Jump to content

User:Σ/Testing facility/TP/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Rick Bronson

WP:PROD says "Be sure you have a valid reason for deletion" and "provide a clear and non-generic reason" and "indicating the article's general subject area or what notability guidelines it falls under is considered good practice" and "Make sure to provide an edit summary that clearly indicates that the article has been proposed for deletion" amongst other advice on how to nominate - I'm not sure how clearer it could be. And no, you cannot re-add the tag - it now needs to go to WP:AFD I'm afraid. If you're unsure how that works please let me know. GiantSnowman 19:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Giant. I don't take reverts personally, I try to use them as a way to understand what I did incorrectly. I think I need a short list of valid reasons for deletion because I thought that being an insubstantial article was evidence enough. I mean, it was a sentence long with all of these external links! Is "it looks like junk" a valid reason? No, that's probably too generic.
What I find puzzling is that there are so many Editors who are a quick draw with Speedy Deletes...they seem to tag dozens of SDs all day long. And I find myself an Inclusionist and usually argue to Keep articles and categories from deletion. But when I find a delete-worthy article, I don't know the right way to get it done. Seriously, I've proposed maybe 3 AfD (over 3 months) and they were all kept. I must be doing something wrong because I wouldn't haven't proposed them unless I thought they would meet the criteria for deletion.
Any way, thanks for explaining it to me. Liz Read! Talk! 20:04, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
A reason as short as "Does not appear to meet notability guidelines" is more than sufficient for PROD purposes - you might also want to take a look at WP:DEL-REASON. GiantSnowman 08:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Much appreciated, Giant. Thank for pointing me in the right direction. Liz Read! Talk! 09:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedians willing to provide third opinions

Hi liz,

I just discovered Category:Wikipedians willing to provide third opinions and immediately thought of you. I know you are busy but I doubt you will get a lot of requests if you list yourself there. Cheers, XOttawahitech (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for thinking of me, Ottawahitech. I've wanted to get involved into some aspect of dispute resolution on Wikipedia. I think I could make a contribution there. But while I've been editing WP, on and off, since 2007, it's just been fixing typos, grammar mistakes and the like and I've only been exploring, in depth, Wikipedia itself since July.
So, I'll look over 3O and maybe in a little while, I'll feel like I have the experience to be useful there. Thanks again, Ottawahitech. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 15:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Requesting comment on Talk:Aaron Swartz

Should a parenthetical comment be inserted in the bio lead saying that Swartz killed himself “just after the second anniversary of his arrest”?

Illustration: “On January 6, 2011, Swartz was arrested.... On January 11, 2013, just after the second anniversary of his arrest, Swartz was found dead....”

(This is my first RfC.) --Dervorguilla (talk) 09:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Dervorguilla! I read over the article text, the remarks already posted and left a comment. It looks like this textual edit has already been made so now it is a matter of Editors arguing for a reversion and I didn't see any such comments. Liz Read! Talk! 16:03, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

UK in BLP

Hi, thanks for taking an interest :) The discussion moved to the editor's talk page (User talk:Narrow Feint) but he seems to be busy at the moment and is only replying sporadically. He has not continued with his editing either, so we'll see how it progresses. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Bretonbanquet. It's frustrating when someone brings a problem to be resolved, everyone weighs with an opinion but nothing happens. Liz Read! Talk! 21:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I think so too! People like to have their say but no decisions are made. Hopefully this will be resolved on the editor's talk page anyway :) Bretonbanquet (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Post-Arbitration Workshop Cool-down

