User talk:Jimbo Wales

On the situation in the Azerbaijani part of Wikipedia

• Mr. Jimmy Wales!

You have announced that Wikipedia has 5 principles (Wikipedia:Five pillars). This principles have to be followed in each edition of Wikipedia. But when I informed Meta that in Azerbaijani edition 5 principles are not being followed, common rules are being brutally breached, administrators are involved in vandalism, meta did not take any measure and they excuse themselves by stating that Azerbaijani edition is independent?! So why then did you write that the 5 common principles are in force in all of Wikipedia’s editions? You should write instead that the 5 common principles are not in force in Azerbaijani edition, as administrators there do whatever they want!

Jimmy Wales, if you don’t consider Azerbaijani Wikipedia to be yours maybe you have sold it then? Who did you sell it to, Jimmi? It is being demanded from us to create articles about gays, otherwise they don’t let us work. We know you sold Kazakh Wikipedia to Nazarbayev. We want to know if you sold Azerbaijani Wikipedia to gays or to Azerbaijani government.

Jimmy Wales, your business abilities are not bad, you know how to make money. However if you sell Hebrew Wikipedia to Arabs, Ukrainian Wikipedia to Russians and Azerbaijani Wikipedia to Armenians (maybe you already did this), you could earn more money and give bigger salaries to your employees.

Idin Mammadof (talk), editor of DMOZ, 09:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Editors might find these links to be helpful.

• Category:Wikipedians in Azerbaijan
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Azerbaijan/Members
• Category:User az
• Category:Wikipedians who contribute to the Azerbaijani Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:Local Embassy#azərbaycanca (az)

—Wavelength (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

• Editors want it...

The package of proposals of the Wikimedia Foundation

• Wikimedia Foundation took this decision:

I’d like to thank you again for providing your insights on the recent situation on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia. This email is sent in BCC to all users responded to my questionnaire sent in early March.

After a thorough investigation by the support and safety team at the Wikimedia Foundation, we understand that the current major issues on the Azerbaijani Wikipedia are as follows :

User concerns of admin rights abuse by a few admins, most notably by User:Sefer_azeri.

Lack of local community policies that regulate admins’ work, or admins’ decision appeal process.

We understand the need for a harmonious, peaceful community in order to create a productive editing environment. However for both legal and ethical reasons the WMF strives to limit office actions to cases of obvious harm to an individual user's personal safety or where we're legally required to intervene.

As the above prescribed issues do not rise to the level that WMF can take office actions, we urge the Azerbaijani community to come together in order to resolve those issues internally and with the help of the global community on meta.

Meanwhile, we recommend the following prioritization as a guideline to what needs to be done as a resolution roadmap :

1.Desysop of rights-abusive admins, most notably User:Sefer_azeri if judged appropriate

If you believe that a user's rights need to be removed, this should probably happen first to allow for a clean slate. Requests to remove user’s rights can be made on meta. To request the removal of another user's permissions, you must gain consensus on the local wiki first. When there is community consensus that the user's access should be removed, a trusted user from that wiki should provide a link to the discussion on the steward's request page, a brief explanation of the reason for the request, and a summary of the results of discussion.

In order to create consensus, we recommend starting a specific topic on the local village square on Azerbaijani Wikipedia. The discussion should include links that demonstrate the admin rights abuse. The topic should be opened for discussion and vote for a few days before submitting the request to the steward page on meta.

2.Set-up policies to regulate admins’ work

3.Activate the ArbCom and/or draft and put major policies into effect

In order to simplify the process, we will be happy to provide ideas based on existing policies or the experiences of other communities on steps 2 & 3 once the community is done with dealing with step 1 or decides not to pursue that action. We believe that this is a complex issue, and looking at the resolution systematically as a step-by-step process is an essential element to make progress.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Best regards,

Haitham Shammaa

Senior Strategist

Wikimedia Foundation

• We agreed.
• But users prepared rules regarding Arbitration Committee and held a electionon about it. Approximately 20 users took part in it. When 4 days were left before the end of the elections one of the sysop but the vote on it was stopped before its time, as I understand and it didn't have any official result (neither positive, nor negative), which goes against the rules.

• Those who start discussion about administrators' actions and who express negative views about their actions are being blocked. There have been 3 blocks ([2], [3], [4],). like that.Those who organised the discussion are being blocked without time limits. In addition to that, those who participated in the discussion are being blocked without time limits as well

User:Cekli829:

"Hesab edirəm ki, müddətli bloklanan qərəzçilərin blok müddətinin müddətsiz blokla dəyişdirilməsi ilə bağlı da konkret fəaliyət ortaya qoymalıyıq."; 

User:Sortilegus:

"Bu məsələnin təşkilatçıları da təbii ki, bloklanacaqlar, çoxu onsuz da dediyim kimi blokludurlar.. 

• In the end, Haitham ran and hid. Maggie Dennis advised us to do so:

You need to demonstrate issues to the community at Meta. I am not able to assist directly.

Idin Mammadof (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Which specific content edits do you think are the locus of this dispute? EllenCT (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Almost exact same issue (admin rights abuse) is happening on Chinese Wikipedia as well, and apparently Wiki Official is not going to do something about it. Yeah, talking about the five pillars as if those are the fundamentals of wiki, yet we see no neutrality, nor do we see openness; all we see is block after block (both account and IP), which takes place whenever someone edits contents that the admins "don't want to see" for political or other bias-based reasons.

Sad to see these wikis are becoming true dictatorships minute by minute.

～～～～ — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdmimBenson (talk • contribs) 18:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Long story short. In Azerbaijani Wikipedia if you openly disagree with an administrator's action, for instance if you question some other user's block, you get blocked. So, if I would write the exact same words I just wrote here in Azerbaijani Wikipedia, I would get blocked. The last time I got blocked (it was a short term block that has already ended, but I'm still angry that no other administrator dared to question it) it was basically after I criticized an administrator who then said that my words were lies and then he blocked me for "making groundless claims". Then a different user came and said that it's not ok to block a user for that. For which that same administrator responded that by continuing such a discussion "based on false claims" he have "disrupted work" in Wikipedia for which he was blocked. I want to highlight that there was no other reason provided for that user's block. So, basically there was no legitimate reason to block either of us. Non of the other administrator cares or even if they do, they know that if they do something about that there will be a scandal and AzWiki will lose some of the admins because of that (as practice shows), so they don't wanna do anything. This is just one of the many examples (If you want, I can translate the conversation for you). But the worst part of the story was not even about the AzWiki situation itself, it was about complaining to meta and Wikimedia both it. Both of them have basically said that the situation is bad and then they've sent me to each other (so, meta said that they can't do anything and sent me to Wikimedia and then Wikimedia sent me back to meta). --Мурад 97 (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I don't claim that this has anything to do with LGBT, any government or corruption. It's just that whatever it is, it should be fixed. And it can't be fixed from within, as there have been some attempts which simply didn't work. --Мурад 97 (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

PMID 26518345. Please see also New Zealand. EllenCT (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT, how that has anything to do with what we have written? We are talking about administration blocking people for questioning their actions, like blocking other user with no legitimate reason. --Мурад 97 (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I was trying to find the locus of dispute, and came across some arguments which led me to think sources on topics which have resolved similar issues in the developed world may help. Would you say that most Azerbaijani editors agree with the statement, "Bura Azərbaycan Respublikasının qanunları ilə tənzimlənən ensiklopediya deyil"? EllenCT (talk) 15:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I again don't see how this has anything to do with what we are talking about, but actually many wouldn't. This phrase roughly translates as "Here is not a place regulated by the laws of the Republic of Azerbaijan [RoA]". Many people seem to be in disagreement with that. When Azerbaijani Wikipedia was divided into two (South Azerbaijani dialect got its separate edition), Azerbaijani Wikipedia should have been logically renamed into North Azerbaijani. However, most users preferred referring to the Constitution of RoA which names North Azerbaijani just "Azerbaijani" and thus kept the original name. I don't agree with such an approach, but once again, I don't understand how it has anything to do with the current discussion. --Мурад 97 (talk) 16:10, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Do the disputing factions each have their own preferred versions, like in Ukraine? EllenCT (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Ukraine? Are you trying to compare this with a military conflict? What are you even talking about? I can provide you with a translation of one of the disputes and you can see what is an existing norm in AzWiki yourself. And the thing that happened to me and the other user that was blocked is not an individual incident, it's a norm. --Мурад 97 (talk) 14:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I'd love to read a translation of an actual underlying dispute, but if you have evidence that editors are being banned with regard only to their perceived loyalties, then maybe you need [5] more than Jimbo's help. EllenCT (talk) 17:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

There are 5-6 of them. They are state officials. They are writing articles on order. They don’t let others work in Wikipedia. Our administrators are elected for life. There is no place to complain on administrators. They don’t let an arbitration committee to be created. Participating in a discussion, saying that an administrator broke a rule results in blocking. When I’m asking why I’ve been blocked, they don’t answer. A representative of Meta asked then about this as well, but didn’t receive an answer. When I asked Sefer azeri about his work place, his answered me that way: “I also deleted the article you have written about your father. Let it be a wedge for you (put it in your ass). You are a very ass-headed horse [Azerbaijani translated literally], so I will delete both an article about his newspaper and an article about your newspaper.” Here’s what our administrators and their morals consist of. Why don’t you do anything? Can one do such things in Wikipedia. Idin Mammadof (talk) 20:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Freedom of speech is a great thing and I believe in it both as a general principle and as the most workable policy. But we should remember that providing freedom of speech to editors is not actually what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is supposed to educate with a large collection of comprehensive, neutral articles by gathering together a large number of volunteers. So in order to get the WMF to take action, it is probably crucial not merely to show that administrators are arbitrary and unreasonable, but that the consequences for the encyclopedia are bad. This might include showing that particular articles are badly biased -- and I don't mean if a word like "North" is left in or out -- I mean, you have to show that facts are misrepresented or suppressed. You could compile a long list of experienced editors that administrative nonsense has driven off, and show that it is cutting down the total available labor significantly (not that this ever won the day on en.wikipedia...) You could show that false and libelous information is being put into articles about people to back some partisan agenda. And if you can, it's important to do one or more of these things, because otherwise I think you're not likely to get a lot of action, I'm afraid. I rather wish it were otherwise. Wnt (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC) (a message that "— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aydinsalis (talk • contribs) " was produced by his inadvertent deletion and prompt restoration of my text. [6] Wnt (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC))

As is well known, Azeri Wikipedia (and Kazakh Wikipedia) have not been sold to anyone. The allegation is perplexing, but I'm used to perplexing allegations. For everyone else: the Foundation has been looking into the situation in Azeri Wikipedia for some time. It's messy and complex, but allegations like "It is being demanded from us to create articles about gays, otherwise they don’t let us work" are false. Azeri culture is quite conservative with regard to issues around homosexuality, with at least some users (and perhaps some government officials) being opposed to neutral encyclopedia articles on the subject. LGBT rights in Azerbaijan provides some general background on the subject.

There are some really great Wikipedians there working hard for NPOV. As we all know, even in English where most editors would not face persecution or social ostracism for working on LGBT topics, emotions can run high and people can be quite difficult. Imagine the same thing where there is a fear of legal (or illegal) physical pressure as well.

The people doing the right thing here are among my top personal heroes.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT, I'll provide a translation here this week. And why in the world would you give me a UN link? As a law student myself I know that it may have an authority over some stuff (even though it usually fails at it), but it certainly doesn't have an authority over Wikipedia disputes. So, is it some kind of a joke? 'Cause if it is, it's not funny.

Jimbo Wales, I have never claimed that I or anyone else in Azerbaijani (it's not Azeri, which is extinct) Wikipedia was forced to right articles about anything, including LGBT. This is where we have a disagreement with Mr. Idin. But this is true that administrators block people with no reason provided in the rules and you will see a clear example of it (which has nothing to do with LGBT or corruption) this week when I will provide a translation of what have happen with me and one more user who was defending me. --Мурад 97 (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for using the wrong term. I have heard the modern language referred to as "Azeri" by many people, and if it is incorrect I won't use the term any more. As always, I welcome NPOV summaries (rather than one-sided summaries) of events in other languages. I would try really hard to work with multiple people from both sides of the issue to present the facts in a way that everyone can agree upon... this normally means avoiding, temporarily, evaluative terms.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, I appreciate your understanding. I've managed to translate the thing faster. Please, keep in mind, that this is just one example of two users being blocked that way:

"

Hello. It would be good if you provide a basis for your claim here. I’d like to inform you that the article you are referring to there (List of unusual jobs) have been deleted by a decision of Wikicommunity during my term as an administrator. And I have done nothing to restore it. Because I think that in such cases discussions are essential. For so many years I’ve mentioned that on the talk page of that article, on the first talk that you have started and after in talks regarding other articles. I’d like to inform you that if an article is even a little bit encyclopedic, or if many have worked on it, deleting it without a discussion would be inappropriate. Even taking your long experience into account, you throwing baseless claims shows that you still lack understanding of Wikiphilosophy. And I consider your saying, “let administrator status be taken from him” to be harsh attitude, equal to insulting my personality, I count it as a big injustice towards my busy activity in Wikipedia. With a deep respect, --►Asiya səfiri Cekli 19:22, 20 mart 2016 (UTC)

In order to see that what I have written is true, it is enough to view the full version of the page you have mentioned. --Мурад 97 (müzakirə) 20:03, 20 mart 2016 (UTC)

You are doing wrong by treating standards from 5 years ago and now equally. It shows you being tendentious. In fact even you didn’t want deleting this article, you wanted to unite it with the Job article. It’s good that you didn’t become an administrator. In this case most of the articles would be deleted and rest of them would be united in a mish-mash. Articles shouldn’t be deleted, as many of them as possible should be saved. Unfortunately, you can’t base your claim. With respect, --►Asiya səfiri Cekli 11:27, 21 mart 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean “It’s good that you didn’t become an administrator”? Why would you write such a thing, if I have never tried becoming an administrator in my life? I don’t understand how did you get into discussing this. I am not obliged here by anyone to prove anything. Any person can go via that link, see the style in which you hold a discussion and make conclusions. I think, there is no need to prove anything. --Мурад 97 (müzakirə) 11:55, 21 mart 2016 (UTC)

