Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Srikeit (talk | contribs) at 05:57, 8 June 2006 (RFCU clerk). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• Archive 1 (February 8 to May 5, 2006)
• Archive 2 (through June 5, 2006)

Thank you

Thank you for all your effort on Seckel entry. I am trying to send you a very brief reply to Seckel's boldfaces, but I am unable to copy it. I will try again.Tmciver 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Seckel is now showing his true colors, threatening to sue unless the "previous" (his) version is restored. I wanted a vanilla version all along, which was why I requested AFD.

Re Popoff: Yes, Seckel was running SCS at the time. But the investigation, in San Francisco, was Randi's, was sponsored by CSICOP's CSER. The "God's Freq." article referred to was written by Seckel himself, and published by CSICOP. SCS is not mentioned. There is no mention of direct participation by Seckel because there was none, though elsewhere (as in his wikipedia acount) he implied otherwise. See Randi's accounts. The amicus brief: I stand by my facts. I was involved myself. Gell-Mann and Lehmann have published accounts. The article Seckel refers to was written by Seckel himself, not co-authored with Lehmann. The brief itself was credited to Lehmann and other lawyers, and is written about widely. Shermer wrote his article (in STHV) before forming Skeptics Soc., and believed Seckel's version. I *do* have the cite. He knows better now. I told Pat Linse about Shermer's article; she told him about Seckel, and Linse and Shermer began a partnership at his new Skeptics Society. I was then added as a contributing editor. Re Darwin fish: I go with the published accounts. The court records would be useful. Re illness: I never doubted that Seckel entered the hospital. I merely pointed out there has been no documentation of leukemia presented, which is a fact. Seckel here directly accuse me of libel. I stand by my statement that SCS's collapse was due to mismanagement and preceded this, regardless of how long it existed on paper. Re Seckel's articles: I have Seckel's articles too, and can provide them. Plus sources they are based upon. Re Seckel's book citations: I specifically said they were "accurate." I added that there were claims of "forthcoming" books in his Contemp Authors entry that were never published. This is fact. Re magician: I specifically said he was NOT listed as co-author, and Seckel was listed as sole author. In fact that was the point. Re Feynman: Of the huge number of works about him, Seckel cites one mention in the acknowledgements of just one. The letter from Feynman's secretary says: "As soon as I had my information I told Feynman, who dropped Al immediately (he really disliked a phony)." I can provide a copy, plus the original. Re Pearce Williams: Seckel accuses me of "fabricating" his letter—an extremely serious accusation. I can provide a copy, plus the original. It postdates the lecture Seckel refers to. In the letter he says "For years, I have warned Al Seckel that he was misrepresenting himself but he paid no heed to me." Also: "He immediately latched onto me like a puppy dog. It is an absolute lie that I ever said, publicly or privately, that Al was my best student. In fact, he was never technically a student of mine at all! He never took an examination from me, he never wrote a paper for me nor did he even show me through oral communication that he was anything but a dilettante who could fake knowledge of history of science fairly well." And more, ending like this: "One of the reasons I broke off contact with Al was that I began to suspect that he was defrauding me. I know for a fact that he has withheld money that he owes one of my children for some seven years now. Not being a lawyer, and being rather simple-minded, I would call this theft. You may use this letter in any way you wish and have my permission to show it to anyone. I hope it has been of some use to you." Re Caltech affiliation: I said he was not listed in the directory, and that the University did not answer inquiries about his affiliation. I know he had some lab affiliation, which was my point: why then no official directory listing? I e-mailed one of the labs but did not phone. I did not claim misrepresentation about lab affiliation, but rather his earlier claim of being a Caltech grad student on the verge of a PhD. Re SCS audit: Shneour claimed CSICOP performed an audit of SCS. When I asked CSICOP, they denied this, saying someone *else* did the audit. When I told this to Shneour he threatened to sue me if I asked any more about it. There was no audit.

