you have some policy-based reason, please produce it and I'll certainly reconsider. Otherwise this push is doomed. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I push this as a matter of policy certainly; it is my policy to make information available to readers in proper context and connection, together with the means to verify or (in part) evaluate it. If it is relevant to support it, then I supply sources, and of course they are, AFAIC not primary sources. The subject under attention is the QW site. I supplied information and a link concerning the site's content and status. Perhaps it would help to imagine a contrasting scenario. Suppose I had included the same text in the Homeopathy article, slightly edited to fit, but still referring to QW crits. That still would not have been OR, and it still would not have been primary sourcing, but it would definitely not have been sound material. It would be informal, unencyclopaedic, unsourced, unresearched, judgmental etc, and not in the slightest relevant to the status of the article. Does that put the matter in a different light? JonRichfield (talk) 09:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
This discussion should be happening at the QW talk page. Maybe I should copy this thread to that spot and continue. How about it? -- Brangifer (talk) 16:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Of course. Thanks. BTW, I'm working on a report documenting sockpuppetry, restoration of libelous BLP statements by this IP (and socks), and uncollaborative behavior. Start watching more closely. A very uncollaborative person who refuses to discuss his very odd and paranoid accusations. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Nearly identical attitude as another IP (a sockmaster 99....) I'm dealing with, mentioned a couple sections above. The two have communicated and share POV and battlefield behavior. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry etc
Thanks for your email. I've had a quick look at the relevant editing history, but I don't have time to do more now. I will try to get back onto it tomorrow. Meanwhile I have semiprotected one of the articles affected. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
You are wrong about what our policies and guidelines state. WP:OPENPARA clearly states "previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence". You are the one who needs to follow our guidelines and not make misleading claims in the opening sentence. His Australian citizenship has been revoked, and we do not use compound phrases. An Australian American is most commonly read as referring to someone who is born in the US but has Australian ancestors. That is not the case here and you misleading the reader by misusing such a phrase. This is precisely the confusion that WP:OPENPARA is written to avoid. I know because I wrote that phrase into the policy after discussion on the guideline's talk page. It has been there for years. Previous nationalities should be mentioned no earlier than the second sentence. If you'd like to rewrite the lead to introduce his country of birth into the second sentence, by all means do so, but it doesn't belong in the lead sentence for the reasons given and this is solidly based on policy. Yworo (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. I wasn't aware of that detail, since I wasn't involved in the discussions. I see you had a rocky road, but apparently succeeded, and I'll respect that version until a new one arrives.
Hello B. I wanted to make you aware of this situation Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Building a shrine.3F. A very odd situation is going on and since you are the main editor of this [8] I thought you might be able to assist in helping us to look into things. Now it was two years ago so if it doesn't come back to mind or if you are busy doing other things please don't worry about it. Thanks for you time and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk23:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. What's really bizarre is that Caleb is a real person living in Rhode Island who is easily identifiable. If he were to libel someone here at Wikipedia, a warrant could be sent directly to his door for him to stand trial. Yet, he acts like an idiot. Go figure! -- Brangifer (talk) 05:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
You are welcome. I only just logged on today and saw your note at the ANI thread. What you didn't get to see was that the user in question had tagged about a 150 or more IPs with the {{ipsock|Caleb Murdock}} tag. Then one of the admins that responded to the post did a mass delete. You may have already figured this out for your self but I thought I would leave this message anyway. Thanks for taking a look at things and I'm glad we sent the troll packing. Regards. MarnetteD | Talk17:22, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
After six years here, I still have never heard a really good reason for allowing IPs to edit for any longer length of time, not from anyone, whether admin or ArbCom member. Everyone can still edit. I still believe that registration should be required after a certain number of edits. This is just another case that reinforces that opinion. Caleb happens to be one of those weird cases where an obsession manifests itself. I'm not a psychiatrist, so I'm not sure what diagnosis to attach, but something must apply. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree. That is why I added this userbox Template:UserMandatorySignin to my page when I came across it. You can be just as anonymous with a username as with a number. Hopefully we now return to normal editing - whatever that is :-)MarnetteD | Talk02:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
Good Morning! I surely dont want to get involved in edit war and to to waste time of others and mine. I would like to contribute to the article. It is a good idea to discuss issues one by one on talk page. I am starting the topics soon on the talk page. Your help is requested in the discussion. Thanks. Please message me on my talk page so I can get to know quickly about it. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Brangifer, hope you and yours are well. I have a request regarding Acupuncture. I'm writing to ask that you consider helping discourage a pernicious form of reverting there. Some call it "drive-by reverting", i.e. reverting with meaningless ES's left and no meaningful participation (if any) on the talk page. We have some good editors there, and the drive-by's are a distraction from good WP:DR and a form of harassment. Please see my comments toward the end of this section, starting with the phrase "thanks for the tweak". I let 2/0 know as well. cheers, Middle 8 (talk) 22:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
Much appreciated your comments on the talk page; we're on the same page re wikiquette, and I liked your boiling the issue down to the fundamentals: DR and BRD. Far clearer than "drive-by reverts". Salud! --Middle 8 (talk) 05:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The source you mention (which I assume you overlooked) denies the fact. It's unfounded, untrue and unsustained thus it serves no purpose or enrichment to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HansRoht (talk • contribs) 05:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Of course it's untrue. We are using a very reliable source to document the fact that such a rumour exists. Your reference is also a RS which examines the issue, and thus makes the coverage (and debunking) even better. We do not whitewash articles, we document what's happening in the world, including stupid rumours, especially when they are well-known.
