→Apology and retreat: Glad to hear from you, sorry you're ill |
→Apology and retreat: Found it! |
||
Line 177: | Line 177: | ||
::::Ed, I've just written you the longest thing and then lost it somehow. Anyway, I'm glad to hear from you, sorry you're ill, and I had so many other things to say, but they're lost in cyberspace now and I can't recreate them now as I need to do some yard work while it's cool. I'll write more later. It was such a good post, but when I previewed it, it showed my IP instead of my username; the thing had logged me out, and when I logged in, then what I'd edited was gone; I can't retrieve it. Rest easy, and take care of yourself. [[User:Woonpton|Woonpton]] ([[User talk:Woonpton|talk]]) 16:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC) |
::::Ed, I've just written you the longest thing and then lost it somehow. Anyway, I'm glad to hear from you, sorry you're ill, and I had so many other things to say, but they're lost in cyberspace now and I can't recreate them now as I need to do some yard work while it's cool. I'll write more later. It was such a good post, but when I previewed it, it showed my IP instead of my username; the thing had logged me out, and when I logged in, then what I'd edited was gone; I can't retrieve it. Rest easy, and take care of yourself. [[User:Woonpton|Woonpton]] ([[User talk:Woonpton|talk]]) 16:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC) |
||
::::('''here's the long post I thought I had lost'''): Ed, I'm glad to hear from you, but I'm so sorry you're not well. You mentioned having a health problem before, but I didn't realize how serious it was. If I added any stress or grief onto a real world misery/unhappiness by sharing my unhappiness about Wikipedia, which is after all "only a website," as people keep saying, then I am most sorry indeed. I hope it's something that is amenable to rest and treatment. That last taunt of mine seems inexcusable under the circumstances. The worst of it is, I don't even remember the exact constellation of Wiki-events that prompted it. I know I was unhappy with how cold fusion was going, and with how the Macedonia2 and Scientology Arbcoms were going, and in my vague memory it seems as if there were other things at the same time that made me feel that the battle was over and the wrong side had won. |
|||
::::But none of those things were your doing, and I'm sure you didn't rejoice at them either, although at the moment I wrote that, I thought you might be, but if so I wasn't being fair to you. I've been horrified at the way Abd has interpreted the Abd/Jzg findings. I'm not sure I've ever encountered anyone so totally and entirely unable or unwilling to listen to input from others (the irony being that one of the two remedies they voted for him was to listen to and heed what others are saying to him.) The placement of the taunt, indented under your statement that you were planning to add evidence about Abd, was accidental; I just stuck it at the bottom of this thread without really looking to see what it followed. No, I don't blame you for there not being stronger remedies applied to Abd; it wouldn't have happened anyway, and if I really wanted stronger evidence, I could have dug it up myself. No, I figured that one was a lost cause; the whole purpose of that ArbCom was to appease the fringe cohort (yet again) by giving Guy a good slap; under the circumstances I thought the fact that of the three remedies two were about Abd and they were worded about as strongly as the JzG remedy was as much as could be hoped for, regardless of evidence. But what it effectively did was hand cold fusion to Abd; he's having a good time with it now, and if he has his way, will soon have Jed Rothwell back and maybe even PCarbon as well, will get Verbal and Hippocrite topic-banned, and then "consensus" will win and cold fusion will be written to suit the cold fusion "experts" to the detriment of the encyclopedia. |
|||
::::I'm writing way more than you want to read, if you are ill, but I guess I've missed you and am glad to hear from you again, and want to tell you all about it. I'm rather preoccupied with Abd at the moment because, as a result of an unpleasant encounter with him on MastCell's talk page, where he accused me of "misrespresenting history" as well as insinuating that MastCell had not told the truth when he told ArbCom that he hadn't been involved with Abd prior to Abd/JzG (an insinuation he was forced to take back in this case, but I don't think there's any doubt that MastCell is Abd's next intended pro-encyclopedia target) I've been studying the history of a strange proposal named WP:PRX. The whole thing unfolded in February-March 2008, when I was new to Wikipedia and I had been blissfully unaware of it til now, but goodness what a thing; it keeps going and going and going, linking from one place to the next, coordinated by a ring of sock puppets having conversations with each other and having great fun subverting Wikipedia's rules to prove a point. It makes cold fusion look like small potatoes indeed; this was nothing less than an attempt to use Wikipedia as a platform to change the world, at the expense of the community and the encyclopedia. It didn't work, but I suspect it's just gone underground rather than being abandoned. If you really need something to distract you, this could keep you busy for a long time: Go to the talk for WP:PRX, follow the contributions of the contributors and their talk pages (most of the different names and IPs arguing for the proposal are the same person) follow to the related pages, the MfD for the proposal, all the sock puppet reports and AN/I and block logs and hoax articles and an RfA for Abd filed by one of these sock puppets... it could keep you busy for weeks, just following the links from one page to another, and all the way along, you have Abd arguing against the community consensus, arguing with everyone, using the same arguments he used when he told me I was misrepresenting history; I find that he also said Kim Bruning, NewYorkBrad, and a number of prominent Wikipedians were representing history in the same way, so at least I'm in really good company; it's only he who has the history right. I used up an entire ream of paper and an inkjet cartridge printing out just a tiny fraction of this stuff so I could take it out in the sun to read instead of huddling inside in front of the screen. After reading all this crap, I'll never read another thing Abd writes; my good faith, eroded by cold fusion and Abd/Jzg, has been totally exhausted by this old episode, or series of episodes. I don't know what I'm going to do with what I've learned; it's too much for MastCell's talk page, too old for ArbCom, but it needs to be told somewhere somehow. [[User:Woonpton|Woonpton]] ([[User talk:Woonpton|talk]]) 16:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Neutrality enforcement: a proposal == |
== Neutrality enforcement: a proposal == |
Revision as of 16:41, 31 May 2009
Welcome!
Hello, EdChem, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}}
before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi EdChem
Now we're getting friendly, as we all are in WP:Chem, please call me Wim. And I do agree with your feedback on the WT:Chem page about layout of chemical reactions (apart from the centering). Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC).
- Thanks, Wim - and by all means, feel free to shorten me to 'Ed'. I'm sure working together we WP:Chem-ers can continue to improve Wikipedia. As for the formatting, the world would be a boring place if we all held the same views! EdChem (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks for the support on the lead(II) nitrate. Now some more people to put in the Support word to make sure. Wim van Dorst (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2008 (UTC).
- No problem - I'm happy to support now that I am comfortable with the content. By the way, I added the enthalpy of formation value, but am not sure how to put in the reference. Would you please add them in, so I can have a look at what the formatting should be? The details are: Aylward, G. H. & Findlay, T. J. V. (2008). SI Chemical Data (6th edition). Milton, QLD: John Wiley & Sons Australia. ISBN 0-470-81638-4. EdChem (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- ^ Aylward, G.H. (2008). SI Chemical Data (6th edition ed.). Milton, Queensland: John Wiley & Sons Australia. ISBN 0-470-81638-4.
