Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:00, 15 January 2011

I have a simple two to three step process for refactoring comments that seem to anyone to be uncivil:

Once you provide at least information relating to the first two steps, I will usually immediately refactor. The third step is optional.

This user is block free - (see my block log here!).

General announcement re:Climate Change

If any topic-banned users would like to let me know about particular concerns they have regarding climate change articles (especially specific climate change articles I may not have noticed), please let me know by e-mailing me. Apparently, only off-wiki discussions are allowed — a braindead approach to Misplaced Pages collaboration, but one required due to the arbitration committee's blunt-instrument approach to surgery. ScienceApologist (talk)

Core encylopedia stuff.....

JPS, I am looking at ways of promoting the improvement of core encyclopedia content over trivia with the wikicup next year (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiCup/Scoring#Okay_-_bombs_away) (and I always prefer carrots to sticks - personally I love the trivia stuff too :) ). The wikicup rewards audited content such as DYKs, GAs and FAs. I have proposed bonus multipliers for subjects related to core content. The trick is trying to come up with a category that can be checked quickly (yes/no) to see if the article qualifies...and one that can't be gamed. I thought you may be intrigued at the proposal and comment on the categories proposed thus far. (of course you may think the whole idea's silly...but I am mindful this is an active and fun competition for many so is at least a good place to start from rather than creat something from scratch) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Importance ratings by the relevant WikiProjects would be a good way to weight, I think. Not sure how to propose that idea in the conversation you link, but that's my two cents. jps (talk) 16:40, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

We were worried a little that that could be gamed (someone could fudge a mid-importance article to a high etc.), but then say importance as ranked on December 1 2010. I think someone has suggested it somewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

For the Outline of ... etc

Hi, I think it would be better to do a restart and do an afd for all of it, the Outline of and the portal since people are getting confused about it. Also, is there any way to stop Transhuman from drowning the afd with so many comments? He does this anytime he feels the outlines are in trouble which makes it difficult for editors to actually get the jest of the other editors comments. I just went and looked at the afd you started for the portal and just left without making a comment because he took up so much space, as usual. I stopped with anything having to do with outlines because of this kind of behavior. If you can think of a way to set up an afd or something else and also be able to control this kind of behavior than ping me for a response. Until then, I'm done with it all again. It's too frustrating for me to see and too overwhelming to even read. Thanks for trying. Too bad Verbal is no longer around, he was good at this. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal 12:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy that the AfD looks the way it does. It makes me understand why the Outlines of... exist the way they do. The way forward has to be a general RfC about outlines. It looks like we could probably get consensus from the community to mark the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Outlines as historical and begin the process of either moving the content of outline articles to more appropriate articles or shunting them to the historically-marked project pages. We might ask help from User:DGG to compose such an RfC to see if we can move this along. Transhumanist is known to be a problematic editor and does have a few friends, but it doesn't to me look like they have enough supporters to keep this alive. jps (talk) 14:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If an RFC happens would you mind pinging me with a notice and a dif? If you look at how the outline started I think it would be clear to you what a lot of the problems are and also why so many reject them. First they changed the name of lists and then when they made an outline the went to the subject and took for the main article. Most of the outlines weren't started from scratch, at least when I was watching all of this but that being said I stopped watching it all and took outlines off my watchlist when the rfc failed to get live about them. If you haven't researched this, I suggest you do. Anyways, please ping me if this actually get rolling, thanks, --CrohnieGal 14:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

List of climate scientists discussion

Please to not close discussion topics just because you have a certain viewpoint. If you will do so again, I will file a complaint. Thank you. John Hyams (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

The section in question was not about to improve the article and was descending into a free-for-all that was just about exchanging barbs. If you want to make a suggestion for a way to improve the article, feel free to do so. But there is nothing reasonable about archiving a failed proposal. jps (talk) 14:20, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

That section is required in order to improve the artice. Again, and I hope for the last time, I request that you refrain from doing so again. You have a clear viewpoint in this matter so please let others express their opinions for at least a week. Thank you. John Hyams (talk) 14:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure "required" is the wrong word. Just so you know, there's about zero chance that your suggested source of "peer-reviewed" articles is going to be used as it's not actually a source of peer-reviewed articles. jps (talk) 14:29, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Being "pretty sure" constitues an opinion, your opinion. If you are so sure, please wait a week and then archive it. Please be civil in your actions, especially in such controversy subjects. Thanks. John Hyams (talk) 14:32, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is unequivocally "my opinion" that your use of "required" is incorrect. Perhaps it's an English usage issue. I'm sorry if you perceive any incivility. Please let me know what statements I made you thought were not civil. I appreciate your suggestion that we archive that section in one week. I'll return to the matter on December 31, 2010. jps (talk) 14:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Civility and PhD

