Misplaced Pages

@Middle 8: Having left the acupuncture page behind, I'm not sure what this particular content dispute or its "dark threats" are about, but when I see a message that is disparaging about a well-respected contributor here being spammed across various pages as "a simple matter of fact" I have to raise an eyebrow. Since my message was correct at the time it was written it does not need redaction. In general I also find that The Truth™ is not - on Misplaced Pages - a very helpful concept! Alexbrn 18:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a different view about comments an editor removes: I don't repeat what they've obviously decided they'd rather not have said. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 21:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW, regarding "The Truth" not being a helpful concept -- see Guy's comment above, "Things are not helped by the large number of otherwise neutral editors who see reality/rationality as "just" another point of view." --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 20:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That was my comment. Alexbrn 21:38, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I mean "dark threats" of ArbCom over a simple matter of correctly reading a paper. Disparaging? Have you read what RexxS has written? "Rubbish" is one of the nicer things. He posted to a noticeboard about this awhile back, virtually shouting about POV-pushing and going outright WP:KETTLE over civility. It IS embarrassing to bluster like that when one is just wrong. And truth does matter per WP:ENC, for Chrissakes! This isn't a matter of opinion or weight, it's simply scientific literacy, and we've desperately lost our way if we act otherwise. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 18:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Alexbrn Speaking of disparaging, you might want to do a little self-examination of the very high ratio of your (a) calling me and others POV-pushers to (b) your commenting on specific edits that you feel are problematic. In my case it's roughly on the order of 10:1. But I know I'm a pretty good editor, and editors who "can be arsed" to pay attention to my work know that too. I'm used to the double standard, and I know why it exists: to discourage and drive away perceived POV-pushers (whether that is the intended or simply tolerated effect). The problems with that are (a) unfair stereotyping of decent editors, and (b) perpetuation of POV-pushing and downright tendentiousness from the skeptic side. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 19:46, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You are a POV-pusher, and you have a COI which you assert you do not have. You depend for your livelihood on the validity of a specific therapy based on beliefs and tradition, not empirical fact. This is not the case for doctors, as they can and do drop therapies when the science says they are invalid. No practitioner of any alternative to medicine can accept any test of the fundamental doctrines on which they base their practice. This is especially true for chiropractors and acupuncturists, where there may be some irreducible minimum of validity when the chaff has been blown away, but the chaff dominates the actuality of everyday practice. Guy (Help!) 19:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Gautama H. Buddha -- I correctly represent the acu literature (i.e., inconsistent findings of efficacy for a couple conditions that may well turn out to be due to artifact), I routinely correct misconceptions from generally pro-acu editors about sources, and other editors known for skeptic stances say I'm a good editor -- and you call me a POV-pusher anyway? What exactly do I have to do not to be one? Damn, Guy, how about you show me some diffs supporting your contention. Should be easy if you're right. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 20:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, as the COI guideline says, a conflict of interest is like "dirt in a sensitive gauge". BTW, I didn't raise COI or pov-pushing here, Middle 8 did. In fact they are - intriguingly - baked into M8's signature. Alexbrn 20:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Um. The primary topic of your posts to me from the moment we encountered each other has been my supposed POV-pushing and COI -- and that to the exclusion of discussing my edits on the merits. So yes, those things come to mind when you drop by, funny that. COI in my signature: because I take it seriously and have engaged it; guess it's a case of damned if I do mention it ("oooh, he admits it"), damned if I don't ("see how he disregards it"). POV-pushing -- ever hear of irony? One editor here has their talk page linked under "disruption" and their contributions under "vandalism". Same idea. That, and "owning" a pejorative that's routinely hurled in lieu of discussing substance. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 20:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "roughly on the order of 10:1" you already said. Thing is, anybody can look back at our interactions and see that is simply untrue. Alexbrn 21:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

What would you put it at? (Am talking about article talk.) --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 21:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

M8, when making a strong statement it's good to get the evidence first and then state a conclusion based on it, rather than asserting your version of reality and start negotiating about the evidence. I think you've maybe been exposed to a bit too much acupuncture "science" ;-) Alexbrn 05:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll readily admit to some hyperbole, but the weaker statement is true (that you've commented on the contributor instead of content multiple times), and I have produced diffs of that for you and another, less genteel editor.... it's a bad habit, but keep at it if you must. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 07:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Middle_8, you may well strive to represent the beliefs of acupuncturists accurately, but you still have a COI. You are open about what you do, which is fine, but don't pretend you don't have one, and don't pretend you're not advocating (i.e POV-pushing) because even with the best will in the world, you're the last person who could judge that dispassionately. Guy (Help!) 23:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

So if an editor is an acu'ist, they're automatically a POV-pusher (a serious offense), before making a single edit? That's waaayy too doctrinaire, not to mention uncomfortably close to the little-noticed second bullet point under WP:WIAPA. Ironically my view, that edits should evaluated on the merits, is an evidence-based view.