{{cite book}}
:|edition=
has extra text (help); Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help)
Ununoctium FAC
I have gone through your comments and made some suggestions. If you have time, you are welcome to take a quick look at the article again. Thanks! Nergaal (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Nergaal, I did notice that you had gone through my comments, but I didn't reply as I didn't really have more to add. When I first commented, I had two issues - content, and whether it was suitable to be an FA given the narrowness of the topic. So, I commented on the content issues, and didn't vote to Support or Oppose because I think I'm too new to be sure about my FA concern. I was going to add a comment to this effect, but found that a decision had been made to promote. I am pleased for you that it was granted FA status (congratulations!) and will bear this example in mind in future cases. Cheers. EdChem (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Subpages
Hi there. To create a subpage, just go to your user pages and type "/Name" in the URL after the "User:EdChem" bit, where "Name" is the name of the page, and hit return. Or just create a link. eg. User:EdChem/Drafts and click on that link to start editing it. Save, and the page will be created for you. Simple! :-) To keep track of your userpages, use Special:Prefixindex, and select "User" and type in your name. For other special pages, see Special:Specialpages. For what is acceptable in userspace, see WP:USER (that guideline is a bit long, but probably worth reading anyway - should mostly be common sense). Any questions, please ask here, or other users, or read the WP:HELP pages, or ask at WP:HELPDESK. Carcharoth (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey
Saw your comment and replied. I'll see how it looks in a week, but it's probably to my benefit to have the suggestion out there. Adam Cuerden talk 00:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Matthew Hoffman ArbCom comment
Hi there. I saw your long comment at the ArbCom case. You make some excellent points (some of which had been made, but doubtless got lost in the noise) and some new points as well. I agree very strongly with the point that admins can feel unable to act in cases of bad blocks, and I have some more to say as well, but there is a lot to respond to there! Just wanted to thank you for saying all that (and it was a rewrite as well!). Carcharoth (talk) 16:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Carcharoth, I'm glad someone has read it, and I hope the ArbCom members think about it as the situation looks really bad to a newcomer. I'm not surprised that admins feel can feel powerless in bad block cases, and whilst I suspect one motivation for this case was to try to address this, the present finding really just encourages admins to stay away from reviewing actions. I know I repeated some points made before - primarily those I thought were important and seemed to not be considered in the decision - but I thought a single comprehensive view might be seen as more helpful (and FYI, the rewrite was longer!). I notice today that the category:Queer Wikipedians deletion review example I used has been closed with 'deletion endorsed' without addressing any of the policy issues. My confidence in this place is dropping, unfortunately. EdChem (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- PS, I just came across your comments on how some good may come from the case regarding documentation of sock puppetry cased. Just FYI, I commented on it (positively and in passing) in my first draft, but foget the second time. I agree that this a possible positive outcome, and is also something that the Committee could note in obiter dictum comments. EdChem (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Ed, Thanks for answering my question (below) I'm not sure I got around to acknowledging that. I do appreciate it.
- I saved your comment from the Matthew Hoffman case some time ago and just got around to reading it today. I'm glad to see new people taking such an interest, even though my experience like yours has been that it's not always appreciated. Anyway I wanted to tell you that I enjoyed reading it and appreciate the time you took to think about it and write about it. That was an interesting and rather sobering case for new people to come across right away. I was especially interested in your comment early on about encountering people who have learned to game the system; I've sure found that as well. Regards, Woonpton (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, Woonpton. I was (and remain) happy to help, but it's always nice to have one's efforts acknowledged. I am also pleased to hear that someone read my comments on the MH case, because I don't get any sense that it made any impact on the ArbCom members. If you're watching ArbCom, have a look at the mess that is the Mantanmoreland case - there's nearly half of meg of criticism of the proposed decision, which appears to have little chance of leading to any change in the direction of the decision - so I'm bit sure they've learned much from the MH experience. As for gaming the system, I know you are aware of RA's expert withdrawal comments, so you know that there are a fairly large number of science- and academic-types who are concerned - but not much is happening. The fact that so many gamers together led to the loss of a fantastic science-minded editor is a major tragedy. The constant reports on ScienceApologist to WP:AE also show the gamers are still active and gnawiing away at neutrality. I really have my doubts about this place, which is really disappointing... Best, EdChem (talk) 09:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi Ed, I share your doubts and concerns, as you know. I can't urge any rational person to stay with the project, because the atmosphere is so toxic and crazy-making and more and more sympathetic to fringe views, but of course the encyclopedia will become even more of a laughingstock in the real world if it can't attract editors who are capable of thinking critically and evaluating ideas on their merits, and if the project as a whole doesn't value those skills. Especially on the controversial articles where anti-rational forces are toiling ceaselessly and won't give up til they exhaust the opposition and get their way, there is little incentive for reasonable people to waste their energy trying to make a difference. As someone said on one of those discussions, it's like plowing the sea. What I don't understand is, do these people really want the result they seem to be advocating for, a return to the Dark Ages? Why would anyone want that? Well, enough useless pondering. I'm sticking around only long enough to see if someone really does open a general RfC that addresses the central underlying division and if that comes to anything, but I have little hope for either. Take care, I wish you well. Woonpton (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Red Username?
Hi Ed, I'm writing you because you were the one who welcomed me to Wikipedia and said I should feel free to ask you questions, and I can't find the answer to this at Questions or FAQ . Why is my username in red? I thought at first it must be that I'm new (silly me, I had this idea that there was a policy to be friendly to newcomers and that the red tag would alert everyone to be friendly to me, maybe?) but (1) people haven't been particularly friendly to me (they haven't been unfriendly, they've just acted as though I don't exist) and (2) today I ran across someone who just joined a few days ago and his username isn't red. So now I'm feeling very puzzled, and even a bit paranoid. Can you tell me why my username is red? Thanks (I don't know how to watch for a reply here, and don't want to keep checking back, so would you mind replying at my talk page, if you know the answer? ThanksWoonpton (talk) 07:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Copy of my response from Woonpton's talk pge:
Hi, Woonpton, I saw your message on my talk page. You are correct about your user name being red because you have not started a user page. In fact, any red link on WP means that the page being linked to does not exist - either because it has never been created, or because it has since been deleted. Your idea of a red link to indicate a newbie user is interesting, but would be a double-edged sword. Since there are a lot of new users who are sock puppets or interested only in vandalism or are trolling, they can be met with some suspicion. I note that you have a talk page post from ScienceApologist about ArbCom proceedings, from which I am guessing you have dived into some of the more controversial areas. I have done the same, so I can understand your decision, but this also means that there may be a little more suspicion of you as a newbie from some quarters. It isn't fair, but then, what is?
Regarding watching pages, at the top of each page there are tabs for discussion (the talk page), + (add new section), history, etc. Pressing the 'watch' tab will add that page and its associated talk page (or the associated article or user or whatever page if you are on a talk pgae) to your watchlist. Your links in the top right "Woonpton my talk ..." include a link to your watchlist, where you will see a link to the most recent edit of all pages you are watching, including who made the edit, when, and what the edit summary says. This is not only useful for watching for replies to questions, but also for changes to pages you are editing or find interesting. From the 'my watchlist' link, you can also edit your watchlist, and you can remove pages from your watchlist either there or by clicking the 'unwatch' tab on a watched page.
Another thought on red links - they can also be useful if you want to create sub pages. For example, if you wanted a sub page of your user page to work on a section of an article out of the public glare, you can simply add a link by posting a talk page message that says something like [[user:Woonpton/sandbox]], which produces a red link: user:Woonpton/sandbox which you can click on to create the page. If you prefer to name it something relevant to the article, that's cool too. You can also request such pages be deleted when you no longer need them.
Regarding talk page organisation, there seem to be two distinct schools of thought. Some people prefer to respond on each other's talk pages, so that you get the orange 'new message' bar. Others prefer to keep interactions on a single page, so they are coherent. I fall into the latter group, but either way is fine. If asked to reply on another page (as you requested), I'll do so, but also tend to copy responses to my own page - that way you get the orange bar notification and I get the coherent discussion that I prefer. It's up to you what you prefer.
