User talk:ScienceApologist/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Why I returned

For better or worse, Wikipedia is now the first stop for students doing research for classes. It is important, therefore, that there be a person willing to ensure that information is accurate and reliable here. I disagree with the so-called "cult of the amateur" embraced by large segments of the community here, but since this is an open format I am pleased to continue to contribute as best as I can to fight against cranks and pseudoscience. ScienceApologist 17:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back! Vsmith 18:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm here for much the same reason, in math rather than science. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Fantastic. This is the best Wikipedia related news in quite some time. -- Ec5618 19:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Welcome back from me too William M. Connolley 20:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, if I can help out in any way, please just drop a note on my talk page. Tim Vickers 22:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm here for exactly the same reasons as you. Welcome back to the madhouse. The Sanity Cabal has missed you. Raymond Arritt 00:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is great news. — BillC talk 06:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glad to see you back

Just wanted to chime in. Don't let the bastards get you down, even though they try hard. Help out at Homeopathy if you want. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


Welcome back. :-) KillerChihuahua?!? 19:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not that you really want to know but....

You better comment here OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glad to see you've returned

I don't think we ever ran into each other, but I'm a civil engineer who avoids science-related topics only because of the psuedoscience POV-pushers. You're doing something necessary, please don't let others get you down. east.718 at 22:12, October 2, 2007

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for over-extending yourself into places that really didn't concern you, and not being shy about what your agenda is. In a place of neutrality, you really do belong here. You and the rest of the one-dimensional people really know what's best. Just as you always have, as all the pages of history here show. Peace Jiminezwaldorf 03:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't always agree with ScienceApologist, but Wikipedia allows anyone to edit any article (WP:OWN), and fringe science and pseudoscience articles are his main interest so they surely concern him. If we can agree on such basic facts, then some year we may agree on neutrality. Art LaPella 06:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'll address the NPOV tag as soon as I can. Please be patient. Jiminezwaldorf 23:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nice

I never met you, but apon trowling through the ARBCOM, and Comunity ban archives, as I do when I am bored, or not at work, I am glad to see you back here editing after that horrible business with user:iantresman, now blocked thank goodness. It's always a struggle to create something of a credible encyclopedia when there are vandals, pov pushers, spammers, trolls, and other undesirebles here. Zanusi 09:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes nice to have you back; while you were away, some whippersnapper called User:Nondistinguished was trying to impersonate you, but he seemed to have lost most of his votes for deletion and gave up ;-) --feline1 09:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EVP

We've been going through an informal mediation concerning the EVP article. The discussions can be found here: Talk:Electronic voice phenomena. We're trying to work on each section at a time and reach a consensus on that. We're at a standstill because the mediator is busy this week however in theory we could do it without him. I think this way is better than simply editing it directly(Until consensus is met) because of potential edit wars. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome back. Since at least one editor has recently been editing the article directly I suppose that means there's no need to wait for consensus or be at a "standstill". It sure could use some attention. For example, regarding the article's introduction, "EVP" can only be stated to have been "observed" in various media if cited by authoritative sources such as IEEE Journals, Audio Engineering Society (AES) Journals, International Journal of Acoustics and Vibration, and current academic texts. Otherwise, the observations must be phrased as a claim. - LuckyLouie 00:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

note on martins page about that. Wikidudeman (talk) 00:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WELCOME BACK

I just noticed you're editing again. Glad to see you back. Raul654 21:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll second the sentiment. Though I am myself not a very active Wikipedian of late, I'm glad you are back. This restores me a great deal of hope. --Friendly Neighbour 17:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Happy to see you contributing again. Tom Harrison Talk 13:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Me too! You say: Wikipedia is now the first stop for students doing research for classes. Yup. The majority of mine not only don't realize that WP (or anything purporting to be an encyclopedia?) is flawed, they don't even realize that they (or anyone else?) can edit it. They have seemingly bottomless reserves of docility, passivity and incuriosity. Where are they sleepwalking? -- Hoary 00:58, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Have it out'?