Of course I understand that I have a kind of COI, but it doesn't rise to WP's threshold, and neither you nor anybody has shown me a recent example of it manifesting in practice. Actually, within the last year or so, others' reflexive bias against my edits has been a real problem. I won't name names, but I've seen editors take contrary views to mine just because of my affilations -- and this when I've read a source carefully and the other editor has not. That's quite funny because it's so ironic, but from the WP:ENC standpoint, it's just pathetic. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 07:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's see. Off the top of my head I can recall that you have deleted content about adverse events in acupuncture, repeatedly chippped away at the same critical content from the lede, endorsed an improper RFC/U against another editor (which despite - or maybe even because of - its possible underlying merit, turned out to be highly disruptive), engaged in canvassing (see above), and exhibited IDHT about your COI thus thinking yourself absolved on a responsibility to heed our WP:COI guidance (see above). I'm not saying everything you do is bad; far from it. But can you not see that the evidence here suggests a problematic pattern as regards your editing of topics in which you have an interest? Are there not other areas you could enjoy working on? The question might gently be put, are you here to build an eyclopedia in general, or is your purpose more singular? Alexbrn 08:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see below under arbitrary break subsection --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 17:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the COI is inherent, the POV-pushing is a matter of actual editing practice. You have undoubtedly crossed that line more than once. I am glad this is now clear. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I too am certain I have, but recently? I took an extended wikibreak (with occasional interruption) for much of 2013, and I think I've done a pretty good job of being faithful to the literature and staying well within the mainstream since then. (All the moreso given the heterogeneity of the mainstream.) People change, and when they change for the better we should recognize that. It's one thing to have lapses of WP:ADVOCACY and quite another to POV-push, in my mind. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 09:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

As you can hardly fail to have noticed, there are several people who disagree with your self-analysis. It is wise to defer to third parties in such cases, due to the impossibility of objectivity when ones own beliefs are involved. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I thank you both for your feedback. I value it immensely and take the underlying issues of editorial bias with the utmost seriousness. Alexbrn first: you say that I've IDHT'd with respect to your guidance on COI, but I believe I've done the opposite: we had a long exchange about it, which I then posted at COI/N, where I was eventually criticized by Guy Macon for responding too much to others. I think you are confusing IDHT-ing with my not agreeing with you, and those are two very different things. Please see more at your user talk in terms of my thought processes, with which you may well disagree, but I don't think one can fairly say that I've failed to grapple with the issue, or failed to submit to accountability (i.e.: please judge my work on its merits). More in next reply re your critique of some diffs.

Guy, as much as I appreciate your feedback, I am underwhelmed by its specificity. You first stated your belief (at my user talk) that I have COI, to which I responded by citing the WP:COI guideline which says otherwise. You then replied (above), "You are a POV-pusher, and you have a COI which you assert you do not have" (disregarding reference to WP:COI). Surprised, I asked you for evidence on the POV-pusher accusation; you offered none except to say that I "have undoubtedly crossed that line more than once" and that it is impossible for me to be objective. There the discussion stands. I have no doubt that your opinions are sincere and sincerely meant in a constructive way. You want me to believe you, and Alexbrn, and somehow defer to your guidance on COI, presumably by declaring one. Otherwise you've given me nothing specific to to reflect on in terms of my own views and conduct, like "your recent edit on X gave too little weight to Y source", or "in your discussion of adverse events, you are not giving Z's arguments a fair shake", or "you're nitpicking N's reference on infertility". You don't have to furnish that level of feedback and I'm not defying you to, just saying that that's what I would find the most helpful. --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 15:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break; reply to Alexbrn's sample evidence

First, thanks for this, because specific feedback (in a low-stakes, non-drama board setting) is very helpful. Let me address each item in turn.

'1) That deletion was quite accidental, as discussed at Talk:Acu at the time. I was reverting to an earlier version of a subsection by cutting and pasting, not realizing that changes had been made in the interim. (It's easy to miss changes on that page sometimes when other editors there edit in such a ...dedicated manner.) Of course I apologized for this as soon as I realized what had happened, and IIRC, QuackGuru then repasted that diff multiple times with comments like "The sourced text was deleted without consensus."

2) - Those are four diffs that QuackGuru gave to Kww as evidence of my supposed POV-pushing. However, his choice of diffs was selective and self-serving, to say the least. In context, it's apparent that I am not editing against any consensus, nor pushing some special stance. QuackGuru and I did revert each other once or twice, but almost certainly not knowingly; lots else was going on. See User_talk:Middle_8#Excessive_complaints_and_misleading_use_of_evidence, or tl;dr:

QG chooses four diffs and depicts them as POV pushing. But QG himself was the first to add the supposedly biased "characterized" to the text at hand, while I was the first to add the safely-neutral "stated" . He didn't mention that when he contrasted the two words. QG is very detail-oriented, so his overlooking these is surprising.