Finally, I know that it is easy to feel ignored. You might want to try joining a WikiProject in an area of interest, and contribute to it. Long standing editors on those projects tend to be happy to welcome and help us newbies, and can also provide someone to ask for help. Of course, you can also ask me if you like! If I don't know the answer, I'll try and point you in the direction of someone who can help. If I don't answer, I'm probably busy in real life, and so have yet to see your message. Regards, EdChem (talk) 03:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
IP 163.1.209.10
Yes, that is mild but that is how Cluebot works - it starts afresh every month, I believe. Try reporting the editor on the grounds of 'vandalism only account' as my final warning has expired by now. Hadrian89 (talk) 07:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Welcome back?
Hi Ed, long time. I've stuck around watching, ever since, but have stayed away from editing articles because of the difficulties we talked about then, which have worsened exponentially since then, and have generally commented in non-article space only when I felt I couldn't be silent and respect myself. Now seems to be one of those times.
I thought you and I shared an idea about the value of scientific findings and a scientific approach to knowledge; I thought we were equally committed to the idea that Wikipedia, by reflecting the consensus of reliable sources, should be a high-quality encyclopedia rather than a catalog of fringe theories. But what you are doing now is putting your whole weight behind the effort to make wikipedia a platform for the promotion of fringe ideas. Either I misjudged you in the beginning, or you're playing some sort of game I don't understand; those are the only two explanations I can come up with, and in our brief encounters before, you didn't strike me as a game-player. In fact, as I recall, you held those who game the system in disfavor, which makes it even more puzzling why you would champion the cause you seem to be championing. I just thought of a third possibility; if you have just come back and haven't watched what's gone on in the meantime, you may think you're coming back to the same encyclopedia that you left, which would be a completely wrong assumption. If it weren't for the Matthew Hoffman comment, I would have been sure that your long-dormant account had simply been hacked by Jed Rothwell or one of the other cold fusion promoters who have been banned from wikipedia for their POV and COI editing.
Abd is an apologist for those banned users, see here and here. While you're at it, I recommend you read the entire RfC and its talk (plan lots of time). But most of all, I dare you to read as much as you can stomach of the talk pages associated with Cold Fusion, and then tell me that banning JzG from those pages and allowing Abd to stay there is the best thing to do to improve the quality of the encyclopedia and decrease disruption for the editors working on that page.
I even want back through your contributions to see if you'd had a run-in with JzG somewhere that would have embittered you enough to make common cause with his enemies (who for the most part are also the enemies of a quality encyclopedia) but I didn't see anything like that. Everyone I respect seems to agree that the action was a right action, the only problem is that someone else should have done it. JzG has agreed that he won't take further administrative actions in Cold Fusion. To me, it seems a moot point; the desired effect has been achieved, unless your goal is really to get JzG desysopped on the basis of one action which he's already in effect agreed not to do again, which would be wholly inconsistent with your argument in the Matthew Hoffman case.
Sorry to sound harsh, but I'm just totally bewildered by this. Woonpton (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Woonpton, long time indeed. To set your mind at (some) ease, I am the same editor as was before. I can assure you that my views on the primacy of science have not changed. I haven't followed anything much on WP again until recently, so you are correct that I may be a little out of date - and certainly I appreciate any comments or suggestions re catch-up... just please don't turn my stomach too much. To be clear, I certainly am interested in what you have to say and am glad you have come to raise your concerns with me directly.
- On the subject of the Matthew Hoffman case, my views have not changed in essence. If you doubt that, have a look at my input into the current motion regarding that case on the WP:RfAr page. In fact, my concerns about ArbCom from that time proved to be correct. I left soon after the debacle that was the Mantanmoreland case, and when I recently read about the OrangeMarlin fiasco I could only think that I was glad I hadn't seen it in real time. The slate of new arbitrators, coupled with the resounding defeat of those who stood for reelection, have me hoping the institution has been renewed. Actually, that is one reason for participating in the case - as an experiment to see whether there has been genuine change.
- But what you are doing now is putting your whole weight behind the effort to make wikipedia a platform for the promotion of fringe ideas. Either I misjudged you in the beginning, or you're playing some sort of game I don't understand; those are the only two explanations I can come up with, and in our brief encounters before, you didn't strike me as a game-player. Fortunately, there is another explanation - one with which you may disagree, but which I hope you can accept. I am certainly not a game-player, though of course you will need to judge that for yourself. I am also not putting my whole weight behind anything (I can go at something muvh harder if I really focus), and don't want to see a fringe-focussed Wikipedia. However, I see the case at hand as about behvaioural issues, and not editing / content. To be honest, I have been in two minds about the whole situation, because to me both Abd and JzG are part of the problem. My recollection is that Abd was one of the people supporting and advising Whig when he was trying to drive away a now-Vanished user. I have been trying to put that (and the broader issue of civil POV pushing) to one side because they clearly aren't going to feature in the case. I have also avoided reading the cold fusion page for fear that it would just make ignoring the content issues harder.
- On JzG... I have had interactions with him that I don't wish to discuss, but suffice it to say that: (1) I think he is generally a good administrator; (2) I agree with him broadly on content issue; and (3) When he is wrong, he tends to be hugely wrong, to do a fair amount of consequential damage, and he is only persuaded back to reality with a really big stick. Admin recusal is not a small issue, as far as I am concerned, and the outcome I hope for from the case is JzG recognising that he needs to take recusal issues seriously. Even with the misgivings I have from the past, I do not want to see him desysopped - but I do want him to understand that everyone is accountable. Incidentally, taking recusal seriously will help him by avoiding future charges of acting while conflicted - but only if he doesn't try wearing both hats. I certainly do not seek to have him banned from any area, and suspect cold fusion will be a better article with his involvement - but only as an ordinary editor. In the present case, the problems around JzG are much more easily addressed, and I hope the case serves as a big wake-up call to all the administrators that recusal is a fundamental issue about competently using the tools. Recusal is not merely a formality or a process issue to be ignored.
- On Abd... His conversational style and obssessiveness (both ADHD-related) make his approach problematic. I agree with comments from Frtizpoll on this - it is really hard to know what to do assist any editor with those characteristics. I remember the discussions from around a year ago about the treatment of experts, the problems of civil POV-pushing, and the burnout associated with relentless repetition of the same tired arguments. From what I can gather, nothing has really changed on those fronts, and I certainly still have no solution that leaps to mind. Since civil POV-pushing is not really in issue in the case as it is formulated, all I've done on that side is oppose principles and findings that advance such an agenda. My opposition to the idea that involved means acting on anything that could be cast as an editorial issue, for example - see my comments around the Journal of the Royal Geological and Tiddlewinks Society of the People's Democratic Repulic of Western Togo, for instance. I would hope you would concur with this perspective. It may be that a topic ban is needed for Abd - I make no comment on that, beyond saying that it is beyond the scope of the present case, and so is another of the issues I have left to the side.
- Certainly, if there are things I have said on the case pages or elsewhere that you see as advancing the fringe position then please point them out - because that is emphatically not my goal. If there is something I can add / read / link to / whatever that makes progress on the civil POV-pushing side, please point that out too. My goal in the case is for the point about recusal to be emphatically made, to JzG in the first instance, and beyond that to the broader admin community. If JzG recognised he should have recused earlier, this would perhaps be moot - but I am not yet convinced he does recognise that, which is really disappointing. I would be in favour of something that improved Abd's handling of disputes and communications, but am having trouble seeing what can reasonably be done by ArbCom in this area.