Liz, you forgot to sign your comment under Pre-planned dispute: diff. Ignocrates (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey, it was just that one place, right, Ignocrates? I guess you are both watching that page!
Your answers to the questions seemed a little snippy but I gather it is just coming out of exhaustion about the whole process. But that's how the text read to me. Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry if I seemed a little snippy but you are right about the reason. I'm getting really tired of having my motives impugned all the time. Ignocrates (talk) 22:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Ignocrates, you can be snippy with me. ;-) But I'd advise both you and John Carter not to be snippy with Arbitrators who, for all I know, are all still undecided on this whole case. Liz Read! Talk! 22:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I will try to be more tactful in the future. Btw, do you still agree with this statement? You are getting a small taste of what I have been enduring for 3 years. Maybe that is why I am a little snippy. :0) Ignocrates (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, John had always been civil and respectful to me until now. And I, along with others, have repeatedly asked him to tone down the hostility and while he never paid any attention to us, he also never attacked me. But I think my criticism of his MOS religion guidelines offended him. Liz Read! Talk! 00:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Liz, I found one more. diff You might want to fix it for the record. Sorry I missed this yesterday. Ignocrates (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Damn! Well, there were so many proposals and suggestions to comment on. Thanks for catching my errors. My sig came after the deadline but I hope that ARBCOM can see that it was the only content that was added.
It was time-consuming to go through each suggestion so I can only guess at how many hours you and John have invested in just this one dispute resolution process (and over 3 years, I'm sure it's 100s of hours). Nishidani came in at the last moment with a fair evaluation, I thought, on the content aspects of this dispute which had not received as much attention as it should have. I wish Ret.Prof. and Keilana could have offered their perspectives (along with others who were actually involved in the debates over 2013) but they didn't so ARBCOM will just have to make an evaluation based on the evidence that they do have.
I think it's interesting to see how few of the various parties who have been involved in this persistent discussion over the years chose to participate in ARBCOM proceedings. I think most just want to move past this. Liz Read! Talk! 17:46, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
You can manually backdate the timestamps on the two signatures you added if you want to be more precise.
Nishidani's comment is very helpful because I didn't want to presume to speak for him in my response to the second question. Now the Arbs can see the perspective from both sides.
The deafening silence you detect is not a coincidence. There is an almost tragic aspect to this dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 18:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't want to manually fix the timestamp as, though it is innocent, it could be interpreted as manipulation. I trust ARBCOM can see that the edit was just a matter of crossing Ts and dotting Is.
The tragedy is that there were so many times when this dispute could have deescalated and, well, it didn't. And my direct knowledge is just from July, I had to read up on its history on archived pages to see how long this has been going on. It was certainly a discouraging glimpse into conflict that resists resolution. But, at least now, it's out of all of your hands. Liz Read! Talk! 18:55, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I have a theory about why this didn't de-escalate. Maybe I'll expound on it after all of this is over, if there is any curiosity & I can keep myself from sounding too pretentious. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 21:02, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
As a student of conflict within organizations, I'd love to hear your theory, llywrch, if you could draw abstract insights instead of grounding it in the specific personalities involved. I think it's a combination of an interpersonal relationship conflict and the sensitivity of the content area. How is that for pretentious? ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 21:16, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
My thoughts treat this incident more of an example of a phenomena, than requiring me to mention any one person. I don't think it depends on specific personalities -- well, maybe it does explain mine -- but so no one thinks I'm bad-mouthing anyone, I'm waiting until this is over with before I share it. -- llywrch (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
That sounds great. The more generalized it is, the greater ease there is in applying it to a variety of similar situations (all grounded in the context of history though). Whenever you're ready, llywrch. Liz Read! Talk! 21:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm in as well. There should be lessons learned from this protracted dispute beyond the crime & punishment administered to the involved parties by ArbCom. Ignocrates (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


And, if I may say so, I believe it would really be in your own best interests to review some previous arbitrations. I acknowledge that you seem to have generated in your own head a rather unsupportable conclusion about me, which is rather obvious given some of your edits. But you will find that for instance WP:ARBMAC2#Stalemate solution specifically was an instance of ArbCom requesting involvement of the kind of outside input I am requesting. Particularly for someone who seeks to be an administrator, it would really help to refrain from making statements about what can and can't and should and shouldn't be done until after you make an effort to see if it has or has not been done before. John Carter (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Are you talking to me, John? Why would you assume I wanted to be an administrator? Or are you referring to My very best wishes?
I'm not sure what you mean by "in my own best interests" but I reviewed the Ebionites request for arbitration and Ebionites2 case over the summer when I was trying to sort out what was happening on the Talk Pages and Noticeboards where you and Ignocrates sparred.
As for Arbitration, the deadline is today and I've posted what I've posted. So far, the ARBCOM hasn't paid much attention to the statements I've made, so I don't think my words will have a great effect upon the proceedings, especially compared to your own words. Any further comments I make will be regarding the proposed decisions, if I choose to participate in that discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Um, at some point you said you wanted to be an administrator. And I find the borderline hysteria of the comment about how I might be talking to Mvbw laughable. I'm not sure if you have bothered to review the recent discussion on his user talk page, which you apparently haven't, between me and him, but you will find that I suggested to him maybe doing some translations of Russian material. But, I guess, you didn't review such, did you, and you have taken his declarations based on his own prejudicial views of the Falun Gong 2 arbitration at face value. If you are not planning to seek adminship, though, then perhaps you should feel free to continue to make the sort of poorly researched and judgmental comments you seem to at least in my eyes enjoy making about others. And you apparently didn't review the talk pages of Jayjg, or Dougweller, or any of the other pages I had linked to in my evidence page, where a lot of the problematic conduct took place, which is also relevant. Poor research, and drawing conclusions based on poor research, is actually something I would have not expected from an academic or a former librarian. John Carter (talk) 22:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
John, you offer some wise advice here which I try to follow. I suggest you take your own words to heart. Peace. Liz Read! Talk! 16:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
May I suggest that you perhaps read them more fully, so that you might "take to heart" the actual words I said, as opposed to a personal spin of the comments I said in applying them to situations they did not address. I note that I was referring to article talk pages, and this is not an article talk page as per WP:TPG, which specifically applies to article talk pages - there is a difference, even if you don't seem to recognize it. Also, you seem to believe that my indicating you did insufficient research, and that such a statement is somehow a "personal attack," as per my own earlier comment, really can't help but call into question your research even more. Saying someone has demonstrated poor judgment is not necessarily a personal attack. I hope in time you may come to understand that. John Carter (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, Liz, based on your comments at Ebionites 3 Workshop, I'd say you are insightful about other people & have a level head on your shoulders; you would make a fine Admin -- if you want to be one. (Nothing wrong if you don't want the mop; Wikipedia could use more mediators, too.) And I'm speaking as someone who has contributed to Wikipedia fairly regularly (except for an 18 month break) since late October 2002. -- llywrch (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
I vote for mediator. Liz, you would be awesome. Imagine the concept - people getting together who actually want to work out a dispute. Ignocrates (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, thanks, llywrch and Ignocrates, for your kind words. My attempts to mediate this case over the summer were spectacularly unsuccessful but, then, I had no idea going in how longstanding this grudge was and I spent quite a few days reading over archived Talk Pages and ARBCOM decisions just trying to identify the sticking points and the "players". But I was in over my head.
Mediating is more appealing to me than doling out blocks, and it doesn't require Admin status. I think a problem with ARBCOM is that, like a law court, it looks for violations of conduct and hands out sanctions and admonishments, it's a very blunt tool for resolving conflict and can be scarring. I'm more interested in assessing what each party's goal is and seeing how much everyone can accommodate each other (all according WP policies and guidelines, of course). This process involves an acceptance by everyone that they won't get "their way" 100% and not every person will agree to those terms. That is why I'd bet that most conflicts on WP are resolved by one party just saying, "Enough" and leaving. Liz Read! Talk! 19:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
If you wish to engage in "mediation," I believe your best option would be to actually do something you have not, so far as I can see, necessarily done, and maybe become active at the dispute resolution noticeboard or similar venues, where you can perhaps pick up some experience in mediation. John Carter (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Why I reverted your edit to science fiction fandom