3) "endorsed an improper RFC/U against another editor (which despite - or maybe even because of - its possible underlying merit, turned out to be highly disruptive)" - That RfC indeed has inadequate evidence poorly presented, and furthermore I (with my perceived if subthreshold COI) was the wrong guy to co-sign it. I certainly learned a lot from that. (Most unfortunate was one editor's unproven assertion that Mallexikon was a TCM practitioner, which gamed the outcome and contributed, I suspect, to Mallexikon's eventual departure.)
Besides that, I don't think it was improper that an RfC was brought against an editor with a long and continuous history of disruptive behavior (much of it subthreshold and hard to give diffs for, like persistent IDHTing) whom multiple editors agreed should be at a minimum topic banned. I was too naive to predict the degree of disruption that would follow, and some of it was likely unpredictable. I don't see how the RfC's underlying merit would weight against me. I know it annoyed some people. But anyone who can't see that QuackGuru has needed multiple course corrections IMO has a large blind spot.

4) "engaged in canvassing (see above)" -- Yes, my note to 2/0 was indeed non-neutral, which is why I modified it (on my own initiative) to make it neutral. (Note: I know you don't have to delete my now-deleted words, but why wouldn't you, under the circumstances, as a favor and acknowledgement of the fact that I'd prefer not to have written them? Is it important to you that they be there? "For the record" or something?) I was and am personally comfortable that the subsequent posts were not canvassing in the sense of vote-stacking, because they were based on competence to solve an objective and not very hard problem (the sort of problem that comes up too much at Talk:Acu owing to tendentiousness). OTOH, not sure if others would see it that way.

5) "and exhibited IDHT about your COI thus thinking yourself absolved on a responsibility to heed our WP:COI guidance (see above)" -- please see my reply below. Principled disagreement after demonstrated engagement and consideration is not the same as IDHT; it's the opposite of IDHT, just with an outcome different from what you wanted.

Does this evidence suggest a pattern?

1 is nothing, but could be used in bad faith, as any innocent mistake could be.

2 is meant to look bad; what is your opinion on inspection?

3 -- I don't think that good-faith mistakes should be held against a user unless repeated; I do think QG was out of line, and Guy is no fan either. I don't think I acted in bad faith at all. Maybe we'll have to agree to disagree at least in part.

4 - Pretty minor, but this is the sort of low-level thing -- a hot message redacted -- that taken along with a "canvassing" accusation here and a "The sourced text was deleted without consensus" troll repeated accusation there, can start to create a "woozle effect" and could be used to make any editor look bad. It seems like in practice posting almost anything to multiple users requesting their input, no matter how "non-partisan", is seen as being "on the canvassing spectrum".

5 - Well... I don't think that my disagreeing with you, especially when my view accords with WP:COI, counts for much, truly.

As for why I am here and other things I could be working on, have a look at the edit analysis at User:Middle_8#What_I_edit_per_User_Analysis_Tool_.28wmflabs.org.29. It surprised me to see that only about 25% of my edits are to acu-related topics. Why focus on acu? Because it's interesting -- I learn stuff -- and it's a good use of my talents. At the same time, I tend to get stuck in overly obsessive editing (a reaction to the toxic environment that most editors seem to feel there), and had a lot more fun from July '11 to April '12, and Jun '12 to Oct. '13, when I took a mostly-wikibreak from acu topics. And did Wikignomish things like this, which was fun. regards, --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 17:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You know something? If you'd said "yeah, you may be right, I understand your point" and left it at that, I'd have admired you for it. This set of answers frankly do nothing but reinforce the impression of someone who is unable to accept that their COI is relevant, and who mistakes their own biases for neutrality. So you really shot yourself in the foot. Catch-22? A bit, but actually not really: understanding that you cannot be objective about yourself, is one of the markers of intellectual humility and the proper scientific approach. As Feynman said, the first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right, as is Feynman. I have trouble sometime seeing "the forest for the trees". As I said to the other Guy who is active in science articles, during the QG RfC mess, I do have difficulty "recognizing that I've created a forest until I've planted too many trees". It takes me much longer to learn social issues than to learn scholarly ones, but I do learn. And I do understand -- cannot fail to understand -- the COI issue and am going to add to my essay that I recognize that I have one. ... Here it is: User:Middle_8/COI --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 02:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC) edited 03:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC), 03:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC). Trim excess verbiage, 08:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

My new essay

...differs considerably from my old one, and incorporates some of what we've discussed, as well as material from my COI/N, etc. User:Middle_8/COI regards, --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 07:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Simpler answer to your request

Re your request for a one-sentence summary for Ernst, please see Talk:Acupuncture#Arbitrary_break_for_more_input, right above the compressed text. That, for sure, will be the easiest way for you to understand and present it to Ernst. (Which I'm glad you're doing -- I take it you've emailed with him before?) .... Sorry it took this long for me to find a good, concise way to say it! --Middle 8 (POV-pushing • COI) 05:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)