The discussion is about you making a baseless claim. The discussion is about being tendentious. I think, 1 week long block will be enough for You to understand how wrong were you by making this claim. With respect, --►Asiya səfiri Cekli 18:41, 21 mart 2016 (UTC)

Asiya səfiri Cekli, I think that based on this discussion, blocking an editor in such a manner is not right. --samral müzakirə 00:02, 25 mart 2016 (UTC)

When claim is baseless, there is a base for a block. That’s why there is a baseless claim by an instigator. --►Asiya səfiri Cekli 10:51, 25 mart 2016 (UTC)

Asiya səfiri Cekli, but he did provide a base. What do you mean, he didn’t? --samral müzakirə 15:40, 25 mart 2016 (UTC)

Samral, the thing that he is claiming is only about a discussion from 2011. Back then he didn’t even provide evidence that the article he wanted to mix with another one was un-encyclopedic… You need to provide evidence to unite or delete an existing article. Acategory who have created the article provided an even more solid thought that my acceptance of it according to Wikistandards of that time was expedient. As a result of it, 5 years ago Murad was unable to base his thoughts. But regardless of that, 5 years later him purposefully bringing this up shows how tendentious and malicious his position is. With respect, --►Asiya səfiri Cekli 19:18, 25 mart 2016 (UTC)

Asiya səfiri Cekli, where is it written that you can’t bring up a 5 years old discussion? He brought it up now, right? This doesn’t mean you should block him. This is abusing your administrator’s position. --samral müzakirə 21:37, 25 mart 2016 (UTC)

Dear Samral, it seems you can’t distinguish between rightful and non-rightful charges/claims. By continuing such discussions you disrupt normal work in Wikipedia. Because of that, based on the 7th article of the Blocking rules, I block you. With respect, --►Asiya səfiri Cekli 12:32, 26 mart 2016 (UTC)

"

You can ask about accuracy of this translation from anyone in AzWiki. I was a bit too fast in translating it, as I was doing this for you. I am opened to criticism. Now, do you think blocking the two of us is reflecting Wikipedia principles? --Мурад 97 (talk) 19:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, allegations like "It is being demanded from us to create articles about gays, otherwise they don’t let us work", no are false. Indeed, using another username, Sefer Azeri suggested me to help with LGBT themed articles. Then he said, he got administrator status from 3 administrators who were against the LGBT theme. I can show you a picture of this no are false the discussion chat, this is not a lie.

I can show 1 or 2 links to the articles that were related to me and were deleted in a vandal way. Repeatedly deleted encyclopedic articles ([7], [8], [9], Why? This article contains information about my father and so on. Why do you defend this administrator?

Look at them: [10], [11]...

We gave you information that they have stopped the Arbitration commission voting 4 days before it ended. Why don’t you restore it?

Jimbo Wales, I thank you for personally participating in the discussion. We are pleased by that, but your decision that would lead to resolving the problem would please us even more. And we wait very much for your decision. Idin Mammadof (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Was there any reason given that formation of elected Arbitrators was halted by administrators? EllenCT (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not the choice of arbitrators. It was a vote on the "Project Arbitration Court". We have given the above information, "But users prepared rules regarding Arbitration Committee and held a electionon about it. Approximately 20 users took part in it. When 4 days were left before the end of the elections one of the sysop but the vote on it was stopped before its time, as I understand and it didn't have any official result (neither positive, nor negative), which goes against the rules".Idin Mammadof (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Did az:İstifadəçi:Sortilegus say why they halted the proposal? Are they involved with blocking based on perceived political loyalties? Has anyone taken Shammaa's advice and made the request to stewards on meta? (Where is the steward page on meta?) EllenCT (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Sortilegus took part in the discussion of the project, and was satisfied. He was given a detailed explanation. I made the request to stewards on meta (the steward page on meta). Look also at this. Idin Mammadof (talk) 18:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the stewards should be asked to unblock the arbitrarily blocked editors who were trying to form an arbitration committee, or de-admin the administrators who were blocking proponents of an arbitration committee, or both, instead? Have you tried two competing arbcom proposals with, for example, different levels of article editing experience to qualify? EllenCT (talk) 17:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Stewart wrote, "Stewards also have no role in voting and elections of an arbitration committee".

The project was developed in 2011, by the administrator.

The user who started the voting, it is not on the block. (The package of proposals of the Wikimedia Foundation, a suitable 3-th place.) I think, there are no people who want to become an administrator among us. Nether I, nor Murad or Samral or others never wanted to become administrators. This is made up by the administrators. If a user ia a bit active, it seems to them that this user wants to become an administrator, so they start disrupt the activities of such users. Idin Mammadof (talk) 18:58, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

• Jimbo Wales, we can normally be active in other language editions of Wikipedia despite that we don’t know other languages well. It’s not possible to do in our own language. You already know that in the Azerbaijani edition an administrator can undertake massive vandalism whenever they want and they openly say that. Even though terminating his administrator status was discussed a number of times, he is still an administrator. Neither meta nor stewards thought of stopping his activity yet. A package of 3 proposals was brought upon you by the Wikimedia Foundation, as I know it wasn’t allowed for it to pass. Now, the word is yours, please. İdin Mammadof (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I am studying all of this, seeking to understand how I might be most helpful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I recommend asking the stewards to proactively support the formation of a regularly elected Arbitration committee comprised of long term editors elected by their peers without regard to standing. EllenCT (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Upon further study, I recommend directing the stewards to unblock any editor blocked for even the appearance of complaining about administrator abuses. EllenCT (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, stewards do not know the Azerbaijani language. İdin Mammadof (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Jimbo Wales, we wait very much, problem solving and decision making on the Azerbaijani part of Wikipedia. But how long should we wait? Personally, I'm waiting for 4 years. When I’m asking why I’ve been blocked, they don’t answer. A representative of Meta asked then about this as well, but didn’t receive an answer. You can write to the fact that "the 5 common principles are not in force in Azerbaijani edition, as administrators there do whatever they want!". Idin Mammadof (talk) 22:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Can you make a list of all the editors who have been blocked for complaining about admin abuses or advocating the formation of an arbitration committee, with a link to the reasons given and a translation for the stewards, and then poll the stewards' opinions individually on their meta user talk pages? That should help whether Jimbo decides to help or not. EllenCT (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

List of all the editors who have been blocked for complaining about admin abuses or advocating the formation of an arbitration committee, with a link to the reasons given.

Voting (Arbitration Committee)

 Yes

1.  Yes--samral ^müzakirə 20:24, 20 mart 2016 (UTC)
2.  Yes--Samir Rutulec (müzakirə) 10:10, 21 mart 2016 (UTC)
3.  Yes--Shahrux (müzakirə) 10:50, 21 mart 2016 (UTC)
4.  Yes--Yusif Sərrac (müzakirə) 22:04, 21 mart 2016 (UTC)
5.  Yes--Namikilisu 19:12, 23 mart 2016 (UTC)
6.  Yes--Qolçomaq (müzakirə) 19:33, 23 mart 2016 (UTC)
7.  Yes--Araz Yaquboglu (müzakirə) 05:27, 24 mart 2016 (UTC)
8.  Yes Calal99 (müzakirə) 11:10, 24 mart 2016
9.  Yes--Nəsibli Təhmasib (müzakirə) 14:17, 24 mart 2016 (UTC)
10.  Yes--Aabdullayev851 (müzakirə) 07:40, 30 mart 2016 (UTC)

 No

1.  No--►Asiya səfiri Cekli 10:29, 21 mart 2016 (UTC)
2.  No--Sortilegus (müzakirə) 08:21, 22 mart 2016 (UTC)
3.  No --hinkel777 (müzakirə) 08:58, 25 mart 2016 (UTC)
4.  No--Keete 37 (Farid Aliev) (müzakirə) 19:48, 25 mart 2016 (UTC)
5.  No--sefer azeri 05:54, 30 mart 2016 (UTC)

 Closed

1.  Closed--Ağ iβlis (müzakirə) 13:40, 21 mart 2016 (UTC)
2.  Closed--Azerifactory (müzakirə) 02:39, 24 mart 2016 (UTC)

Idin Mammadof (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia, we still have a problem.

A month ago i posted this here on Jimbo's page. I was quickly summarily blocked with the patently false accusation that i had violated my topic ban, which is a bad judgment to begin with. I absolutely had not. Anyway, that's the wages of speaking about a systemic problem in the place where the problem is enacted by the majority of the people participating. Basic game theory. Beware. This is a serious problem in Wikipedia -- a hostile and distorting McCarthyism by an ideologically motivated subset of editors who have too much power. SageRad (talk) 19:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the communal editing party? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

So at this point it's safe to assume you just want to get indeffed? I ask because at some point the community is going to find your constant charges of McCarthyism against them to be disruptive. I'm sure you realize this. Capeo (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely not, and that very reaction is a textbook example of the very nature of the problem at Wikipedia. The totalitarian, fascist way that is completely contrary to the ideals and policies of this place. Thanks for making my point obvious with an example. It is not "the community" but a power-dominant faction of the editors here who would use those numbers to make the claim that i am disruptive for speaking about the dynamics i see here within Wikipedia from one year of editing experience. When civil but critical speech is demonized and disallowed then you have the makings of an ideological monopoly. SageRad (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

If all you want to do is criticise a dynamic or a systemic problem that you perceive to exist then there are other forums that may be far more sympathetic to your views. You are not going to achieve anything by repeatedly posting here calling people McCarthyists. Black Kite (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I want to speak to a systemic and large-scale dynamic that i do see here, and i want to do that here. I don't seek a "sympathetic forum" but rather i seek to hold a critical dialog here where it matters, in the place that purports to be a space for civil but critical dialog. I think i am going to achieve something by holding this dialog and exposing when dialog is shut down in ways that lack integrity. SageRad (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Sage, my reply was totalitarian and fascist? So I guess I'm part of this "ideologically motivated subset of editors that have too much power" because I've agreed with the sanctions against you in the past? I didn't realize till now the power I wield around here. I think you made my point more so than yours. Capeo (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, let's see. I posted to make it known that i had posted a month ago with some critical comments about Wikipedia at large that involved a sort of ideological lockdown and too-quick-to-block-and-punish mindset, and not actually making this a good environment where it does matter, like enforcing real civility and making a good space for critical dialogs among people with differing experiences and therefore points of view. And... you threaten to indefinitely block me. Sort of reminds me of a government wherein dissent is not tolerated, at penalty of lockup or death. Now, i wasn't "disruptive" in the sense of calling any specific person a name, or being "I Don't Hear That" in attitude, or railroading, or any other form of disruptive editing. I simply posted a comment to make it known what happened last time i posted a comment and ironically, you responded with a threat to indefinitely block me for doing just that. That's what happened. Every reader here can decide what they make of that. SageRad (talk) 20:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I didn't threaten to block you. I'm not an admin. I was simply predicting, from experience, where this will end up. People tire of martyr acts quickly. How you don't see that constantly claiming you're the victim of a fascist community is disruptive is beyond me. This place is mostly run by consensus and consensus has mostly been against your views. Really it's simple as that. Capeo (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

"If neither the facts nor the law are on your side, pound the table." Ravensfire (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not a martyr act. It's an act of speaking truth to power. And in fact i was banned for a month from previously commenting on this. "So at this point it's safe to assume you just want to get indeffed?" sounds remarkably like a speech with an expectation of chilling effect. SageRad (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh, man, thanks for the laugh. Truth, huh? That's been the consistent source of all your issues here: your Truth. You know the Truth and the rest of us schmucks are in the dark. Save it. As if anyone who wanted to have an honest conversation about anything would open with, "So... you're a fascist. Let's talk about that." Capeo (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

OK. You perceive a problem with the community of editors, and you raise it here because you think Jimbo is unaware of it. And you can't get a fair hearing because the community is jumping down your throat. Is that a fair summation? --Pete (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

I find this troubling. It is fine to think ArbCom is wrong, but the findings of the GMO case were perfectly legitimate and a block for violating the restrictions followed by a repudiation of their validity is not a good sign.

I also think this is illuminating: "There is a continuing polarization that is causing content to be more and more polarized. It's akin to a takeover, and it is in part intentional. There is indeed a "Skeptic" movement to cause Wikipedia to move more in line with the ideology of the "Skeptic" movement, and they engage in meat-puppeting, in the form of recruiting people of their ideology to take up Wikipedia editing in order to change and maintain the changed content to move it more in line with their ideological beliefs.". No, it's not a "takeover". Wikipedia has always followed the scientific view of these things. These days I count myself as a member of the skeptical community, but that was a result of what I learned here. I was a Wikipedian before I was a skeptic, and it was Wikipedia that taught me to use a skeptical mindset. I think Wikipedia's bias towards the scientific view is probably entirely intentional and I think if it changed we would be less trusted and less trustworthy. The skeptical community supports the scientific view of a large number of things against substantial activist communities. Vaccines, climate change, alternative medicine, GMOs, evolution and so on. I am sure the reference to meatpuppetry is a nod to Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia (GSoW). That project has mainly focused on writing articles on science advocates. Homeopathy believers, to name but one group, accuse GSoW of attacking Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) but that article has always supported the science-based view and I hope it always will.

Wikipedia is not the problem here. Wikipedia is just another venue where the fight is being played out. Look at Kevin Folta and the abusive FOI requests for release of emails which will very obviously be used for dumpster-diving, as happened with the "climategate" email theft. This is not about the age old problem of people believing that "my ignorance is as good as your knwoledge", this is a determined effort, often driven by commercial interests, to knock science off its pedestal and give parity of esteem to ideology.