I am responding to your threatening post on my Talk page. I am not "Wikistalking" you -- I noticed your canvassing input at a number of "friendly" talk pages, and decided to drop by to see what you were up to this time. And no, I will not respond to "baiting" for your desired effect. Thank you for your visit. --profg Talk 01:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail

I sent you an E-mail concerning Martin's arbitration. Please check it. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Me too

I'm glad to see you back. I was afraid that we had lost you (one of our best editors) forever. Bubba73 (talk), 02:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AN/I

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that there is currently and AN/I discussion regarding an issue you may be involved with here. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you.  – ornis⚙ 16:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Profg

SA, I just wanted speak to you about your edit here. I agree with your desire to stand against this type of editor, but it's getting frustrating. A bunch of very good anti-POV editors have left the project over the past few weeks and months. I'm running out of energy standing against them. I've taking the policy of matching their bullshit with my own, with the hope that good guys can come in and get it straightened out. Too often, the right wing lies and lies and lies until you think it's the truth. How long did we think there were WMD's in Iraq? Or here at Wikipedia, how long did many people believe that Evolution is just a theory? Profg is obviously a POV-warrior of the best type--he's not really good at it. I ignore him, because the more subtle ones are more difficult to fight. I figure he'll be typing here soon, because he's wikistalking a lot of editors. Anyways, I'm glad you're back, but the fight is frustrating. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Models of the universe

Right you are. Why isn't a redirect to cosmology more appropriate? 1of3 22:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Martinphi talk page

I apologize for calling you a vandal, considering that you really believed at the time that the parody template on my talk page was a personal attack, and that I was not a member of Wikiproject RationalSkepticism. ——Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 19:50, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel(Talk) 15:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Extraterrestrial hypothesis

Howdy. You modified some changes I had made to the intro to ETH. I had posted some commentary on the reasons behind the changes on the talk page; it would have been nice if you had commented there, especially since I left it open for commentary for over a month before I put the change in place ;-). If you disliked the way it's written now, you should see what it said before I changed it. And just removing the citation (which I spent quite some time finding) is not very helpful. Anyway, other than my slightly bruised ego, your point about the citation not mentioning ETH is well taken. Regardless of terminology they distinctly were *not* talking about ETH but about UFOs. I will try to change it to reflect that. What the citation supports is the notion that when scientists review the evidence at hand, they conclude that some UFO reports merit further study, but they don't really comment much on ETH. E.g. the notion that there's even a minority support for ETH in mainstream science is wrong. And leaving the comment "a few scientists ..." is zero info, since you can pretty much find a "a few" scientists supporting any notion. I will post a version of this comment on the ETH talk page; please follow up there if after my next edit you still disagree with the text. --Psm 17:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Feline1

Hi, I see you've encountered this charming man. Take a look at his block log, he has a history of abusive behaviour to editors. DuncanHill 20:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Feline1 also has a history of making valuable contributions at Talk:Periodic table (standard) and elsewhere. My view is that a lack of charm and occasional obnoxiousness are usually only abusive when another editor feels that they have been abused in some way. The best thing for readers of the article spaces in Wikipedia is for editors to pay attention to the good and try to ignore the bad in other editors, and most importantly, to not perpetuate the bad. For an example of perpetuating the bad, there used to be an editor here that brought up irrelevant things all the time. Another editor with whom he often argued would sometimes do the same thing with the excuse: "I brought it up because it is irrelevant and a favorite tactic of his..." Flying Jazz 17:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Fringe theories

WP:FRINGE is a guideline. You are free to be bold in editing even guidelines, however it is not acceptable to keep pushing the changes without achieving consensus after you are reverted by multiple editors (including a tenured and respected admin). Your changes are distinct from the last stable version.[1] Please discuss it on the talk page and achieve consensus, instead of trying to push through the changes. Since you are making the change, the burden is on you to justify the changes and build consensus, not the other way around. Vassyana 13:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I have looked over the situation. What I see is that you are pushing changes that have raised objections that you have not achieved a clear consensus for on the talk page. It is an official guideline. Therefore, you shoulder the burden to show consensus for the change, since you have been reverted and there are objections. If there isn't much discussion, you can solicit broader community input. Post at the village pump. File a policy RfC. Do not continue to try to push through changes on official rules without consensus. Vassyana 14:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I do not see where consensus was reached in the topic threads you list. You are the only person supporting the change. Moreschi and Blueboar made some side comments, but do not appear to have supported or opposed the change. The only other editor who commented beyond MartinPhi and yourself was Jossi, who appears to have opposed the change based on a lack of full discussion and consensus. A consensus of one is not a consensus, particularly when it comes to policies and guidelines, and you know better. Again, please seek further input and consensus. Vassyana 14:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Parapsychology

Let's not edit war over the caption of the randi image. If your edits are reverted, please don't revert them back, instead discuss it on the talk page. I won't revert them as either version is fine with me, but let's remember that it's a featured article and edit warring on it is not a good idea. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Materialist and science apologist

Please avoid personal comments. As a self-proclaimed materialist and science apologist, you could be seen to have clear conflict of interest issues in the issues under discussion. The point of Wikipedia is to achieve an objective article, not to attack others' points of view in order to exclude these - or to score points. Hgilbert 16:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

No offense taken. Of course, everyone would like to see his or her own POV as objective; I hope that as Wikipedia editors we are modest enough - and mature enough - to realize that none of us have a truly objective point of view...and if not, we have the NPOV policy to remind us not to assert this.
Wikipedia policies emphasize examining the sources on their own merits. Let's keep the discussion on that level. Hgilbert 19:44, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NYC meetup change of schedule

You've expressed an interest in the upcoming New York City Meetup for Saturday, November 3. I'd like to update you on an important change of schedule.

  • It's been agreed that we should have a 2-hour formal meeting period to start organizing meta:Wikimedia New York City, and this will be held at the Pacific Library (note this is different from the Brooklyn Central Library, which was discussed earlier) from 2:00 PM – 4:00 PM.

This will be in addition to the previously scheduled roving activities at the Brooklyn Botanic Garden (this activity has also been cut short a bit) and at the Brooklyn Museum. For full details, see Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC. Ask any questions at Wikipedia talk:Meetup/NYC. Thank you.--Pharos 21:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts

Methinks we may have our work cut out for us with this article. If you get a chance, Davkal came into propose some changes you should read. Cheers!!! Baegis 16:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archive from WP:VPP

I hope you don't mind me sticking this here as an archive. I largely agree with you, and the responses were interesting if not totally convincing. Cool Hand Luke 01:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Let's get rid of the user conduct RfCs because they're inefficient stupid wastes of time

With the growth of Wikipedia has come the inevitable growth of a de facto court of litigation that has a structure that many describe as unnecessarily convoluted. In particular, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution lists the steps roughly as

  1. talk it out
  2. get a third opinion
  3. file a Request for comment (RfC)
  4. Request mediation
  5. Go to arbitration

However, in parallel to this are issues involving problematic editors with user conduct issues. Though not outlined as clearly, the court of appeals process unofficially looks something like this:

  1. talk it out
  2. file a complaint at AN/I or CSN
  3. file a user conduct RfC
  4. Go to arbitration

My beef is with step number 3. Does anybody ever really take user conduct RfCs seriously? No. They are simply a way of gathering a bunch of people together to argue over which person/persons is/are "good" or "bad". Invariably the User conduct RfC ends up looking something like this:

  • User:ABC writes in the lead: User:XYZ is bad, bad, awful, and no good. Look at this list of 100 links that proves it.
  • Corroborating ABC people 1 through 10 sign in agreement.
  • User:XYZ writes in rebuttal: User:ABC is bad, bad, awful and is hounding me, hurting my feelings, and I'm just trying to make Wikipedia better. All those links prove nothing and here are 100 links proving it and how bad Corroborating ABC people 1 through 10 are.
  • Sympathetic XYZ people 1 through 5 sign in agreement.
  • Uninvolved neutral paragon of neutrality User:000 writes: Aw shucks, both groups sound like they are being naughty. Everybody needs a slap on the wrist and should go back to writing an encyclopedia. Yes, some people have done some bad things, but haven't we all? WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPA, WP:CON, WP:NPOV, etc., etc. Love, peace, and cherry blossoms.
  • Other candidates for adminship 1 through 5 sign in agreement.
  • Sundry of other responses by various people in one of these three camps write pretty much the same thing with the usual suspects endorsing.

What's the point? I mean really. We all knew that this was what the User:RfC was going to look like anyway and when the inevitable arbitration does happen, the arbitrators don't have the time to sift through all the B.S. to cull out the few decent pieces of evidence contained in that tripe.

So I say, why do we have these things? They are a ridiculous procedure and a waste of time.

GRRRR!