- Again, thanks for coming and asking me. I don't read your post as unduly harsh, but it does have the bluntness that happens with scientists. Don't worry - I can cope with that. :) EdChem (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ed, thanks for your very thoughtful reply. I was a little taken aback at the way I'd lit into you, and decided I'd better push back and cool off for a while before reading your response.
- I'll need to think before responding in full, but for now I'll just respond to one phrase: "Since civil POV-pushing is not really in issue in the case as it is formulated..." by saying that civil POV-pushing is exactly what this case is about; this case is a perfect demonstration of civil POV-pushing at its most insidious and successful. It's not in issue in the case as formulated, because Abd formulated the case and has maintained tight control over its scope, to the point that even though some of the arbitrators have made clear that (as is common practice in all arbitration cases) the behavior of ALL parties will be looked at, I doubt they will, if for no other reason than that it's simply mind-numbing to read his stuff enough to figure out what he's talking about.
- But how it looks to me, as an outsider, is that the whole purpose of bringing this case is to further the fringe agendas of Jed Rothwell (who Abd considers an expert in cold fusion, but who has no education in science and is, as another editor said, just a guy with a website) and Pierre Carbonn, (another guy whose sole purpose in life is to advocate for and promote the cause of and belief in free energy). I can understand that if you've been careful not to contaminate yourself with knowledge of the content issues, then you can't understand that this is all about content and about POV-pushing, but I also don't understand why content wouldn't be important to you. One thing I've learned in more than a year of watching Wikipedia is that all disputes, however they may present themselves, are essentially content disputes, and that when "uninvolved" administrators (I mean uninvolved in the sense of not understanding the underlying content disputes) take administrative action in controversial articles, their actions almost without exception favor the civil POV-pusher, I guess because they're always eagerly helpful and polite, while the guys trying to protect the article from fringe cruft are always burned out and irritable. When the helpful and polite guys are rewarded and the tired cranky guys are punished, it has a real consequence for the content of the article: the content is inevitably compromised.
- I've never encountered JzG directly and I know he's made a lot of enemies, but I've always trusted his instincts about content and about what's good for the encyclopedia. The person I'm more familiar with who was a lot like JzG was Science Apologist. Another guy who helped immensely to keep the encyclopedia encyclopedic, but who had a rather blunt personal style, and who is now blocked from editing. I don't see his banning as a net positive for the encyclopedia, not even close. OrangeMarlin hasn't edited for months (I'm glad to see, at least, that you were horrified by that travesty of a case). Raymond Arritt only comes around now and then under another name to drop a funny but apt comment where it's most needed, but doesn't use his administrative tools any more, and he was one of the few science-oriented administrators. MastCell keeps getting fed up and leaving. He always comes back, thank goodness, but someday maybe he'll just forget to come back. He says no one is indispensable on Wikipedia, but I truly believe he is. If he left for good, who would take his place? I don't see anyone stepping up to take his place, or JzG's either, or Science Apologist's. The people who have hounded these guys off know exactly what they're doing, and JzG is their next target. (And it didn't bother you at all today, that Abd was actually insinuating that MastCell might be next?) One by one the people who are trying to ensure and maintain the quality of content are being picked off and the encyclopedia is being handed to fringe advocates on a platter, and you're helping.
- Well, with that I've come full circle, and I didn't mean to respond at such length right away, so I'd better stop. There's no way you could see it from my point of view without taking the trouble to understand how deeply this case is entangled with a content dispute, and how much it is intended as a way to further a fringe cause, and since you seem to think it's some sort of virtue to remain ignorant, we may as well disagree to agree. In future, I won't assume that we are on the same "side" and it won't upset me any more to see you working for the destruction of the encyclopedia. I won't say I wish you well in that endeavor, but I hope I've seen enough and won't stick around to see the final collapse, which is inevitable once Wikipedia gets the reputation in the real world of being nothing but a virtual Whole Earth catalog or something of the like. In the meantime, by all means, you just make real sure that administrators trying to stem that tide are sanctioned for not properly understanding the concept of recusal. Woonpton (talk) 00:42, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Woonpton, I'm actually much more distressed and upset by your more recent post - not because of the style, I hasten to add, but because of the content. I certainly don't see myself as fighting for the fringe views or as subscribing to the anti-side in the Science Wars (see Sokal affair if you need detail). As such, being seen as a potential enemy working for the destruction of the encyclopedia is really disheartening and makes me sad. I was hoping we could agree to disagree on some of our differences. The idea that the scientifically literate editors are unwilling to accept differences of opinion whilst maintaining mutual respect is disappointing - demands for uniformity are more characteristic of the political hard right, not the broad and liberal tent I generally consider the scientific community to be. In the hopes that we can reach some reconciliation, I'd like to address some of your points.
- [C]ivil POV-pushing is exactly what this case is about; this case is a perfect demonstration of civil POV-pushing at its most insidious and successful. It's not in issue in the case as formulated, because Abd formulated the case and has maintained tight control over its scope, to the point that even though some of the arbitrators have made clear that (as is common practice in all arbitration cases) the behavior of ALL parties will be looked at, I doubt they will, if for no other reason than that it's simply mind-numbing to read his stuff enough to figure out what he's talking about. The initial case formulation was from Jehochman's request, so that's hard to blame on Abd. As for Abd's maintaining control of the scope, substantial evidence of edit warring or other misconduct from Abd presented on the evidence page could change all that. All the evidence on Abd basically boils down to his style - and as we both know, civil POV-pushing has confounded all attempts at control. If there is good evidence of disruption, get someone to present it. Nevertheless, ArbCom can only deal with the case before it, and the present case shows some issues around JzG that need to be addressed in some way, and a challenging problem around Abd's communication style. Irrespective of anyone's purpose, that is the case as it presently exists.
- I can understand that if you've been careful not to contaminate yourself with knowledge of the content issues, then you can't understand that this is all about content and about POV-pushing, but I also don't understand why content wouldn't be important to you. You also commented since you seem to think it's some sort of virtue to remain ignorant. That's unfair, Woonpton - what about some assumption of good faith? Remember that ArbCom rarely concerns itself with content issues, and so making huge content arguments to them is a waste of time. This 'content' dispute should never have got near ArbCom. When it was disputed at ANI, the conflict of JzG should have been noted, and the listing decision re-evaluated on its merits. If JzG was so sure he was correct, he could have easily asked for someone uninvolved to re-consider the listing on its merits, and no harm would have been done. Instead, he maintained he was right. Consequently, and with the usual closing of ranks happening, the actual issue never got resolved. That was foolish - and it leaves JzG vulnerable as he is now. ScienceApologist had the same problem - he wouldn't back off when he got himself into the wrong, and ultimately gave enough evidence to get him banned. I really hope that JzG will learn from that mistake because otherwise he is going to leave in frustration or get forced out - and neither of those outcomes is good for the project in any way.
- One thing I've learned in more than a year of watching Wikipedia is that all disputes, however they may present themselves, are essentially content disputes, and that when "uninvolved" administrators (I mean uninvolved in the sense of not understanding the underlying content disputes) take administrative action in controversial articles, their actions almost without exception favor the civil POV-pusher, I guess because they're always eagerly helpful and polite, while the guys trying to protect the article from fringe cruft are always burned out and irritable. When the helpful and polite guys are rewarded and the tired cranky guys are punished, it has a real consequence for the content of the article: the content is inevitably compromised. Yep - and that is why I have suggested the desirability of science-literate administrators not jumping in to editing but staying back to provide the admin support that is needed. Sound hard to do? Absolutely - but the present approaches have not been working, so maybe a new approach is needed. We do agree on the dangers of the civil POV-pushers. Really.