It's an election year in the US and one of the candidates is a science denier. Science denial is now highly political in the US. Being pro-science is now seen as being politically liberal (and of course liberal is synonymous with Communist in some people's minds). I think this increasing politicisation of reality - or rather, the political imperative to deny realities that support unwelcome conclusions - is going to be a major problem for the project in coming years. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The above comment again makes my point -- there is an ideological war being waged here within Wikipedia. This is against the policies and rules of Wikipedia, and i have repeatedly been demonized as a result, not because i was guilty of violating the policies, but because i noticed and described this dynamic and therefore i became marked as an enemy to an ideological faction's dominance and therefore like an immune system they seek to eject me for speaking about the lay of the land in this regard. The whole above conversation shows the deep polarization and the rudeness with which people address those who speak to the situation, and also a desire to twist the perception of the dynamic to make it seem that anyone who speaks to it honestly is the problem and not the dynamic itself.

JzG/Guy says "Wikipedia is not the problem here. Wikipedia is just another venue where the fight is being played out." Indeed, there is a fight being played out within Wikipedia. It's become a battleground. My saying this doesn't make me guilty of "battleground behavior" in the sense of starting the fight, but just of noting the existence of the battleground mentality and the hostile war-like actions of many people.

Hey folks, there is an elephant in the room.

There is a war going on in Wikipedia, an ideological war, and it's harmful to the integrity of the encyclopedia. The encyclopedia is already highly distorted as a result of this ideological war and only getting worse. The ability to discuss content in a civil way is so diminished that there's been an exodus of genuine and good editors out of frustration, leaving the place ever more polarized and owned by less civil and more pushy editors with ideological agendas. SageRad (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

"There is a war going on in Wikipedia, an ideological war." I think you need a vacation or something. --JBL (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Why is it considered ok to constantly be rude to people when they speak their observations? Why is it considered ok in the culture of Wikipedia to be like that? I do in fact see a very clear ideological war going on here, and i speak that in seriousness. I have no need for a vacation and i'm not on here all the time or anything. I have a real life. SageRad (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

This is an ideological war. This is an online encyclopedia -- no one is getting shot at, bombed, conscripted, jailed, etc. People have disagreements, and the net effect in the real world of those disagreements coming out one way versus another is nil. Many people find that a vacation from the things that upset them is a good way of regaining perspective. --JBL (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Oddly, i have been in the middle of the Nepalese Civil War, have met Maoists in the mountains and met with the Royal Nepal Army and been in the streets on the day the King turned off the phones and internet and then shorty afterward was no longer King. And i helped the movement to depose King Gyanendra. Obviously i was using "war" as a metaphor and any normal person would get that, but the parallel is interesting because it is indeed to depose illegitimate power. Nobody, and no group of people, ought to hold power over content here in ways that are not according to the policies of Wikipedia, and yet this is the situation. There is a power play that's been brewing for some years. There are power dynamics that involve groups of people with alignments and mutual handwashings. SageRad (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The portion of your post preceding the word "obviously" is interesting. The part you call "interesting" is completely nuts. Unplug your computer, spend a week doing something you enjoy in your spare time. When you come back, delete your watchlist and edit the article on the Nepalese Civil War instead (it could use some work). --JBL (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not a war, it's a seige. Wikipedia is accurate about things but some people would prefer to reflect ideology rather than fact. This has always been the case to a certain extent - some of our earliest disputes were about the "bias" inherent in representing evolution as fact - but it is much more the case since Wikipedia became one of the most visited sites in the world. Wikipedia is now pretty much the most important place to get your belief stated as fact, so we have a steady stream of people coming here to "correct" our "bias" on everything from obvious bollocks liek homeopathy and morgellons to politically charged issues like climate change. Wikipedia follows the scientific consensus in matters pertaining to science. This is not harmful to the project's integrity, it is one of our defining factors. If you want a project where climate change is represented as a liberal conspiracy, or homeopathy as a valid system of medicine, or special creation as a fact of history, then Wikipedia is not that project. This is a feature, not a bug.

We're used to patiently explaining this to newbies. We expect it. However, the Wikipedia community decided a very long time ago that its patience is exhaustible, and if someone refuses not to accept an answer they don't like then sooner or later action will be taken to stop them continually asking the question. And actually if that were not the case then there genuinely would be a war. Guy (Help!) 16:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think i am harming you or harassing you or being abusive to you by posting my comments here. I do see a serious ideological bias in Wikipedia and i will speak about it in dialog with others if they are genuinely in dialog with me. I will continue to speak what i see, and i will explain it in greater detail when there is time. Your comment above severely distorts what i am actually saying, twists it into a form that makes me the wrong one, but yet lacks real content. There is a difference between following scientific consensus when there is a true consensus, versus choosing one path when there are multiple open paths within solid scientific literature, and the latter is more what i am speaking about. It's not about any specific topic matter in my comments here, and the specific ones you toss out are red herrings in that regard and not at all within my wheelhouse, but there are real substantial topics in which there is ideological agenda pushing that is not in line with Wikipedia policy. I hold the space to speak to these issues. SageRad (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

But Guy's comments above go directly to the heart of your problem. The "ideological bias" you decry is simply the community's preference for sources, science and facts over claims and hand-waving. If we water down some of our core principles, we'll be no more than a mouthpiece for every crackpot blogger, conspiracy theorist, and religious crusader. Claiming that there are multiple scientific consensuses and your particular one stands with all the others, rings rather like the proponents of Intelligent Design clamouring for equal or greater time in the schoolroom. In such cases, we go by NPOV and WEIGHT, which tends to sort competing claims into a pecking order according to how much solid science is behind each theory. Sure, minority positions can sometimes be the right ones, but in that case initial skepticism will be replaced by support as the scientific method works its way through the theories, and we can reflect that here. We don't have to make any choices between competing views ourselves; we just report what is already being stated by the acknowledged masters. --Pete (talk) 18:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Pete, I think you might be misreprenting SageRad's point here. He is not arguing against principles such as Reliable Sources, Verifiability, etc but commenting more about the way editors and admins behave toward others, particularly with respect to civility. SageRad, I hope I am not misrepresenting your views. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I definitely argue in favor of civility, but even moreso for integrity, which is a deeper form of civility than simply not calling someone names. Integrity means standing by the real and actual sources and not pushing something into an article on a weasel argument with a gang sort of political lawyering using multiple layers of power structures. There is corruption here like there is in the legal system. There is a sort of "house POV" that is "known" to carry the day, and that is not strictly in line with the principles and policies. SageRad (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

SageRad, no, I would not even think of claiming tat your comments are harming or harassing me, I am puzzled as to why you even mention it. I was addressing your comments taken entirely at face value, the purported "war" and the role of "skeptics" as you portray it. Skepticism is the default in the scientific method. The skeptical community is actually the community of science advocates.

I looked back at the disputes that sparked your original comment here: you were particularly concerned, I think, about David Tornheim, but also about GMOs generally, and I was trying to avoid discussion of that topic area for obvious reasons. I have no wish to set traps for you and I think we should avoid that subject, so feel free to suggest another area where you think skeptics have tried to skew Wikipedia content against neutrality. Guy (Help!) 20:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree totally that scepticism is the default of science. A sceptic is defined as "a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions" - a scientist, by default, is a critical thinker. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:27, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

See scientific skepticism. The core of the scientific method is that the person making a claim bears the burden of proof for that claim. The skeptical community is the science advocacy community: our influences are the likes of Bertrand Russell, Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman. "The first rule of science is not to fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool". Guy (Help!) 20:46, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

When I write about animal behaviour, my default is not to doubt that evolution has been involved, but I critically question HOW it has been involved. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I love skepticism -- actual skepticism -- and i love science. I respect both in their true ideal forms. However, the so-called "Skeptic Movement" has come to defend an ideological phalanx of positions that are not genuinely the single monolithic voice of science. They've come to be used socially as an ideological weapon with certain simplistic planks of belief that are often repeated like a mantra, and have become a subculture of a very specific kind, with in-group / out-group dynamics, and meetings, conferences, and club activities. One of the "club activities" has come to be editing Wikipedia in order to "correct" the world's knowledge base. That's a serious thing because it introduces a certain ideological bias that is not truly skepticism nor evidence-based but partially based on social dynamics and swarming. SageRad (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• The OP here and in their earlier post directly cites the title of Rome Viharo's website http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/ and echoes much of Viharo's conspiracist hysteria about a skeptic takeover of WP (which Viharo apparently decided must be True after the community continually rejected his FRINGE-pushing nonsense about Sheldrake and Chopra) and who was a huge waste of the community's time - see SPIs on Tumbleman and AE for his pal Askahrc. Our friends at Natural News love this theme as well - see this for example. The internetz is full of this nonsense. Nice company. Probably's Jimbo's best contribution to WP was his statement about WP:Lunatic charlatans in response to a cri de couer from the rejected woo-pushers out there, which I commend to all who are unaware of it. That is where the community stands on this stuff. There is no skeptic takeover. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on that website nor any connection to Chopra or Sheldrake, but used that phrase as a reference because it's sonorous and gets to the point. SageRad (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You directly quoted the name of the website (twice now) and you are harping on the exact same conspiracy theory as VIharo and Natural News - that is what you are actually doing. You are brothers in arms with Viharo and the folks at Natural News; those are your actual allies, despite your protestations about loving science. We live ourselves into strange places sometimes - you have ended up out there on the fringe with all the other fringy advocates. You may not like it, but there you are. So it goes. Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect inference of my meaning. Perhaps my fault for not being the best author of the text, but incorrect inference nonetheless, and i am the reliable source as to my meanings. I am not fringe. I am a true skeptic. I reject your attempt to pigeon-hole me, old acquaintance. I love science more than some who doth protest too loud about it. I love the good scientific content of Wikipedia greatly. I despise the bending of certain areas of Wikipedia contrary to the universe of reliable sources. SageRad (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

No, humans tend to be terribly un-self-aware. if you just watch discussions on drama boards it becomes clear as day when an editor really has no idea whatsoever how wrong they are, and everyone else sees it plain as day. It happens every day. This place is an amazing laboratory for studying human behavior. You came in here completely convinced that you possessed The Truth and you have been going on about that ever since. You have gotten no traction here -- what feels like rejection to you - because you rejected the community and its values from day one. You can - like Viharo and Natural News - blame your failure on some conspiracy - but it lies with you, and no one else. Jytdog (talk) 22:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, the Sheldrake-Chopra axis. I had forgotten about that. Why is it that "bring better science" never seems to be an option for these people? Guy (Help!) 20:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• Whats this? A week after coming back from a month long block SageRad is already making attacks on other editors and claiming wikipedia is biased? Oh now who could have predicted that would happen. The only systematic problem wikipedia has is that it takes too long to get rid of disruptive biased fringe/pseudoscience pushers. If anyone actually wants to spare ten mins. Google 'SageRad' and look at all the similarly named people getting into the same anti-science arguments in various places. Then think about what a waste of time it is explaining Wikipedia's preference for evidence and science based research to SageRad. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I have made no attacks on any specific editors -- i speak to a general dynamic and you can engage with this or ignore it. I've attacked nobody at all. My preference is also for science and evidence-based research. It is in the details of how this is interpreted and applied where the bias of which i speak is introduced. My point has nothing to do with Chopra or Sheldrake and i have little knowledge of them or the Wikipedia articles about them. I have indeed brought science in the past and it's been rejected because it's not the "right" science -- despite being serious peer-reviewed articles to the very point of an aspect of an article's topic. I have seen the winds of certain biases blowing for too long to think it's a mirage in my mind and others have as well. SageRad (talk) 21:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Blah blah blah, everyone else is biased blah blah blah. Heard it before. Repeatedly. You dont make attacks against 'specific' editors anymore because you know you will be blocked. You just make the attacks general instead. McCarthy this, bias that, ideological blah blah blah. Find something else to do. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

• If there is a bias then that should be easy to verify using the scientific literature. In practice you may find a bias in Wikipedia when the subject is a hotly debated controversial subject in the scientific literature. Climate change is not such a case, because here there is no debate in the scientific realm (at least not w.r.t the talking points the skeptics are raising). But you do get problems when there is a polarized debate within the scientific community, examples are salt intake and health. But as you can see, you can then actually cite the fact that there is this rather polarized dispute going directly from a scientific paper. An accusation of being an advocate for some industry can then be directly cited from such a peer reviewed source. Bias in the medical literature? you can cite that directly from peer reviewed journals. So, when there are real problems, you can cite reliable sources to back up such accusations. Count Iblis (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

As the OP, i am going to largely jump out of this conversation now. I have made my observations, which i mean truly and from my heart, based on intense participant observation of the editing environment here, but i also have an external life that is quite vibrant right now and i must return to it without being in what seems to be a contentious dialog. I mean every word i say with the full force of my soul, and i care about Wikipedia very deeply. I do think that there is a problem that affects the world. I have described how i see it, and also see the seemingly vehement and hostile reaction to my observations (including the summary banning a month ago) as further evidence to the point, but i'm largely out of here now. I'll continue to edit on the occasional basis in generally non-controversial topics, where Wikipedia is truly doing a service to humanity, but in the ideologically contested areas, there seems to be little hope for good resolutions at this point and it's not worth the scathing to one's soul that occurs from the hostilities, a sentiment that i've heard from many an editor who has left editing topic areas due to hostility from others with agendas. Please be kind to one another. You have only this one human life. What are you doing with it? SageRad (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Everything you have done in Wikipedia shows that you care about your self-image as a passionate rebel who knows some science and Fights For Truth and Justice. You have rejected the community at almost every turn and been completely resistant to learning the spirit of how this place works. It is all about you SageRad, and your image of yourself. Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, i reject everything you've said above and find it to be a set of personal attacks. And i have absolutely not rejected "the community" but rather pushed very hard for a good community with integrity and civility. Your characterization of me is (1) unwelcome and off topic (speak to content not the commenter, right?) and (2) totally and absolutely off-base. Unwelcome, your projection of motivations upon me and historical mischaracterizations of me. No thanks and goodbye. SageRad (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Your pattern of behaviour is well evidenced. Lets see, one of the first things you do is show up at Talk:Michael Greger and declare its under attack by ideological agenda pushing. Oh wait, you are in a personal dispute on your own ideological grounds with the chief editor of the source thats being discussed? Oh colour me surprised. Its not like you have never shown up an article before and declare bias is it? Noooooo. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the home of Absolute Truth. NPOV allows us to happily include opposing viewpoints, according to their support in the wider community. And we tolerate untruths; a recurring example is the subject of a BLP diving in to correct some error in their articles, and even though they know for a fact that the birthdate, or the school, or the job is dead wrong, they can't fix it because they don't have a reliable source. This is a problem, that we promote untruths, but not as great a problem as changing our community policies to allow the sort of sources and give them enough weight that would solve the problem of a BLP having the wrong birthdate or whatever. We work as a community, and we use the policies and processes that have been found to work.