Hello. I have an issue with the assertions you made on AN/I regarding incivility of WMC. You say People of higher levels of competence (such as, for example, those who have received PhDs in academic subjects) tend to bristle at being subject to the incompetence of those with power. You appear to be suggesting that it is OK for a person to call someone else names if they have a PhD. I think this is wrong. Nearly all my colleagues have PhDs in academic subjects. Some are competent and some not (in my view) but on average they are very civil people. In their job they have to interact with a lot of incompetent people (students, management, clients etc) and they never resort to public name calling. (I prefer to post here and not on AN/I because I do not want to clutter the discussion about a particular editor with general stuff). Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 05:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You appear to be suggesting that it is OK for a person to call someone else names if they have a PhD. --> I'm not saying this at all, and I'm sorry if you thought that's what I meant. What I was saying is that there is an explanation for why people behave in certain ways. Academics I know are polite to a fault with people who are incompetent until a person who is incompetent exerts power over them while exhibiting incompetence. That's when you start seeing direct attacks. We've tended to evolve in most institutions where competence exists measures that safeguard against a lot of such scenarios where this kind of problem might come up. Misplaced Pages has not developed that yet. jps (talk) 05:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

So, if I understand correctly, you tried to explain, rather than excuse, the use of incivil language. That's fine. As for Misplaced Pages processes, yes, it is by the very fundamental principle 'everyone can edit' that people with expertise have to cooperate and dabate with all others as equals. Not sure how this can be changed, but I don't think credentialism is the answer. On the whole, I find many science related articles to be of much better quality than I could expect, except that some are written in a too specialised way to be useful in a general purpose enciclopedia: like this. Of course trouble arises in a few areas of intense public interest and debate but this is inevitable and understandable...

I was really referring to civility vis-a-vis governance rather than editing. As always, the meta-issues of Misplaced Pages are more drama-producing than the content creation issues. Content disputes, when they occur, tend to resolve in favor of the competent more often than not. This wasn't always the case, but noticeboards have actually gone a long way in helping to resolve this problem. The bottleneck for Misplaced Pages right now is not in editing: it's in administrator action. jps (talk) 07:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Back to the original issue, you also said: Those whom WMC has chided are almost always, on the whole, deserving of criticism.... This is where I differ with you and a few others on civil discourse. Yes many people and specifically WP admins deserve criticism. But calling people idiots and other names is not criticism. Unlike genuine criticism, name calling never has any useful effect, except for instant gratification of the person doing the calling. I can understand when occasionally emotions get the better of us but doing it in some sort of systematic fashion is, well degrading to both sides... I am sure if you or WMC or Giano were invited to participate in editing Britannica, you won't be using this kind of language in your online or face to face discussions even if you thought some of the participants were crackpots. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 18:08, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Name-calling is not criticism, true. It is indicative in these types of scenarios that criticism was leveled and not understood. If WMC or Giano were invited to participate in Britannica, they wouldn't be subjected to the kind of lackluster governance that characterizes Misplaced Pages. Just sayin'. jps (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Cold fusion talk

I saw the decline at RFPP. Give me a good argument as to which IP you believe is a banned user and why, and I will block if I'm convinced.—Kww(talk) 16:30, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do at this point. The 208.54.5-starting IP address is a dynamic IP address from the same part of the country as User:LossIsNotMore. Enric Naval just did an SPI on User:Ura Ursa and this user was found to be operating three socks, but we could not connect them to LossIsNotMore due to it being stale. Immediately after this investigation, the anonymous IP started editing (as though to skirt what they thought would be an IP-ban). Now Ura Ursa is editing and the IP is editing and they're all just essentially harping on the same arguments over and over again trying to railroad a version of the article through on the basis of sock-puppet consensus from what I can see. Extremely confusing, but what can we do? jps (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Ursa Ursa, Ginger Conspiracy, and Why Other. Let's see what happens as a result of the autoblocking.—Kww(talk) 16:44, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked 208.54.5.57 as well. Some of your defenses got removed when I removed his material from the talk page. It may help other editors if you pointed out that I was helping you against socks, not attacking you.—Kww(talk) 00:03, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the help. It's weird how that page tends to inspire downward spirals. jps (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• This was neither weird nor a downward spiral. At worst it was a flight of fancy (an instance of abductive reasoning) that was (hopefully) honing in on a better understanding of Shanahan's hypothesis of CCS. —Albatross (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• If you want to contribute to Misplaced Pages, why not ask to be unblocked/unbanned? jps (talk) 04:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair question, Joshua. My contribution is not so much to Misplaced Pages, per se, but to the collaborative learning process of small groups of collaborating (or even competing) scholars (some of whom are congregated here on the CF talk page). But the main reason is because of Moulton's Nth Law of Bureaucracy: Once a bureaucracy makes a mistake, it can't be fixed. In this case, one has to reckon not only Moulton's Nth Law of Bureaucracy but the Corollary to it: Once a corrupt bureaucracy makes a mistake, not only can it not be fixed, it can't even be mentioned. Evar. —Moulton (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The above dialog is the most surreal I have seen on Misplaced Pages. I thought blocked users cannot edit, especially using multiple accounts. - BorisG (talk) 05:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

