Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Vandenberg (talk | contribs) at 03:07, 24 February 2008 (→Blocked for 96 hours: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Current Block

Having finally completed consideration of the report closed here, I've blocked you for 96 hours. Thatcher had specifically warned you against some of the language used in the reported edit less than a week prior.

Before I could find that you assumed bad faith, I had to check more of the history than just the complaint. Having read the history of Cold fusion, the mediation page, and the ArbComm case, it is clear to be that you did assume bad faith. This behavior has to stop.

You also were incivil. I wish to offer you further advice on how to avoid being incivil. I'm sure that you have heard "comment on the content, not the contributor" before. I'm saying it again, because you aren't doing it. Be more specific say "this change was appropriate because...". Good completions where the ellipsis are would be things like "sources X, Y, and Z each say 'quote from the sources'" or "we don't have any sources to support the alternative". References to POV are not good completions for the ellipsis. GRBerry 20:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Another day, another changing bar. This admin has now removed at least two NPOV supporters on Misplaced Pages. Perhaps not his intention, but definitely the effect of his advocacy. He started with Adam Cuerden and now has moved on to me. Just as before, there was a failure in providing adequate and timely justification and evaluation of situations, and as a result a sympathetic ear has yet again been lent to the vocal minority of POV-pushers complaining about vague and ever-changing notions of "civility" and "good faith". Rather, Misplaced Pages administrators continue to enforce vaguely defined behavior guidelines rather than focusing on content guidelines.

It is clear that User:Ronnotel made an edit that had the effect of POV-pushing in favor of cold fusion. It is also clear he was not involved in the mediation conversation and swooped in with the effect of tip the balance on a mediation page in favor of his POV. User:Seicer is having a hard time controling the situation, and this is the sad result. This is the very reason I said that we shouldn't do a mediation in the first place. This is also why I will not involve myself in mediation in the future given the terrible track record I have witnessed for its (non)success. GRBerry has assured us that he has "read" the Cold fusion pages and from that it is somehow "clear" that I'm "assuming" bad faith. There are so many ill-defined terms in that last sentence, that I'll leave it to the reader to figure out what he means by it. I am particularly amused by his offer of "advice". It is more than ironic that this user is not practicing what he preaches by commenting on me instead of my contributions. Indeed, my comments to the user in question were simply advice. References to another user's POV are relevant and manifestly not assumptive when the person makes an edit without being involved in talk space and has a proven track record of supporting a particular POV. If it was a policy never to refer to another person's POV, then why, praytell, is there an WP:NPOV policy at all? Just get rid of it and rely completely on WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF.

It's clear that this had led to playing the game and supporting the community rather than writing a verifiable, reliable, and neutral encyclopedia. What a sham(e).

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC) modified by agreement by PouponOnToast (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

SA, I've been very tolerant of your continued use of uncivil terms to unfairly taint my behavior. However, it has now been determined by two neutral parties, GRBerry and Seicer, that I have not been POV Pushing on Cold fusion. Either substantiate your charges with diffs or kindly stop making them. Ronnotel (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that PouponOnToast (talk · contribs) heavily edited ScienceApologist (talk · contribs)'s comments to reflect his own values, per what he authored on my talk page. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear oh dear, ScienceApologist, you're so hilariously incorrigable! lol--feline1 (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, feline1. It's always nice to see you out for a laugh. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

After Seicer had reverted PouponOnToast's edit, the latter once again refactored SA's comment (diff). SA's original comment can be found here. Avb 22:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking out for me, AvB, but I think PoP has my best interests in mind. He has my permission to edit any and all comments I make on this wiki that anyone can edit. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

He's also been forum shopping in SA's defense, and has been blocked twice in the past few days. I've already brought this to an administrator's attention. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you should consider refactoring this. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Shortening to roughly 48 hours from original block (unless I miscalculated; that is my intent) at emailed request of the mediator. GRBerry 14:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Aww, shucks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) 14:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Just as a note, I've been in extensive discussions with SA and feel that my comments were a weighted factor in the blocking of SA for 96h originally. That was not my intent. I wanted the revert warring and pointless character attacks to stop. In the future, as mediator, I will step back and let others handle the situation and recuse myself from further discussions in regards to SA's actions in relation to CF, as it could lead to possible conflicts of interest. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I just want to mention that the current condition of Cold fusion is indeed sad, presenting it as a disputed effect, instead of as a famous mistake. Short history reads like a very simple computer program:

100 Chemist (never physicist) takes more precise measurement with newer tool and finds excess energy in a process in his lab.