- Further, on the subject of content, if the case were not basically about behaviour I would have looked into the content in more depth. My point about not looking into cold fusion the article was that it would likely upset me or enrage me and that's not productive for looking at the case nor for my health. For what it's worth, I am sitting in bed as I type this. I haven't been able to work at all this year, which is frustrating (to say the least). My likely reaction to a full-on content war with drivel is just not a healthy idea for me at the moment - my doctors would freak out in a big way of I ended up in the state something like that might risk. The content issue is not going to be solved in this case, so a better vehicle for raising the civil POV pushing problem is needed. I have a couple of vague ideas, which I'd be willing to discuss, but they aren't ripe for this case.
- I've never encountered JzG directly and I know he's made a lot of enemies, but I've always trusted his instincts about content and about what's good for the encyclopedia. As I said earlier, I generally agree - but when he does something dumb it tends to be really dumb. In this case, when the start point was a recusal issue where he was in the wrong, continuing to defend was not smart - a strategic retreat would have been way smarter. Even if he had said "ok, I think I was right, but to end this argument I have delisted from the spam list. I will also nominate it for re-listing and for resolution by the community", he could have avoided this case.
- I was really disappointed to discover the topic ban then block of ScienceApologist. Unfortunately, he was baited into shooting himself, just as JzG is at risk of doing. I hope MastCell doesn't follow down that path. The loss of Raymond Arritt was also a huge blow to the encyclopedia. One by one the people who are trying to ensure and maintain the quality of content are being picked off and the encyclopedia is being handed to fringe advocates on a platter, and you're helping. Actually, I'm not - or at least, I really don't mean to be. Unfortunately, the end point of the path littered with incivility is well known. I would love for that not to be true, but it is. SA's incivility was not really harmful (at least, most of the time) but he couldn't control it and so he ultimately hanged himself. What I'm advocating is a sufficiently harshly worded sanction on JzG for him to actually get the message not to skip issues that are important. I'd hate to see him lose his tools, and really hope he will act to prevent this happening. You evidently disagree with my perspective - as is your right - but are my goals really working for the destruction of the encyclopedia?
- Ed, thanks for responding, and sorry you're sick. You're right, I hadn't seen some of your posts on the RfAr; I'd only seen the one where you altered your statement to conform to Abd's, striking the statement that desysopping isn't necessary and replacing it with "shouldn't be necessary" which I took as a subtle and backhanded way of telling me to buzz off. Your posts in the section about content and POV pushing, which I found and read after reading your question, are certainly more promising as far as finding some common ground.
- It wasn't - it was genuinely as I indicated on the case page, I thought the word choice was not ideal and then saw a suggestion with exactly the same alternative suggested, so I made the change. Poor judgement? Maybe - lots of medication and forced inactivity seems to be having some effects in that area. :( EdChem (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ed, thanks for responding, and sorry you're sick. You're right, I hadn't seen some of your posts on the RfAr; I'd only seen the one where you altered your statement to conform to Abd's, striking the statement that desysopping isn't necessary and replacing it with "shouldn't be necessary" which I took as a subtle and backhanded way of telling me to buzz off. Your posts in the section about content and POV pushing, which I found and read after reading your question, are certainly more promising as far as finding some common ground.
- I'm sorry what I said made you feel bad. But you said yourself that you didn't want to confuse your clarity about the conduct issue by familiarizing yourself with the content issue; I'm honestly not sure how that's different from making a virtue of ignorance.
- Since ArbCom won't touch content issues (for decisions), they are mostly a distraction except insofar as they illuminated conduct problems. And, I don't need to look at much content to know that I'll mostly agree with JzG and mostly disagree with Abd on content issues. However, I have had a quick look in the last 24 hours - and you are right, there are content issues in need of resolution. EdChem (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- I'm sorry what I said made you feel bad. But you said yourself that you didn't want to confuse your clarity about the conduct issue by familiarizing yourself with the content issue; I'm honestly not sure how that's different from making a virtue of ignorance.
- I was wrong about Abd filing the case, but have you really read Jehochman's statement? He asks for an examination of both JzG's and Abd's behavior, and it seems evident throughout his statement that he's at least as exasperated with Abd as with JzG.
- * Were JzG's disputed administrative actions proper, or not?
- * Has Abd engaged in dispute intensification and forum shopping?
- "At present, the opinions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JzG 3 seem to favor JzG's interpretation of matters. The committee should respect community opinions. If we, the community, have gotten it wrong, don't take this out on JzG. Use the opportunity to set down clearer standards."
- It seems rather a leap from that tentative beginning to the strong stand you (and Abd) are taking, insisting unilaterally that JzG was wrong and must acknowledge that he was wrong.
- OK - but the dispute intensification / forum shopping issue for Abd is a really hard one to make, because he is right that recusal was in issue, and the overturning of the blacklisting didn't happen until the case started. That puts anyone trying to make an argument on forum shopping in a very difficult position. The case evidence page doesn't do a decent job of making a case for findings or sanctions in the area, which is why I wouldn't touch it. The present issues are not at all suited to sanctioning Abd because the evidence strongly suggests that he needed to continue with WP:DR procedures to get key issues recognised. However, that is not to say that Abd's behaviour is not in issue - and you've helped to convince me that there is more needed in this area. EdChem (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- It seems rather a leap from that tentative beginning to the strong stand you (and Abd) are taking, insisting unilaterally that JzG was wrong and must acknowledge that he was wrong.
- I don't know what you're talking about, about AN/I; I didn't see any of that. I followed the case from Abd's RfC, where he didn't get the endorsement he wanted from the community, directly to the RfAr, (which was filed within a day of the closing of the RfC) where he has dominated all the discussion, so it's maybe not surprising that I thought the RfAr was his too. I apologize for my mistake. However, it's interesting that Jehochman's statement of the case was obviously intended to address Abd's tendentiousness and, well, his longstanding vendetta (my word, not Jehochman's) against JzG as well as clear up what the policy should be about using the spam blacklist to deal with abuse of unreliable sources, but it's been turned entirely into a case about JzG. The problem with POV-pushing is that the only way to see POV pushing is to look at pages and pages of wikilawyering (which Abd is a master at; that was one reason I was so surprised you were championing his cause) and twisting and turning tendentious arguments. It's almost impossible to demonstrate tendentious editing (and I'm not talking about his style, I mean the POV he is relentlessly pushing) with diffs.
- On AN/I, I don't remember the details - but circling the wagons around a poor decision is pretty common, IMO, and I've seen it around JzG before. If you look at his own words following his second RfC and the findings relating to him in the omnibus case from last September, you can see a long history of trying to get him to modify his ways. He knew he was under scrutiny and he should have known the acceptable standards - your comment below about worst enemy is bang on target. If someone could build a decent case that Abd has a vendetta then the case will change directions - but again, I suspect that would be nigh on impossible. As for your comment that the problem with POV-pushing is that the only way to see POV pushing is to look at pages and pages of wikilawyering, I'd ask: does the workshop page of the case page look like POV-pushing to you? EdChem (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- I don't know what you're talking about, about AN/I; I didn't see any of that. I followed the case from Abd's RfC, where he didn't get the endorsement he wanted from the community, directly to the RfAr, (which was filed within a day of the closing of the RfC) where he has dominated all the discussion, so it's maybe not surprising that I thought the RfAr was his too. I apologize for my mistake. However, it's interesting that Jehochman's statement of the case was obviously intended to address Abd's tendentiousness and, well, his longstanding vendetta (my word, not Jehochman's) against JzG as well as clear up what the policy should be about using the spam blacklist to deal with abuse of unreliable sources, but it's been turned entirely into a case about JzG. The problem with POV-pushing is that the only way to see POV pushing is to look at pages and pages of wikilawyering (which Abd is a master at; that was one reason I was so surprised you were championing his cause) and twisting and turning tendentious arguments. It's almost impossible to demonstrate tendentious editing (and I'm not talking about his style, I mean the POV he is relentlessly pushing) with diffs.