Sure, SageRad, you might see Wikipedia as having a problem, and you may be right, but you have to accept that the community of editors isn't buying your argument. Find a different way of putting it, perhaps. Find a way of changing policy, maybe. Whatever it is, you need to get the wider community on board, rather than just a few trusted friends. --Pete (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I never said anything about "Absolute Truth" and i understand the NPOV policy so well that i see the problems in regard to NPOV that i have described. I know the RS policy very well, too. I know the policies of this place and have attempted to apply them to a T and gotten gangs of hostile editors of a feather attacking me in ways that lack integrity and use straw man arguments and misrepresent sources, etc. I've been in the weeds and i speak from experience. I have seen extreme bias in BLPs and other articles, in a coherent direction that indicates beyond a reasonable doubt an ideological agenda at work. As for the community of editors, there are a few things going on. (1) Many do agree with what i say. (2) Some do agree and speak to it and then get blocked or banned as a result and are not here. (3) Some do agree but hold their words so not to be punished like others they see being punished, or from their own past experience -- "chilling effect". (4) Many leave by attrition, disgusted with the hostility and lack of integrity of this place, as i have largely done myself. I've had my share of all of the above, and i know whereof i speak. SageRad (talk) 23:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You say that, but it's inevitable that it will be viewed through a filter of your history. The only people I ever seem to hear accusing Wikiepdia of lacking integrity, are people who have come here to promote an ideology, and been stopped. It's a variant on the pharma shill gambit. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

And now, if i may take my leave free of personal attacks and misrepresentations... thank you. SageRad (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course you reject everything I've said. Of course. You have already gone off the cliff and now you are down there in the fringey wastelands with Rome Viharo and the folks at Natural News, railing about conspiracy theories in Wikipedia.

As I wrote above, your location out there on fringes is your own doing - that is where you have lived yourself into. The proper heading of this section is not "Wikipedia, we have a problem" it is "SageRad, you have a problem" You cannot/will not see that, and shifting blame to some shadowy skeptic conspiracy is just... well, normal human self-deception. Jytdog (talk) 23:11, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree with SageRad as to the extent of the problem. But from what I have seen around some of these articles, there is a battleground mentality of protecting Wikipedia from "agenda pushing" fringe-theory supporting editors, which leads to problems where articles can go too far down the direction of becoming hit pieces against the subjects. It becomes easy to add negative content, but those adding positive, (or often just non-negative) material are too quickly placed in the "agenda pushing" category and their claims discounted. Often that's because they are pushing an agenda, but sometimes they still have a point. The problem is inherently cultural, but I think all we're going to need are a few more critical eyes to add to the mix. - Bilby (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes User:Bilby you pointed that out at the epic ANI on Brian Martin (social scientist) and Judith Wilyman PhD controversy where Gongwool especially went way too far on an anti-vax agenda, too harshly. I reckoned Gongwool was not long for this place and they eventually took it all the way over the top to socking and got indeffed. Folks who are too ideological on any side of an issue (or too self-absorbed and resistant to community feedback) end up hanging themselves eventually.... Jytdog (talk) 05:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm not thinking of Gongwool, as that was a case of someone from outside of WP bringing their fight here. My concern is that you are correct, and that established, skilled editors risk being indeffed because they fight too hard to protect WP from people with fringe agendas, and, in making that fight, they risk damaging project. This shouldn't be seen in terms of a battle, but it too often is. It is nothing unusual for us - we've had those periods when we were concerned that CSD tags were being placed too quickly because New Page Patrollers were overly focused on battling spam, or that new editors were too quickly treated as vandals. The process of trying to patrol and keep WP clean can lead to polarisation, which is rarely as bad as where we would be if we weren't following that process, but is still a problem. I'm thinking that SageRed may be wrong about the severity of the issue, but as a community we're better off acknowledging the problem. - Bilby (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

you said that well. the only answer i can see is community - folks have to tug each other back when they start going too far into that mode and folks have to remain open to hearing that. and of course, never dehumanize anybody. Jytdog (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I refuse to continue with an endless "Yes it is!" "No it's not!" "Yes it is!" "No it's not!" ... but i stand firm on everything i've said, and did not say anything flippantly. Readers can judge for themselves. I appreciate the sliver of actual dialogue above by Bilby, and i wish there were more genuine dialog here about the actual dynamics.

• Do not categorize people as being "fringe" -- people are not "fringe" -- only ideas or topics are. A person making one edit or 50 edits among hundreds that you might consider "fringe" does not make that person fringe. You can speak to their edits, not the person, with that label if you choose.
• The label "fringe" is overly reductionist and enables a form of prejudice that i've called "McCarthyist" because the parallels are striking. There are indeed loony ideas that should not be represented as reality in Wikivoice. Very true. I will argue against those as well as anyone else here. But there is mission creep (intentional or not), there is bleed-through, with the term "fringe" that is harmful and incorrect. There are topics that are partially "fringe" but partially justified, and would be better represented as such, delineating a line between the evidence-based and the far-out conjecture portions. There are topics that are solid but have a 10% "fringe-like" content aura. The painting of a whole person or some whole topics as "fringe" is quite like the labeling that was done in the McCarthyism era, which went vastly too far and was then opposed by more sane people finally and capped off. We need such a capping off now.
• I repeat: I support reliable sources and neutral point of view policies and the fair and balanced application of those. I love those policies, and i wish they were applied fairly and truthfully.
• I do not support agenda pushing in either direction, but rather i support balance. I see a serious imbalance in Wikipedia caused by social dynamics that have evolved over some years now. It's subtle and complex but it's real and large.

Thanks for hearing me, to those who do hear me. I appreciate genuine dialog on this. I think it's important. SageRad (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Whenever I hear "balanced" alarm bells start ringing. On WP, particularly in the sciences, we don't "balance" minority or fringe viewpoints with the scientific consensus. Capeo (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Or as is more commonly the case when the lunatic charlatans show up, we dont 'balance' the scientific consensus by including non-notable minority, or fringe/pseudoscience. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Bilby: Your words make a lot of sense and thank you for your posts. If you want an example of how severe this problem is, you only need to scroll down to the "Retirement" thread, currently at the bottom of this page. Furthermore, why would we have 2 threads on such similar topics if this problem is not widespread (rhetorical question)? DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Because Jimbo's page is where people come to make their grand proclamations. Something being here in no way confers validity. Capeo (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• SageRad you have not owned any role in the problems you have encountered being productive in WP ("productive" = writing content that "sticks" and persuading others on a Talk page). Without that, what you are writing here has almost no credibility. Experienced editors understand that there are long term struggles in WP off all kinds - they are pretty easy to identify by reviewing the list of topics that have discretionary sanctions. CAM and PSCI are among those. People who work longterm in those fields do have some risk of getting into a battlefield mindset, as do editors who work in any of the topics that have DS.

That is entirely different from the conspiracy theory you are pushing so hard here. Which again, you share with FRINGE advocates like Rome Viharo and the folks at Natural News. And again I get it, this is a self-deceptive move that people make all the time. Since you cannot see any fault of your own in what you have experienced here, it must be some Big Bad Thing in Wikipedia that is blocking you. Some day I hope you work all that out. Maybe when you are older. I won't be responding here anymore. Work to do. Jytdog (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Or i could be correct to a significant degree, and that could be why there is such a hugely hostile allergic reaction by so many familiar editors when i speak this idea. Do not condescend to me, Jytdog. SageRad (talk) 21:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you could be correct. Or, you could be wrong. You seem to have a major problem accepting this possibility. I offer you a comment from Carl Sagan:

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion.

— Carl Sagan

Now here's the thing: most of the areas of contention on Wikipedia are areas where science conflicts with either politics or religion - especially if, as I do, you consider quackery cults like homeopathy to be essentially religious in character (a long discussion for another time). Climate change, evolution, GMOs, cancer quackery (e.g. laetrile, promoted by the John Birch Society), and many others, in each case the cautious conclusion of science is set against strident but false or misleading claims by ideologically motivated groups. Hell, you cans ee this playing out ont he grand stage right now in Trump v. Clinton. Trump is an ideologue for whom ideological consonance constitutes truth. He opposed the Iraq war from the outset, because that's what his internal monologue demands. No matter that he has been shown objective evidence of his early support for the war, he continues to make the claim because beauty is truth and truth, beauty and the real culprit is life itself for failing to be either beautiful or true.

So yes, you could be right. Or you could be wrong, as a number of people have said you are, including ArbCom. You choose to portray their censure as illegitimate and emblematic of a lack of integrity. That's one interpretation. Another is that you might be wrong.

Sometimes people tell me that I am wrong. I don't like it. It causes cognitive dissonance. But, you know, sometimes they are right. That really sucks. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

References

I admit when i am wrong. I have many times within Wikipedia as well as in the world outside of this place. I love Carl Sagan. I love Richard Feynman. I love true skepticism. Note that in many topic areas, there are corporate interests at work that are motivated by profit and therefore introduce (quite naturally and predictably) a bias in the content created. Climate change is a perfect exampe of corporate influence distorting the science and public understanding of science. It's been well-documented at this point how ExxonMobil and the API intentionally distorted science communication as well as some science itself toward their interests. There are many other reasons for bias as well, but this is quite a notable one. I acknowledge the other things you say as well, but i do use Occam's Razor and you are not in the 99% majority in terms of your opinion even in Wikipedia, which is currently a biased sample due to attrition from people who see this bias (as we see from the "Retiring" section below and from experience). So... i see so much evidence that i am right here, and so very little that i am wrong, that Occam's razor tells me i am right, and the protests of the same people over and over, anywhere my username appears, is not sufficient evidence to convince me i am wrong. Rather, it seems to be a product of an allergic reaction these things being stated. Sort of like if the US were to elect Trump, it wouldn't make him any more "right" about most things. Majority agreement in a sample does not make something correct. SageRad (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You like to think you do, but I do not think anybody is truly capable of doing that when their deeply-held beliefs are challenged. I have seen several instances where you have stubbornly held to provably incorrect statements. Your assertion that the sanctions against you are invalid, is deeply problematic. I can't fix this. I like you, and I think that on most subjects we'd be in violent agreemnt, but I don't think you have sufficient self-criticism. That's just a personal view, of course. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

SageRad, I'm pretty sure the first time I ran into you was the Paleolithic Diet page. I invite you, and anyone else, to look back at archive 6. There's too much to link here but it's there for all to see. Where was your "true skepticism" there? At one point you quote a paper that goes through pains to say that every relevant field of science thinks the basis of the diet is bunk then goes on to ask the question that even if it doesn't have any scientific basis could the diet be effective for certain disorders? This paper made zero positive claims by the way. It was pointed out that there was nothing in this paper that wasn't already in the article: there is no scientific or historical basis for the diet. You proceeded to argue that the "if" in the "even if it has no historical basis" sentence implied that the paper was saying there could be a scientific or historical basis in it. It was one of the weirdest interpretations of a common English phrase that I'd ever seen. There was no way to take that sentence to suggest that the writers of the paper called into question everything they cited in every sentence before that. Yet you kept fighting for... honestly what I'm not sure. You're a smart person. You were presented with primary source anthropological and archeological findings that showed Homo Sapiens ate vastly divergent diets, some meat heavy, some starch heavy, throughout the Paleolithic Era. Not shockingly humans, as omnivores, have been shown throughout our earliest history to eat that what the living environment provides for us. Shit, we now know humans were grinding grains and making simple breads incredibly early into our existence which flies in the face of the basis of the Paleolithic Diet. Now here's the thing: there's endless evidence that the basis of the diet is utterly bullshit. The problem is in WP we can't take a bunch of papers pertaining to the feeding patterns of early humans to dispute a bullshit claim. We need a scientifically reliable source that deals directly with a fringe claim. That's one of the reasons fringe claims can get a foothold on WP, because scientists don't bother publishing papers about claims that are plainly false. All that said, you're not dumb, and I don't mean that to patronize, you have to know there is absolutely no such thing as some unified Paleolithic diet. I KNOW you know that the human diet was massively varied based on environment. So that leads to the question: what the hell were you fighting about? When someone is fighting against obvious fact then the only answer is they are fighting for ideology. Something you claim everyone else here is guilty of except for you. Capeo (talk) 02:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

User:SageRad I am jumping back in here, because this is the crux of it. Above you say "I admit when i am wrong. I have many times within Wikipedia". Please provide diffs where you have admitted you were wrong in WP (after you figured out the basics, like you can't just add unsourced content to WP like this). I can't remember you taking feedback well, and I have seen your editing here from day 1. What I have seen is your refusal to listen harden with time and with that, these claims of corruption and conspiracy theorizing getting more and more urgent. (cognitive dissonance getting painful, i suppose ...I betcha we could graph it with some semantic analyzer thing, with refusal to listen to feedback on one axis and claims of corruption on the other) -- I am willing to put in time to show this, if you will put in time to show what you are claiming. (we will of course both be limited in what we can bring diffs for of course....)