ScienceApologist 18:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Ali'i expanded some acronyms for clarity 19:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Signing in agreement. No, wait! :-) More seriously - so, what do you suggest? See, RfC has one good thing about it: it gives a sense of proportion. It lets XYZ know that there are actually 10 people who feel that way about him. XYZ probably knew there were 3, but probably didn't know there were 10. It lets ABC know that there are 5 people supporting XYZ. ABC may not have known that. XYZ may have thought there were more. Either or both may have thought that, given 15 people, a clear majority would agree they were right. It's a specific forum for a large number of people to air their gripes or suggestions, without messing up an article talk page for issues that are really about editors. It doesn't often work completely, but sometimes it does help a bit. What's your better suggestion? And don't forget the love, peace and cherry blossoms. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    Let them air their gripes and frustrations at one of the other three venues I listed. AN/I, CSN seem like good options. The problem is that too often a user-rfc is listed as a bloody requirement for getting action taken to deal with a problematic user. After you waste weeks or months with the thing and nothing has happened except more grief, only then is it okay for escalation of the matter to occur. That's wasting a lot of people's patience and goodwill and generally driving good editors away. My suggestion is simply trash the entire thing as my point is that it doesn't work at all. It never resolves anything. Show me a place where XYZ has ever said, "OMIGOD! 10 people are upset with me! I better change!" due to a user conduct RfC. Show me enough examples and maybe I'll change my mind. But I've been through lots of these things and to the best of my knowledge this NEVER has happened. Sometimes it actually makes things worse. ScienceApologist 18:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Epbr123 seems to have worked. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Where's your evidence that it worked? In particular, this comment seems to indicate otherwise. ScienceApologist 19:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
It worked in the sense that it hasn't needed to be taken farther since, which is really all we can ask for. I hope you weren't looking for someone to throw themselves on their knees, rend their garments and pour ashes on their heads. User_talk:AnonEMouse#RFC is a nicer comment. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm dubious. When someone declares that the user-conduct RfC about them has "no consensus", what is to say that they won't keep behaving badly? I don't believe that there is anything wrong in principle with having a neutral place to air ones grievances without resolution, but to REQUIRE it of all disputes is a bit outrageous, don't you think? ScienceApologist 21:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Put it this way. User conduct requests can work, but only if there's actually some desire by the person being "commented on" to find out about their behavior. Hostile RFCs, filed by users hostile to a given user, are rarely useful unless the other user is willing to say "I will take this into account". Otherwise, they break down pretty much along ScienceApologist's lines. I don't even bother commenting on most of them, since they're so uniformly pointless. However, occasionally you can see a legitimate desire for some kind of resolution. --Haemo 19:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    Keeping a version of User RfCs of that sort would be a fair compromise (though there is Wikipedia:Editor review which basically does exactly what you say). User RfCs are almost always on the whole hostile. ScienceApologist 19:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • User conduct RfCs don't really have much value in terms of actually correcting user behaviour, but they DO serve a useful purpose in terms of putting issues in perspective and gathering consensus. Often User A will file an RfC against user B, expecting to drown B in a sea of shame and scorn, only to be told en masse that either B was right after all or that B was wrong but the issue is trivial. An RfC isn't going to turn a mustache-twirling wiki-villain into a sudden good guy, but it does sometimes help us sort out the mountains from the molehills. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:47, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    I guess what you're saying is then that the benefit of user-rfcs is to keep the overly WikiLitigious from bogging down the community. I guess I just always find myself in the goddamn mountains. Still, I think we should be able to find a better way than having what amounts to essentially a process which is meaningful only when it fails! ScienceApologist 22:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    It only "fails" if you see its goal as being resolution of the dispute. Despite what the page says, I think at this point the goal is more to get community input than really solve anything. -Amarkov moo! 22:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
    Then it should not be considered part of dispute resolution, should it? I guess then I can tell all those people complaining that I haven't done a User-RfC to shove it! ScienceApologist 23:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • But politely so we don't have to file an RfC. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 23:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The only real problem that I have with RfC is that it tends to bog down in 2 ways. First of all, by requiring that truly problematic and disruptive editors go through the process, it keeps them around, being disruptive longer. Secondly, the preponderance of petty problems means that the real troublesome problems get trivialized or get missed. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 00:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Goodness me I actually did laugh out loud at this, well done SA. I fully agree user conduct RfC is a complete waste of time, and only serves to keep disruptive editors around longer. The best that can usually be expected from really malevolent editors subjected to RfC, is that they lie low for a while, or find more subtle ways of making everyone else's lives just a little more miserable. The main argument in favour of keeping it here seems to be community input, but let's face it, there are plenty of other existing venues for that, like AN/I, CSN, or mediation. Let's ditch ( or at least deprecate ) this silly waste of effort, and skip straight to the keel-haul... er... I mean... "community sanctions"... ahem...  – ornis⚙ 08:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed, the RfC process almost never generates any meaningful result. It's little more than a hoop that must be jumped through in order to proceed with other steps in the dispute resolution process. If the subject of the RfC is reasonable, discussion on their talk page or other venue suffices; if the subject is unreasonable, RfC accomplishes nothing (except to bring out other unreasonable people who support their co-conspirator). Raymond Arritt 17:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I seem to vaguely recall a discussion along these lines after User:Kelly Martin went through like 3 in a row. (I'm not singling the user out, it's just the last time I recall this even semi-seriously being discussed.) - Personally, The RfC process only barely works for article concerns. (I honestly think straw polls work much better as a way to start discussion in those cases.) RfC seems to me to work best for policy/guideline/convention discussions (though if there is interest, they can get to be loooong : ) - So yes, I agree with the intial thought, RfC for user review should go the way of the dodo. - jc37 19:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. Trash the RfC. But have a lower ArbCom and a higher ArbCom. That would take some pressure off the current one, but still allow appeal. BTW, Community sanction is no longer functioning. Very funny, SA. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:09, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: this