- Where are all these "science-literate administrators"? There are 1600 administrators, and I only know of 3 or 4 who are science literate and are willing to take administrative action against fringe advocates, and those are burned out. Show me some more, and maybe we'll have something to talk about.
- Let's keep talking? The question at the end of your post seems not the right question to me. I don't think you're "bad," I just think you don't understand that by supporting Abd's campaign, you're supporting a fringe cause. And yes, I did read your recent comment on the Matthew Hoffman case, that's what I meant when I said if I hadn't seen that, I would have assumed your account had been hacked by cold fusion SPAs. Oh, another concession; I do agree that Science Apologist and JzG have been their own worst enemies. But as far as I can see, they're all we've got, I mean they were/are almost the only people who have been willing to stand up to the fringe pushers and say no, that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. But no, I don't see MastCell following that path at all; MastCell is the most levelheaded, civil, eventempered, diplomatic, science-oriented editor/administrator on the project; I've been watching him for a year and have never seen him lose his temper, and he's had plenty of provocation. Regards, Woonpton (talk) 04:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Woonpton, I'm quite willing to keep talking. I'm glad to hear that MastCell is unlikely to follow in JzG's and SA's footsteps, and I still hope that JzG can be helped to adopt a different approach. I recognise you don't agree, but I really believe that getting JzG to take recusal seriously is actually good for the encyclopedia, long term. As I said, you have made me reconsider in some areas, so I hope you don't feel your time has been wasted. Best, EdChem (talk) 19:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Section break
Yeah, nom me for RfA, that would be brilliant (sarcasm). If I won't even edit the encyclopedia because I don't care to deal with fringe promoters, even to working on an article with them (three weeks on "What the Bleep Do We Know" was entirely enough to convince me never to waste time on such an enterprise again) why would I want to be an administrator? At any rate, even if I had enough edits and wanted to try it, the RfA wouldn't have a chance, since I suspect I've been identified as part of the "science cabal" whatever the hell that is, since I participated on Raymond Arritt's discussion about what to do about science editors burning out last year, and my comments about fringe advocates would be used to scuttle the attempt. Beside, I have absolutely no patience with stupidity. Ignorance I can deal with; it's just a lack of knowledge, but stupidity is willful, and there's way too much of it on this project, and it makes steam come out of my ears; I would be swearing in my edit summaries in no time at all.
I think you may not quite understand my position on JzG needing to acknowledge the need for recusal where he's involved. Since anyone who comes in to do the deed is going to be painted with the same brush (see Abd's innuendoes about MastCell today for an example of that), I'm not convinced that recusal is really the important issue. Everyone agreed that block was a no-brainer, but JzG was afraid he would be vilified if he did it himself, so MastCell did it, and now all of a sudden MastCell is being painted as involved because he responded to JzG's request for an independent administrator to make the decision? In other words, if JzG doesn't recuse himself, then he needs to be hounded and punished, but if he does recuse himself, then the person who steps in to make the decision and takes action opens themselves to contumely? I think that shows right there that it's not recusal that Abd is after, really; what he wants is for the action to be overturned, no matter who did it; as I've been trying to say for two days now, his goal is the advance of a fringe agenda. The recusal issue is a red herring. Focusing on recusal is just a handy way of getting the action overturned. He wants Jed Rothwell (and/or his many socks) to be unblocked and to be allowed to continue running rampant over the cold fusion article. To me, yes, administrator recusal is probably a good thing in principle, but it's not an overriding principle, certainly not nearly as important as preserving the integrity of content. To me it's like following the proper protocol for taking down the flag that flies in front of a school building. Yes, it's important to do that right, but if the school building is burning and the kids are still inside, how much sense does it make to take care of the flag first? That's where I am on that.
I agree with you in part (not entirely) on the analysis of evidence and am thinking about how to phrase what I want to say about that. Woonpton (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- RfA nom - no problem. I'll see if I can get Abd to co-nom, and maybe Matthew Hoffman! I know the RfA process was badly flawed when last I saw it, and don't anticipate that it would have improved. I wonder (perhaps overly idealistically) whether part of the problem is that desysopping is so difficult. ArbCom is required to establish a process for recall of Arbitrators - proposals are due this month - and I hope that might serve as a template for an administrator recall process.
- As for Abd, I do take your point - his agenda and mine are different, and I can see how you can feel I am being used by the enemy, so to speak. Administrator recusal is necessary once an admin becomes involved in an editorial sense, and my feeling is that JzG's mistake was to cross that line. I think things would be much improved if an administrator would participate but stay out of editorial issues, so that behavioural issues are addressed. Suppose JzG had never edited but had been able to rein in and warn when editors were bordering on warring, gaming the system against consensus, tendentious editing, etc. As far as I can see, he would never have needed to become involved in the sense intended by policy, and the behavioural issues that are being used to frustrate appropriate content development would be addressed. It has been argued that administrators with content knowledge should participate in editing, and rely on uninvolved administrators to act when assistance is requested. As far as I can see, that approach was failing when I left, and it is still failing. A new approach is needed. However, this would only work so long as the definition of involved isn't distorted in the way Abd is advocating. That is why I have argued strongly against his interpretations (you may have seen MastCell's comment on one of my arguments).
- Ed, I've been thinking hard about how to summarize how Wikipedia has changed in a year, and also considering a brief essay on the topic of involvement/uninvolvement of administrators and how it affects content quality. ArbCom is continually trying to refine what constitutes best practice, but decisions keep having unintended consequences. At any rate you won't be getting either of those essays tonight, but just wanted in the meantime to say I hope you've noticed NewYorkBrad's findings of fact.Woonpton (talk) 01:19, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Apology and retreat
Obviously I feel very strongly about the direction Wikipedia is going, but I was out of line in questioning your edits and trying to warn you about a situation where I thought you were being used to further a cause that you wouldn't necessarily agree with if you saw the whole picture. But it wasn't my place to try to draw you the picture, and after a good sleep I can see how annoying/upsetting/startling that would have to be to the recipient, and how unproductive. And of course as a scientist, I have to accept that I could be totally wrong about all of it, although I'd be surprised; my comments are based in a careful observation of Wikipedia for 17 months. You're a smart guy; if it's as I say, you'll figure it out yourself in time, and I should leave you alone to do that. Maybe you'll even figure out a way to fix it. Good luck with that.
One clarification before I go: When I said that all disputes are at bottom content disputes, I didn't necessarily mean that arbcomm should rule on content disputes. Whether they should or not, or whether there should be a separate ruling body that rules on content disputes, is a separate question; at any rate arbcomm's current mandate excludes ruling on content disputes, and I'm not saying here that they should. In fact, I'm sure they shouldn't, because most of them don't know enough about content to make a good decision on content. What I mean is that almost all disputes arise from content disputes, and that cases filed at ArbComm these days are very often filed as a way to advance a content position, even though they seem on the surface to be about conduct. And when ArbComm rules on such cases, they're often furthering a content position without knowing that's what they're doing. At any rate, the problem of dealing with civil POV-pushers is that the problem is more a content problem than a conduct problem; it's very hard to make a case that someone is violating content policy by pushing a POV that isn't supported by the consensus of reliable sources; that argument can be wikilawyered out of existence in no time. There are administrators who claim, in response to such complaints, that all one has to do is show them a violation of content policy and they'll deal with it on the spot, but I've never seen that claim honored.