Joss has a lot of fans in the looser, broader sense; but he has never ever been a member of actual SF fandom. He never came to conventions, never pubbed a fanzine, etc. His contact with fandom has been as a showrunner, writer-producer, etc., after he started creating genre television; not as an actual fan. Contrast this to somebody like Harlan Ellison, Marion Zimmer Bradley, or Damon Knight, who were fans first and pros afterward. Just sayin'. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC) (This has nothing to do with my attitude towards Joss' shows; see my userboxen on that matter.)

And Isaac Asimov was a big ol' fanboy, Orange Mike? Liz Read! Talk! 14:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Okay, I saw your User Page and see your scifi cred. ;-) L.
Isaac was part of the original New York fan scene, certainly! He was one of the naughty leftists excluded from the 1st World Science Fiction Convention by the Great Exclusion Act, perhaps the earliest major fan feud. Remember: the article science fiction fandom is about people involved in the active culture of SF fandom, not the kind of "fan" who is a passive media culture consumer rather than a participant in a fandom. A "fanboy" might never do anything but watch a show or maybe collect action figures, a very different model of behavior. (And please, don't call it "scifi"!) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, Orange Mike, I tip my hat to the depth of your knowledge about SF fan culture. Thanks for being understanding about my mistake. Liz Read! Talk! 15:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment

As you previously participated in related discussions you are invited to comment at the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/RfC for AfC reviewer permission criteria. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. Much appreciated. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 17:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Nothing more to say

The Tumbleman AE is the second time I happen to see you make an astute comment as you did on Risker's talk page... Nothing to say but to support the comments in both places. Thanks for the great work.(olive (talk) 18:38, 16 October 2013 (UTC))