You're my hero. That's exactly what's wrong with this community today. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 19:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello badge

Hi. I made a Wiki Hello badge in case anyone's interested in using it for the Meetup. It's on the Meetup page. Nightscream 16:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Re:this - I was considering going, and right now I'd say I'm 80% likely to go. Why don't you consider going to? I'm hereby twisting your arm. Raul654 17:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] No personal attacks

Regarding this comment: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Please do not make them. It is your responsibility to foster and maintain a positive online community in Wikipedia.

Some suggestions:

  • Discuss the article, not the subject;
  • Discuss the edit, not the editor;
  • Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is;
  • If you feel attacked, do not attack back.

≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I hardly think that qualifies as a personal attack. Anyone who promulgates that awful ideology and POV like iconclast deserves SA's commentary. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:46, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Jossi has a notoriously hard time differentiating between calling out POV-pushing and personal attacks. We have a history that goes back. Way back. ScienceApologist 00:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Quackwatch

(Keeping this separate from the above). I hope you aren't offended by my reminding you to please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Quackwatch and the related articles are all very controversial with often heated discussions. It's best to closely follow talk page guidelines and keep a cool head even when you think others are not. It's difficult not to escalate a already tense situation, but it's best if they do not become cases of recognizing comments that deserve no recognition. --Ronz 01:01, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

That said, I think your comments could benefit from refactoring. --Ronz 01:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
You make a good point regarding WP:DNFTT. What would you refactor and why? ScienceApologist 01:03, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I think there are some good suggestions in the article talk already. In most cases, it's best to avoid comments about the contributor, and just focus on what the contributor said. However, given this is a regular problem, I'd certainly point out that this is a repeated violation of TALK that has been pointed out to him many times before. Of course, I've got a lot to learn about dealing with such editors myself. --Ronz 01:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I must have missed those suggestions. As far as I can tell, I was commenting on what the contributor said. Where was I saying something different? ScienceApologist 01:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Fyslee and Shot info are trying to avoid things like "your fringe beliefs" and instead point out that there are no sources for what I'clast's is proposing, or the sources are not RS.
Rather than calling it a "diatribe", I like Jossi's approach of just asking him to summarize.
I don't expect most people would read "ignorant" as a comment about the content and not the contributor as well.
Rather than "innuendo", I think it would be better to ask him what he means about the specific things, and ask him to follow TALK when he does so.
Hope this is at least somewhat helpful. I'm finding it a good exercise in looking at alternatives to responding to a situation. --Ronz 01:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay, this is interesting. I just don't see any of those things as uncivil. I have been called so much worse than this that maybe my skin is unnaturally tough here at Wikipedia. To me, calling someone's post and "ignorant diatribe full of innuendo" just doesn't seem to be that big a deal. Why should we wipe people's asses when they shit all over something?
Maybe I'm just not used to the new Wikicultural Revolution. I guess I'm more in tune with spade ideas than I am with most people's mealy-mouthed versions of civility. This to me looks like not only am I not to comment on the contributor, I must also not comment on content if my comments are too withering. I don't care for that kind of revisionism. ScienceApologist 01:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I sympathize. These are all just my opinions, based upon what expectations I have of my Wikipedia editing. I'm trying hard to learn how to diffuse and prevent such situations. Usually I'm trying to come to a consensus with others, or otherwise assist in consensus building. Sometimes I'm just trying to prevent a massive waste of time. In the Quackwatch-related articles, it's too often the latter due to the editing environment there. --Ronz 02:12, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting others work