You are of course free to blank that whole section if you like, and I rather wish you would. I apologize again for barging into your talk page and questioning your actions. There was no call for it; I was wholly in the wrong. All the best, Woonpton (talk) 15:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- Woonpton, as I said about your first post, I would very much rather someone raised an issue with me than quietly form a view and walk away. I am a scientist, and consequently am willing to adjust a position based on new information. You have no reason to regret sharing your views with me - certainly I have considered them as I would the views of anyone willing to engage in a reasoned and civil (and I mean civil in a sensible way, not an overly distorted wiki-way) discussion or debate. My upset above was relating to feeling like I was being kicked off the island and told I belong in the anti-science tribe on the next island over. As far as being used to advance the agenda of others, I freely concede that is possible. In fact, Abd has definitely used at least one comment of mine for unintended purposes.
- It's very hard to make a case that someone is violating content policy by pushing a POV that isn't supported by the consensus of reliable sources; that argument can be wikilawyered out of existence in no time. To me, this is why civil POV pushing is a conduct problem. As far as the conduct of Abd goes, I am seriously considering what to say next on the case pages. You have helped to convince me that there is a conduct problem here that is arguable with ArbCom.
- As for your apology, thank you - but an apology for barging in (as you put it) isn't necessary. I have no problem with questions - they are vastly preferable to accusations or snap judgements (not saying you did either of those, just observing). Actually, probably the part of your post that pleases me most is the sense I get that some mutual respect is being restored and reconciliation is taking place. Best, EdChem (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
- No, not happy. Haven't been happy in a long time. If you are wondering why I didn't add any evidence after suggesting I might, I judged there was no chance that anything would change. I do intend to do some editing of cold fusion, but it depends on factors beyond my control. I expect to be hospitalised shortly, so you'll understand (I hope) that I have more urgent priorities. If you want to be more explicit in identifying some specific fallout from the recent ArbCome case, be my guest - I haven't been around much in the recent past. EdChem (talk) 10:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ed, I've just written you the longest thing and then lost it somehow. Anyway, I'm glad to hear from you, sorry you're ill, and I had so many other things to say, but they're lost in cyberspace now and I can't recreate them now as I need to do some yard work while it's cool. I'll write more later. It was such a good post, but when I previewed it, it showed my IP instead of my username; the thing had logged me out, and when I logged in, then what I'd edited was gone; I can't retrieve it. Rest easy, and take care of yourself. Woonpton (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- (here's the long post I thought I had lost): Ed, I'm glad to hear from you, but I'm so sorry you're not well. You mentioned having a health problem before, but I didn't realize how serious it was. If I added any stress or grief onto a real world misery/unhappiness by sharing my unhappiness about Wikipedia, which is after all "only a website," as people keep saying, then I am most sorry indeed. I hope it's something that is amenable to rest and treatment. That last taunt of mine seems inexcusable under the circumstances. The worst of it is, I don't even remember the exact constellation of Wiki-events that prompted it. I know I was unhappy with how cold fusion was going, and with how the Macedonia2 and Scientology Arbcoms were going, and in my vague memory it seems as if there were other things at the same time that made me feel that the battle was over and the wrong side had won.
- But none of those things were your doing, and I'm sure you didn't rejoice at them either, although at the moment I wrote that, I thought you might be, but if so I wasn't being fair to you. I've been horrified at the way Abd has interpreted the Abd/Jzg findings. I'm not sure I've ever encountered anyone so totally and entirely unable or unwilling to listen to input from others (the irony being that one of the two remedies they voted for him was to listen to and heed what others are saying to him.) The placement of the taunt, indented under your statement that you were planning to add evidence about Abd, was accidental; I just stuck it at the bottom of this thread without really looking to see what it followed. No, I don't blame you for there not being stronger remedies applied to Abd; it wouldn't have happened anyway, and if I really wanted stronger evidence, I could have dug it up myself. No, I figured that one was a lost cause; the whole purpose of that ArbCom was to appease the fringe cohort (yet again) by giving Guy a good slap; under the circumstances I thought the fact that of the three remedies two were about Abd and they were worded about as strongly as the JzG remedy was as much as could be hoped for, regardless of evidence. But what it effectively did was hand cold fusion to Abd; he's having a good time with it now, and if he has his way, will soon have Jed Rothwell back and maybe even PCarbon as well, will get Verbal and Hippocrite topic-banned, and then "consensus" will win and cold fusion will be written to suit the cold fusion "experts" to the detriment of the encyclopedia.
- I'm writing way more than you want to read, if you are ill, but I guess I've missed you and am glad to hear from you again, and want to tell you all about it. I'm rather preoccupied with Abd at the moment because, as a result of an unpleasant encounter with him on MastCell's talk page, where he accused me of "misrespresenting history" as well as insinuating that MastCell had not told the truth when he told ArbCom that he hadn't been involved with Abd prior to Abd/JzG (an insinuation he was forced to take back in this case, but I don't think there's any doubt that MastCell is Abd's next intended pro-encyclopedia target) I've been studying the history of a strange proposal named WP:PRX. The whole thing unfolded in February-March 2008, when I was new to Wikipedia and I had been blissfully unaware of it til now, but goodness what a thing; it keeps going and going and going, linking from one place to the next, coordinated by a ring of sock puppets having conversations with each other and having great fun subverting Wikipedia's rules to prove a point. It makes cold fusion look like small potatoes indeed; this was nothing less than an attempt to use Wikipedia as a platform to change the world, at the expense of the community and the encyclopedia. It didn't work, but I suspect it's just gone underground rather than being abandoned. If you really need something to distract you, this could keep you busy for a long time: Go to the talk for WP:PRX, follow the contributions of the contributors and their talk pages (most of the different names and IPs arguing for the proposal are the same person) follow to the related pages, the MfD for the proposal, all the sock puppet reports and AN/I and block logs and hoax articles and an RfA for Abd filed by one of these sock puppets... it could keep you busy for weeks, just following the links from one page to another, and all the way along, you have Abd arguing against the community consensus, arguing with everyone, using the same arguments he used when he told me I was misrepresenting history; I find that he also said Kim Bruning, NewYorkBrad, and a number of prominent Wikipedians were representing history in the same way, so at least I'm in really good company; it's only he who has the history right. I used up an entire ream of paper and an inkjet cartridge printing out just a tiny fraction of this stuff so I could take it out in the sun to read instead of huddling inside in front of the screen. After reading all this crap, I'll never read another thing Abd writes; my good faith, eroded by cold fusion and Abd/Jzg, has been totally exhausted by this old episode, or series of episodes. I don't know what I'm going to do with what I've learned; it's too much for MastCell's talk page, too old for ArbCom, but it needs to be told somewhere somehow. Woonpton (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Neutrality enforcement: a proposal
Thanks for your comment about the Israel-Palestine neutrality idea. I've started a proposal, which could be extended to other intractable disputes if it works. See Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement. I'd very much appreciate your input. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 08:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Your comment about me on User talk:Newyorkbrad
[1] Should I be the last to know? I don't have a clue what you are talking about with any specificity, and I'm not seeing warnings over any current behavior. --Abd (talk) 15:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Admin Noticeboard thread in re: paracetamol
Thank you for your professional and polite posting on my discussion page.