And of course, there's Moulton's Zeroth Law: Given sufficient narcissism, any personal shortcoming will be blamed on a bureaucracy or other externality. Its corollary: Given excess narcissism, such self-justifications will be couched in sententious pseudoprofundity and offered as if they had educational value. MastCell  04:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

For sure. Woonpton (talk) 04:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Now that's a law to live by! My anger towards the governance structure of Misplaced Pages would seem to indicate that I have sufficient narcissism. However, I don't believe there is anything of educational value in my disgust so perhaps it's not in excess. It's unclear to me as to whether the "will be couched... and offered" indicates necessity. “Vanity is my favorite sin.” — Al Pacino jps (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing necessarily narcissistic about feeling anger toward the governance structure of Misplaced Pages; it only means you've got a reasonably healthy ego strength and some intelligence. But I'm not sure we were talking about you anyway. Woonpton (talk) 05:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Another good rule! But for those of our "colleagues" who are fans of Misplaced Pages governance, is it possible to tell which of the two attributes they are lacking? jps (talk) 05:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Or the converse: if someone isn't a fan of Misplaced Pages governance, is it possible to tell whether they are narcissistic and self-delusional and blaming their own inability to conform to the Misplaced Pages model on "bureaucracy," or smart enough to understand that the system is stacked against them even though they are following policy? (I actually think it is not that hard to tell the difference.) But as far as the fans of the governance structure, I suspect that many of them have seen only its good side; they've never seen the corrosive effects it can have in areas of fringe science and other contentious areas, in which case they may be lacking neither ego strength nor intelligence, but merely information. Woonpton (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No governance structure is perfect, and Misplaced Pages is only 10 years old. - BorisG (talk) 06:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You've quite missed my point, I think. The problem, as I see it, is that the governance structure as currently implemented enables and encourages those whose purpose here is to promote and advocate for a particular company, political ideology, religion, cult, personality, fringe theory, or pet crackpot idea, and punishes and discourages those whose purpose is to write an encyclopedia by summarizing the views of reliable sources. This isn't something that's going to get better with time; fixing it would require an acknowledgement at higher levels that the model only works when everyone has the same goal, and would require a commitment to encourage and enable those whose purpose is to build a high-quality reference work and discourage those who seek to use Misplaced Pages to serve their own purposes. I frankly don't see that acknowledgement or commitment likely to materialize anytime soon. Woonpton (talk) 15:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not quite sure. I believe in evolution :) - BorisG (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What in the world does that have to do with anything?Woonpton (talk) 16:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe that wikipedia structures will evolve with time to address those legitimate concerns. - BorisG (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see, thanks. I hope you're right. My view is more pessimistic; I don't see how the trend can ever be reversed now that Misplaced Pages has established itself as the platform of choice for promoting every political ideology, every crackpot theory, every exotic dancer, and so forth, and now that people who think that's a good thing have become a majority of the "community" and have become entrenched in the governing structure. But, for the sake of Misplaced Pages, I still hope you're right. Woonpton (talk) 20:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of being pedantic (as if that ship hasn't sailed), "evolution" is not synonymous with "progress". Evolution is simply the response of a diverse system to selective pressure. If we're applying the wrong selective pressures, then we can expect Misplaced Pages's structures to evolve - by becoming worse. We're selecting for the wrong traits - we have been for quite some time - and Misplaced Pages is indeed evolving. I would actually prefer to see a bit more intelligent design. :P

By the way, your talk page is interesting. Hope you don't mind my participation.. And regarding the Zeroth Law, I had its eponymous irritant in mind when I formulated it - it wasn't directed at you, or anyone else. MastCell  05:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course, you're very welcome to cogitate out-loud here (or, at least, in text form), and although I was not under the misapprehension that you were criticizing me, I always find it useful to take novel medicine to see the side-effects. It's a kind of medical experiment that I do on myself because I am capable of proper informed consent. jps (talk) 07:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Davesmith au/pigwrestling