Reverts does not cordial editing make. Please assume good faith and undo your edits so that the community can discuss and form consensus on them. --Northmeister 03:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you deleted the image of EVP in the infobox? On what grounds was that done? I see no reason for its deletion under fair use policy. As to your other edits, I'll look them over. I am quite concerned that editing at EVP has turned into an edit war between yourself and Martinphi. Why does this have to be; I've only seen a willingness to work out problems from this user. Wikipedia is not suppose to be a place for contention and dispute - but rather logical and reasonable minds collaborating in common effort to write a NPOV article on numerous subjects. I really don't see any harm in covering paranormal topics, so long as they have a critics or skeptics section in them. Do you? --Northmeister 03:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tread carefully

you are getting away with some things only because the POV you are pushing is the mainstream. If you could make the effort to be a little more collegiate, even when dealing with people whose views border on the delusional at times, it would be much appreciated. And yes, I do know exactly how hard that can be, so you have my sympathies and can chat by email if you feel stressed and want to let of steam. Cheers, Guy (Help!) 19:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to second Guy's advice. You're too valuable to lose over issues that could be avoided. Raymond Arritt 00:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw the thread on you and Davkal on ANI. You're lucky you didn't get blocked too because you deserve it. It's obvious you didn't get blocked because of your cabal of supporters. If you don't start acting like you should, one day you'll end up like Davkal. Sumoeagle179 10:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cross-namespace

"Cross-namespace redirects are generally not allowed. So, for example, redirecting your user page to an article is to be avoided. Hope you understand." Actually I don't understand. Could you explain further or give an example of something I did incorrectly so I can fix it? (X900BattleGrape 20:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

Sorted out (X900BattleGrape 20:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] More cautions

Please be more careful. This edit greatly insults Dematt, a very fine editor, by associating him with Levine2112. They are very different in many ways, some of which I will not elucidate here. Levine2112 is not a chiropractor, but what he calls a "chiropractic advocate" and he has even admitted he was here "to protect chiropractic's reputation",[2] so his COI is very real (and greater than many real chiropractors who are editors) in spite of the smokescreen of irrelevant mentions that he isn't a DC or employed by one, etc.. (Note that a COI doesn't preclude being allowed to edit articles as long as it doesn't unduly affect the editing.) If one includes our personal interests and POV, then we all have COI in varying degrees. Even Dematt understands COI and NPOV enough to back away from (citing his own COI) very controversial edits involving chiropractic based on the fact that he actually is a chiropractor, but still one of the best editors around. Give the guy a break, he can't help that he's a chiro....;-) He is very fair and understands NPOV very well. Chiropractic and chiropractors are not the same thing. If you remember that, it will be easier to "condemn the sin, while forgiving the sinner," for "they know not what they do." Save your energy for attacking the nonsense (vertebral subluxations), while not attacking the editor, even when a chiropractor. Keep in mind the words of John Badanes, DC, who paraphrased Forrest Gump: "A chiropractic office is like a box of chocolates: YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET!" -- Fyslee / talk 00:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments requested

Heya - any comment you can make here would be most appreciated. Cheers, Skinwalker 13:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ageism

Hi Andrew,

I have thought long and hard over the last few months about whether pointing out your age in my dispute with you was appropriate. I now believe that it wasn't. I apologize for any implications that your age has any relevance on your contributions.

ScienceApologist 13:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The dispute was also partially my fault, as I was acting stupid and being thickheaded, and I didn't fully understand the article and stuff.
(P.S. The reason I worded that message I sent to you so well is because I didn't want to make it any worse at that point. Also, I only noticed you had left when I went to edit your talk page.) – Andrew Hampe Talk 20:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did you use a sock puppet?!

Please clarify:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tired_light#Sock_puppet

Harald88 21:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Meetup

Sorry I missed you at the meetup. I had trouble with NJ transit and didn't get there until 5:00 at the museum. Raul654 04:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Care for some science?

