Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Coren (talk | contribs) at 14:50, 28 July 2008 (→Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User talk:Martinphi/Template

Misplaced Pages is about getting along.

Dear Martinphi: I do hope you'll stay with the project. I've found your input at Chiropractic to be quite valuable and hope you'll continue to participate with us there; even if you don't edit that particular page, I think you have valuable contributions to make to a broad range of articles.
Misplaced Pages is about getting along with people who have different points of view. I've learned a lot from participating. We all have the same goal: to write a NPOV encyclopedia. It's just that different people have different POV's as to what is NPOV for a particular article. It often takes considerable discussion, along with gut-wrenching shifts in perspective in order to be able to see things from others' POV, to establish a version of an article that everybody is happy with, or failing that, that everybody is equally unhappy with.
We can't all win. We can't all have the article conform exactly to what each of us individually believes is its best NPOV form. To do that, we'd have to be on a project that allows multiple versions of articles, such as Wikinfo (I think). But Misplaced Pages's limitation, that we have to compromise and find one version of each article, is actually its strength and the reason it's at the top of search engines. "The problem with Misplaced Pages is that it only works in practice. In theory, it can never work." (Zeroeth law of Misplaced Pages)
Of course you can edit articles so that they conform to the sources: it's just that different people have different ideas of which proposed words in the article conform to the source and which do not. One technique I've found very useful, which I learned from Jakew, is to have the wording of the article follow very closely the wording of the source, and if necessary, if it's very difficult for editors to agree, then use a direct quote from the source. Another technique I find very useful is to propose edits on the talk page before editing them into the article, as I did at Talk:Psychokinesis#Scientists contend, for example; this is a gentler way of beginning a discussion, less likely to invoke aggressive responses from others.
By the way, you've been criticized for calling things POV. Everything is POV; even the neutral point of view is a POV. I think if you just get in the habit of saying "not NPOV" or "undue weight" instead of saying "POV", it will express what you mean without drawing criticism.
I hope to continue working with you at Chiropractic and other articles. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 02:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Coppertwig (: I agree with everything you say. There are two reasons for leaving. First, Misplaced Pages has not dealt with quite a few editors who edit only in order to degrade articles into vehicles for debunking. Second, having an admin take actions based on his or her interpretation of NPOV, that is to say content is intollerable, and is completely wrong for Misplaced Pages. If Vassyana can do it, Raymond Arritt can do it, as can JzG and many others. If my editing against their POV is disruptive for me, it is disruptive for editors who have no ArbCom sanction. If it is disruptive, it can be dealt with by admin tools. Thus, admins use tools to enforce content. This is what the above mentioned editors have been militating to achieve for years now- admin enforcement of (their version) of NPOV. It isn't tollerable, and it isn't anything like the Misplaced Pages which is advertised. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ about your description of the sanction. It was not about a "normal" content decision, nor was it an enforcement of NPOV. I have repeatedly explained the problem and the reasoning behind the most recent sanction. If there is any way I can possibly make myself clearer on this point, please let me know. If you have questions or don't understand certain aspects of my rationale, please let me know. I will do my absolute best to help you understand where I am coming from and the overall situation. Vassyana (talk) 03:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for offering to explain further, but I think I do see where you are coming from- you've explained well. It was about content. Let's say you are completely right: it's still about content, by which I mean it has your understanding of content as an essential ingredient. You have (by email, forwarded by someone else), the best and clearest explanation I can make. I stand by that, and I say your action is based on your understanding of the content of the sources and the article, not on user behavior.

I believe that your ideas about content are essential in the case, and I can't edit when my understanding of content is being monitored as a possible disruption. I can't filter my portrayal of sources and content based on what I think you might believe. I will reprint here the email you have already seen, so others can review it:

Hi,

I'm happy enough to be gone, but just for the sake of WP, Vassyana has set a terrible precedent. Vassyana has based his assertion of disruption on his ideas about the content. Thus, his judgment on the content of the sources and article are the most essential part of his decision to take admin action against me. He also seems to think that what will "pass" with other editors such as, oh, PouponOnToast is a way to gage how one should edit. I wrote the following because this morning I reviewed the edit to make sure I was right about what the sources are saying. This is relevant, because Vassyana is basing his sanction on his judgment of this very situation, saying I was misrepresenting the sources (I think he says I was POV pushing also, but not sure now).

I might also point out that as of this writing my edit has pretty much stuck in the article.