After you tagged User:Davesmith au/pigwrestling for speedy deletion, Beeblebrox declined it and initiated an MfD at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Davesmith au/pigwrestling. Would you explain at the MfD why User:Davesmith au/pigwrestling should be deleted? I am currently undecided as to whether it violates Misplaced Pages policy. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

• Okay, I gave my opinion. jps (talk) 03:56, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Bothering me

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed_decision#Adequate_framing

There's a problem here I hadn't noticed before. Let's take each word in turn:

• "mythical" — empirically epistemic
• "fictional" — empirically epistemic
• "a belief" — empirically epistemic
• "paranormal" — empirically epistemic because it is applied only by means of uncontroversial characteristics (that is, according to the OED, "Designating supposed psychical events and phenomena such as clairvoyance or telekinesis whose operation is outside the scope of the known laws of nature or of normal scientific understanding; of or relating to such phenomena.") This may seem at first glance to be questionable, but the definition explicitly includes the supposed-ness of the events/phenomena. In other words, using the term makes no judgment as to whether the events had any phenomenological basis: they are abstracts which occur outside known laws of nature and normal scientific understanding.
• "psychic" — not empirically epistemic because it is applied only when there are in-principle observable claims that are unlikely enough that the phenomenology is questionable (that is, according to the OED, "A person who is regarded as particularly susceptible to supernatural or paranormal influence or having a person who has qualities which would lead them to be so categorized" if used as an adjective.) Using the term assumes that paranormal events must have a phenomenological basis. Calling someone as a "psychic" by definition assumes that there are concrete, observable events which occur outside the known laws of nature and normal scientific understanding. Additional problem: . The definition is deliberately ambiguous as to who regards the psychic as having the susceptibilities. Thus, when we say, "He is a psychic" we are saying, "He is generally regarded as such" which is false because there exists no one who is "generally regarded as psychic". Thus, calling someone a "psychic" without qualifier is not giving an adequate marker since there is dispute (by practice and NOT definition) as to whether the person has the qualities the term supposes.
• "new age" — empirically epistemic
• "occult" — empirically epistemic
• "channeling" — not empirically epistemic because it is applied only when there are in-principle observable claims that are unlikely enough that the phenomenology is questionable (that is, according to the OED, "Process by which information, news, trade, or the like passes; process of transmission, conveyance, or communication." I'll add "by paranormal means" because the OED doesn't give the precise definition for this sense.) As with "psychic", this assumes that there are events that have occurred which are "outside the scope of the known laws of nature or of normal scientific understanding."
• "parapsychological researcher" — empirically epistemic
• "UFO" — empirically epistemic (though note that the sightings of such are not)
• "Bigfoot" — empirically epistemic (though note that the sightings of such are not)
• "Yeti" — empirically epistemic (though note that the sightings of such are not)
• "alien abduction" — not empirically epistemic because it is applied only when there are in-principle observable claims that are unlikely enough that the phenomenology is questionable (that is, according to the OED, "A reported paranormal experience in which a person claims to have been surreptitiously abducted by extraterrestrial beings.")
• "crop circle" — empirically epistemic

For the "medium" or "contactee" see "psychic" above.

For "ghost" and "spirit", specific instances of such, or really any mythological or paranormal beast, is not empirically epistemic.

For "gods" and "deities", specific instances of such require direct attribution of who believes in the god (this is standard practice in religion articles where the "in x religion," prepositional phrase serves as framing).

In short, when a label for a specific occurrence is defined through a paranormal explanation, it is irresponsible to claim an adequate framing based solely on the label being of paranormal provenance. Tomorrow, Randi's million dollar challenge could be claimed and we might find that there is exactly one "empirically psychic" person in the world. This would mean we'd have to change the article on every single other psychic to indicate that the empirical reality of their claims was in dispute. It seems highly unreasonable that an unrelated event should necessitate a cascade of changes to a library of articles. The only alternative is to allow for framing to take place outside of the terms which are not empirically epistemic in how they're used in specific instances.