Tom McIverTmciver 17:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I see Seckel is continued to pump it out on the Seckel entry discussion site. For anyone interested in finding out about him, they should contact Pat Linse, or Michael Shermer himself (who Shneour's letter is addressed to). I am glad Seckel made that letter public, for I knew of attempted intimidation but had no documentation. Now Shneour calls it an "informal" audit. What it was, was figures Seckel showed to Shneour, who believed him. My admittedly strange point about wishing to include the LA Times articles is that, though overwhelmingly positive to Seckel, they repeat demonstrably false claims made by Seckel about his credentials. Seckel does not want these sources available. I'd like to remind Seckel that his vociferous supporter Klass (now deceased) contributed huge amounts to Saucer Smear, including defenses of Seckel. AFD, followed by a clean slate and perhaps a vanilla entry written by independent third parties would have been far easier. Please feel free to e-mail or telephone me. I appreciate your suggestions of external criticism pages, but that would be tremendous work and any contributors would be subject to intimidation, perhaps leaving me facing Seckel alone, as in the past. And I too have other things to do. I am not pursuing Seckel, but when his outrageously self-promoting and dishonest entry appeared I could not in good conscience let it stand uncorrected. BTW, in the original entry Seckel boasted of how Shermer's Skeptics Soc. was a continuation of his SCS. This is absolutely false, and was corrected by another editor before I began any editorial involvement. Seckel's dark allegation that I associate with fringe groups such as creationists is most amusing. Anyone is welcome to see my cartoon in Feb 24 Science magazine, in the Holden article about creationism. Or long review of my book on creationism in Nature, 1989 May 25, or article in LA Times about my PhD diss on creationism (1989, forget date). (Tmciver 18:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC).

If you are actually willing to investigate this mess, might I also suggest a science citation search on Seckel, since he claims to be such a scientific authority? For years he boasted of working as research neuroscientist in the labs of both Shin Shimojo and Christof Koch (and he indeed did have some sort of lab affiliation with them). They have authored many hundreds of articles. Surely he is listed as co-author at least on some of these, given his reputation; and given that listed co-authors sometimes include even the test-tube washers. Surely he also has lots of peer-reviewed scientific articles of his own too. I've done these searches myself and know the answer.Tmciver 23:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Note: when I mentioned Contemporary Authors I did not realize there was an updated entry on Seckel. The 1988 entry lists at least two interesting books "in press" or "publication expected." The new entry (2006) lists his illusion books, and does not mention those other two. It gives his credentials as BS from Cornell, 1980, and his address as the Koch lab at Caltech, with a "work in progress" from MIT Press.Tmciver 23:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Will there be a permanent record of Seckel's accusations in the discussion page? I ask because they are clearly libelous and I need a record of them.Tmciver 03:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

What happened to Seckel's threat to sue unless the entry is restored to its "previous" version (i.e. his)? I need a record of that.Tmciver 03:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages entry Pparodies of the Ichthys Symbol (redirected from Darwin Fish)" begins: "The origins of the Darwin fish are in dispute."

I don't know the citation for the Darwin Fish court case, but Seckel v. Blumka is interesting. Seckel's attorney was disciplined for falsely claiming Blumka had fabricated documents. This was when Seckel was involved in antiques schemes (relevant to Pearce Williams' complaint against Seckel).Tmciver 04:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to graciously explain Misplaced Pages usage and policies. I assure I have never in my life ever made a legal threat against anybody. But since Seckel did, in the Misplaced Pages discussion page, I needed to insure there was a record of it, and of his accusations. He is extremely litigious, and has threatened numerous people.

There may be a slight misunderstanding about my recent comments. They are not intended for inclusion in Misplaced Pages, but as responses to some of Seckel’s accusations and to provide context. I don’t want the Blumka case mentioned in the entry, but mention it to you because it illustrates his style. Seckel’s bizarre accusation that I “fabricated” the Pearce William letter to me is what psychologists call ‘projection.’ Linse knows a lot about Seckel and forgery.

I know he had Caltech affilition, and I want that mentioned. I am suggesting it wasn’t what he implied—that Caltech hired him as a neuroscientist faculty member.

Similarly with his peer-reviewed articles, or lack of them. I mentioned this as context for his claim, in Misplaced Pages, to be a renowned research scientist and the “world’s leading authority on visual and other illusions.” Maybe he prefers to present his research in his books. (But how many reviews of them are there in the scientific literature?) I know he lectured at Cornell and elsewhere, and never questioned that.

The entry is now *vastly* better and more accurate than is Seckel’s original version, even with Seckel’s own re-edits. This is due mostly to the editor who did the major cutting, to you, and to me. I never wanted to edit it myself, preferring AFD, but I could not in good conscience allow his dishonest self-promotions to stand uncorrected. I hope my career as a Misplaced Pages contributor is over. I do believe the article list in the entry is ridiculously long. Every leaftlet? Minor articles in local newspapers, about research of others?

The two L.A. Times articles, on the other hand, Seckel does *not* want mentioned, since the include some of his demonstrably false claims. Los Angeles magazine also had a long article about Seckel in July 1988, quoting him extensively. It described him as a “graduate in math and physics from Cornell University.” The NY Times article by Niebuhr, which Seckel does cite, describes him simply as a “physicist.” I would think someone would have to have a physics degree or to have done work in physics to qualify for this label. I assume Misplaced Pages does not define “alumni” as requiring graduation, because Seckel is listed in the select group of Cornell alums.

Since Seckel has focused on Saucer Smear in his accusations, let me explain a bit. The passage I quoted from the Psychical Research journal included the phrase “(Moseley 1991).” You asked what this was a reference to, and I replied. As I mentioned, Klass of CSICOP has written scores of items for Saucer Smear, as have other CSICOPers; and CSICOP’s own publishing arm published Moseley’s book, which his largely about his Smear career. I consider Saucer Smear largely a gossip and humor newsletter, but that does not preclude the occasional bit of real information. (I published an investigative piece in it about appropriation of Nazi painting and sculpture in some flying saucer publications.) The only published claim (by Klass) that an audit was done of SCS was made in: Saucer Smear! Comically, Klass told me Shneour did it, but Shneour claims CSICOP did it, and CSICOP asserts some one else did it. Not so comically, Shneour threatened to sue me for looking into this discrepancy and trying to verify the existence of the audit.Tmciver 15:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

As with the points above, I never questioned the fact that Seckel was a “judge” and “sponsor” at the illusion contest. I did mean to suggest the wording “sponsored the contest” was misleading, as it implied this was based on scientific status. So it changed it to “a sponsor of the contest.” This means he provided money for part of the prizes. Misha Sedgwick is eligible to be a sponsor, or Saucer Smear, if they put up the money.

And to clarify about Feyman: I never questioned the fact that Seckel had a relationship with him. I did state that it was not as Seckel described.

I fully understand the policy concerning “negative information,” and I’m sure you understand my frustration regarding inadmissibility of certain “original research.” The neg info policy resembles the skeptics adage that “unusual claims require unusual evidence.” The obverse, relevant here, is that even ordinary information from known liars may warrant suspicion or “citation needed.”Tmciver 16:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

addtional comments made on the archive moved here

• A few things I want to be on record, though I do not want to reply to Seckel on the Discussion page.

Seckel writes: "THIS IS ANOTHER FALSE AND LIBELOUS STATEMENT WITH NO BACKING UP. I have not published any published work with any other magician. Nor was one listed. Articles that were listed by me (in my list) cited all co-authors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.215.109.78 (talk • contribs) ." To which is added: "And I have not acted on it. Thatcher131 15:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)."

Seckel's comment here is itself false and libelous. I never said he published a work listing a magician as co-author. In fact that was my point.

Seckel writes: "THIS AGAIN IS TOTALLY UNVERIFIABLE. When McIver originally made these claims to the editors of the newspapers they asked him to back his claims. He could not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.215.109.78 (talk • contribs) ."

No newspaper editor ever contacted me. I contacted the Santa Monica editor, and backed up my claim. Her introduction to Seckel's lecture was filled with misleading and dishonest claims. When I asked her about this, she said Seckel gave her a scripted sheet to read from verbatim, written by Seckel himself. By such means Seckel can pretend that he does not himself make claims such as the false credentials. Also, I never called Seckel's lab, contrary to his accusation.

Seckel writes: "I try to make this world a better place by creating positive and good things, not disparaging others. It is disheartening to me, and I hope that you can understand, that someone is obsessed with trying to rob me of my intellectual creativity, intellectual background, and other achievements in a totally negative way by constantly slandering and libeling me to colleagues and friends." The first sentence is laughable, given his record of legal intimidation, credit hogging, and smearing of critics. The second sentence is libelous. Tmciver 23:39, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I see Seckel has inserted refs and such. He cites Newton (LA Times May 5, 1985), which is one of the articles I mentioned to you. On p. 1, Newton writes that Seckel is a "graduate of Cornell in physics and math, who took leave from Caltech, where he was a candidate for doctoral degress in both relativistic astrophysics and biochemistry." This article was reprinted as an SCS flyer. According to Misplaced Pages policy I can add this statement of his credentials to the entry, as it comes from a reliable published source, already cited.