110 Chemist is oblivous to the Cyclotron in the physics lab next door, which is the actual source of the excess energy.

120 Chemist announces Cold Fusion.

130 Media jump on it.

140 Physicists jump on chemist.

150 Pause a few years.

160 Jump to different chemical lab in different country. Set Chemist := new chemist.

999 GOTO 100.

I would love for every chemistry and chemical engineering major, as freshmen, to run that program by hand with paper and pencil, for 100 iterations, before they can get their degree. Or are allowed to touch a web browser. It's like circle-squarers in mathematics, for a new generation. This does make it easy for me to see where SA gets his energy, though. Measurable as increase in temperature :-) Pete St.John (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL. I would actually be quite content to going back to the Featured Article version, given that it had to have achieved some sort of consensus and was stable enough to be acceptable to all parties. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/ScienceApologist for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.Template:Do not delete Ronnotel (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, this should be rich. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It already is. Apparently I can be called names, but for me to demand an apology from said caller is incivil. PouponOnToast (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The anti-Science POV warriors and the gang of useless admins are throwing accusations out like crazy. This is just pathetic. OrangeMarlin 21:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

ID

Hey. Have you ever verified your ID? I remember some discussion long ago, but I have no recollection if that was some troll or if it was you. Thanks. PouponOnToast (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Whowouldathunk that such a little comment would result in such a ridiculous block and unblock and departure of my one true friend at Misplaced Pages? I'd like to declare right now that I myself am not a trolling fuck, though I have been accused of being so. Yeah, I have tried to keep quiet my identity ever since a group of crazed Velikovskians stormed the castle in Chicago. In short, I prefer it if people didn't use my IRL identity for such reasons, but I'm not extremely careful and little slips are okay. I'm proud of my activities at Misplaced Pages and encourage anyone who is interested in them to look through them and (privately) associate them with me if that makes them feel better. When and if it gets out of hand, I'll let the relevant users know. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Misusing talk page

Do not misuse your talk page to post personal information about another editor, or otherwise attempt to out them. If you feel the need to investigate that sort of potential conflict of interest, please email the Arbitration Committee in confidence. Jehochman 21:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This may be a bit surreal; and surely I'm missing something; but has SA used his talk page recently to out another editor? The stuff above is about SA's identity, not some other editor's. I can understand you don't want to post a diff to some material that may violate privacy, but something somewhat more specific would be helpful and pertinent. We don't want to make vague insuinuations of unethical behaviour, even about SA, whose hide is wonderfully thick. They should clone him and skin the clones to make body armor for the 21st century. Pete St.John (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to draw attention to material that should not have been posted. SA should recognize what I am talking about and can email me for clarification if need be. Jehochman 21:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to oversight the material. Posting it was not a grave offense, but was inappropriate. Fred Talk 22:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(EC; reply to Jehochman) There's something of an Observer Effect here, if you will excuse the irony. So (changing a name for privacy), User X posts on his Talk about himself IRL, and at Cold Fusion in favor of a nonstandard interpretation. SA accuses X of NPOV, X insists that SA back up his claims, SA then backs up his claims (with credible but not unassailable material, enough to warrant investigation I should think). IMO X asked for it. Literally, right here on this talk page. Maybe it's hardball, but hardball between consenting adults is legal in some states :-)

I grant you that the off-wiki material would be more germane to COI, not the case here, but it would seem germane to the POV thing, although I consider that a tricky area, myself, as everyone has a PoV. It doesn't matter to me that X believes something false, it just matters that the material in the article suggests something false, and those flaws seem to be promoted by some editors according to some misunderstanding. Pete St.John (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

PeterStJohn is somewhat right (though I don't know if "observer effect" is the right lingo) - Ronnotel asked ScienceApologist to defend his claims, so shouldn't have been surprised that SA did so. I was at work while both parties were emailing me about these claims, so I got the emails but didn't have time to do more than load and quickly read the relevant on and off wiki pages. The diffs here are now oversighted, as per Fred's comment. Frankly, I read the evidence as more that Ronnotel had an interest in the subject than that he had a strong POV - and editors are certainly allowed to edit subjects they are interested in.