Or at least maths, and anyway not pseudoscience. Take a look at this if you have time, and feel very free to bring along a clued-in friend or three. (I'm not clued in, and shall be very busy for the next couple of days.) -- Hoary 07:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] response to my manifesto

I've responded to your comments at User_talk:Ragesoss/Manifesto. To say the least, I was surprised at your take on science and pseudoscience in Western and colonial history especially coming from you. Hopefully Wikipedia will remain interesting to your students at least long enough for us to meet face-to-face.--ragesoss 00:02, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Next meeting

Yes, it seems reasonable to me to move it forward to 2:30. You've reserved it for 2 hours, right? I also have a couple of other questions: What is the seating capacity of the room? And, what are your thoughts on a post-meetup activity in the general area?

I think having a post-meetup worked somewhat well for us on Saturday: separating the event into an "official" chapter portion at the library, and a post-meetup at the museum which was more socializing and general Wikipedia/Wikimedia chat (FWIW, almost noone came to the pre-meetup). This way those not interested in the chapter (e.g. some out-of-towners) could join us later, and we could still have time for the socializing activities generally expected at meetups. I think specifically setting aside the "official" chapter portion in a somewhat sterile environment is what helped keep things there on-topic to the chapter agenda.

And, thanks for your very much for your help and initiative on this. It is a very valuable thing to be able to have the next meeting already mostly scheduled at this stage.--Pharos 18:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I have copied this thread of discussion to Wikipedia talk:Meetup/NYC/Main and hope to continue the conversation there, to the benefit of third parties interested in following and participating in it. Thanks.--Pharos 02:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I've put up a new page at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC for the January meeting. I thought it was prudent to tell people coming for the later activities to meet us at 5 PM at Columbia, and then we'll walk together to the restaurant (since that hasn't been decided yet). By the way, have you given any thought to the restaurant? And, I think it would be a good thing if you could contact Columbia Free Culture about this meeting. Thanks.--Pharos 19:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

(I don't want to clutter a policy talk page with too much side discussion and I wanted to give a detailed response, so I am responding here. Please pardon the liberty. Vassyana 22:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC))

This was supposed to be a general discussion, but I would like to respond to some of the more egregious accusations made by Vassyana:

  • However, I am unsympathetic to your use of sockpuppets in this case. You used them to continue the same patterns as your primary account and, in at least one case, you have used them to stack discussion in your favor.

This is plainly not the case. The only place where it might be said that I was "stacking a discussion" I discuss here. If you have something to say about it, please do so there.

Otherwise, I find your disagreement perplexing. Where on this page does it state that one needs to change the patterns of the account in order to have a legitimate sockpuppet?

  • (This is directly contrary to the section you have pointed to in your defense. [WP:Sockpuppets#Keeping heated issues in one small_area]]: "If you want to edit a "hot" or controversial subject you may use a sock puppet so long as you do not use any other account to edit the same subject or make it appear that multiple people support the same action." [emphasis added])

But I wasn't using any other accounts to edit the same subject. I couldn't. The SA account had to be abandoned in order to prevent the group from filing a complaint. So I don't understand what you are insinuating. Are you trying to say that I used the SA account at the same time? Where is your evidence?

  • However, editors under sanction and those with a history of conduct issues often do not have the casual right*, due to concerns regarding ban/sanction evasion and obfuscation of a problematic history.

So if an editor is cautioned or counseled by arbcomm, they don't have the right? I was not under a ban. As for a "problematic history", this is obviously something that is left to the eye of the beholder. Are you seriously proposing that someone who is perceived as problematic doesn't have the right to edit at Wikipedia if someone threatens them IRL?