Here is the edit in question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Remote_viewing&diff=prev&oldid=221117616

Here is the diff between when I stopped editing and now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Remote_viewing&diff=221281752&oldid=221134811

This is the quote from the Hyman source used, which I distilled into " further conclusive experiments" being needed:

Utts does assert that the findings from parapsychological experiments can be replicated with well-controlled experiments given adequate resources. But this is a hope or promise. Before we abandon relativity and quantum mechanics in their current formulations, we will require more than a promissory note. We will want, as is the case in other areas of science, solid evidence that these findings can, indeed, be produced under specified conditions.

http://www.csicop.org/si/9603/claims.html

I could have added -probably should have- that we need according to Hyman (his position tends to slide so that now he's talking about "an infinite variety of normal possibilities ") more theoretical work in addition to more replications.

And of course that statement is fully consistent with his (I'm pretty sure the date is) 1996 statements which could also be sourced.

As to Wiseman saying it needs more evidence but has under normal conditions been proven, that is the quote used in the article:

I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do. ... Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionise the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence.

Here is the full quote:

I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do. If I said that there is a red car outside my house, you would probably believe me. But if I said that a UFO had just landed, you'd probably want a lot more evidence. Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionise the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don't have that evidence.

So he is talking about "more evidence" which I also distilled to " further conclusive experiments." Replications by other researchers basically is what normally constitutes "conclusive evidence."

As to "pseudoscience," I don't have a way of reviewing that source, but assume it is correctly used.

And the difference between "yes we have good evidence, indeed evidence enough that by the standards of any other science but we need more in this case" and "The whole thing is pseudoscience" is a very very great divide, worthy of mention.

Here is what I said in the RV article:

Skeptical scientists disagree about the strength of the evidence for RV. For example Ray Hyman and Richard Wiseman say that further conclusive experiments would be necessary for acceptance, while others, such as Science writer Martin Gardner describe the topic as pseudoscience

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Remote_viewing&oldid=221134811#Criticism

Nope, I was right on. I used the sources perfectly, didn't I? You could send this to Vass if you think he's listening.

I add to this that the situation is completely intolerable even without my sanction. And this is not about ScienceApologist, but about a whole range of editors who WP has failed to deal with, and who essentially agree that WP is to become not just the equal of www.skepdic.com in debunking, but it's superior. And this is not an exaggeration, but based on actual text comparison.

What I say here looks like a call for admin action based on NPOV. No, it's just pointing out a basic flaw in WP. However, admin action based on content at least requires sourcing adjudication boards or some such mechanism. That may be coming. But an admin basing his actions on what he alone happens to think, or even what several people think, and forcing editors to revise what they write based on what they think their overseer(s) may believe (after the fact) about content or sources- that is basically wrong. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

The edit has stuck just because I wanted to clear first the issues with attribution on the talk page, and edit to a better version instead of simply reverting your edit. I'm sure that you have noticed my complain on the talk page about your version (And nobody has commented on my analysis of your wording being wrong, while everybody was discussing the particular attribution thing, so I'll change your wording, but I'll wait before changing the particular attribution thing). That being said, if me waiting to have a better version is going to be taken as an acceptance of your version, then I'm just going to go ahead and change it, and just improve it later as the discussion on the talk page goes on. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I have not viewed the RV talk page. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you read this, then you will see why I agree with Vassyana that this issue is not about content but about misquoting. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm getting your comment right. Does it mean "I'm not going to check the stuff because I'm retired", or is it about the jimbo quote as in "the real problem is that the ambient here is not good"? --Enric Naval (talk) 05:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Intended the "retired" bit, but the others are just as good for an interpretation. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 19:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Heh. Well, we are all unpaid volunteers here, so you can retire when you wish to, of course. I'd rather discuss the quoting of the sources, but I understand that you don't desire to enter a discussion of the matter right now. I'm sorry that the arbitration cases are handicapping you like this. Additionally, I have not followed the arbitration cases, so I can't comment on the fairness of banning you, I can just comment on the quoting/misquoting of the RV sources, and it appears that you don't want to discuss it :( .

In any case, your ban is not going to have only negative aspects. I strongly suspect that your case has influenced a pair of arbitrators to oppose the Sourcing Board Proposal and its powers to sanction for misuse of sources . Notice that both of them they changed their vote a short time after your ban was issued and after a period of relative inactivity on the page. I dunno how the Board matter is going to end, but I think that your might have tipped the balance just enough to prevent its approval or to give it way less sanctioning powers. Quite big effects for being banned from just one page, I can't imagine what could have happened if you had been banned from a full topic :D . --Enric Naval (talk) 20:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Well they shouldn't!! That sourcing board is the brightest star in WP for ages. Unless they don't want paranormal topics to be accorded the respect their sources indicate, which is not an accusation I'd make against them. I'd hate to think I was involved in something which if it doesn't pass dooms us to the status quo in FRINGE areas forever (or rather, with no opposition, to the quo of debunkers).

Of course, it also depends on what they mean by "subject matter experts." I mean, in parapsychology, is Radin a subject matter expert, or is Hyman? Are they both going to be on the board for parapsychological topics? There are no neutrals who know the subject.