But do provide diffs of admitting you were wrong on significant things. Please.Jytdog (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

And another thing...

I often see skeptics making blanket statements like "homeopathy is bollocks" or calling it a "religion". These things aren't really true. Homeopathy can involve selling tap water at high prices. (I daydream of getting someone inside one of those places that sell 5000 different kinds of homeopathy medicine in 50 different levels of dilution each to see whether they really have a giant warehouse of diluted medicines, or just a faucet and a label printer) But there are a wide range of products like Zicam that are homeopathic and effective, because they are actually at low dilutions. That also means, of course, that like Zicam they may be dangerous and do long-term damage. Homeopathy is not really defined by a philosophy or a belief. It's defined by a racket, same as any other branch of medicine, where the disease is the hostage-taker and the practitioner's role is to collect the biggest possible ransom. Some people have permission from the government to do special things and they make a living out of it. Whether they're doctors doing unnecessary hysterectomies or company executives locking up generics and driving the price up 100-fold or homeopaths looking to get a nice idea out on the market without really testing it, there is a deep underlying similarity; they're all balancing a frequently weak notion of trying to do the right thing against the greater good that they have to make money. Wnt (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Wnt Damn you for pushing my buttons :-)

Yes, homeopathy is bollocks. There are three core problems with it:

1. There is no reason to suppose it should work. It is founded on the belief that "like cures like", itself drawn from Hahnemann's belief that cinchona cures malaria because when he took cinchona he got symptoms that he considered to be like those of malaria. In fact what he got was cinchonism, and an isiosyncratic form at that. Cinchona cures malaria because it contains quinine and that kills the falciparum parasite that causes malaria and for most people the symptoms of cinchonism are not really like those of malaria. There is absolutely no credible evidence that symptomatic similarity is a valid basis of treatment. That is the heart of the entire belief system of homeopathy, and it si simply wrong, and has been known to be wrong for over a hundred years. Like every other doctor of his time, Hahnemann was guessing, and again like every other doctor of hsi time, he guessed wrong.

2. There is no way it can work. No property of matter aligns with the claims of homeopathy. Hahnemann opined that there can be no amount of matter so small that it does not retain its essential character; this was disproven at the end of the 19th century. There are elements of human knowledge that are inconsistent with homeopathy, including all relevant knowledge in the fields of anatomy, physiology, biochemistry and pharmacology, and there are areas of knowledge wihch flat-out contradict it, including quantum physics and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, the law of conservation of energy, the law of mass action and the laws of thermodynamics. The chain of proof that would be needed to make homeopathy even remotely plausible is incredibly long.

3. There is no proof it does work. All results are consistent with the null hypothesis and there is not one independently authenticated case where homeopathy has been objectively proven to have cured anybody of anything. One manufacturer was found to be failing to add the mystic ingredient at all to one in six vials: nobody noticed.

Yes, homeopathy is 100% defined by a belief. It relies for its existenceon its Scriptures, the Organon and the repertories of Kent and others. It relies for its authority on gurus such as Vithoulkas. Absolutely nothing in homeopathy rests on empirically verifiable fact, all of it comes from scriptural authority.

Consider this: in over 200 years, not one remedy has ever been withdrawn from use due to falsification. No test has ever shown a remedy does not work, to the point that it has been discarded. Every remedy Hahnemann described from 1796 onwards is still considered correct by homeopaths. The same applies tot he remedies of Kent from the 19th Century. Homeopaths disagree on whether combination or over the counter remedies can work, whether classical homeopathy is the One True Path, or whether imponderables such as "light of venus" are valid, but no objective tests exist to settle these fundamental disputes. And "truths" over 200 years old are considered - all of them, not just a few - to be core to homeopathic practice. How many medical procedures or drugs from that period, are still in current use? Can you name even one? For homeopathy, it is 100%.

So you have a field of endeavour whose adherents respond to disagreement with schism, whose authorities are human and codified in texts that are considered ineffable, and which has never once found itself to be in error. Does that sound like a religion to you? It does to me.

You know the old saw that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? It's wrong. Sooner or later, after enough people have searched your garage for the dragon and not found it, it is fair to conclude that the dragon does not exist. Further, it is reasonable to state that absent compelling evidence no further claims of garage-based dragons will be entertained. There's no reason to suppose it should work, no way it can work, and no proof it does work. And science does't find that threatening. A question is asked: is this belief system tru? An answer is provided: No. There are prosaic explanations for all the obeserved facts. Homeopathyhs about the same status in science as phlogiston does. Guy (Help!) 23:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@JzG: From your response I wonder if you read the Zicam article. The stuff is homeopathic -- it includes "zinc gluconate 1X", which is to say, a 1/10 dilution of zinc gluconate. That actually does something, some of which may be to stop a cold (there was something published to that effect) and some of which may be to destroy the sense of smell of the user. If you look at your local alternative medicine shop you'll find a bunch of products like that, for example atropine 3X (i.e. 1 to 1000) for asthma. So I mean, homeopathy can be tap water or it can be untested medicine; sometimes it is even a tested medicine being slipped through the back door. The ancient explanation for its prescriptions is a very pliable a rule of thumb. It is actually just as bad a misinformation for skeptics to say it's tap water as for its believers to say it's effective, because the skeptics give people the idea that at least homeopathy can't possibly hurt anybody, so if you happen to have some you might as well try it, ya never know. But in truth the FDA has a bunch of nasty notices about high-concentration homeopathy remedies. And in truth there still is even a chance that some of them really work. Wnt (talk) 23:50, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You're missing a key point here. If a high level dilution works or harms it's not doing so on the basis of homeopaths claims. It's not doing so because "like cures like". It's doing so because an actual physiologically significant amount of a compound is being administered. The adage that even a broken clock is right twice a day is not a responsible use of what we know. Zicam was literally millions of times higher dissolution than what homeopaths claim works. It was also a hugely irresponsible untested claim that shooting zinc up your nose was a good idea when it had potentially harmful side effects in reality. That's because homeopaths don't actually test anything. You can't test something when the foundation as to why it should work has no basis in reality. That's why when the proper scientific method was applied to Zicam the result was, "wait, wait, wait, this not a good idea" because the actual physiological effects were examined in a laboratory setting. Homeopathy is intrinsically incapable of doing this because it's foundation is false. Capeo (talk) 00:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually there was "scientific evidence" for Zicam in 2000. [12] It wasn't until 2009 that the negative effects were published. [13] The patent referenced previous scientific research on zinc lozenges rather than "like cures like" nonsense. The "homeopathic" label was just one way to get it through twhe gate; it could have been another. So to get paid, the manufacturers found a belief in it. If Congress would rewrite their laws to remove the special privileges of homeopaths, the belief in the idea would instantly vanish. It's all a question of which bully is entitled to relieve you of your lunch money today; whoever he is, the minions will line up behind him. Wnt (talk) 04:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You just beautifully pointed out why we don't use primary singular papers as "scientific evidence" here. And why we wait for years for scientific consensus, after many papers and reviews solidify that consensus, to move on it. You could swab your nose with gasoline when you feel symptoms of a cold coming on. That would work quite well but I wouldn't recommend it. As to the rest of your comment? It makes no sense to me. I guess I'm not bullied that easily. Capeo (talk) 05:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Homeopathy is legal in the US primarily because it was written into the Food Drug and Cosmetics Act by Royal S. Copeland, a True Believer and practising homeopath. There's no way any therapeutic indications would be allowed now, and the use of HPUS to evade all that tiresome business of demonstrating safety and efficacy may well have been a cynical ploy on the part of the makers. The only reason HPUS is still included in the FDA's regulations is precisely that the products are almost always diluted to the point of non-existence. If hoemopaths were routinely giving pharmacologically active doses of these materials then the FDA would have acted long ago, because there would be many more cases like Zicam. It's a delightful bit of bait and switch: homeopathy is "effective" because the FDA licenses it, but the FDA licenses it mainly because it's almost always inert. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's a cynical ploy, but so is everything. Is rationing Epipen availability and banning its competitors used around the world good medicine? Everybody knows it's not, sure as Leonard Cohen. You recognize homeopathy can be more than one thing, so what's the point in denouncing it? You can't trust what you buy on the store shelf, and you can't trust the motives of the people who decide what you can't buy on the store shelf; everyone has to evaluate the science on an individual basis and with a high skepticism of even the journals and their company-sponsored publications. We shouldn't really be arguing at all, except that treating "homeopathy" like it's a thing seems so misleading to me. Wnt (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Wnt I am familiar with Zicam. It does not negate any of the points I made. The signature claims are that like cures like, with like being defined symptomatically, and that dilution and twerking confer and increase potency. Both of these doctrines are wrong. There is no credible evidence to support either, and no remotely plausible way that either could be true. A stopped clock is right twice a day, and homeopaths have quite muddled thoguht processes, so every now and then they are going to make, by accident, a product that is actually pharmacologically active. It would be extraordinary if absolutely every product they made was inert, given the immense range of substances and dilutions they use, but their claims for things like zicam, arnica and atropine as validation is an example of the Texas sharpshooter fallacy. Sure, 0.1% of the remedies they sell, ones which contain pharmacologically active doses, might have some effect, but that does not in any way validate the claim that none of a substance with no provable link to a condition, can cure that condition. It doesn't validate it because it does not even address the point.

To the best of my knowledge, zinc does not cause a runny nose, so giving zinc as a cure for a runny nose is not homeopathic. It also fails Hahnemann's test of dilution to the point where it does not cause adverse symptoms, a foundational principle of homeopathy. Hahnemann used arsenic and other toxic substances, as did the "allopathic" doctors of his day, the key difference was that he diluted it until it was at least no longer poisonous. There are indeed a few products where homeopathic dilution and twerking is used in preparation of products that are not wholly inert, the best known is arnica cream. Arnica 6X contains pharmacologically active doses of arnica plus a vanishing cream base, both of which are active ingredients. Homeopaths believe that arnica 6X cream and arnica 200C do essentially the same thing (actually they think arnica 200C is more "potent"). This is nonsense. Arnica 6X cream probably works mainly because appying it massages the affected area. Homeopaths believe that its effect is due to the "similarity" between brusing and the irritation caused by application of the plant, whch contains helenalin, but that is nonsense: if the effect of dilute arnica is due tot he presence of helenalin then it is probably due to exactly the same physiological effect that causes the irritation. In fact the evidence that the arica itself makes any difference is extremely weak. Guy (Help!) 08:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

homeopaths twerk? really? Jytdog (talk) 11:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

It works if they use the proper Hanneman approved leather shorts. -Roxy the dog™ bark 12:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Honestly this sounds like a "no true Scotsman" argument to me; you're staying homeopathy that isn't bogus isn't homeopathy by definition. Hahneman's dead hand doesn't define it; the regulators define it for their own purposes. Wnt (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I am saying that the doctrines of homeopathy are objectively false, and the few examples of products sold as homeopathic which are not unequivocally bogus turn out not to be founded on homeopathic principles, as far as I can tell. You might as well say that just because the Russians ran ice convoys in the winter, so Jesus walking on water is plausible and it's fine to tell people to use the nearest canal as a footpath.

Again, see Texas sharpshooter fallacy. A tiny handful of homeopathic products have some effect, a minority of that handful might have an effect that is in some way related to the effect of the product at high dose, but it's basically coincidence. HPUS has hundreds of "remedies", not even homeopaths could prepare that many products without having even one that did what they claimed. But there is no credible evidence that symptomatic similarity is a valid basis of treatment, no evidence that things which cause a given symptom can cure a superficially similar symptom other than very occasionally by coincidence. There's also no evidence whatsoever that dilution and twerking confer or increase potency. So what you're left with is: a few of the things in the materia medica have some sort of effect when given in pharmacologically active doses. Well, duh. It contains arsenic and strychnine, for example, we know those have effects when given in active doses.

And the more you look into it the more evident it becomes that homeopathy is not anchored in any kind of reality. Consider succussion. Is it required? Most homeopaths say it is, some say not. Objective tests fail to show a distinction. Is shaking enough or does it have to be hit on an elastic surface? Again, tests fail to answer the question. Is the Korsakovian method valid? Some say yes, some say no, objective tests do not settle the question. Every facet of homeopathy has factions who accept it and factions who reject it, and no objective way of settling the dispute. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong. The only area of science that has any dispute like this, that I can think of, is the debate between the Copenhagenites and the Many Worlds types - and science has an excellent explanation for what that question cannot, at present, be ojectively answered. Results of experiments to determine whether certain parts of homeopathic rituals are required seem to align very closely with what the experimenter asserted to be the truth before running the experiment. And when someone acidentally misses the ritual out (as with Nelsons missing the vial with the magic water one in six times), nobody notices.

The core of doctrine homeopathy is that something that causes a symptom, cures that symptom when it is diluted. It is stated as a law, the "law of similars", but it is not a law, it is a doctrine, and there is no evidence it is true. Guy (Help!) 16:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I suppose the ongoing disagreement emerges from differences in defining homeopathy as an idea put forward centuries ago, or as a group of people who call themselves homeopaths today, or as a regulatory status for specific products. We're not using the same terms the same way and so we can't agree even though we have every reason to. Wnt (talk) 20:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, that's worth exploring. First up: a lot of people misperceive homeopathy as a subset of herbal medicine. It is not, and as far as I can tell homeopaths, while they collude in this (or at least don't correct it when it is offered as a possible reason for their beliefs being valid), do not actually fall for this error. Homeopathy is specifically tied to the doctrines of similia and infinitesimals, without those it simply is not homeopathy. As an analogy, look at the difference between osteopathy and chiropractic in the US. Both have the same root, but one followed the path of evidence-based practice and is now functionally indistinguishable in most respects from regular medicine, whereas the other retained its belief in the non-existent chiropractic subluxation. Chiros are now undergoing schism, with some abandoning the more absurd claims of their brethren and focusing on reality-based manipulative therapy. I see no evidence of any such schism in homeopathy. No homeopath is abandoning the refuted doctrines of similia and infinitesimals, as far as I can tell.

There are three kinds of homeopath: homeopathic physicians, who have a reality-based medical education and then study homeopathy; naturopaths and others who study homeopathy in schools divorced from medical teaching; and lay homeopaths. Do they believe different things about homeopathy? I see no evidence of this. Medical homeopaths are less likely to claim they can cure cancer, but the statements of prominent individuals such as Dr. Peter Fisher include exactly the same language of woo-energy and like cures like, and a prominent homeopathic vet was on TV in the UK recently not only repeating the doctrines of homeopathy in a form Hahnemann would have readily understood, but also claiming to be able to cure cancer. The homeopathic and naturopathic schools teach straight-up Hahnemannism. Some of them even preach germ theory denial. I see no evidence of any significant subgroup of homeopathists who follow any form of reality-based view of the field. I'd be really interested to see any examples you can share.

In terms of regulation, this exists solely under grandfather clauses. I am not aware of any jurisdiction which has adopted homeopathy after previously having rejected it, on the basis of any evaluation of its objective merits. There may be some where it has been pushed through due to politics (which is also why it's covered by the Food, Drugs and Cosmetics Act in the US and why it was part of the UK's National Health Service. New products arrive in the homeopathic pharmacopoeia, repertories and materia medica through so-called "provings", which are scientifically utterly risible (google "venus stella erans" for example). Having arrived in these books, there is no process for removing them. No homeopath has ever provided me with a single example of a remedy that has been removed because the proving was found to be wrong.

In short, as I said before, some homeopaths may accidentally not be wrong about some things, but the things that define them as homeopaths, and the things that define homeopathy as homeopathy, are unambiguously bullshit. If a chakrapuncturist advises you to give up smoking, that doesn't make them any less delusional. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Or perhaps some see it as a placebo cure, and they may get patients who when visiting ordinary doctors, are more prone to suffer from the nocebo effect. Count Iblis (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Physicians indeed have few qualms against bogus therapies when they get money out of it, but my how they object to the availability of herbal remedies! If I write "ethics profit ethics profit profit", you should answer that yes, I've repeated the same word five times in a row. Wnt (talk) 17:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The good weak force and the bad strong force

So much in the above discussion, and so much of it sadly with so much personal attack and focusing on me as a lightning rod instead of the actual topic. I'm not responding to things like Jytdog asking me for diffs from among my 10,000 or so edits to "prove" that i've admitted when i'm wrong. I'm not required to so do, although i could if i had 5 spare hours, but i have a busy and important life outside of Wikipedia. I have admitted many times when i've been wrong on any factual, verifiable mistakes. And the misrepresentation of me by Capeo from the Paleolithic diet discussions. I most certainly welcome anyone with an open mind to go and read the archives of those talk pages. It's quite enlightening about exactly the things i'm speaking of here -- the swarming and hostile approach of people of a certain agenda (which is 100% anti-Paleolithic diet, which is a known platform of the Social Skeptic or "Skeptoid" movement [to differentiate it from actual skepticism]). Please go and read them. You will find it's not at all as Capeo says above.

I'm unaware of such a "platform" but that is your ducking of the question. All evidence says that the human diet has been extremely varied throughout our existence in direct opposition to the claims that the Paleolithic diet is based on. Do you deny this? If not then what were you fighting for? Capeo (talk) 16:23, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It is a very common theme among most self-proclaimed "Skeptic" sources to "debunk" the Paleo diet. That to me constitutes evidence of it being a plank in a platform of a common ideological bundle. Secondly, i will not debate specifics of other topics here as it's out of scope but i continue to invite anyone to read the archives of the talk page of the Paleo diet article to address the meme-style argument in the comment above (meme-style, for it echoes a common "Skeptic" meme about the Paleo diet that is oversimplified and misrepresentative but common). Anyway, i will not be sucked into an side-lagoon of off-topic discussion. SageRad (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I just did a quick search about the premise of the Paleo-diets. The first two that come up are National Geographic and Scientific American articles discussing how the premise is wrong. Are those "Skeptic" publications? Anyway, it was a simple question that was on topic. The premise is wrong so we must present it as so. Whether there are benefits to the modern diet is a separate question. Much like homeopathy, if a homeopath stumbles onto something that works that in no way validates the premise or logic of homeopathy. Capeo (talk) 17:24, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

The good, weak force

The beauty of Wikipedia is that it can be an accretion of human knowledge by millions of small acts of kindness by people. Every time someone corrects an article, adds to it, simplifies the language or the logic, or even corrects grammar, this is a small act of kindness. They didn't have to do it. It's a good thing to do for the world, like picking up some litter from the road. You didn't have to, but you did, and i thank you.

Millions of these acts of kindness add up to a beautiful thing -- if there is a stable environment and nobody coming through with a bulldozer. Hand shovels, maybe. A team with a gentle mission to revise an article. Fact checking, definitely. Removing suspect unsupported claims, sure thing. But...

The bad, strong force

In Aleppa (so famous now thanks to recent gaffes) a family lives in a room and children are being raised... the kids draw pictures an the parents hang them on the walls. They organize their grains and spices and try to survive, life during wartime. But a single bomb can destroy all this gentle order that has built up over months or years. A single bomb can destroy all the thousands of good small actions that led to this order even within a siege.

In Wikipedia, hundreds of people and thousands of edits may lead to an article in a particular form. Some people disagree and discuss things. Sometimes they find a mutually good answer, and sometimes they compromise. Sometimes a little thing keeps flip-flopping through time. But then someone else, or a group of similar people, come in with a mission to "take down" or "debunk" the article and they "nuke" it or cut 3/4 of it, and it's been marked by a group with a particular bent and mission. This is happening here. Articles that have reached some sophistication get mowed right down to the ground. It's like a perennial garden getting bulldozed. Years of effort, small kindnesses with discernment, have gone into it. Bulldozed in a minute, all that human effort thrown to a dustbin by a force that is simply hostile to the entire topic of the article and not open to nuance. An example would be the Paleolithic diet article referenced by Capeo, of which i ask anyone to go and read the talk page archives. The page had been pretty well developed. It could have used some fact-checking and skepticism for sure, but not the nuking and 180 degree turn it received. I was trying to restore some NPOV and some nuance to it, and i used for instance a very solid review article of diets by Dr David Katz, a very well-respected nutritionist often quoted by mainstream news sources, and others there obstructed accurate representation of that source's appraisal of the Paleo diet, even my attempts to use direct representative quotes from the article. So much weaseling went on. So much misrepresentation. So much dialog of low integrity. So much personal attack and general meanness.

There is no reason for the meanness. There is no reason why the discussion should turn so often to attacking the commenter rather than addressing in good faith the subject at hand. Even this section of Jimbo's talk page shows editors-of-a-feather in personal-attack mode. 80% of the comments above focus more on attacking me than on what i was saying as a general sociological observation of Wikipedia. Attacking the messenger because you don't want the message to be said.

We need to protect the good, weak force from the bulldozer of the strong, destructive force. That's where the beauty and miracle of Wikipedia lives. It's dying in many articles where a subset of editors has taken to enforcing an agenda. SageRad (talk) 12:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

We've reached the point now where I strongly suspect this is all just trolling. Alexbrn (talk) 13:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Alexbrn's unsigned comment to which i am replying here has the edit summary "cannot be serious" -- both that and the comment both strike me as unnecessary and mean comments that do not engage the topic itself. Yes i am 100% serious, and no i am not trolling. There, that takes care of that, right? Or is your goal to attack me and discredit me without actually engaging the thoughtful comments i posted above. I'm speaking truly and you're then smacking it away with the back of your hand and a "pshhht!" or something like that, it seems. Well, i am here as a participant in a dialog. If you're not interested in the dialog then let it pass you by. Maybe others are interested. I love Wikipedia when it works, with the weak force of goodwill building up beautiful articles by successful collaboration with civil dialog. I hate to see that destroyed by the toxic and hateful things that are going on lately. SageRad (talk) 13:15, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

All of your commentary on this page can be distilled down to one contention: that you are right, and therefore all criticism of you is invalid and all actions taken agaiinst you are invalid. However, even if you were right on the substantive issues of content (and actually I am fairly confident you are not), the implicit conclusion that opposition to your editing is wrong would still be incorrect. Addition of poorly sourced and polemical content, and unevidenced assertions of being an "industry shill" or whatever, are wrong regardless of whether you are correct in the substantive matter of content. You do not seem able to accept this any more than you are able to accept a consensus on the content which conflicts with your beliefs. Guy (Help!) 14:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Talk about strawman arguments, JzG/Guy. You put words into my mouth then say they're wrong. I'm not holding that I am right about everything i've ever said. I'm making my observations about the editing environment here. And how can you attempt to reduce thousands of content questions into a lump sum and say i'm wrong on everything... of course i'm right about some things and wrong about some things... and some things are fairly subjective so there's fuzzy room. Lastly, i accept general consensus but not false constructed consensus. Anyway, g'day. SageRad (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I did not put words in your mouth, I summarised your commentary as it reads to me. You think you are a bearer of Truth, therefore all those things that have stopped you bringing Truth are a problem. And I see your Truth as ideology and find it at odds with the actual truth as I understand it from my reading of the same sources. I allow for the possibility that reasonable people may differ, you appear not to. It really is that simple. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, then i'd say you must be reading my commentary strangely. I've made observations on what i see within Wikipedia, and then you say that i've say that i'm right about everything, or something like that? It's so strange. When can we simply talk like people. If i were to say "I think Trump is a loose cannon," would you say "But... but... you just think you're right about everything!!!" or would you perhaps say "I don't think he is a loose cannon," and follow up with reasons, or "I agree with you," and perhaps more evidence? See what i'm saying? When i make an assessment of Wikipedia's environment, you are totally free to say "I disagree with you" but i don't think it's kosher to say "All of your commentary on this page can be distilled down to one contention: that you are right, and therefore all criticism of you is invalid and all actions taken agaiinst you are invalid." ..... Yeah, i think tht i am right about this and that does not make be a "bearer of Truth" with all the implied sarcasm and loaded meanings that you mean by that phrase... people speak what they think is true, with lowercase "t" and that's not a sin, JzG/Guy. That's the nature of human beings thinking and speaking... the meta-level weirdness of this is whack. SageRad (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Also there's this: "I allow for the possibility that reasonable people may differ, you appear not to." Well, you're patently wrong about this -- i most certainly do know and affirm constantly that reasonable people may differ, and this has little to do with my point in this section, and it's also a rather insulting thing to say about someone, as it's a fool who does not allow that reasonable people differ. All this seems like smokescreen. My point is to speak my observation of aligned people with a specific agenda acting in specific ways that are harmful to the encyclopedia, with specific content goals and a rather consistent scornful and mean tonality that is harmful to the general atmosphere and drives away editors who are less ensconced into this particular subculture or subgroup... and notably the same dozen or two editors come to attack me whenever i make this observation, or to ban me or call me names, or otherwise to make it all about how i am horrible and foolish instead of comparing observations and thoughts. SageRad (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

So you say. And yet still you come across as an aggressive promoter of beliefs that lack scientific support, and still you portray your inability to change Wikipedia's tone in these subjects to match your perspective, as evidence that everybody else is doing something wrong. Ever wondered why you're not having a lot of success persuading anyone other than a few long-term griefers to your point of view? Guy (Help!) 17:25, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

So we go in circles, with your comments generally being backhanded insulting comments about my failures as a human being, and my comments being denials of your false accusations and characterizations, followed by my urging you to either comment about the topic at hand, not about me, or else don't comment at all ... How you think i "come across" is certainly not how everyone thinks i "come across" and it's also commenting on the person and not the topic -- a thing that is so very basic to Wikipedia that it's astounding for an admin and long-time Wikipedian like you to continue to do... Your comments seem to be an attempt at painting me as a wrong-headed failure, a form of social shaming and corralling that is transparent to me. It's not good and it's rather emblematic of the nature of the problems within Wikipedia, so once again i can thank you not for what you say per se but rather for illustrating my point. Anyway... i must go to tend my family and life. And so the weak, good force dies another small death... another editor who could be working toward better articles, and getting the articles right, which ought to be the real mission of us all collaboratively, suffers another loss. SageRad (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

So you want everyone to pretend you were not sanctioned for your POV-pushing, and assume instead that you are addressing some hypothetical topic in which you have not been a partisan? Let me know how that works out for you. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah I am really out of here now. This is now 100% WP:SOAPBOX / WP:REICHSTAG. This is all about SageRad and his quest for Truth and Justice, now showing on Jimbo's Talk page. If folks want to feed this by giving it attention, that is their call. Jytdog (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Unless of course SageRad responds to this and demonstrates that he actually has an iota of openness to feedback from the community - that there is some reason to believe that he isn't just deceiving himself into projecting his own failure to engage the community and subsequent failure to gain any traction here, onto some Cabal that is thwarting him. I'll respond to that. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I've already responded to that when i wrote I'm not responding to things like Jytdog asking me for diffs from among my 10,000 or so edits to "prove" that i've admitted when i'm wrong. I'm not required to so do, although i could if i had 5 spare hours, but i have a busy and important life outside of Wikipedia. I have admitted many times when i've been wrong on any factual, verifiable mistakes. I will not go and dig from my huge edits list the cases when i've admitted to being wrong, but i testify that there have been a good number of times. When the dialog is genuine and a question is factual, i will say when i'm wrong. I am actually proud of that. But i do not need to pander to an onerous demand for diffs because you do not have good faith in my words about my own actions. SageRad (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it is that the set of things where you consider yourself wrong, the set of things where others consider you wrong, and the set of things where you ARE wrong, are not the same set? Be that as it may, the reality is that the community of editors sorts things out, and that's the end of it, regardless of one's own personal feelings. If the US voters elect Trump in November, well, that's the way it is, regardless of any contrary views. The wise man will accept reality, rather than shout against the thunder. --Pete (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I would call the above personal attacks. Why is it so hard for you to comment on the topic at hand instead of making it about me? I made comments about Wikipedia, and you constantly reply with comments about me and why i'm a bad or foolish person. etc. Anyway, i will not participate except insofar as to name that dynamic. SageRad (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Ironically, you have in fact both illustrated and destroyed your original point. Yes, people get tectchy when someone determinedly ignores things they don't want to hear and carries on as if they never happened. The problem is not the people who get tetchy. Guy (Help!) 19:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Some sources

Some sources in support of the hypothesis that those who claim to be "Skeptics" are not solely skeptical (with a small 's') but may be part of a subculture promoting a specific worldview or set of beliefs that is not objectively true as claimed:

• a paper by Michael Sofkas called Myths of Skepticism (which i found, by the way, here where an editor noted that [t]he German Interwiki uses the expression Sceptical movement in distingushes in so far Scientific skepticism from the sceptical social movement that tries to advance a certain Weltanschaung.),

• Michael Shermer in Scientific American writing about the problem of pseudoskepticism, and

• What is Social Skepticism at a blog called Ethical Skeptic.

There are more, of course, but i thought these would be useful to post, to support that i am not making these concepts up completely of my own observation of and thinking (though that is where i started to become curious about this phenom). There are sources to support this idea. SageRad (talk) 19:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

It is also possible to find "good" sources that once claimed tobacco was wonderful and smoking had no ill effects. It is impossible for people to lead a paleo lifestyle now, and there is no evidence that a particular paleo diet has more health benefits than eating sensibly. Johnuniq (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh now it is clear. SageRad is just playing the pharma shill gambit claiming that skepticism in WP is just astroturfed pseudoskeptic corporate FUD. Now he has joined hands with yet another flake, that hack anti-vax (SBM ref) "journalist" Attkisson who gave a free ticket for nutjobs to ignore science in her TedX (like X-files) talk on "astroturfing" and, on her "Full Measure" (of bullshit) show, gave the world a Mike Woods/ Greg Kohs lovefest "critiquing" Wikipedia here - with no hint of irony that those two paid editors send people to WP to do undisclosed editing for companies. Where did all the fuss over astroturfing go?

Her descent from decent journalist to bizarro land has been documented at Mother Jones and Media Matters.

So along with Rome Viharo and Natural News, SageRad has also linked arms with Sharyl Atkisson, anti-vaxers, Greg Kohs.... more high quality company. What a muddle. . Jytdog (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Pseudoskepticism is indeed a problem. You can read about an example at global warming controversy. You can also read many delusional attempts to portray legitimate skepticism as pseudoskepticism and oppression of Wonderful New Truths™ (see, for example, Rupert Sheldrake). Basically, whenever you read a critique of skepticism, the first thing to do is.. be skeptical. Check the author's background and the dispute that might have led them to write what they did. Depressingly, you'll very often find that they are a proponent of cold fusion, "energy medicine", "other ways of knowing" or some such, and have failed to persuade any significant body of scientific opinion to their beliefs. The one that always sticks in my craw is the accusation that science is closed-minded. Science takes a weird idea seriously enough to do honest tests, they reveal that the thing is not true, proponents refuse to accept this, and thus conclude that science is closed-minded because it does not validate their beliefs and they refuse to change their beliefs in response to the evidence. Mmmmkay. Guy (Help!) 09:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

JzG/Guy, i agree with you here. The simple answer is that we must be skeptical of everything. Just because someone calls themself a "skeptic" doesn't mean that they are such. On the other hand, just because someone says that a self-styled skeptic is playing a ruse, doesn't mean that this is true either. In other words, words are cheap. It's easy to call yourself a skeptic. It's easy to call a skeptic's bluff. What is really important are good, reliable sources and good, solid thinking and good, unbiased surveys of the universe of evidence in relation to a question. That is truly what i seek here in Wikipedia. I seek for people to not use shortcuts by which they say "Hey but this skeptic says the Paleo diet is 100% bunk," or on the other hand "Hey, but they're just fake skeptics and the Paleo diet is 100% valid." The actual best evidence shows a more nuanced picture, where there are some valid aspects of thing and there are quite a few overblown claims about the thing, as well. So, there is no avoiding getting into the weeds, into the details, and looking piece by piece at the evidence with a clear eye, and a clear desire to fulfill RS and NPOV and not to push any agenda. The problem with this pattern of social skeptics, however, is that there is indeed a shortcut agenda provided in the meme universe (go to any of a few dozen Facebook "skeptic" pages and watch for a month, or observe Social Skeptic in-group dialogs anywhere else) that is more about spreading a belief system through shortcuts and slogans than about actual skepticism or critical thinking. That is a social construction of reality through a social seeding of messaging. For this to carry strongly into Wikipedia is not in line with NPOV and RS -- even if it's correct 90% of the time! The remaining 10% of the time, if the messaging is not correct or in line with RS and NPOV and good solid sources seen with nuance, then it becomes distorting of the content of Wikipedia and of Wikivoice. And, due to a sort of missionary zeal, the people who want to promote those memes into Wikipedia can often be quite mean and harsh and be more like inquisition operatives than good Wikipedia citizens of good faith. SageRad (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Retiring

I gave Wikipedia a chance for 9 years. Jimmy Wales had a great idea, and 2008-2010 seemed to be the zenith for the project, it had overcome its growing pains, and Civility was scrupulously enforced, but it has been on a steady decline from there. More and more incivility has been ignored, and even instigated by admins, who seem to pepper their edit summaries, closing summaries, and talk page comments with snark that escalates rather than resolves conflict. When I went to ANI to report someone for accusing me of "fraud" and was immediately hectored by uninvolved non-administrators merely for filing an ANI, and an admin's response is "X makes those kinds of comments at ANI. Everybody knows it, and now you do too. He's being snarky, not uncivil. Stop paying attention and it won't bother you," that's when I finally acknowledged how dysfunctional the Wikipedia culture had become. It's no wonder Wikipedia is losing editors Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to see you go. I agree the snarky edit summaries and talk page comments are out of hand. Sole Flounder (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know whether it will help, but that accusation of "fraud" was not appropriate. I'm sorry that point got lost in the discussion. The editor who used that term did have a good point, but that wasn't the way to make the point. I also think the counter-argument that the term was applied to an edit, rather than an editor so technically was not a personal attack is a bit too wikilawyerish for my taste. That said, it is disappointing that you responded by getting into the mud. That's hardly the way to encourage civility.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:14, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

(mmyers1976 responding without logging in because i have no intention of logging in any more). II came here one last time to see if anyone actually gave a damn. Flounder and SPhilbrick, I appreciate the words, they helped soften the exit. SPhilbrick, you are right, wasn't my finest hour. I always held myself to maintaining scrupulous civility and decorum, never been blocked or even warned by an admin, but the last 5 years I've seen more and more people, including admins, getting away with more and more rudeness, it got harder and harder to see the point in staying so polite myself, and then the way ANI has apparently become an anarchy, I tried to post a civil report and got heckled for it by people who seem to hang out there for that purpose, and I snapped and responded in kind, I no longer want to be a part of a culture so dysfunctional it's bringing out the worst in me. 2602:304:CE79:4500:A850:B1D1:7B24:DF4E (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

You know when you WP:FLOUNCE, its considered bad form to come back within 24 hours. You need to leave it at least a week to gather the suitable talk-page 'Dont go!' messages. [[User:Only in death|Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Only, that was just the kind of comment I needed to remind me of why I'm leaving this place. Don't worry, this will be my last message on Wikipedia, period. 198.0.82.2 (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Only in death: Looks like quite a lot of logged out editing previously, though. _Muffled ^Pocketed 15:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Glad I could be of help. Ta-ra! Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:27, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I hear your words loud and clear, and they resonate with my observations fully, as you can tell from the section i started above ("Wikipedia, we still have a problem"). Civility seems to be hardly extant here. Without enforcement of basic civility, let alone integrity of dialog, the environment here is toxic to many well-intentioned and talented editors. Your retirement speaks exactly to points i made above. The content suffers greatly from this dysfunction of culture among editors. It's inevitable. If we cannot hold civil discussions among various points of view, then Wikipedia is lost. SageRad (talk) 13:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

(Reading the dialog above, in response to your parting message, i am simply astounded at the level of rudeness tolerated here with no repercussions. It feels like a Kindergarten class with no teacher present.) SageRad (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Same here... Really astonishing. It's bad that people no longer want to identify with our community, mostly because of how we interact with each other. We have a serious bullying and civility problem (and I think part of this is actually a side effect of how people interact with each other in youtube comments, twitter, politics, etc, it's a larger societal problem). But a problem none the less and if it were up to me, we would start a strong punitive blocking policy. No vengeance, but also no get out of jail free cards. And i'd have no problem with giving people/avatar/onlinepersona publicly displayed scores on an 'asshole level'-scale. And requiring an emailaddress for your account, and so much more... Oh and Mmyers1976, please find something that you enjoy doing, that enriches your life and makes the world a better place. Good luck. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree, I remember editing in the late 2000's and it was fun, mostly collaborative and dealing with disputes wasn't that terrible. Now, I'm scared to post or comment in certain areas because I know that others will pounce. I also know that admins do get away with things a mere mortal would not get away with, and worse, if you complain, then you get blocked. The whole Wiki is pretty toxic and Jimmy needs to start doing something about from the top down. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The fatal flaw in "preventative not punitive" is that it quite clearly grants license to do whatever you want, provided you stop doing it before a sanction is applied. People are more than smart enough to see that, and many of them are unethical enough to exploit it, and do so regularly. It is a noble experiment in human nature that has, regrettably, failed. No viable society in history has said that you won't be punished for wrongdoing provided you can convince us that you won't do it again, even though this is the fifth time you have convinced us of that. It's time we abandoned the experiment and recognized that, by their deterrent value, punitive sanctions are preventative. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

"All in all it's been a good day."[14] And we can leave any time we want......and come back. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• It's easy to get wrapped up in drama and frustrated and mad when things don't go one's way. Complaints about "lack of civility" almost inevitably follow, because that is a more or less meaningless flag that everyone can get behind and it is easy to garner sympathy in such a way. The fact is, an experienced editor such as Mmyers1976 should have somewhere between no and low expectations of ANI solving any interaction complaint, such experienced editors should not become upset when ANI underperforms even these low expectations, and such experienced editors, instead of running off, need to ask themselves why they ever went dashing off to ANI in the first place. A newcomer might be surprised and shocked and repelled from the project by what they learn — an experienced editor should know this in the first place. If a jerk is dominating one article, move along and write about something else. There are 5.25 million pieces to work on and at least three times that many more that remain to be written. Just get busy and write, goddammit. Then again, we all have our cracking points with stress and we all need to get away from time to time. So, take some time, M. Myers, rest and recharge and remember what it is about WP that makes putting up with the steady stream of low level background bullshit worthwhile. And we look forward to seeing you back when the time feels right again. best regards, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with you to an extent, I took a whole bunch of pages off my watchlist for that reason. But the fact remains that there is a civility problem. It really does depend on who the perpetrators are in order to determine response. Admins do have a problem with crossing the snark-incivil line. I do understand that they have to deal with trolls and real bad guys out on the net, but the answer to a civility query should not be "That's the way he is, get used to it." Civility needs to be stressed and it needs to be enforced. With that, there can be greater collaboration, greater camaraderie, etc. I don't need to edit an article to fix a mistake if I'm just going to be hit with crap. We need to let the editors know that we do take civility seriously and we need to change our attitude about it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:48, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I've seen what SageRad is saying. People do come with better science and they are banned because they are new users focusing on their area of interest so they must be SPAs or part of a scam of some sort, or some other excuse. There is an Official Science/Skepticism Movement™ associated with Rational Wiki and Atheism+ that has abandoned science and skepticism and become a mirror image of fundamentalism. If these people were around 50 years ago they would have laughed off tectonic plate theory and the idea of warm-blooded birdlike dinosaurs and they would have done everything in their power to ruin the careers of the actual scientists driving science forward. This is one of several agenda-based groups in the admin corps that routinely ignore NPOV and harshly punish anyone who stands in the way of rewriting the Wiki to support their agenda, actual science and sources be damned.

And all over American Politics and the Arab-Israeli conflict the admins have declared sources known to accept native advertising and print hoaxes without correction as "reliable" while sources that don't have as bad a reputation are not allowed because they make less money, don't have as wide a marketing reach, and most importantly, the information they print is in disagreement with what the admins would rather have the page say. Hoaxing is allowed if done by the right people or to the right people such as Gamergate, White Genocide, the Men's Rights Movement, or Frank Gaffney. Meanwhile the actual experts tend to be bullheaded and certain of themselves and they have little tolerance for all of these rules and regulations so they challenge the house POV as aggressively as the admins challenge them and they get the boot very quickly.

Here is one small example of the problem in US Politics. An experienced editor can get away with calling another editor a "racist conspiracy theorist" because the junior editor is better informed of the subject matter: the subject's legal documents were published, they say that the subject is white, and it would take a DNA test to prove them wrong. The experienced editor, a former admin who is buddies with all of the other admins, still insists that the subject is black and had the junior editor blocked for saying that Wikipedia should take no position on the controversy. Nobody sanctioned the senior editor or even warned them for the gross and unwarranted personal attack.