jps (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Why I was inspired

• • There is no meaningful distinction between a "self-described psychic medium" and a "pyschic medium" Both formulations frame scepticism, or credulity. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
    • How does "self-described psychic medium" frame credulity?
      • This all begins in the person's inner life. It is a rare psychic that does not believe she is psychic. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
        • REALLY? I know of many instances where psychics were implicated for cold readings and other swindling techniques. Some have even been caught on tape admitting that they were hoodwinking their clients. I don't think you've researched this area enough to be able to discuss it in these kinds of generalities. 20:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
          • Interesting question, which depends on whether one defines "medium" by job description or supposed ability. Thus if one is employed as a medium, then "self-described" is irrelevant. If the word however is directly and implicity linked to the ability to communicate with spirits, then "self-described" or some other qualifier is needed. Dammit, Mediumship needs some dicdefs on it... :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
            • If one is employed as a medium, then we can name one's employer and the epistemic problems go away. Thus, "John Doe is employed by celebrity Joe Snazzy to be his medium." or "Jane Doe makes her living by selling advice on the basis of the her claim that she is a medium." In fact, in cases like the latter, this is a legal claim that has resulted in interesting lawsuits . jps (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
              • Hahaha, interesting....will get my trusty OED and magnifying glass soonish...Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
              • (sounds of pages ruffling) A medium is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as the "supposed organ of communication with spirits" - nice skepticism by OED..now what does webster say.Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:25, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
                • (more pages ruffling) Webster's Second College Edition (my second choice dictionary, when I'm too lazy to drag out the OED and the magnifying glass) defines a medium as "a person through whom communications are supposedly sent to the living through spirits of the dead." Woonpton (talk) 10:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
• • Again, no meaningful distinction between "purported medium" and "medium". User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Hypothetically, not all mediums are purported. As I pointed out above, if one wins the Randi Million Dollar Prize that would require us to hedge every single other biography were such was claimed. jps (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm afraid awarding that prize would be considered original research here. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Nah, it'll definitely be covered by third-party independent sources. JREF is famous enough. jps (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
• • Another "self-described medium" example. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
    • Attribution is important. Who says you're a medium? Is Gandhi a medium? No, he didn't describe himself as one. Is Edward Cayce a medium? Yes, he described himself as one. Was Nostradamus? Depends on who you ask — he didn't say so explicitly but others have made this claim. jps (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
      • Is there a reliable source which shows that there is such a thing as a medium? User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
        • Of course. The dictionary for one. What you probably meant to ask is if there is any evidence for someone empirically fulfilling the definition. But that's a different matter and one that isn't covered by the simple statement of fact that the concept of a medium exists. jps (talk) 20:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This needs to stop.

jps (talk) 07:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The point of the decision is that it adds little or no information to emphasize the unreliability of psychic or paranormal claims; it comes with the territory. It is the equivalent of "At night the sun does not shine." User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

This simply isn't true. Psychic claims are not by definition unreliable. They just all happen to be unreliable. jps (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and everyone knows that which is why it is not useful to repeatedly say so. User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a source that indicates that "everyone knows that"? Because I have met a huge number of people who are not aware of this and actively believe in psychics. Where do you get off making these sweeping pronouncements? jps (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

You say on your user page: "Such subjects may be categorized as such. It may also be appropriate to indicate in various locations within the article that the subject is pseudoscience so as to properly frame the article contents." "Flying saucer expert", "Alien abduction expert", or even "birther" or "truther" says all that is necessary, night falls. Our readers are not idiots, unless they chose to be. User:Fred Bauder Talk 10:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What a silly statement: "Our readers are not idiots, unless they chose to be." I know for a fact that this is not the case, having educated a fair number of college students convinced of the veracity of psychic claims, astrology, etc. These students were not idiots, but they were credulous. You were the one who messed up in not parsing the definitions of the terms carefully, not I. I've thought a lot about this and your throw-away dismissal of my analysis is just sad. jps (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Keep up the good work, but please don't edit war on Misplaced Pages about it. That is the meaning of the arbitration finding: Don't edit war over formulations of the obvious; if someone appears on TV and holds herself out as a psychic, then she is a "psychic" User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

That's a ludicrous argument. That's like saying if someone appears on TV as a unicorn they are a unicorn. Or if someone appears on TV as God they are God. And where do you get off accusing me of edit warring? Look at the evidence above! Is it me who is edit warring? jps (talk) 20:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

A spell to turn yourself into a witch User:Fred Bauder Talk 11:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything? jps (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

A bit. Obviously witchcraft can be studied and a person can participate in Wicca, but where is the reliable source that there is or ever was a person who could work magic through witchcraft? User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

But by saying, in the voice of the encyclopedia, that someone is a psychic or a medium, you are giving that assertion authority and implying that there must be reliable sources backing up that claim, otherwise why would the encyclopedia make the claim without qualification?