Sorry to abandon the article, but it's really time to go- if things really improve or look like they are about to, I might come back. That board was one of those signs. It still might pass. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I was convinced for some reason that you didn't want it. Oh, well. I'm not sure if the board idea will work or not, but I'd like to see it passed just so it can be given a try. Maybe you should comment on the talk page of the proposed decision page to give your opinion, to give it a little push.

Bte, on the article I have been discussing with Nealparr how to do the attribution thing that SA proposed for FRINGE. Maybe we can sort it out by using a different wording. If you ever return, you can check out how it ended. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, the board is at least worth a try- the main problem would be that members should feel neutral toward the subject if it is fringe. Either that or have opposing views. It would be hard to make that happen. You can point them to what I said above if you like. I'd better not edit as one must go cold turkey on these things. This talk page is different. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I urge you to see the shades of gray in this situation, Martinphi. Administrators are not totally forbidden from considering content in making their decisions. Accounts are blocked for vandalism; whether something is vandalism or not is a content decision. Editors are granted exemptions from 3RR if they're reverting in order to support WP:BLP; whether a given edit is in support of WP:BLP is a content decision. Everything we do on Misplaced Pages, including all admin actions, ultimately has the purpose and effect of determining content. Vassyana sees this current situation differently from the way you do. We have to get used to dealing with people who have different points of view; and to do so helps us grow.
Vassyana is not acting totally alone in this: there was that AN/I discussion, and I believe Vassyana generally has the support of the community in these actions.
Vassyana is not determining the content at the remote viewing page. The content will be determined by the editors discussing it on the talk page. Vassyana has not edited the article nor its talk page.
You said that if an action is considered disruptive for you, then it would be considered disruptive if anyone did it. Actually, editors who have recently been blocked, and I think also editors who are under arbitration restrictions, are judged more strictly than other editors. If you edit carefully and with consideration you can avoid further restrictions and eventually have a record of a long period of editing without restrictions and be able to edit as freely as other editors, who however also have to use care and consideration to avoid being put under such restrictions in the first place.
You can insist that a certain set of rules go the way you want and choose to leave if they don't; that's up to you; but I hope you will show tolerance and flexibility. There are still many things you can do on Misplaced Pages. I hope you'll still find it worthwhile to contribute and I hope you'll stay with us. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 04:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

why leave over a situation on a single article--sure its based on more general things, but you should be able to deal with that--there are many areas within to your current interests where you should be able to work without any particular difficulty, and you're fundamentally a good contributor. We need a diversity of views. DGG (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi, in the end, you are under sanctions from the Arbitration committee that encourage administrators to ban you from articles if they feel there is a problem. Complaining about how it's unfair if you get topic bans when other people don't is inappropriate in the light of these arbitrator sanctions, which encourage administrators to be less lenient to you. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker. This comment may be somewhat insensitive at this time. Perhaps we could all "back off".(olive (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC))

By which I don't mean comments here that are constructive, but those that aren't maybe better left for another time

.(olive (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC))

I've tweaked it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker, I for one think that MartinPhi is acting in good faith. Since he has made what appears to be a fair argument that the sanctions have been unevenly applied, your observations that "Complaining about how it's unfair if you get topic bans when other people don't is inappropriate ..." would seem to be an expression of a personal opinion that does not actually help the situation.Tom Butler (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, AGF please. Something has gone wrong on several levels when a thread starts with Misplaced Pages is about getting along and segues into you are clearly here to cause trouble and gloat. Actually Misplaced Pages is not about getting along; social networking sites exist for that. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia. Editors may collaborate while holding different views; a few who are more disruptive than collaborative at certain topics are occasionally restricted from pages--yet the purpose of editorial discussion should not and must not degenerate into ideological wars between opposing camps. Shoemaker asked me to review his statement for possible refactor; I hope the new version is more amenable. I also hope, Tom, that you'll consider a refactor of your own comment: first you attribute an unwholesome motive and aim to Shoemaker (that he attempts to run Martinphi off) and then you actually attempt to run Shoemaker off. This is Martinphi's user talk. If somebody is no longer welcome here Martinphi can express that himself. Otherwise, please collaborate with congenial dialog. Durova 20:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Shoemaker's new version is more reasonable. Virtually all of my contacts with him have been when he has been being "... very, very bold...". As with a couple other editors, my response is a learned behavior. I will be happy to change the terminology to a less aggressive version. ... Done. Tom Butler (talk) 22:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Durova 23:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why I'm leaving

People are asking why I'd leave over a little thing. It's not about the page banning by Vassyana. That was merely the last straw, since it is impossible to edit when you might get banned when someone disagrees with you about what the sources say. I'm leaving because of the fact that Misplaced Pages has failed to cope with its debunkers.

