Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:26, 4 March 2009

(What's So Funny 'Bout).... The Golden Rule

Note: I've edited WP in the past. I left in good standing, and have returned with a new account because of privacy and harassment concerns. Please do not speculate about any earlier account(s) I had, or link me to identifying specifics. I am aware of WP:SOCK and WP:OUTING and related policies; I heed them and ask others to do the same. Thank you, and happy editing!

Old alternate account, no longer active: User:Bodhi Agonist.

If you leave a message here, I'll respond here unless you request otherwise; it's much easier for me to keep conversations in one place.

Serious question

My hypothetical question on User talk:VirtualSteve was very serious. I had been thinking of raising it in another forum. Particularly if the user may have committed fraud in real life, do you think wikipedia should allow them to reincarnate and possibly move towards an admin role? Looking forward to discussion. Kevin McCready (talk) 19:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

You're asking what WP policy should be on editors who "may have committed fraud in real life"?? That's a topic I hadn't pondered, to be honest. Are you asking whether a background criminal check should be a prerequisite to adminship, or something? Again, I really hadn't given the matter much thought. --Middle 8 (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

P.S. - I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind above, but in any case, be sure to refrain from naming any editor with their real name, or implying that any editor broke the law. You don't want to run afoul of WP:OUTING or WP:LIBEL, among other things. I suspect the result (for any editor violating these) would be a significant block or ban. --Middle 8 (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the email

I'll keep your secret that you are a member of Politburo, best friends with Michael Jackson, and was formerly known as the Fifth Beatle.  :) However, despite your credentials, I am going to strongly disagree with you on Acupuncture. There's just not enough reliable sources supporting its usefulness. But, let's not get into a discussion about that article here, I've replied to you at Talk:Acupuncture. But if anyone asks if you did a bong with Ringo, I'm going to have to give you up. OrangeMarlin 20:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Reported to AE

You have been reported to WP:AE for violations of the Pseudoscience Arbitration. Please look here. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfair and unethical treatment of your complain

Are you aware that ScienceApologist was instrumental in having MartinPhi permanently banned because Martin talked about what was/is common knowledge about SA. See In fact, SA has pissed so many people off and has been such a braggart about his qualifications that his name is plastered around the Internet and it is unrealistic to call who he is a secret.

Levine as much as said SA outted you here: With regards the WP:OUTING, I'd like to comment that before SA's post about Middle 8's occupation, I had absolutely no idea who this editor was in real life. Now, that I know this editor's occupation, I am fairly confident I know exactly who Middle 8 is in real life. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It is becoming an ethical question that the admins are supporting SA but running off his opponents. You also noted that you are less inclined to edit. I have virtually stopped and most people in the frontier subjects are gone. I am not recommending action, just informing. The best thing to do in Misplaced Pages is to go to CitizendiumTom Butler (talk) 18:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate your support. I hadn't realized the exact circumstances of Martinphi's ban: that really does kick the hypocrisy up to new levels. Apart from that, I think it was OK for Jehochman to close the cases, but not to slander my motives. I also think that SA's continued misconduct should eventually be dealt with sternly, even if they want to coddle him for now (which I think is a bad idea). This was my comment to Jehochman.

As for CZ, I tend to agree in theory, but the place ranks depressingly low in search engines, and editors don't seem too prolific; they erred by not fully forking WP. Quantity matters as well as quality. They could have gone online with thousands of OK WP articles, and gradually improved them. As it is, the place seems dead; they lack articles on the most basic topics. Also, the user interface sucks. I don't really know how the editing environment is, but it appears to be a hell of a lot better than around here.

People keep editing WP because they know others read WP, yet WP continues to suck. It's a problem, probably best solved at the demand end: what we should be doing is warning students, colleagues, family members et. al. about how seriously unreliable WP really is. There are some excellent criticisms around; I certainly plan on collecting and linking to some. I will recommend CZ to people with the caveat that it errs ridiculously toward quality over quantity. Beyond that, any one person can't really change WP, and is likely to go bananas trying. Sincere best wishes and thanks for your kind and sane words. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)