You know that a big part of the problem is Gardner's people and the gendergappers and the jackasses who hang out on IRC and canvass each other all the time. You must have heard about the harassment of David Auerbach by the same arbitrators who pretend that they need more power and more WMF money to stop harassment on Wikipedia. Do something about it. 50.196.177.155 (talk) 20:54, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jzg: If you had a substantive reason for deleting the post, you should have left that in the edit summary. Simply stating "rant" is not sufficient. It would be informative for you to share with us your evidence this was "trolling" (your word, not mine). DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO, I also reverted Jzg's deletion of another editor's post (50.196.177.155). --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@50.196.177.155: The post you cite is an interesting example. On one hand, I see the rationale of the admins that someone is pushing at BLP a bit with a mostly political purpose, but on the other, yes, this is the sort of thing that needs to be discussed. I do not claim any great talent at it, but I think the absolute key to any "Jedi for judgment" scenario [sorry, this is an impossibly obscure reference, can't find it myself...] is that you need to think deeply about the problem and get at the unspoken detail that has everyone confused. In the case of Shaun King, this key detail is explained here -- other than by court action, the husband of a mother will be entered as the father on the birth certificate unless he voluntarily disclaims paternity and the biological father voluntarily assumes it in a three-way process. Legal paternity on a birth certificate simply is not intended to be a racial pedigree. The biggest practical problem that comes up then is how do you get past 'original synthesis' rules to share your enlightenment? Hmmm, I dunno, but whatever way you choose has to be more useful than arguing at ArbCom. Wnt (talk) 22:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

• Well, the obvious problem is that the comment was left by someone who is self-evidently evading eithe ra block or scrutiny, because it is utterly implausible that this comment was left by a genuinely new user. But whatever. This is Jimbotalk, trolls get to evade blocks here pretty often, and I don't care that much. Guy (Help!) 23:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

There's something to part of your message, but in any case deletion didn't seem to be supported by policy and another editor thought the ideas in the message were worth having a discussion about and correspondingly responded to the message. Out of curiosity, would you have deleted the message if it was posted by a registered account? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I, for one, am thankful that the comment was restored twice by two different editors, and troubled that it was deleted twice by JzG/Guy. This is more distortion of dialog. I don't see what would make it "trolling". Sure, it could conceivably be someone who is blocked, but it could also be someone who is just an IP user or who is not comfortable using their username here for whatever reason (possibly because of the hostile culture that is the very topic we're discussing, in which people are often "marked (wo)men" and attacked whenever their username pops up. Anyway, i am very thankful that i was able to read this comment, and i find it useful. I am troubled it was deleted twice, making me wonder what else i've missed because of such deletions. (One of my comments was heavily cut yesterday by Jytdog on another page, for instance. I happened to notice it and restore the sense of what i'd wanted to express.) How is deleting or cutting other people's comments on such flimsy justification allowed nowadays? If i think someone's comment is "just crap" as in the edit summary of that last link, then can i simply delete it willy-nilly? Some people think they can. It's one more element of the toxic nature and lack of integrity in the dialogs here, which must be solved before the content can improve with integrity. SageRad (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I am sure you are glad, since it flatters your belief in an Evil cabal™. Do you want full details of my affiliation with RationalWiki and Athiesm Plus? I have none. I don't edit RW and I am not even an atheist. And that is precisely the problem with that kind of comment: it paints the world as black and white, with everybody either on the side of the angels or part of the evil militant atheist skeptic cabal. Not only is it not true, but even if it was true, it would not be a problem, because Wikipedia policies are unambiguously rationalist. Guy (Help!) 16:21, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Listen to how you talk, just listen to yourself, will you? SageRad (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

From the above message of 50.196.177.155, "An experienced editor can get away with calling another editor a "racist conspiracy theorist"..." If one follows the link, the phrase is in the section 75.140.253.89 (click "show" to expand) and is under the part Additional comments by editor filing complaint. Here's the whole sentence. "This editor is, quite simply, a racist conspiracy theorist, and should not be permitted to edit this person's biography." Looks to me like a personal attack in violation of the policy WP:NPA. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

To be fair to JzG/Guy's point above, i agree that it's not a purely "black and white" thing. There are shades of gray. That's what i would consider either a misrepresentation or misunderstanding of what i am saying. But there do seem to be "sides" and battle lines drawn. Observation from a bird's-eye-view after some time does show clear patterns of the same group of people doing the same sorts of things in the same direction. To an extent, that's ok and to be expected, as people are consistent through time, but when it becomes dominant of the project and hostile to others, then it's clearly not ok anymore. For JzG/Guy to say "it flatters your belief in an Evil cabal™" is painting me as having a comic-book-style model of what's happening, which i do not. On the other hand, there are obvious patterns here. There are shades and nuances to this issue. There are people who want to push silly pseudoscience into Wikipedia, and it is good that others will oppose that. On the other hand, if the "immune system" goes overboard then you get an auto-immune disorder, which is where i think Wikipedia's at. The "Skeptic" movement fancies itself an immune system against quackery and such, and to an extent, it is -- and for this i am thankful. But when it goes overboard, takes over the project, and exercises a monopoly on declaring entire realms to be "fringe" whereas that may be partially correct but also partially over-reach, that's where it goes bad. And the general tone that seems to come from the attitude seems to be scornful and mean, and even proud of being so mean, or at least self-excusing of being mean ("Well, you get tired of fighting quackery day after day...") but just like it is not excuse for police to be dehumanizing and prejudiced against civilians because they do confront bad people, it's no excuse for self-appointed defenders of one version of rationality to become mean and punitive to editors as a default, and to continue to try to mark and paint certain editors over and over and over again to the point where they leave the project with their hands in the air. SageRad (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

There are "sides", yes. One side is long-time Wikipedians defending, to the best of their ability, the foundational policy of WP:NPOV, the other side is people who come here to "correct" our "bias" on topics such as homeopathy, vaccines, evolution, climate change and so on. It has always been like that. The only thing that's really changed is that it is now dramatically more important to cranks to get their views reflected as fact on Wikipedia. Well, that and the fact that we now appear to live in a post-factual society where a subset of people genuinely believe that there are "different ways of knowing" things that are open to objective testing, and that their belief is every bit as valid as science's fact. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You still seem to be seeing it in a completely polarized way, judging from the comment above. You seem to be the one who is more guilty of "black and white" thinking moreso than i, the one who you claim to be guilty of it. I see and describe nuance in the situation, and that there is much good that comes from watching out for NPOV and RS ... but then the question becomes "who is watching the watchers, and what prevents them from going overboard and becoming harmful in that way?" and at this point i see that having come to fruition, like, as i said above, an overenthusiastic immune system which leads to auto-immune disorders. The immune system becomes harmful when it goes overboard and destroys good things. SageRad (talk) 14:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Just a general question for the two of you. If there was strict adherence to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, do you think that the two of you would be having this discussion? --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

A wonderful question, Bob K31416, and my answer is a resounding "No, we'd be alright then!" which would be wonderful! That's pretty much all i'm advocating for -- the strict and sensible application of the policies of Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we absolutely would. SageRad was topic-banned from his main area of interest by ArbCom, and that is the meat of his complaint. He considers this ban to be illegitimate, which is why he says the conversation would not be happening if PAG were adhered to: in his world, adherence to policy means he gets his way. A lot of people have pointed out he's wrong. He doesn't believe it. Guy (Help!) 23:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

A followup question for both of you. If Wikimedia Foundation provided a professional expert on Wikipedia policies and guidelines who ruled against you, would you accept that ruling? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom already ruled against SageRad on the substantive issues of policy, and appeals here have failed to get Jimbo to intervene. That's how Wikipedia works. I'm content to defer to the community if anything changes, and to science of that changes, but we don't do professional experts. Guy (Help!) 00:27, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

There is way more scrutiny here concerning civility than there was in the past. To say it's actually worse than ever is not only untrue, and sour grapes; it's downright insulting to those who work to improve civility issues around here. If I had a dime for every editor that retired in a huff saying, "This place just isn't like it used to be!"... I'd have a ton of freaking dimes! Doc talk 08:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Thought I might add my experience as a mature aged female editor. Recently I asked admins at ANI to take action on this foul mouthed comment waste of fucking time. this URL is already used as a named ref. sloppy time-wasting garbage Mr Wales, do children and adults reading such comments on the article and talk pages really need to be exposed to such filth. And nothing, I repeat nothing was done. So as for civility improving here and admins taking action on such incidents, well....?Charlotte135 (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The case commences, Charlotte135. _Muffled ^Pocketed 07:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Link, please? Guy (Help!) 07:21, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I was looking for this same thing, but then came across some totally unambiguous copyright infringement that led to a topic ban. This edit[15] is a blatant copypaste from the very source they listed as a reference. The phrase "around 30% of global suicides are due to pesticide self-poisoning, most of which occur in rural agricultural areas in low- and middle-income countries" is directly lifted from the source material. Charlotte135 denied doing it.[16] A very sordid business... Doc talk 07:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Not sordid at all. i was going to use quotations for that section. But just another example of taking the focus off such uncivil and uncouth foul language used by a supposed experienced editor toward a relatively new female editor, and then other editors and Admins covering it up, and downplaying it. Jytdog did not say waste of fucking time. this URL is already used as a named ref. sloppy time-wasting garbage for that either. It was because I used a bare URL in my reference. A lesson now learnt and I have not done again. Jytdog could have left a civil comment as to the use of bare URLs instead of filthy abuse! Was using the words waste of fucking time really necessary? It is intimidating. It is bullying. It is threatening language. Especially to some moral readers and children. If noone can see my point here, there really is something terribly wrong at WP. Children read WP public forums. This is the problem spoke of above. Perhaps this policy could have applied Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. However I'm sure other editors will now continue to take the focus away from the point I'm making and Jytdog's foul language on a public forum, and towards a relatively new female editor. No wonder WP loses so many females here!! And Admins at ANI did absolutely nothing. Sorry, I disagree, WP civility is going downhill fast and IMO Mr Wales, someone needs to change this before it is too late!Charlotte135 (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• Charlotte135, suggest that since your topic ban stops you 'making sex/gender-related edits on topics not mainly about sex/gender', it might be worth avoiding discussing why WP 'loses so many females' here. FYI. _Muffled ^Pocketed 08:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The editor in question apologized and at least one other female editor (an admin) indicated that your overreaching was somewhat offensive to her. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:23, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

No, they objected to me calling it "verbal abuse". I think it was verbal abuse. Sorry. And that backs up my point again on declining civility and Admins doing nothing about it. And NeilN, my whole point here is that civility is not being addressed, by Admins. You did nothing about Jytdog did not say waste of fucking time. this URL is already used as a named ref. sloppy time-wasting garbage for using a bare URL and as a relatively new editor. As I said, I knew the focus would be taken away from that point, but it's true. It needs to be addressed at Wikipedia, as new editors are being chased away by WP interrelated gangs, that bully, instead of encourage newbies that may disagree with them, and their ideology driven agendas. Why don't you focus on the foul mouthed abuse by Jytdog? You did nothing. No new editor needs to be told waste of fucking time. this URL is already used as a named ref. sloppy time-wasting garbage Why can't you see that NeilN?Charlotte135 (talk) 08:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

You're ignoring the fact that editors agreed the language was uncalled for and that Jytdog apologized. And you, having earned your second topic ban, are not a new editor. That doesn't excuse the language but stop trying to make it a factor here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 09:01, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

It is a factor here. It was Admins attitude toward this language, that I'm talking about. It was quickly dismissed and you know it NeilN. I am sure I will now be swiftly blocked (gagged) by angry Admins, for having the courage for speaking out here. But Mr Wales, I really, really think you need to do something about this issue of declining civility and bullying of new editors, by established gangs (cartels), before it's too late!Charlotte135 (talk) 09:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Charlotte, you're being got at. On 14 August Debresser asked at the Reference desk if some text in Yiddish was sourced from a Times article. We never heard any more, but that text was lifted word - for - word from the Times article. Debresser established that because he was sent a copy of the article. He did nothing about the copyvio but removed a lot of content without mentioning it in his edit summary, which was

Fix broken link. Note that the article number is not the same, but this is without doubt the article that was the source for this paragraph.

Whole Internet has trolls and many users make clean start

The recent news about the Facebook and Twitter onslaught of cyberbullies helps to confirm the whole Internet is overrun with get-a-life tyrants who enjoy torturing users (or pet animals?), and eventually WP will accompany other websites in blocking the rude bullies. Now, after fixing thousands of pages for typos, I have noticed hundreds of experienced editors with "new" usernames, as if once wp:Wikihounded by too many trolls, those people merely create a new username for the next year's edits (or perhaps they forgot their old password and cannot take time to decode for old username). Meanwhile, there are just so many thousands of interesting topics to expand, and we cannot stop to babysit bullies when so much else needs to be done to expand Wikipedia's coverage of topics. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

You will, of course, now clarify that you absolutely do not intend to imply that anybody with whom you are in dispute on Wikipedia tortures animals. Guy (Help!) 19:58, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I've never tortured animals (and consider people who do to be despicable pieces of shit), and I've had this username since 2005. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

^so these 2 admins decided to take the 'least' important part of Wikid77's statement and talk about that instead...lol..and we wonder what is wrong with this site...nonsense aside, I also think we should focus less on cyber bullying and more on building the site. It seems like when you tell a troll to stop doing something, you are either tagged as a cyber bully or someone who is 'Hounding' that person so they basically become the victim of their own tyranny, I personally believe that people who get 'easily offended' should not really be on social media or wikipedia, the internet was not meant for everyone and i'm very much against clean starts, its just an excuse for 'bad people' to make a new start to get what they want......--Stemoc 23:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

There was nothing there worth addressing. In my experience most of the "brand new users" Wikid77 discusses are returning sockpuppets of rebuffed POV-pushers. You could get rid of everybody who defends Wikipedia agianst abuse, I guess, on the grounds that most of us are burned out, but the result would not be pretty, albeit that the lunatic charlatans would be very happy. Guy (Help!) 07:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

• "overrun with get-a-life tyrants who enjoy torturing users" - sounds very familiar!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:16, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Gamergate controversy draft

Mr. Wales, you've taken an interest in the Gamergate controversy article in the past. I believe you once suggested that anyone unhappy with the present article should try to write a better one. I invite you to give your opinion on whether I've managed to do that. Rhoark (talk) 03:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, so it is all about ethics in videogame journalism after all. Why didn't we say so to start with? Guy (Help!) 07:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)