I have disagreed strongly with the idea that we should classify topics as "fringe" or "pseudoscience." We should certainly cite sources that describe topics in those terms, but we, speaking in the voice of the encyclopedia, should not say in article space that something is "pseudoscience" and I object strongly to slapping a "pseudoscience" category on topics. I think that's unnecessarily provocative and just plain unnecessary; we should let those judgments be made by sources, not by us. However, by the same token, I don't think that we in the voice of the encyclopedia should be endorsing claims that are clearly without empirical support, and I find Fred Bauder's argument untenable. I don't know what part of the world he lives in, but my part of the world is full of credulous people who would certainly not share Fred's assumption that the term "psychic" or "medium" carries with it its own invisible air quotes so that the term itself can be understood to undermine the legitimacy of its own claim. This isn't something that can be taken for granted. I wouldn't edit war to keep "self-described" and am not sure what language would be best to indicate the lack of external support, but at the same time, there must be some acknowledgment of the lack of support for the claim, or we are implicitly endorsing the claim. Woonpton (talk) 17:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I live in a place where for $75 one can be granted an audience with the channeled spirit of Jesus Christ. Such absurd claims fall of their own weight. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily Fred - I imagine that the person or entity charging $75 has collected on a few occasions. You don't have to go far before reading stories every month or so of people dying or being killed somewhere because of engaging or believing in witchcraft or possession or something. Different definitions require different treatments - for instance, I suspect wiccan is mainly a belief system, hence one needn't be a purported or self-described one. witch has a similar but not quite so strong emphasis on belief, and is probably more of a grey area, however a word which implies a direct ability such as talking to spirits should be inbuilt with some form of qualifier. I need to look up the longer OED later to see what it says... Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion

I conclude with some assurance that the statement agreed to by the then-arbitration committee above was not duly researched nor carefully considered. Fred has illustrated to me that he actually doesn't know very much about this subject at all and therefore shouldn't be backing these kinds of proclamations. We have an open amendment request on another one of these problematic rulings that Fred drafted and I'm tempted to add this one because it is clearly shown it is encouraging edit warring on the part of an admin. Outrageous. jps (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, we need not make a rule by fiat in any direction. But I find it wholly unsupported that there are not instances where qualifiers should not be used in front of paranormal entity designations. That Fred seems content to make universalist declarations about what "everybody knows" really looks to me like playing Encyclopedia God. He is a purported Encyclopedia God! jps (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

What needs to happen is development of guidelines by the community which address these questions as the guidelines as Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories#Pseudoscience do. User:Fred Bauder Talk 03:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

But right now, people are using your ideas as the sacrosanct rules (see the list above). This needs to stop first before we can actually come up with a framework for determining whether community rules of this sort are appropriate. jps (talk) 05:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I can see a way forward with at least collecting a few definitions for mediumship and channeling from the OED, websters and other sources, which will give a bit more of a template anyway...as well as taking a squiz thru the archives. This sorta thing's been done for the West Bank, Macedonia and Ireland...Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Banned editors

Please stop replying to banned editors on talk pages. If you don't reply, I can completely erase all access to the edits.—Kww(talk) 14:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. But why can they edit? - BorisG (talk) 15:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Because our methods of blocking them are imperfect, and rely on cooperation from legitimate editors. That cooperation consists of not replying to them, reverting all edits they make, not incorporating their material into articles, and reporting them to administrators when detected. If you are having problems with admins ignoring sock complaints, drop me a note. If I'm convinced, I will act.—Kww(talk) 15:21, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Kww. And sorry, jps, for cluttering your page. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind clutter. jps (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I semi-protected your talk page. Let me know if you object, and I will undo it.—Kww(talk) 16:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

No problems. I used to have a "no reply" policy for banned editors out of respect for Misplaced Pages process, but in the last few months I got disgusted when there didn't seem to be enough admins willing to act on complaints. As protestations fell on deaf ears over and over again, I decided that there was nothing for it and just replied to everyone regardless of their main account status. You saw how flippantly my request for semi-protection was declined (I would actually appreciate looking into why the admin who closed it did so). In the future, I'll just go to you, if you don't mind the extra work. jps (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I can do it too, actually so can Mastcell, and also SBHB if he asked for his tools back...Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Nina Totenburg, GA review

I have begun the review of Totenburg's biographical article. Please see my first comments at Talk:Nina Totenberg/GA1. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Warnings

I will warn folk as and when appropriate. Internalize that. I suggest you stop sniping at me and look to your own behavior. ++Lar: t/c 17:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Nina Totenberg response

Please respond to my response to you at Talk:Nina Totenberg concerning the lead (where I list criticisms/controversies sourced to third parties). Thanks. Drrll (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Pseudoscience advocate?

