This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Martinphi (talk | contribs) at 04:11, 17 October 2007 (←Created page with 'If you feel it would be helpful, please ask me questions, by email or otherwise. I think [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Para...'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 04:11, 17 October 2007 by Martinphi (talk | contribs) (←Created page with 'If you feel it would be helpful, please ask me questions, by email or otherwise. I think [http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Para...')(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)If you feel it would be helpful, please ask me questions, by email or otherwise.
I think this edit pretty much sums up what I have tried to do since the ArbCom on the paranormal.
If the Arbitrators would like to get to know my wikiself a bit better, I've put a FAQ in my
I ask that the Arbitrators look at my actual edits and editing patterns........ but not merely the edits presented as evidence against me. Some of those are very much out of context, and even though most of them aren't wrong on their face, many were much more moderate in context. This has happened before, many times, and apparently I make lots of edits which sound much worse when taken out of context (: For example, Wikidudeman doesn't tell you that I promised to vote for him in his next RfA if he stays NPOV for a year- foolishly getting myself into collecting evidence. Another example: I said I wasn't assuming good faith in ScienceApologist. Wikidudeman doesn't tell you that ScienceApologist had just removed -I won't say vandalized- my parody template, saying that it was a personal attack, and that I'm not a member of Wikiproject RationalSkepticism, which I am. Instead of discussing it with me, he removed it, then edit warred with me over it- I thought it was vandalism. He's since continued to attack me, even after I apologized for calling him a vandal, and he's continued to say I have an offsite attack page. He also refused to apologize when Wikidudeman asked him to . Another example: the diff showing that I have a list of edit summaries referring to the ArbCom fails to note that I put those in just a few days ago, after recent disruptions. In LuckyLouie's diffs, see also section on Raul, below.
In spite of what Wikidudeman has to say now, just a while back he had this to say:
- Martin has been editing here for a long time and it's possible to work things out with him if you try. Wikidudeman (talk) 13:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
He also gave me a barnstar for our work on Parapsychology .
ScienceApologist has said that my Paranormal primer essay is an "attack site." Here is the updated version, and here is the version SA was talking about. BTW, if you read it carefully, Tom Butler's page isn't an attack either, nor a recommendation of bad behavior, but a complaint against behavior you will agree was bad. I don't agree with some of the things he says.
I have been accused of having an agenda on Misplaced Pages. That is true. I wanted parapsychology and related articles represented fairly. I also knew from my studies that parapsychology was a scientific field, even if psychic/psi phenomena are not real. Personally, I do think that there are probably some paranormal phenomena which are real. I'm not sure which ones, and I believe they have not been proven scientifically. I never wanted to suppress skepticism. But I do feel that certain editors have a bias against paranormal topics. I believe they want to tell the reader what to believe, not just neutrally present the facts and sources.
I made a big fuss on the FA talk page. I believe Raul did things there which are a classic abuse of editorial and administrative powers:
1. That he edited the page from his own opinion about the subject, rather than from what the sources say.
2. That he ignored the .
3. Most especially that he protected a page where he himself was in a dispute.
I also believe that such behavior is worse in an Admin, and even worse in an Arbitrator, in whom the community places so much trust. That's my opinion. It's a moral stand I have to take. If you want to censure me for it, I'll take the punishment.
I probably took the issue too far. I didn't understand the special status of the FA page. I didn't know that Raul had been asked to oversee the page (and no one explained for a long time, even after I asked what was going on). I thought he was just another editor who disliked the paranormal.
If paranormal articles are going to be given unfair treatment on the FA page (against consensus), isn't it only right to make sure they don't get put there? When I said I'd do my utmost to keep paranormal articles away from the FA page, I meant I'd vote/argue against it, if they are going to be treated unfairly. I also have other reasons to be trepidacious.
What shall I do?
I'm really the only person out there a lot of times who wants to uphold the previous ArbCom which the skeptical community has said you guys got so wrong. I keep getting edits like the following:
"transparently childish self-deception"
quack "scientists" don't count
I have edit warred to keep these edits out. I am asking you to tell me what I'm supposed to be doing. I am the only editor out there, a lot of the time, who will keep track of these pages and attempt to prevent POV pushing (I monitor 386 pages). There are tons of editors like those who accuse me. I can't take all those editors to mediation. I don't have time. Also, there is limited space for compromise when they are going against NPOV and the ArbCom on the paranormal. How can I keep the articles from becoming POV without edit warring?
Civility/disruption:
I believe I have been civil (much much more so than those who accuse me). However, I have been disruptive. The thing I'd like the ArbCom to decide is whether "disruption" is in-and-of-itself bad. I don't see it that way, because it is a matter of what I've been disrupting. I see myself as disrupting POV-pushing (general distain for the paranormal and OR), and I feel that editors are upset that I carry out this disruption. But is such disruption, if done in a civil way, against the spirit or rules of Misplaced Pages? There's no question I've been disruptive- but I hope it's been in a very well-sourced and NPOV way.
There are editors such as Nealparr who are considered by many -some- to be neutral editors. But they don't do what I do- rather, they tend merely to support my general position after I've done the dirty work. They don't monitor the articles as I do, and they don't eliminate POV-pushing like the above. They usually leave it in place.
I feel I'm basically alone in performing a necessary function on the parnormal articles. I feel that I need help- I'm tired of playing the bad cop. The ArbCom should look at what I do, and either say that my general influence on the articles is bad, or give me some (more) support. Actually, I'm tired of it and I can't do it forever- it's taking too much of my time. But there just is no one out there to whom I can pass on the function.
Please consider my overall effect on the paranormal articles. See what they were like when I arrived.
Other material you may want to review: