User talk:Echidna1000

Welcome!

Hi Echidna1000! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! —Paleo Neonate – 01:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important message

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in pseudoscience and fringe science. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

—Paleo Neonate – 01:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest on Wikipedia

Hello, Echidna1000. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. —Paleo Neonate – 01:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Neonate, what about having a level of expertise on the subject being discussed that those writing about it on Wikipedia don't have? If you prevent those who know about the subject from talking about it, you will only have people who don't know about the subject talking about it. Socionics isn't one of those theories you can just learn all about in an academic journal. You have to talk to people who actually practise it, in its different forms and interpretations.Echidna1000 (talk) 10:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aspersions

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. This, this, this, and this all include aspersions against an experienced editor in good standing. Please stop doing that, as casting such aspersions on WP could get you blocked from editing. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked through the article on Casting Aspersions, and none of my comments are in violation of what they have articulated. I have spoken critically of MrOllie, directly on his talk page, in response to actions and decisions that I can see are not in line with the standards stated by Wikipedia. I have evidence of these actions and decisions, and indeed, they are clearly documented, with the rationales given. There is reasonable cause and this has been articulated in conversations you have evidently read through in order to identify what you deem to be breaches of conduct. I have also carried out my criticism with civility (and it is evident from the conduct of some editors that some flippancy is not deemed to be a breach of civility), not been abusive, and have followed this advice:

"Legitimate concerns of fellow editors' conduct should be raised either directly with the editor in question, in a civil fashion, or if necessary on an appropriate noticeboard or dispute-resolution page. Although broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another, particularly in dispute resolution..."

My next step, in line with the guidance provided by Wikipedia, would be to raise the issue on a noticeboard, detailing the evidence at hand.

I will note that you are not actually threatening to block me, merely warning that I could be blocked. I also assume that Wikipedia does not advocate a different set of rules to be applied to editors "in good standing", where they cannot be directly criticised at all. If it does, then that undermines the impartiality of how Wikipedia's rules are enforced. After all, even a person in good standing can still make flawed judgements in a single instance or in a more systematic way, and it could very well be that a group of people are all making the same flawed judgement, creating a culture that encourages that judgement, despite it being in violation of policy. Furthermore, if my actions are indeed in line with Wikipedia's guidance, and everything I have read suggests that they are, then what you are doing now could very well amount to casting aspersions on my character.

Please explain to me why you believe what I am doing amounts to "casting aspersions", given what I have said here. In good faith, I will assume that you are mistaken, or else, that you have access to uncommon knowledge not already clear from the guidance you have linked to. If the former, you will merely need to withdraw your claim. If the latter, I will desist in my critique of MrOllie's conduct regarding NPOV until I can clarify a pathway to protecting neutrality that is within the existing rules, but also I will raise the issue with Wikipedia that the guidance is too opaque and increases the risk of power being wielded arbitrarily.

I hope that clarifies the matter, and await your response. Echidna1000 (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me why you believe what I am doing amounts to "casting aspersions" Ok. From here: even if you do go on to provide a peer reviewed article that supports your position, he will raise the bar further, saying the journal is too 'low ranked'; from here: Perhaps another violation of NPOV, where minority voices are not given sufficient weight; from here: I think, MrOllie, that your approach to this is a violation of NPOV, whether you are currently willing to acknowledge this or not; from here: you have already categorised socionics as a 'pseudoscience' in your head, so you are applying a different rule to the one that would be used and you are then shutting out more informed opinions by those who have dedicated their lives to understanding this field.

Minor aspersions all, perhaps, but multiple aspersions against an editor. Lastly (truly, because I see no need to continue this discussion), if you need to raise the issue with Wikipedia that the guidance is too opaque and increases the risk of power being wielded arbitrarily then by all means do so. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have said those things. None of them are in violation of the guidance on 'Casting Aspersions' based on my ability to read and interpret the English language, which is undoubtedly not deficient. For you to conclude that they are a violation seems strange to me given the fact that "broad leeway is granted to allow editors to express themselves in their interactions with one another, particularly in dispute resolution". My criticisms are all reasonable inferences based on his conduct in this particular scenario. I would go so far as to say that there is no other reasonable interpretation to explain why MrOllie has reached the opinion that he has on what to include in the Socionics article. So far, each time a hoop has been presented by MrOllie for a source to jump through in order to be accepted on the Wikipedia page, another hoop has been introduced once a source has been presented that successfully jumps through the preceding hoop. It comes across as shifting of the goalposts. Regardless of how it comes across, it's objectively clear that some of the multiple sources that have been accepted supporting the favoured claim would not pass through those same hoops. Dogmatic statements without supporting arguments by mathematicians and philosophers in publications of questionable peer-review status supposedly pass muster. At the same time, dedicated arguments by scientists in peer-reviewed journals are rejected. That's a problem and it puts the whole assumption of MrOllie as a fair arbitrator on this matter into dispute, regardless of him having a strong track record of positive contributions to Wikipedia in the past. People can be complicated enough to have these juxtapositions and measured critique should not be shut down by threats of removal. Everyone suffers from bias of some kind and no one is infallible. I just want to know that a fair, impartial standard is being applied on this article so that readers are not being misled or misinformed. I have not been reassured that there is such a fair, impartial standard, but instead have become more convinced of the opposite.

I get that you don't want to continue this discussion further, so I will raise the matter with Wikipedia. Echidna1000 (talk) 00:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]