BTW, you have violated BRD and are now edit warring by reverting without discussing "until" we reach a consensus through "D"iscussion. (BRD is not written BRRD.) I'll reset back to where this should be, and we'll now "D"iscuss the matter. Please do not revert again.
This discussion should occur on the article's talk page, not here. That's now how we do things here. I'll copy this discussion there and we can continue. When we reach a consensus, with the input of other editors, we will ALL decide, TOGETHER, what to do. Who knows, maybe you'll get your way! -- Brangifer (talk) 06:33, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
BullRangifer, can you also comment on the issues I brought up and try to fix the article as well? Thanks - M0rphzone (talk) 01:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Btw, don't go reverting my edits like you were doing. There are content issues with the article and I brought that up which you deleted. Just deal with the issues. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
I object to your hatting my comments and others comments. That's a misuse of WP:Refactor, at least when others object to it. If the other threads get old and are definitely stale (that's not certain yet), then we can archive them in the normal manner. Otherwise you are welcome to just add back what got deleted. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Bullrangifer, can you comment on the content issue I brought up at the article? Since you were involved in the discussion, I think you should do something about the content at least. And I don't know why Tomwsulcer doesn't want to answer my questions. He put the content in the article in the first place...I'm not understanding his actions right now. - M0rphzone (talk) 19:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for filling me in on the information I was unaware of. It's nice to meet you. Cheers, Riley HuntleytalkNo talkback needed; I'll temporarily watch here.22:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Riley. Although it's under unfortunate circumstances that we meet (dealing with disruption is never pleasant), things worked out, and I hope there is no continued disruption from the user, but history predicts that more will come. Burzynski has many followers. There's lots of big money involved in his business. Unfortunately for his victims he does not advertise the fact that some of those whom he's used as "success stories" are now dead. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. GilderienChat|List of good deeds19:41, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) It looks like this tag is not needed. It looks like a newbie/game playing editor is messing with a redirect that you created 3 years ago [9] BullRangifer. I have reverted to the way the page was before the drinking game nonsense was added. Just wanted to keep you up to date on this. MarnetteD | Talk19:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Glad to have been of help. I thought that a "Speedy deletion tag" over something from so long ago would throw you for a loop when you logged in today. Enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD | Talk07:15, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Totally fine with me. The reversion was just a signal that we do not recognize or accept any form of edit (even good ones) from block evaders. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
BTW, in the future (to avoid the appearance of supporting a sock or acting as a meat puppet), it would be best to not revert, but to make the edit yourself, IOW "own" it, rather than to seemingly support the IP. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
BCA v. Singh
I agree that BCA v. Singh is independently notable, apart fomr anything else it was the catalyust for every major party in the 2010 UK general election including a manifesto commitment to libel reform.
Thanks for the feedback on my recent links - looking over them, I agree, it was excessive and not all were sufficiently relevant. I appreciate the message; I wouldn't have noticed had you not posted to my talk page. Any guidance on how to improve my editing is always appreciated.
Rytyho usa (talk) 00:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, it's your old Jessica Chastain-co-discussionist. I wonder if you could help me out on Lily Cole, a scenario I'm frankly baffled is still continuing. A bunch of second-hand good-for-nothing websites list Cole as born in May 1988 (i.e. the IMDB, fashionmodeldirectory, etc.). Cole's birth was clearly registered in February 1988 (ancestry.com; that means she was born that month or one of the few before, but not months after). She was mentioned as just having turned 20 in early January 2008 (by an actual newspaper) and then Lily Cole herself, on her verified Twitter account, twitted her 24th birthday on December 27, 2011, and then replied in the affirmative to somebody wishing her a happy birthday (meaning she was born December 27, 1987). Obviously, Cole has no problem stating what her actual birthdate is. Yet, various "editors" have converged on Talk:Lily Cole and are totally ignoring common sense and logic. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure I want to get involved in such a dispute. You'll need to screw down the rhetoric before you piss people off and you end up in trouble, then use links to the RS in your argumentation, don't just refer to them. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I was very reasonable in early June. But then one of the fellas over there went and started an RFC, didn't bother calling me in to discuss it, didn't mention any of my references (that was before I found her Twitter), oh, and one of them called me a "disruptive" editor (for even daring to question her birth date, I mean). Well, that is exactly what I am and I guess I'll probably end up blocked over this, since I don't really intend to let down. I physically can't believe that discussion is still going on - we have her own word on her verified Twitter account and we're still talking about this? How is that possible? That's just crazy. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 04:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
It's not worth getting blocked over! Keep a spotless block log, at all costs. Your reputation here is your currency. It's worth a lot. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I've been blocked once already (a few years back), although the blocker took it back and unblocked. I really don't care about my reputation, just about facts. This is such a clear and obvious case of them that I'm again at a loss to explain why we're even having this conversation. It's not like Chastain, wherein she may very well be stating her incorrect age. No, it's a case where the person themselves is quite casually noting their birthdate on the correct date. Of course, you could help make this go away... :-) All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Required registration. Sockpuppetry. Let's discuss it.