ScienceApologist 18:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

You had a choice on that AfD to not participate under the alternate account, giving the impression of additional commentary from a separate user. Whether or not it affected the outcome of the AfD is quite irrelevant. Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Voting and other shows of support plainly prohibits using multiple accounts in a deletion discussion (both in explicit language and spirit). No matter how you try to excuse such actions, they are against the spirit and plain language of policy.
Further clarifying my general misgivings, you at least used multiple socks at the same time to continue your crusade against pseudoscience. That's a world away from creating a single account to handle a "hot" topic area and the clear intent of that permissiveness in this policy. *hands you some salt with his opinion*
I did not say that counseled, cautioned, sanctioned or other "warned" editors have no right to vanish. What I said, quite clearly, is that they do not have that right in the casual sense of being able to do so at will and without strings. The community has repeatedly demonstrated "hiding" blocks, bans, sanctions, disruptive histories, et al is almost always considered an aggravating factor. If you did something (under an alternate account) perceived as disruptive, uncivil or otherwise problematic, and it came out that account was a "hidden" sock of SA, the likelihood of a block without warning and/or a lengthy block drastically increases. One solution to avoiding this kind of problem would be to contact ArbCom privately and inform them you are creating a new account for privacy and safety purposes. It would also likely be helpful to notify some sysops and other community members you trust with your privacy. Additionally, if the change is a matter of privacy, it's just good sense to avoid the same editing patterns and particular language if you truly value your privacy. In particular, distinctive wording and turns of phrase are usually immediately recognizable in high-activity and controversial topic areas, due to the level of familiarity editors have with the editing styles and tones involved.
You may consider the disruptive history subjective, or "in the eye of the beholder", but you have been warned by ArbCom twice about civility. First as a light counsel to treat some editors with more respect, and then more forcefully (including an admonition to adhere to the spirit, not just the letter). This trend of dealing poorly with other editors has been noted by several respected members of the community as well. I do understand that you were dealing with, to put it lightly, difficult editors. I believe that has been treated as a mitigating factor in your behavior, by both ArbCom and the broader community. I also believe your expertise and contributions have also been mitigating factors. There are many members of the community who view your presence as a net positive, a number of them well-respected and trusted. Most editors using similar attitudes and language would have received multiple incivility blocks in the same length of time, from what I've seen around the wiki. It's not a matter of whether you've been uncivil or disruptive, but if the mitigating factors should be treated as such, and if they are sufficient counterweight. How that history and those mitigating factors balance out, if you moved to another account for privacy reasons, would be for ArbCom (and those admins you notify) to decide.
Please make no mistake; I value your scientific knowledge, expertise and contributions. However, I cannot condone or excuse less-than-wise behavior and judgment because of it. While you were certainly (even on-wiki) confronted with equally poor (and often worse) behavior and that makes your actions more understandable, I am sure you understand that tu quoque is an invalid defense. There are a number of choices you could have made (and still can make). A break to focus on less controversial physics topics (many of which are in dire need of expert love) could be beneficial both to you and the project, for example. Somehow, find a way to take a step back and collect yourself when you're feeling frustrated, stressed or irritated. If you avoid aggressive editing and language, while others continue to be problematic, you will likely find less of a problem getting assistance from sysops and the general community. I've noticed at least a few occasions when people were reluctant to intervene because they felt the problem was to some degree a two-way street. I'd also recommend you take the numerous suggestions regarding policy and general behavior to heart, or reconsider that advice and identify what is causing a misconception/miscommunication. In the end, both you and Wikipedia would be the better for it. I hope that helps clarify where I am coming from in this matter. Vassyana 22:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Belated wave

Hey, notice an Arbcom with you involved... again, and just wanted to say Welcome Back; and thanks for fighting the good (frustrating) fight. - RoyBoy 800 03:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good work

The Working Man's Barnstar
This award is for ScienceApologist for fixing up our Force article, which is a core topic. Very good job -- Penubag  09:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evp

I made a couple of compromises (about "researchers") to create a more realistically neutral lead paragraph. [3]. see if you agree. - LuckyLouie 19:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Northmeister

Per your post at AN/I - I strongly doubt Northmeister is an admin. Check his user log, there's no record of protections/blocks/deletions that one would expect from an admin. Cheers, Skinwalker 16:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

He also isn't listed at Wikipedia:List_of_administrators/G-O. Skinwalker 16:05, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Instead of polluting ANI, I think it might be better to ask this here. My only question (and it is an honest one and it is not meant to inflame any discussion) is that generally rational skepticism focuses on the scientific aspects of concepts. Alternatives take into account all aspects. This includes scientific but appears to focus mainly on the supernatural/non-scientific aspect. Would that not put the projects at odds seeing as a quite a few people that are in AV and not in RS hold to the non-scientific aspect? spryde | talk —Preceding comment was added at 18:24, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
To respond, I guess I could be making that assumption. I have not read in depth the AV project and the goals of it. My ass-u-mption taken from my life experiences (scientific and "real world") leads me to believe that those interested in alternative views generally don't take kindly to scientists pushing out their views. That is the basis of my question. Before I go any further, I probably should read up more on the state of AV here. Cheers! spryde | talk 18:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] my rfa

If you voted in my RFA...

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist

This arbitration case has now closed, and the decision may be found at the link above. Martinphi and ScienceApologist are subect to an editing restriction for one year, and ScienceApologist is limited to one account. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel(Talk) 18:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)