Are you a "pseudoscientific claim" advocate? You seem to push this view quite frequently in Misplaced Pages.Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this question means. Are you asking if I advocate for pseudoscientific claims? jps (talk) 18:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you appear to make exaggerated claims about applying pseudoscience. It's very puzzling, that "pseudoscientific" appears to be absent the scientific method, when applying the term. It seems as if you push the pseudoscientific view into articles, am I wrong? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Exaggeration? Hmm, it'd be nice to see an example of where I exaggerated. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "that 'pseudoscientific' appears to be absent the scientific method". I think you might be making the pseudoskepticism argument, but I'm not sure. I'm not exactly sure what you think the "pseudoscientific view" is. I'm having a really hard time understanding your points. Perhaps if you made them a bit more plainly I might be able to follow. jps (talk) 18:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Plain and simple, you push the pseudoscientific POV into articles, now don't you? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you have "into" and "out of" mixed up. jps (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well maybe, you push in a "pseudoscientific POV", based on occasional exaggerated original research, to push out .... well ... tell me what you aim to push out? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, Zulu Papa 5, you've got it turned around. JPS is a renowned expert on dealing with pseudoscience nonsense here and those who push fringe claims. It appears you have painted a bullseye on yourself by letting the cat get out of the bag and then letting the dogs out. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well you may have verified my suspected concerns ... he pushes the "pseudoscience nonsense" POV into articles as an expert on the subject. I wonder how often original research is at work? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Only occasionally and always exaggeratedly. jps (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok well, I'll pray the best for Misplaced Pages .. got to go now. Will work on the shadow stuff, but please set low expectations for it. (smile) Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think we're missing something in the translation, here, ZuluPapa5. Your word choices are certainly colorful, but they border on the incoherent and certainly are inchoate. "Occasional exaggerated original research" sounds like a great band name anyway. jps (talk) 20:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe missing your admission and acceptance, I guess. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that's another good one. jps (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Push out your chest and suck in your stomach William M. Connolley (talk) 21:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed! Considering the source, you could take this as a compliment JPS. I left a comment here. Did I hit the mark, or did I miss anything? Let me know. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

JPS, I just looked at the Enneagram article and talk page, and the only source I see you trying to use to show that the idea is "pseudoscience" is a blog. So, perhaps you are obsessed with trying to introduce the word "pseudoscience" into science articles. If strong personal feelings are getting in the way of you following WP's editing policies, then perhaps a voluntary break from editing science articles might be in order? Cla68 (talk) 23:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

1) The Skeptic Dictionary isn't a blog: it's an online dictionary that's an extension of a published book by a professional who studies pseudoscience. Robert Todd Carroll is just about a gold standard in terms of these issues. Also, I was directly quoting him and maybe, just maybe, hoping that we could find a way to use a quote of his in the article (a quote, for example, that says something like "lacks scientific basis".) I hadn't yet formulated a good plan for this and another user is now digging around for other third-party sources that may help get that article up to snuff. 2) I thank you not to tell me what my "personal feelings" are again. I find that condescension to be rude and uncalled for. Suggesting that I take a a "voluntary break" is a play straight out of Lar's playbook, but it is not one that I'm likely to follow considering our manifestly unfriendly history. I fail to see exactly what the point of this statement is other than to bait me. Are you trying to bait me, Cla68? Shame on you. That's not a technique you outlined in your activist essay. Maybe I'll add it in though, it does seem to be one of your favorite tactics. Love and kisses! jps (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Good grief. Cla68 (talk) 23:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad the grief was good for you. jps (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me that all of you need to learn not to poke beehives. Zulu - JPS and brangifer are good editors who sometimes get over-involved and lose track of common sense with science-ish topics; give them a break and you can work with them (well, usually...). JPS, brangifer, etc. ZuluPapa (as near as I can tell) is a newish editor with a bit of a chip on his shoulder - he might pan out and he might not. let's give him the benefit of the doubt until he blows it in no uncertain terms, ok? and please, there's no value in talking shit about him in talk - that just looks like the group of you are ganging up on him, and it's likely to inflame more bad attitude.

all I have to say on the matter, but I'm bookmarking some pages now to see how things develop. --Ludwigs2 23:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