To ScienceApologist specifically: even if you are right and Ronnotel has a specific POV on the subject, which I didn't think the pages showed, holding a POV is not sufficient reason to assume that they are acting incorrectly when they make an edit that favors their point of view. You, after all, have a POV that you are sufficiently proud of to have chosen a username based on. Would it be appropriate for anyone to revert all your edits that favor a scientific POV because you are known to be an apologist for science? I think you would protest mightily at that treatment - and you would be right to do so, but it is just as wrong for you to apply such a treatment to others as it would be for them to apply it to you. Nor even if you are right does would it justify incivility. Since you both assumed bad faith and were incivil, the block stands. GRBerry 01:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The evidence is quite clear: Ronnotel has a sympathetic view of Randell Mills. That's not a unique perspective, nor is it normally relevant to an editor at Misplaced Pages. There are plenty of editors who hold POVs that do a fine job putting them aside when they edit. However, Ronnotel has shown a marked inability to set aside his POV and be straightforward in dealing with cold fusion-related topics. This is when holding a POV becomes a problem: when the editor loses sight of the encyclopedia and begins to actively campaign to insert a fringe perspective into the encyclopedia. It is argued that I have a "POV". In the sense that I am a person, and I have a view, this is correct. But in the sense that my POV is that the mainstream understanding of a subject is how Misplaced Pages should define a subject, I have no unique nor idiosyncratic stake in any of the controversies that I have been involved with over the years. I am not, you may note, going around the internet posting about how much cold fusion is bunk. If I were doing that, this would be evidence for POV-pushing here at Misplaced Pages. When a singular, subject-based POV is being pushed concertedly that's when we run into problems. The irony is that what you say I would be "right for protesting" is exactly what I was protesting by posting that friendly warning to Ronnotel's page. At any given time, something close to half-a-dozen wikistalkers follow me around Misplaced Pages often reverting my edits to live out their own curious little vendettas. This is life here at Misplaced Pages, and I will assume good faith and proceed as though it is something that you don't realize was going on or you would have never posted such a hypothetical. Protesting this treatment was exactly what I was doing when I reverted Ronnotel's reversion of myself and commented on his talkpage. That you missed that is curious: it makes me question your abilities to investigate enforcement matters. Interestingly, if both Ronnotel and I "assumed bad faith" (which is strange, because to assume bad faith means that you have no evidence of bad faith, but my evidence of bad faith is fairly clear to me -- so it is actually your assumption of my assumption of bad faith that as in point of fact an assumption of bad faith -- WP:AAGF) why hasn't he been scolded by you for doing so? If we were both "incivil", how come you haven't pointed that out to Ronnotel? I also note that I'm not asking for an unblock here, so I'm curious as to why you are stating that "the block stands". Is it usually your policy to add insult to injury? ScienceApologist (talk) 09:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't meant as insult to injury. I took at least one of your emails as trying to assert that my evaluation of the situation was wrong and thus the block should be lifted. I felt I owed you a response to that perceived request. I'm sorry you took it as an insult, that was not my intention. GRBerry 21:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology accepted. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

More baiting

FYI: You were brought up in a discussion completely unrelated to you or your editing, in which you have had no part in the discussion: 20:26, 15 February 2008 PeterStJohn --Ronz (talk) 06:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The mention of SA may have been gratuitous but, in all fairness to PeterStJohn, chiropractic is not the same thing as acupuncture. Cardamon (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The mention of SA is uncivil and inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't pursue the links above, as Ronz always unfailingly prefers insinuation to information, but it doesn't matter in this case, as if SA has a question or a complaint for me he'll let me know. Pete St.John (talk) 19:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I have a complaint about your bringing up SA inappropriately. I took it here for him to deal with as he choses. I also notified PeterStJohn I was doing so as a courtesy. It appears that some editors don't like my doing so, and would like to escalate the situation by being uncivil and worse. --Ronz (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't need to be notified that SA has been notified that Ronz thinks something I said was inappropriate. SA is not shy and can (and does) speak for himself. Spamming my talk with innane self-generated "notifications" after a wikiquette and and RfC and my being blocked, trying to keep him off my talk, is not any comprehensible interpretation of "courtesy". Pete St.John (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello

HI I've been lurking on the sidelines for quite some time, but decided to get involved after following recent developments on your page. I'm not a science expert (I'm an economist, oo-er) but I have a brain and am willing to help wherever I can. Deop by some time. User:The Rationalist —Preceding comment was added at 09:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Always nice to have people like you on board. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you blocked right now? I can't make much sense of the discussion above. The Rationalist (talk) 10:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm blocked until 10 hours from now. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Creation 'science'

I was going to edit the Creation science article but thought I would ask for your advice on this one. It says, e.g. 'creation scientists attack other scientific concepts, like the big bang cosmological model or models of radioactive decay.' Now presumably creation 'scientists' would object to this statement, because they think of themselves as scientists, and have no objection to any truly 'scientific concept'. Thus the sentence should read 'creation scientists attack other concepts accepted by mainstream science, like the big bang cosmological model ...'

However I remember you resisting somewhere any attempt to portray the conflict between pseudo science and science as between fringe views or minority views, and 'mainstream' science, which is what my planned edit would be doing. So how do we solve that one?