If you look at the recent history of Psychic, you will see some edits which would up till a few months ago have been reverted immediately, by me or another editor. They're not just POV, they're incorrect and obviously so (to anyone familiar at all with the paranormal). But they have not been reverted, because NPOV editors have abandoned the paranormal section of the wiki.

DGG has expressed the problem much more eloquently than I in the past, so he knows what it is: debunking is not NPOV. I'm leaving because I'm the last of my breed.

If anyone wants to get together five or 8 dedicated NPOV editors who don't puke every time they hear of a paranormal topic, and be on those articles every day to make sure they don't become vehicles for debunking, then that's fine. They don't have to believe in the topics, they just have to present the sources available in an NPOV way. I am about the last active editor willing to let paranormal topics speak for themselves without pushing the reader one way or another by whatever means necessary. I would rather the reader come to their own conclusions based on presentation of both sides of a case, rather than presenting primarily one side of things, or using wording which decides for the reader.

"Skeptics are brutal and they use tactics that can be at best described as cruel. They do not shy away from using any rhetorical technique necessary to get their point across."

I have been through two very nasty ArbComs where the debunkers tried to take me out by any means, fair or foul. I am under sanction now mostly because I lost it one time when Parapsychology became a featured article. I blasted Raul, who was acting as the usual debunker "Parapsychology is a belief system not a science and so we'll put it in the religion category." He then abused his admin powers, using them in that dispute to protect the page. That was another last straw for me, and I said it like it really was: I said he was abusing his power. He subsequently lost his bid to remain on the ArbCom because other editors experienced similar actions of his.

Look at the last edit on the Paranormal Project talk page: it's from 16 June, and says "War on the UFO article, Talk page" Before that it was 24 May 2008.

The debunkers have driven us from the wiki.

When there is only one NPOV editor, or two, in a whole section of the wiki, and many debunkers, it's time for those NPOV editors to leave, if they have done all they can to call in outside help. I have been attempting to do that for months, by the interview I did, policy discussions, etc. No one has come (Maybe Ludwigs2, but that's only one). Thus, it is time to leave.

Misplaced Pages has utterly failed to resist this situation. If it ever changes, then I may be back. If it every finds a mechanism to get rid of debunking without having admins rule on content, then that would work. The sources board is promising, but WP is really not close to solving the situation. The debunkers are too clever, they will always be around, and I don't want to fight them any more. Sticking around to be the only NPOV editor in the paranormal is not a situation I relish. I know of plenty of NPOV editors, many of them skeptics, but they just won't help, and I need at least five to edit with.

Please if you see anyone else trolling me, just ignore it. I could have just reverted if you all hadn't replied. Thanks for the the sentiment of defending though. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And for anyone who wants an intro to just the kind of thing that goes on: look here . The IP is really good (it's not me). That's exactly what my edit was moving toward, and why I can't edit there anymore- I knew this about the sources (that they aren't nearly as negative as portrayed), and was using them in this way. ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Quit the Wiki and Run lyrics

How sophomoric...

Paul H. Smith (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

MartinPhi -- contact

Martinphi, if you're still around, please get in touch with me extra-Wiki through my website at www.rviewer.com

Best, Paul Paul H. Smith (talk) 20:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sanction modified to add conditional suspension

Per community discussion, the community imposed sanction recorded here has been modified to include a conditional suspension provision, such that if one of the two affected editors is inactive for a significant length of time, that sanction will be suspended until both affected editors are actively editing. GRBerry 21:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A Note for MartinPHI

You don't know me as the topics you edit I don't really follow, and I only know you from sitting for months reading the exchanges between a certain dude you are well acquainted with (I wished I could've said something then, but I'm not a Wiki Lawyer, nor even comfortable in this medium). My issue with that dude is over science issues and conduct, so can understand your situation pretty well. But want to make a public statement (probably an act of war with the other side, this is how childish it has become): if you need some moral support, I'm available. This political war between the debunkers and the parapsychology wings has gone on too long, and it's affecting the quality of articles of Misplaced Pages. It won't stop, but I agree with you, a more hospitable editing environment is needed -- thus, I'm around to help if and when you return. You lasted this long, and a real hero especially against all the roadblocks placed, and I hope you'll return refreshed to tackle editing again. So much has said over those months (imagine the third party reading these exchanges!), but I remember your commentary the most, and feel you really do try to work with the other side (despite all this nitpicking and HEY MODDING). FResearcher (talk) 22:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very kind of you, and it is very much appreciated (-: ——Martin ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist

The Arbitration Committee has rendered decisions passing a motion to apply discretionary sanctions remedies to the case linked above. Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict ("articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted") if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.

The final text of the motions can be found at the case page linked above.

— Coren  for the Arbitration Committee, 14:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

1. The zeroeth law of >Misplaced Pages. See Raul's laws.