Thanks, olive. I'm uninvolved in the Sheldrake discussion but I went over to the Talk Page several times to read through the discussion over the past three weeks. I see the polarity that I've noted in previous discussion between skeptics and sympathizers. While I didn't follow all of Tumbleman's arguments and comments, he shouldn't be turned into a scapegoat for what is a very uncivil and heated conversation. This minor sock incident and some old message board comments from 2005 have been brought up and it's grounds for an indefinite block? Sometimes, to the casual observer, it seems like AN, AN/I and ARBCOM are just a means for driving Editors who one disagrees with off of Wikipedia. And the more I dig into the ARBCOM case files, well, I see the same names come up again and again and again. Liz Read! Talk! 22:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I've been participating in the chaotic mess that is the Rupert Sheldrake biography. I guess you could say that I'm a Sheldrake supporter. I got into it because someone requested it of me due to my strong subject knowledge. But it is useless there. The arguments have nothing to do with good scholarship and everything to do with turf wars. I have tried to be civil, but the abuse and bullying is just endless. I end up being terse. I have dealt with a lot of skeptics over time and these are by far some of the worst I've ever encountered.Craig Weiler (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, Craig Weiler, it's important to know that there has been an ongoing struggle on Wikipedia between skeptics and sympathizers since at least 2006 (that's the first Arbitration case I came across). There is one group of skeptics that targets what they judge to be pseudoscience and a similar group that targets new religious movements (like Scientology or Transcendental Meditation). The goal is to convince others, hopefully influential Editors, that a specific theory, opinion or viewpoint is "fringe". Once that is accomplished, you can ridicule it and marginalize it all you like.
Since the body of the world's scientists or theologians don't gather together to debate these matters, it all becomes a race for sources that back up what you believe to be true. Instead of swords, people pull out references and duel with them. You would think the least painful resolution for all concerned would be compromise but it's become a matter of ideology so people consider this a matter of TRUTH (WP:But it's true!) so Editors are reluctant to back down from their entrenched positions.
From what I can gather, the most common way for disagreements on contentious subjects to be settled on Wikipedia is:
  1. outnumber your opponent by bringing in reinforcements
  2. overwhelm them with data/references and ask them to refute each one
  3. get them kicked off of WP for 3Rs or edit warring
  4. someone gets frustrated, angry and gets bounced off WP for launching a personal attack or
  5. you wear your opponent down until they get tired of the fight and leave
Wikipedia is people and people have virtues and vices so Wikipedia does, too. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
That about sizes up what I've seen so far. This is all going to blow up in Wikipedia's face. Liz, how long have you been editing on Wikipedia if I may ask?Craig Weiler (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't know about that, Craig, Wikipedia has weathered full-on scandals that were pretty enormous and it still survives. That's one of the advantages of having a decentralized organization, individuals can leave (or be kicked out) while new users are just signing up. And English Wikipedia is just one of the hundreds of Wikis. I'm sure there are huge problems on Wikis in different languages that most of us aren't even aware of.
As for me, there is a little bit of information about me on my User page. I first created a registered account in 2007 but I chose to mostly edit logged out, as an IP, because I didn't really want to engage with other users, I just wanted to fix typos and grammar mistakes when I saw them and move on. It's only since July 2013 that I've really become a full participant here but it's been quite an immersion! Liz Read! Talk! 00:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to imply that it would crush Wikipedia, only create a great deal of trouble for it. Watching the Trial of Tumbleman I can only marvel at how completely this group of ideologues has captured Wikipedia. That, not the Sheldrake web page, will be the main source of trouble because it's an indication that the entire system is broken.Craig Weiler (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I guess my point is this is not the first time there has been a dust-up like this. I don't know if there was ever a time when the system wasn't "broken". Conflict happens every day in a collaborative environment. Most times, it is peacefully resolved through the passage of time (you make an edit, I come by a week later and edit the same page, someone else comes by later that day and edits my work) but there are occasions when an article like Sheldrake becomes a focal point for a much larger debate on what is legitimate knowledge and what is not. For the participants, the stakes are high and it goes far beyond Sheldrake himself. Right now, the article is on a 3 day lock-down, which means no one can edit it and hopefully, people talk to each other instead of warring over edits. Liz Read! Talk! 00:27, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
There is not a chance in hell of people working together. This parapsychology stuff just sets the skeptics off too much. The history of parapsychology, which dates to the late 1800's is full of this kind of behavior from detractors from the very beginning. Irrational, ideologue, rude, nasty authoritative: everything happening on the Sheldrake page is the mirror of a history that stretches back 130 years. The skeptics are all frightened by something so deep in their subconscious that they're not even aware of it and they fight like hell to keep it that way.
I know that it's tempting to view both sides as heads and tails of the same coin. It's easy and it seems to make sense until you realize one side is purely reactionary and the other side isn't reactionary at all. Wikipedia is like a warm, comfortable blanket for skeptics; it has boundaries; rules, authority and procedures. It's their virtual playground and prison. They can be kings here, but leaving means giving up their Wikipedia kingdom and starting over.
By contrast the very thing that draws them in repels the people on the other side of the debate. Unlike them, we can never stop seeing the prison bars, nor can we stay in a perpetual state of hate and fear, constantly motivated to fight the smallest battles, which is why they always win in places like this, but are slowly losing in the world at large.Craig Weiler (talk) 04:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Very insightful analysis, Craig Weiler. I don't judge people by their beliefs but on how they treat other people so my sympathies lie with those who can remain civil and who strive overcome any bitterness or animosity they might feel towards those who are different from them. As for the two camps in this debate, I think they have such dramatically different worldviews. But I think Wikipedia should reflect them both. Liz Read! Talk! 15:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
@Liz: Your idea that Tumbleman might have gone to a mediation is a good one and one that would help retain valuable editors. In my mind we should always be looking for ways to keep people rather than ways to get rid of them. The missing ingredient in this case was that Tumbleman was one of many on that talk page as you've said, and that he is a relatively inexperienced editor. How does an intelligent person react to the heated, often illogical arguments presented with out the experience to see what the outcomes can be given the Wikipedia environment? What do they feel they have to do in desperation as they try to have their points heard. There are those who understand and have the experience to manipulate the system in favour of a world view. I believe this encyclopedia is collaborative, that behaviours that are deliberate attempts to damage other editors and get rid of them are the most egregious and in the long run the most dangerous to the collaborative environment, and to Wikipedia. A friend wise friend once told me he doubted Wikipedia over time could sustain the kind of negatively driven environment this kind of editor created. I hope he's right.:O)(olive (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC))
You sound like the voice of experience, olive. I don't have any magic answers to your question. I know that it is important to listen to others, hear their concerns and address the ones that you believe have merit. I think it's also important not to react out of anger but I know how hard it is to refrain from snapping back when one feels attacked or belittled. The best one can do is try and learn from ones mistakes.
You do point out a problem I see, which seems like wikilawyering to me (although I'm not sure if that is the correct term). There are those Editors who are very smart about the way to file complaints, who have allies who are Admins, who are ready to back up any claim with a "diff" and if an inexperienced (and even some experienced) users run afoul of them, good luck! They are very effective at mustering support for whatever they propose because they know the system well while most newbies don't even know the WP jargon, what a noticeboard is or that in a defense of their actions they can't be sarcastic, flippant or angry (which, frankly, is a standard internet response).
They begin at a disadvantage that is difficult to overcome and becomes impossible if the complainant is able to get them labeled a "troll", "vandal", "sock", "puppet" or the nebulous "disruptive Editor". Whether these identifications are valid or invalid, these labels are almost impossible to shake and they follow a user even if they quit WP, go away for a few years and then return under a different username. If someone connects them to a maligned, previous account (and they haven't acknowledged this on their User Page), the typical response seems to be an automatic block.
It's ironic for a medium that is constantly changing, second by second, edited by tens of thousands of people, that it also seems to be unable to forget and forgive. Regarding its users, WP has a long, long memory. Liz Read! Talk! 16:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi Liz, if you have any interest in this area you are touching on here, and have a few minutes, could you look at my essay WP:POV Railroad and give any feedback or comments you may have, on the essay talk page? Thanks in advance. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I have a lot of tabs open right now, Keithbob, but I'll look over it sometime today. ;-) Liz Read! Talk! 19:18, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata weekly summary #80

Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 19:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 October 2013

Regarding recent events

Hello, I appreciate many of the points you made at the Tumbleman AE. I would only say that it was not the right place to make those points. I was surprised that Tumbleman had supporters at all, since I don't think he makes anyone look good. The issue of his trolling/socking history elsewhere is telling (and still recent), but the AE case didn't require it. It was based on activity that extended a month prior to the "event" which brought an influx of Sheldrake supporters leading to the present situation.

What was this "event"? It was this. If you want to understand what is really going on with the Sheldrake article, that link is the place to start. One person had blogged about crazy conspiracy theories, and then Sheldrake himself bought into the conspiracies and expanded upon them on his blog. Tumbleman had harassed me about it on my talk page. It's all nuts.

And the propaganda continues. Take a look at this post which says, "The Tumbleman has been banned for a week supposedly for creating a sockpuppet account that never appeared on the Sheldrake page." The blogger had to have gotten that information from the SPI, where it plainly says that one sock had zero edits. The blogger doesn't mention the other two socks who participated in the Sheldrake page to support Tumbleman (the only thing they did as editors). This kind of brazen dishonesty continues to astound me.

I value your perspective in these Sheldrakian matters, which is why I want you to be informed about the absurd propaganda that's part of all this. vzaak (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, vzaak, since that Sheldrake Talk Page had over 100 edits/day, I stopped keeping up with the conversation over the weekend. I appreciate you approaching me politely as I'm coming from an opposing viewpoint to yours. I will look into those comments that you're sharing. I was not aware there were other socks associated with Tumblemen who participated in the Sheldrake discussion, that wasn't indicated in Tumbleman's SPI. And I see newly created accounts arguing pro- and anti-Sheldrake so I think there are socks on both sides. Without seeing your evidence, from where I'm standing now, it looks like an united effort was made to drive off an Editor that some others found annoying. And I find that tactic chilling.
You will prove me 100% wrong if it turns out that those who are skeptical of Sheldrake can work constructively with those who support him to come up with a biography that has a NPOV. If I see other users receiving blocks for expressing their opinions, well, I guess I called it right. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Liz Read! Talk! 18:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Tumbleman asked me to make some sort of comment on his behalf. I'll be brief. He was cleared of sockpuppetry, so this is a non issue. He had no sockpuppets on the Sheldrake page. Rupert Sheldrake himself has been banging the drum for something to be done on Wikipedia for some time now, so because of his influence and reach, he is the most likely sources of new supporters. I first heard from him, not the other way around.Craig Weiler (talk) 19:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
I'll have to check, Craig, but I thought the situation sounded contrived. Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)It cannot be emphasized strongly enough that WP:NPOV does not require us to treat fringe theories as equal in scientific regard to the mainstream of actual present-day science, be they indigo children, flat earth, scientific creationism or morphic resonance. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Orange Mike (and everyone else), Sheldrake's article is a biography, it is not a page on Theories of Morphic Resonance. Of course the man's ideas need to be included but the bulk of the article should be factual, about Sheldrake's life and work. Within an article like this, of course, it can be stated that the science community doesn't accept certain ideas. But at most, this is a paragraph or two of the entire article. You can present someone's work without saying, "and this is TRUE" or "this is FALSE". It just is. Present who the man is and let the reader pass judgment. Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Liz, we do not give extra legitimacy to pseudoscience by not putting it in context with respect to the most respectable sources. That's contrary to Fringe and WP:MEDRS (where applicable). It's quite frankly irrelevant that its a biography. Fringe theories don't get a free ride just because they are in a biography, we aren't writing hagiographies, sourced criticism with due weight can be included. Including reliably sourced claims can never be a BLP violation. Following from your view, we would barely mention that Andrew Wakefield work is regarded as fraudulent and that was never accepted by the scientific/medical community, or the refutations by the scientific/medical community, but rather focus on the claims he made. That would be a very dangerous way of writing that article. When a topic is not independently notable from the main protagonist (Sheldrake), then that topic is described in the persons article, as is currently done. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It's a question of focus. A biography should be focused on the subject first, their work, second. One can present Sheldrake's ideas in the context of talking about the legacy of his work and mention that they are not highly regarded without trashing the person. I believe that encyclopedias should be descriptive, not prescriptive. I'm just arguing for this:
  • Tone: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement."
  • Balance: "Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral."
  • Where BLP applies: "BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, persondata, and article titles." Wikipedia:BLP
  • Fringe: "A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea..." (and this is a BLP article, not an article about a "mainstream idea")
  • Fringe: "And for writers and editors of Wikipedia articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality."
  • Unwanted promotion: "The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article."
  • Evaluating claims: "Such claims may contain or be followed by qualifiers to maintain neutrality....but restraint should be used with such qualifiers to avoid giving the appearance of an overly harsh or overly critical assessment. This is particularly true within articles dedicated specifically to fringe ideas: Such articles should first describe the idea clearly and objectively, then refer the reader to more accepted ideas, and avoid excessive use of point-counterpoint style refutations."
  • Notability versus acceptance : "Wikipedia is not a place to right great wrongs. Fringe theories may be excluded from articles about scientific topics when the scientific community has ignored the ideas. However, ideas should not be excluded from the encyclopedia simply because they are widely held to be wrong. By the same token, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy." Wikipedia:FRINGE
What I see here is a lot of guidance that stresses "neutrality". Editors can point out that a theory is not widely-supported by the scientific community (which is neutral) and not describe an idea as "fraudulent" or portray an individual and his theories as absurd (which is a judgment and is not neutral). What I also see is that most of the guidelines are about presenting fringe ideas in the context of an article on a mainstream subject...that is not the case here when the article is about a person. Liz Read! Talk! 18:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Excellent points Liz. While WP:FRINGE is an important guideline for the encyclopedia it is often misapplied as you are pointing out here. This exuberance for the skeptical point of view is becoming quite strong on WP as the skeptic movement is actively campaigning on the web to enlist and recruit WP editors to further their national agenda.[1] [2]-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I read over the Fringe Noticeboard today, Keithbob, and found it really depressing. It's a very lop-sided discussion board, the participants seem to be in agreement that the goal is to get theories they find unacceptable to be identified as "fringe" and then they can be mocked. It seems like the view of the world is very black and white there. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Liz, I have quoted you from this talk page in a recent blog post. While I chose quotes to make a certain point, I made sure to include enough information to avoid making it appear as if you were endorsing one side or the other.Craig Weiler (talk) 21:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, these talk pages are all public, Craig, so we don't own our words and you are free to use what you find on Wikipedia as long as it is attributed. I appreciate you letting me know and for not misrepresenting me.
To be a little confessional, I was trained in the social sciences so my grounding is as a skeptic (everything we studied were aspects of life which were measurable) but my personal belief system is that science can't be used to explain everything (like "meaning"). So, I understand the skeptic's need for evidence and proof but I also know that many important aspects of life are not rational, measurable or scientific. As in most things in life, I think a balance is most appropriate. Thanks again for letting me know, Craig. Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Interesting. You might be interested to know that my blog has drawn the attention of some psychologists. One thing I hear repeatedly from them is that researchers are on a whole different planet. In the day to day job of helping people with their issues and dealing with their emotions, it is often impossible for these health professionals to ignore their own obvious psychic intuitions which come as a result of interactions with their patients. Further, it is not at all advisable to ignore these intuitions because they are almost always extremely helpful. So those who practice are generally very open to psi, in contrast to researchers who aren't.Craig Weiler (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
It makes a lot of sense, Craig, it's the difference between theory and practice. Scientists, of all kinds, use hypotheses and run experiments to test the boundaries of theories. The test results can support theory, contradict theory or be inconclusive. And this can vary according to the level of confidence the researcher has in the results. It's levels of abstraction.
Practice is something entirely different. A practitioner deals with the concrete, this person, here, now, and their own personal history. They have education and training but their goal is not to prove the truth of falsity of a theory but find a way to help a person heal. This means that, for the most part, most psychologists have an eclectic approach, they have a "toolkit" of concepts, approaches, skills and they try to find the ones that help with that individual. It's a completely different attitude, not one of finding truth but finding what will work. Liz Read! Talk! 22:04, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Apology

Hi Liz, I'm Andrew Cabral, the guy from Jimmy Wales' page (Hindu nationalism). I just wanted to apologize for the peevish tone with which I'd replied to you. I don't mind admitting that I was irritated just because of your anonymous IP remark. Silly, but there you have it!

Anyway, I trust there are no hard feelings from your side. Shake, shake! (That's hand, not head.)

Sincerely,

Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.96.128.126 (talk) 19:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Andrew, I was not aware of your comment but thank you for the apology. Happy editing! Liz Read! Talk! 20:52, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

You too, Liz, you too! Take care! Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.98.4.203 (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, this is quite a surprise. Liz Read! Talk! 20:51, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to STiki!

Hello, Liz, and welcome to STiki! Thank you for your recent contributions using our tool. We at STiki hope you like using the tool and decide to continue using it in the future. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Here are some pages which are a little more fun:

  • The STiki leaderboard - See how you are faring against other STiki users!
  • Userboxes - Do not hesitate to wear the STiki label with pride by choosing from a selection of userboxes!

We hope you enjoy maintaining Wikipedia with STiki! If you have any questions, problems, or suggestions don't hesitate to drop a note over at the STiki talk page and we'll be more than happy to help. Again, welcome, and thanks! West.andrew.g (developer) and  Tentinator  06:34, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Jasper Deng

This is a message to demonstrate to Jasper Deng from https://www.mediawiki.org that I "own" this username. I put in a request to change my username there. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The rename has been done. Have fun editing!--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks so much, Jasper! Liz Read! Talk! 11:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chris Innis may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • | Director [[Oliver Stone]])

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:36, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Nancy Bauer (philosopher) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • philosophy|political]]/[[ethics|moral philosophy]], and [[philosophy of language]] thereof), [[Phenomenology (philosophy)|phenomenology]], and philosophy in [[film]].

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Deleted contribs

Yo, Liz, I saw your reply on ANI, and decided to bring it here for further discussion, only because it's kinda off-topic from the point of the ANI thread. Anyway, I'm not really sure what your point is. I mean, anyone's edits can be deleted through page deletion; I have 2,168 deleted contribs, and you have 73. I suppose you're right in the sense that an IP address may, on some level, have fewer deleted contribs than a user account (simply because IP addresses cannot create articles in main space), but that doesn't mean they're immune to them, nor that they're immune to being blocked due to them. IPs can (and have) created articles in the Talk: namespace, and they're allowed to create articles at AfC, too, so they can still create articles that can then be deleted. Not to mention that they can make edits to articles that have been created by others that are then deleted; as one example, it's not unknown for people to contribute an obviously inappropriate article and then, when it is nominated for speedy deletion, they log out and edit the page to be deleted as an IP address, to create the illusion of support and to evade the restriction that article authors cannot remove deletion tags from their own articles. And of course, registered usernames are a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

By the way, in the future, if you come across one of these accounts, you can use a tool on the toolserver (here) to look up a user's contribution count, and this will also give you a deleted contribs count. So yeah, I'd be happy to answer any questions that I can. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:58, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional information, Writ Keeper. That whole conversation got off-track but that's not unusual on the noticeboards. Some Editor comes in with a specific complaint and people end up debating some other point. I appreciate you addressing my question. Liz Read! Talk! 13:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Mistake?

I hope [3] was a mistake? --regentspark (comment) 14:07, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for pointing it out to me so that I could undo it, regentspark. I was using STiki and it doesn't give the user very much context, or mentions that I was reverting a revert. Thanks again for catching that. Liz Read! Talk! 14:16, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Friendly heads up

Hi Liz, just thought to mention that in this edit you removed part of a comment you made that had already been responded to. In this instance I don't care, and likely no one else will either, but for future you may want to consider striking the comment rather than removing per WP:REDACT. Cheers, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, Keithbob. I'll undo it. Liz Read! Talk! 15:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

thanks

Hi Liz - thanks for the cat cleanup on a lot of the philosopher articles I've put up recently. I'll make a greater effort to get them in the right set of cats from the get-go in the future. Also... your Jimbo.. your Jimbo... it's staring at me.... :p Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

LOL! Well, Kevin I do a lot of work with categorization. I find it satisfies my need for putting things in order, I learn a lot and there are some big projects that need to be done regarding gender categorization. For a while, I was picking a nationality and changing all of the "actors" to "male actors" since the powers that be decided to use "actresses" so we need to place men in a similar gendered category.
I'm not sure what led me to look at philosophers but I noted there were only about 225 women philosophers currently in that category, so that is a manageable problem that I could work on. For example, there is another category change I need to get to eventually that has over 1200 articles to change and that just seems like such a large number to take on. Maybe one day!
Regarding Jimbo, I know people hate animated gifs but I thought that one was so funny and, since you have to linger on the page a few moments before he pops in, not everyone would see it. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
P.S. I think it is great you are working on articles on women philosophers. Some of the ones that Wikipedia does have are no more than stubs. I'd love to know more about Collegium of Black Women Philosophers, that sounds like an interesting group. I'll see if they have an online presence. L.
  • Only 225, and I've written probably 30 of them in the recent past... kind of depressing ;) The Collegium does have some online presence, and there's been enough coverage of them in various places that they'd pass the GNG fairly easily. I'll hopefully get around to writing an article about them eventually, but decided to go ahead and start with people. Further depressing fact pulled from an article by Kathryn Gines: there are less than thirty Black women with phds in philosophy working in academia in the US today. You could, quite literally, fit all of them in a classroom together. Black capitalized per Kathryn's logic in her essay about the founding of the collegium. Let me know if you feel like writing about the Collegium (or anything else) and need me to pull articles for you if you don't have access to an academic library :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
I spent half of my life in academia but right now, I'm not affiliated with a university and my own library is boxed up so references are inaccessible (and I don't have much faith in online sources unless it's news). Maybe when I get more confidence, I'll work on article creation. Even though I see hundreds of badly written, insubstantial, unreferenced articles as I traverse through Wikipedia, I've seen newly-created, starter articles get deleted every day. So, I want to make sure I have the necessary resources to write a decent article.
But thanks for the offer! Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Sheldrake/Tumbleman

It would be very helpful, IMHO, if you could post some sort of opinion HERE. The Sheldrake talk page is short of people who know how to express opinions politely and helpfully. Anything at all from such a person could serve as an example to others. Lou Sander (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Wow, Lou, I've already alienated so many fellow Editors when I defended Tumbleman after he was blocked, I don't think I'd be seen as neutral (despite truly, honestly, not caring about Sheldrake). My actual interest in reading through through alllllll the Talk Page comments was to see how consensus could be arrived at when there are Editors with such different points of view. I no longer think that's possible but I haven't seen what's been going on there for the past week, maybe conditions have improved...well, it's a possibility, even a slim one, right? Liz Read! Talk! 01:57, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Hey, you know how to reason, and you appear to be a Decent Human Being. Who cares whether they think you are neutral? Voice an opinion, ANY opinion, and show those who lack those attributes how it's done. Lou Sander (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's the nicest thing I've heard lately. Thanks, Lou! Liz Read! Talk! 02:16, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Lou Sander's notice to you. Thank you.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:18, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

the section is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Lou_Sander -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 09:21, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to know these folks' motivation. My working hypothesis is that they are very young, and this is a place where grownups have to listen to them. Their incessant scolding and sarcasm are probably a passing along of what they get themselves at home and school. A child learns what he lives. Lou Sander (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
They have this lame, childish "let's call everyone who disagrees with us a 'troll' and get them banned" attitude. You would think that if they were so sure of their position, they wouldn't rely on tactics to remove opponents from the discussion, that they would let their superior argument help form consensus. Instead they annoy everyone at AN/I. They seem to prefer drama over compromise.
By the way, I've noticed at least one account seems to be a SPA who just seems to be here to edit the Sheldrake article. And several accounts have less than 1,000 edits, for what it's worth.
And, since I don't know where you stand, I assume that given the people trying to get you blocked, Lou, that you are either sympathetic or neutral about Sheldrake? When I read over the Talk Page comments a week or two ago, I didn't notice your remarks (sorry). Liz Read! Talk! 20:02, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I think they ARE very insecure in their arguments, and thus the childish behavior. I'm basically neutral on Sheldrake. I've read some of his books and find them interesting. I'm open to all kinds of alternative ideas, but they don't loom very large in my life. On Wikipedia, I just want to get Sheldrake a fair BLP article, written neutrally. It's not appropriate, IMHO, when the section on his books starts off with "He has been criticized for writing books for the general public, rather than going through the peer review process," based on some critical quote from The Guardian. I REALLY dislike it when that stuff creeps into the lead. They can't just say "he challenges some basic tenets of modern science" without following it up with "he thinks perpetual motion machines are possible, and everybody knows that perpetual motion machines are impossible, the idiot" (or words to that effect). The editors think that every time something from him is said, it has to be balanced by something from the mainstream. That may be their legitimate understanding, or maybe it's just part of their crusade. My comments on the talk page are usually brief, so they tend to get drowned out by the endless blather. Lou Sander (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Wow, Lou, you sound radically, radically neutral. Wanting to give Sheldrake a fair BLP article, now that's totally fringe and outrageous! No wonder they want you topic banned, it actually sounds like you might do something constructive like creating a better article instead of joining in with the incessant squabbling.
Maybe we do share the same point of view. Damn, now I'm on their hit list, too. I know my dull, routine work categorizing actors and philosophers is skirting sanctions of some kind. Well, I know I'll make a mistake sooner or later that can be dressed up in bows, ribbons and diffs and taken to AN/I. And just when I was getting into an editing rhythm. Liz Read! Talk! 21:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Σ/Testing_facility/TP/Archive_8&oldid=1142404982"