One could contrast 'orthodox science' or 'mainstream science' or 'standard scientific view' &c with the 'creation science', but all are vulnerable to your objection-in-principle, which is that there is no contrast at all, because creation science is not science. The Rationalist (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• The fundamental problem here is that creation science is not science, at least not in any meaningful sense. Guy (Help!) 09:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It almost has equal value as the "medicine" in "Alternative Medicine"... Shot info (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• No, much worse. There is some merit to at least some of the practices in complementary and alternative medicine, at least those which do not repudiate Western medicine. Example: chiropractic has a reasonably solid base of mainstream support, and many mainstream physicians recommend chiropractic as an adjunct to other therapies. And many complementary therapies have a history stretching back to antiquity. Creation "science", by contrast, is a concept cut from whole cloth by a group of people deliberately trying to subvert an important provision of the US constitution, and attempting to undermine a scientific consensus that is to all intents and purposes unshakeable. There are very few people outside the religious community who dispute the mainstream understanding of evolutionary theory, and only a very few kooks who repudiate the mainstream cosmological theories. Creation "science", as we all know, is based solely on the fact that science conflicts with a specific interpretation of religious texts, the idea that these texts are literally true, and the conclusion that science is therefore wrong. That's a long way different from a theory which is unprovable, archaic or fringe - it's the deliberate, calculated manufacture of a "controversy" where none exists in order to weasel in the teaching of a minority view even within the Christian community. Guy (Help!) 11:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• My answer to the specific question would be that "creation scientists attack other scientific concepts, like the big bang" is fairly uncontroversial - even if the universe were 6000 years old, the Big Bang would still be a wrong but "scientific concept" (although I've read a creationist say "Evolution - science falsely so-called"). As for the broader questions here, although I'm not a creationist, science articles are unfortunately written for other scientists, not for learners, and the public has no idea whether scientific authority is any more accurate than religious authority. Art LaPella (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sprites & extremely low density plasma

Thought you might find the following interesting, in light of recent conversations: Sprites, Elves, and Glow Discharge Tubes.

In it they speak rather specifically in scientific terms about sprites, electron density, and liken this to both plasma and glow discharge tubes (liken is probably putting it lightly, as they talk about plasma and plasma frequency, density, etc. for the last half of the article). It seems the 1% ionization I had quoted previously to succumb to plasma effects / behaviors was far too conservative. That article talk of 1 electron in 10 BILLION. It also states that spectroscopy does not pick up on the plasma due to its extraordinarily low ionization. Yes, they definitely use the term plasma in the article. Being as it's published in Physics Today, I assume this should be sufficiently non-controversial. Anyway, the question of spectroscopy not picking up on plasmas of such low ionization (but still sufficient to matter at 1 part per 10 billion!) brings up question with relation to the sun, specifically where spectroscopy is used as a crutch to state that "plasma doesn't exist there." Spectroscopy may not reveal extraordinarily weakly ionized plasma, if the Physics Today article is on the mark. they don't deal with the sun specifically, but the implication should be at least "interesting." Ie, if such low ionization is invisible to spectroscopy, but still sufficient to dominate interactions, it may mean we need to take a much harder look at the sun in terms of plasma ("weakly-ionized" / "cold" or otherwise). Anyway, don't mean to get preachy, or anything (so I'll leave off there, 'cause I get the feeling I did; still working on that, sorry ;o] ). Really just thought you might find the article interesting as it appears to make some general quantifications, in as far as it goes. For what it's worth. Good times, ~Michael Mgmirkin (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

presentation

Watched the 34 minutes of your obviously longer presentation at hte last NYC meet-up. Nice work! ThuranX (talk) 12:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Questionable sources

Hi ScienceApologist, a proposal is being put forward that might ease the restrictions on the citation of "questionable sources" such as self-published websites and fringe organisations. Since you spend a lot of time dealing with these subjects, and the editors who advocate them, I thought you might be interested in commenting. See Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

New mailing list

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(Yet another) WQA report

Someone filed a WQA report, which can be found WP:WQA#Complaint against ScienceApologist. Surprised no one has mentioned it to you yet. seicer | talk | contribs 02:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And now WP:AE#Complaint against ScienceApologist. I'm not for sure if the user is canvassing around or if he wasn't satisfied with the original answers from some editors. seicer | talk | contribs 02:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 96 hours

Blocked for 96 hours for breaking your arbcom civility and AGF restrictions. You only struck the comment after the AN/AE thread was started, so your post on AN/AE mischaracterises your handling of this matter. You clearly did not intend to strike your comment prior to this. Obviously the previous shortened block did not have the desired effect. You are not allowed to be incivil and then recant - the arbcom case requires that you do not be incivil in the first place! John Vandenberg (talk) 03:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)