A Smithsonian article by Doug Stewart, "Wheels go round and round, but always run down," quotes and features Seckel, among others, describing him as a "physicist" (p. 205).

My notes from Seckel's 5-25-88 lecture at Santa Monica News office include his statement: "I am a physicist." And, "I work on...DNA." He was introduced (see above) as currently "pursuing a doctorate in physics and molecular biology at Caltech." Exact quotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmciver (talk • contribs)

WP:RFCU clerk comment

As a personal recommendation, you may want to withdraw part of your comment in WP:RFCU#User:Rex071404 that is marked as a clerk note about needing more evidence. Not that I don't agree with you that they shouldn't request again w/o more evidence, but I said a very similar thing on a different one that was in a comment with a clerk tag. Essjay removed it with a comment about not doing that in the edit history. Kevin_b_er 00:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

RFCU chat

Do you by chance use AIM? Prodego & I are doing real-time work on the RFCU thing, and we'd like to add you in if you can. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Al Seckel entry

Do you think there is a need to delete some revisions of the page or talk pages in light of the messgae at the noticeboard? If so, I can do that, my feeling is better safe than sorry, and it can always be undone. -- Kim van der Linde 03:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Some of the comments are pretty corrosive, and some definitely contain legal threats. Do you have to delete every version after a problem statement, too, or can you delete individual contribs so they don't show up in successive versions? Thatcher131 03:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to look at that. The fast way is to delete everything, restore the last version (I have actually see Jimbo doing that to eliminate all libel in another article, but that article has started again from scratch after that), and take my time to figure out which versions are acceptable. See me more as an assistant in this situation as I think potential libel needs to be weeded out ASAP. (And I have watchlisted your page, so respond here if you want). -- Kim van der Linde 03:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I just did some sandbox testing, and you need to delete every entry that contains the libel, untill it was removed. -- Kim van der Linde 03:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I archived the whole article talk page by page move, (Talk:Al Seckel/Archive 1) so the current talk page is clean (so far). In the old page this is where Seckel calls McIver disturbed and complains about libel. A little earlier, this is where McIver accuses Seckel of misrepresenting his academic credentials and of fraud. I suppose you should nuke everything after McIver's first edit. After that its basically me trying to explain the rules and them making accusations. Thatcher131 03:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, lets explain it at the talk page there, and do it, it can always be restored if people disagree. -- Kim van der Linde 04:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

All right, if you would do the deletion and then write an explanation, or I will write one and would you please co-sign or endorse. We can point them to DRV (won't that be fun). Thatcher131 04:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In that light, what you can do is delete actively everything that is libel of the current version and mark it such that it is clear that some stuff has been removed. That would save the content that is made after that entry as a wholesome enry at the end. So, I will delete that first entry of him, and delete the entries in between those two immediatly afterwards. -- Kim van der Linde 04:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• That'll take a stich or too. Let you know. Thatcher131 04:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I wait for that....-- Kim van der Linde 04:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If you delete everything in after Mackensen (where he closed the Afd) and up to "I think this version is clean" we should be ok. Thanks a lot!!!!Thatcher131 04:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Have a look, it looks now if you have entered most, I will make a note atb the top to explain. -- Kim van der Linde 04:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I left a lot of contentiousness but the real dangerous stuff is gone, I think. Thanks for your help. Thatcher131 04:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If there is more, just let me know at my talk page, and I can do it again. Was there a same issue with the actual article also or did I get that wrong? -- Kim van der Linde 04:54, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe the article is clean (so far). The edits that were made to the article were of the nature "X is untrue" whereas the talk page said, "I know X is untrue because I spoke with Mr. A who said Seckel is a <very bad unproveable accusation>." I'll review in the morning to make sure. My own talk page may also be a problem. (McIver's been talking to me directly too, although Seckel doesn't seem to realize it yet.) I'll review in the morning as well. If I need help, I'll clean it up like we did here and send you a start/end diff. Thanks for everything. Thatcher131 05:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that will do. Sleep well! -- Kim van der Linde 05:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

RFCU clerk

Hi Thatcher,

I have just recently volunteered as a clerk at WP:RFCU. I see you have been the most active (if not only) clerk at RFCU lately. I have gone through the Clerk's guide & reviewed a few of the past cases, so is there some unwritten rule or advice you can give? Also I see you are quite busy with the subpage archival of the old cases. Anywhere I can help? Thanks. Srikeit 05:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)