I do have a question: is there any kind of possibility of "disciplinary" action against my account because of the issue that you raised? Do you believe that I, ah, committed a Wiki-foul?
I've been threatened with such action by people with no power to do so. You appear to be someone who does have the rank--if that's the proper word--to initiate action against my account?
I don't read your post as implying this, but I just want to clarify so I can defend myself if necessary (I hope this doesn't sound paranoid).
Down to your issue:
- However, I think that that information can be broadcast without specifying the lethal overdose level.
I have to say I disagree with you position on this. I believe you objection lies in providing information to persons who might use it in an attempt to commit suicide or do a "cry-for-help" suicide "attempt."
The chief objection to your objection (not to be redundant) is that the information can easily be found a.) on other websites or b.) in the package insert that is available on request from every pharmacy. In other words: someone intent on harming themselves can easily obtain the necessary fatal dosage.
Although I'm not a lawyer, I don't believe that the Wiki Foundation has any liability for simply quoting already available information.
Does the WP:AN page provide information on how to enter an objection to this or is this page strictly for Admins on up? If non-ranked contributors can participate, exactly how do I find the discussion you've started on this issue?
Thanking you in advance for taking the time to read this and reply.
Regards,
PainMan (talk) 09:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
- Hi PainMan, thanks for your message. I'll answer your specific questions first.
- I do have a question: is there any kind of possibility of "disciplinary" action against my account because of the issue that you raised? Do you believe that I, ah, committed a Wiki-foul?
- No, I don't think there is any possibility of that. Firstly, even if there was something actionable, the time since the posting means it would be considered "stale". Secondly, there isn't an obvious policy that applies, so at worst that would ever have been plausible would have been some polite advice and an explanation of the problem (maybe with a mild warning). Thirdly, the people who commented on my AN posting didn't see the issue as serious in any case. I posted at AN to raise the policy question, I had absolutely no intention to seek for anyone to be sanctioned.
- I've been threatened with such action by people with no power to do so. You appear to be someone who does have the rank--if that's the proper word--to initiate action against my account? I don't read your post as implying this, but I just want to clarify so I can defend myself if necessary (I hope this doesn't sound paranoid).
- Wikipedia is meant to be egalitarian. Anyone can ask for some administrator action to be taken, and the issue will be considered on its merits. Specific incidents go to WP:ANI, general questions / issues for adminsitrator attention or input to the WP:AN. So, you and I have the same "rank", though Wikipedia doesn't really have such concepts. I'm not an administrator, so can't take any sort of disciplinary action (as you put it) even if I thought some was warranted - which, to reassure you, I don't. As for sounding paranoid, I think it is best to ask if you have a concern. I have no problem with answering your questions and setting your mind at ease.
- Does the WP:AN page provide information on how to enter an objection to this or is this page strictly for Admins on up? If non-ranked contributors can participate, exactly how do I find the discussion you've started on this issue?
- Anyone can participate, but the conversation didn't go for long and has now been archived. Here is a link to that discussion, so you can see what was said, but you shouldn't change it or add to it now the archiving has happened. The suggestion was made to start a discussion at the policy section of the Village Pump (WP:VPP) or at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Medicine). I have done neither because there didn't seem to be much enthusiasm for looking at the issue. However, either of us can start such a thread and see what people think.
- OK, now, turning to the actual issue. To start with, some background. A good friend of mine recently took a deliberate overdose. It was a serious attempt and he ended up in hospital. When he got out, he was asking me about some of the new medications he was given. I came to WP to look them up, because I know that the pharmaceutical information is generally fairly good and he didn't need anything more technical anyway. I found the information (including yours) on overdose quantities in looking up the opiod dextropropoxyphene napsylate. Wikipedia is one of the first places to which people might come when seeking information. If he'd come looking for information, I would not have wanted him to find something amounting to "take X pills to kill yourself."
- I realise that information like LD50 values are readily found either on-wiki or from google. However, I suspect that anyone knowing enough to deduce a dosage in number of tablets from such information is also likely to know how to find the information in other places. Some people will look as far as Wikipedia, and no further. Further, how is the lethal quantity of paracetamol - or of any other pharmaceutical - the sort of information that an encyclopedia should provide?
- You might want to consider the essay WP:BEANS and the policy WP:NOTHOWTO. WP:V (Verifiability) is also relevant. Now, the applicability of these to talk space (where your comment was made) isn't as straight-forward. If the article on paracetamol stated the lethal dosage, I would have removed it under WP:NOTHOWTO, unless it was suitably sourced under WP:V. I know there is (sourced) information on the page discussing paracetamol toxicity. I believe that is inappropriate, but I recognise the argument in WP:NOTCENSORED that can be made. Maybe I could remove the lethal dose details from your talk page post under WP:BEANS, although doing so could be controversial as altering someone else's talk page post is generally not acceptable. As for the legal question, the applicable law is that of the State of Florida in the US, as that is where the servers are located - and that issue would be decided at the WMF level in any case.
- The chief objection to your objection (not to be redundant) is that the information can easily be found a.) on other websites or b.) in the package insert that is available on request from every pharmacy.
- My response to (a) is that it is basically an "Other Stuff Exists" argument. As for (b), I hope that most package inserts don't specify the lethal dose of the medication, because it really is irresponsible to tell someone how much they need to commit suicide. This applies especially to medications like anti-psychotics, etc. Of course pharmacists and doctors, etc, need such information but the general public don't.
- Ed:
- thanks for your very complete and helpful explanation. Tho' I've been contributing (with one article under my belt) since 2005, I've never really immersed myself in Wiki-Policy. Usually only when it has affected me directly.
- I very much thank you for the links so I can read them at my leisure.
- I don't feel strongly enough to try to re-open the issue. So I have no issue with the discussion having been archived.
- I do have background in this area. I was a pharmacy technician, trained at a vo-tech school.
- And nearly every package insert I have ever seen contains information on lethal dosage(s), even if one has to dig thru column after column of techno-speak to find it. This is one of the reasons that, generally, packet inserts much be requested from the pharmacists. (The main reason was that patients would read the inserts, zero in on the adverse reactions that, by Federal law must be reported, even tho' they've affected only 1% or 3% of tested subjects, call the pharmacist or doctor up, freaking out, "I've got 'fill-in-the-blank." Causing lots of unnecessary worry to the patient and, frankly, wasting the time of physicians and pharmacists.)
- Over-the-counter medicines, however, for obvious reasons, rarely contain anything like the amount information in the average prescription med insert. I agree with you to that limited extent: it would be right foolish to put such information on the back of a box of Tylenol or ibuprofen.
- In my experience as a pharmacy tech, however, I can recall only a handful of patients asking for the inserts. So it the Net would be the likely source for most people.
- Whether Wikipedia should carry such information is to me debatable. A case can be made either way. "Case-by-case" is probably the best way to handle it anyway.
- Bottom-line: thank you again for all the helpful wiki-information.
- Regards,
More on SV proposal
I don't know if you follow the Wiki-En-l mailing list, but there's an extensive discussion there of this proposal, starting with Slim's post notifying folks of the discussion:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2009-May/100640.html
Woonpton (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Arbcom case
And Newyorkbrad didnt' respond to a post on his talk page, either.
Want to help me take this to the community? It would look better if someone other than me set out the basic facts. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, happy to help. I tried to start a chat with you (gmail) but you weren't around. EdChem (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
User_talk:Kirill_Lokshin#Per_list Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
ThankSpam
Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. ~~~~~ |
![]() |