ZuluPapa5 is anything but new. He was involved and sanctioned in the climate change arbitration, for example. jps (talk) 23:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

maybe, but he only has 4000 edits. that's past the 'wet-behind-the-ears' stage but deep in the 'way-too-enthusiastic-for-his-own-good' stage. --Ludwigs2 23:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"Only 4000 edits"? 1000 used to be the limit to run for admin not too far back. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I've realized countless lifetimes here, but none I can recall as a sock, so please don't waste your time plotting on me. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Heads up

You are being discussed here. Cardamon (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I would appreciate a lot more eyes there and a lot more people commenting. I'm not going to be involved in that process because involvement in governance tends only to make me upset and angry and that's not useful. But, as with all the nonsense on Misplaced Pages, the more people who comment against a particular proposition (such as banning me from all science articles!) the less likely it will actually happen. jps (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement topic ban: Pseudoscience and fringe science

For the reasons described at this AE thread, in enforcement and application of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions, you are topic-banned from the topics of pseudoscience and fringe science for a year. The topic ban shall have the meaning described at WP:TBAN, and the topic area from which you are banned shall encompass (but is not limited to) all topics covered by the descriptions at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Final decision, sections 15 to 17. This ban is to be enforced with escalating blocks that may start at a duration of one week. It can be appealed as described at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions.  Sandstein  23:55, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

And once again surface civility wins over content improvement... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

One of our friends over at WR put it best: if Sandstein was a policeman standing outside a burning apartment block as the residents ran for safety across the street, he'd ticket the fleeing victims for jaywalking. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Stephan, why not make that comment over at AE? It's spot on! There's a huge difference between incivility in normal discourse and when it happens in the process of defending the integrity of Misplaced Pages against a gang of fringe POV pushers whose (witless) mission actually damages the project. That's what's been going on. JPS is defending Misplaced Pages and the gang is seeking to misuse it. Incivility isn't good, but a one year topic ban?! That's insane. Sandstein needs to be whipped with a wet noodle acrosss his index finger three times so he's not as quick to react in this manner.... T. Canens has just made a very good comment and yours might really help. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It might help to comment at the AE page but maybe not. And you'll get nowhere with Sandstein -- the hanging judge act is such an ingrained part of his character that there's no possibility of changing it. At least we can be thankful he wasn't elected to Arbcom. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I will continue to edit as before. I do not recognize the legitimacy of Sandstein's notice. jps (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Pass me the popcorn. Off2riorob (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

unomi has given you some popcorn. Popcorn is crunchy goodness, and is wonderfully delicious!

To spread the goodness of popcorn, you can add {{subst:Popcorn}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.

JPS, If memory serves, that was the approach you took the last time you got in arb-scale trouble, and it did not serve you well at all (it ended up compounding the offenses listed against you, inciting a whole lot of petty disgusting drama trauma, and getting you punished more than you probably would have been otherwise). Sooner or later that tactic is going to get you site-banned, no matter how many people are bucking for you.

I think even you recognize that you made an error in judgement here. Personally, I don't think it's a huge error in judgement by itself, and the approach that one would normally take in a case like this is to acknowledge that one made an error, apologize, and show the self restraint not to do it again. There's no real reason why you have to indulge in snarky, sarcastic, nose-tweaking edits about fringe groups (you can easily defend the interests of science without stooping to that level). Instead, you are threatening civil disobedience and risking stirring up a whole lot of on-project hoopla (not to mention flirting with getting yourself blocked) in order to demand your right to be pointlessly and unnecessarily snide? Dude, get over it.

Nobody really wants you to stop doing what you do. It's just that the way you do what you do annoys the f%ck out of a whole lot of people. and yeah, I know that you (and the cohort of people that support you in these efforts) wear the fact that you annoy the f%ck out of a whole lot of people as a badge of honor - I've seen the kind of approving comments you get when you do something particularly pointed - but there comes a point where the end just stops being worth the means. You're well past that point, and the only thing that's saved you thus far is the degree of torturousness involved in getting anything done on wikipedia.

This whole problem would go away if you would use more common-sense respect and less self-righteous posturing, no? --Ludwigs2 15:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No one told me where I was being rude and how, Ludwigs, but I'm more than willing to listen. See the three-point process above? If you'd kindly follow it, I'll hold up my end of the bargain. I'm fine with using "common-sense respect" and "less self-righteous posturing". But for that to work, the person who is offended by my incivility needs to tell me: 1) what they found incivil and 2) why they thought it was incivil. As a courtesy, I suggest they also give an alternative wording, but that third step is not required. If you could do that, I'd be most grateful! jps (talk) 15:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The blocking and banning that happened last time, incidentally, worked out very well for me. jps (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification of RFE

ATren (talk) 16:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)