There are two subthreads here.
1. I happen to be one of the many editors who favor mandatory registration for all editors, but only after an initial trial period. Let people rack up a certain number of edits (200?) as IPs and then require registration. In the mean time, have many limits (more than we have now) on what types of edits anonymous IPs are allowed to make. That way we can significantly reduce vandalism and free up the time wasted on vandal fighting. I have, after nearly seven years here (with a very short start as an IP), NEVER heard a good argument for not requiring registration. Not from Arbcom members, admins, or ordinary editors. Not a single good argument! Registration has so many advantages, and does not prevent a single person on earth from editing. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
2. I haven't totally thought this through (and would like to hear your thoughts), but I would also favor some type of behind-the-scenes checkuser controls to prevent sockpuppetry. The legitimate use of sock puppets can still be allowed, but they would be (privately) registered with CUs. Any attempts by one IP to create multiple registered names (socks) would then be noted (not automatically blocked, since multiple people may use the same IP), they could be warned if they then edit the same articles (indicating possible socking), and possibly blocked. This process could be automated so a red flag pops up when such attempts are made, and then a CU could look at the situation. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Pass a Method
I imagine you saw that the above editor, whom you have warned about conduct recently, is, according to the section above your own notices, in the section User talk:Pass a Method#Account Monitoring Notification, been warned about the account being "monitored." I honestly have no idea what that refers to, but I was wondering whether you had been keeping up with the count mentioned there. John Carter (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that, and I haven't been following that editor closely, but I recall noticing some disruptive behavior. According to the following text at the top of my watchlist, I might have too much on my plate : "You have 7,641 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." So, is there anything particularly problematic about their behavior at the moment which I should look at? -- Brangifer (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Probably not. The editor has gotten quite a few "comments" since then, some from me, including notice of deceptive edit summaries most recently. I guess I was probably most curious about the "Account Monitoring Notification", because I don't remember seeing that before, and couldn't find a quick explanation for what it is supposed to mean. And shame on you for having so many pages on your watchlist. You actually, right now, have a few hundred more than I do, and I can't feel so sorry for myself anymore knowing you're watching more pages than I am. ;( John Carter (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Dispute Resolution IRC office hours.
Hello there. As you expressed interest in hearing updates to my research in the dispute resolution survey that was done a few months ago, I just wanted to let you know that I am hosting an IRC office hours session this coming Saturday, 28th July at 19:00 UTC (approximately 12 hours from now). This will be located in the #wikimedia-officeconnect IRC channel - if you have not participated in an IRC discussion before you can connect to IRC here.
So he's still active?! I figured he'd stick to one account after the warnings at both IDs, but I see that he's still using both. Would you mind giving him some "advice" about the matter? Maybe if it comes from more than one person he might take it more seriously. If he still won't listen and stick to one account, an SPI would be appropriate. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, BullRangifer. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I am sure you have had plenty of issues with people here on wiki from the sound of your "warning" here. Yes, people should learn to get over themselves and not carry things on out of bias. The David R. Hawkins article is one of those issues. A particular user has deleted most all of the information for the piece, and now chooses to have it deleted once again. Personally I don't care for the man/author but the issue here on Wiki is really just another case of one person/user running amuck based on some agenda or vendetta, in this case claiming that nothing is truly verifiable. Since you chimed in, I will let you handle the matter. And it was or should have been my own previous comment that was deleted. I know the Wiki policies and all of the Wiki rhetoric and bureaucracy about politeness and tolerance. You seem to have "hope for Wiki" so feel free make it a little better place. No need to reply to me. Iconoclast.Horizon (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually I think we share opinions on this matter. Hawkins is a quack, but he may be notable enough to have an article. Being a quack is not a reason for deletion. My major concern with my revert of your edit was that you accidentally deleted another person's comment. I also mentioned that a separate heading and that personal attacks were unneeded. They only make you look bad and weaken your case. So redo that edit and carry on. Good luck. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:48, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
