User talk:Raymond arritt

If you leave me a message on this page, I will reply on this page.
If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there; I'll watch your page and reply when able.

Greenwich

November 2024

2

Saturday

5:36 am UTC

A note on email: Wikipedia-related discussion should be carried on here, in view of the Wikipedia community. Following the principles stated in this arbcom decision, I will not conduct Wikipedia business by private email. My email is enabled and you're welcome to initiate contact that way; however, I won't respond by email to your inquiry and will instead reply on-wiki.

Sorry I wasn't here to take your call. You can leave a message after the tone.

Tone

Outing

You know, following Ilena Rosenthal's ban from Wikipedia, she's engaged in Herculean efforts to "out" pretty much everyone she came into conflict with on Wikipedia. Her campaign to out User:Shot info is nearly Homeric in its scope. She has apparently identified me, in off-wiki fora, as one or another of her real-life adversaries. To say nothing of User:Fyslee. So while no one deserves to be outed simply for their connection to Ilena, it's worth considering these contextual items to hone one's sense of irony. MastCell ^Talk 19:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about starting a movement ?

Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Wikipedia, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to withdraw from the project.

The bureaucracy should either take corrective steps to fix this situation, or else suffer the eventual loss of huge amounts of valuable talent and volunteered resources.

If you agree with this statement, post it to your pages, and pass it on.

--Filll (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather discuss first. There may be a more effective way to deal with the issue. Raymond Arritt (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think both are fine. I put it on my user and talk page. Perhaps a link to the discussion should be included in the template.--Filll (talk) 06:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes

Defending the indefensible makes one say and do some strange things. Oh, and I noticed Mastcell commented on me. So far the count that Ilena has on me is two people. She madly tries out various editors, Mastcell, Fyslee, myself, Quackguru, Avb, Chroniegal amongst others. It's a laugh. If only she had a protective admin hey :-) Shot info (talk) 06:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is this "Ilena" that several people have mentioned? Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not worth going into, but you could look at User:Ilena and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal. Briefly, she's an activist for a variety of "alternative" medical causes and a longtime USENET combatant on such issues. She was involved in a libel suit with Stephen Barrett (Barrett v. Rosenthal) which went all the way to the California Supreme Court and, as I understand it, is something of a landmark decision. Ilena then came to Wikipedia to edit pages related to the lawsuit and her opponent, Stephen Barrett. This fairly gargantuan conflict of interest eventually led to an ArbCom ban, after which I was notified that she was on an (amusingly misguided) quest to "out" her opponents off-wiki. MastCell ^Talk 06:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilena is a prime example of how Wikipedia has a very hard time dealing with editors that work here in bad faith. --Ronz (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some others to notify.

It might be a good idea to make a list of all the people who have been notified about the discussion, so that anybody who hasn't gotten word of it is notified.

For instance, have you told Adam Cuerden or have you tried to contact ScienceApologist? Then there's JzG, but we probably shouldn't bother him about this since his father just died. ☯ Zenwhat (talk) 17:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just post the special notice:

Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Wikipedia, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to withdraw from the project.

The bureaucracy should either take corrective steps to fix this situation, or else suffer the eventual loss of huge amounts of valuable talent and volunteered resources.

If you agree with this statement, post it to your pages, and pass it on. (discuss this here)

on your talk and user pages. It will spread.--Filll (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only notified one or two people. Don't want to be accused of "canvassing," you know. It's just spreading by word of mouth (or keyboard). Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expertise

I found your discussion related to experts potentially leaving or striking, and so forth. First, let me say that I believe that Homeopathy is a pseudoscience, at least beyond the placebo effect. But, I am curious how you feel that expertise plays with regard to that topic or other pseudosciences. For example, if a particular editor's expertise is in information systems, mathematics, atmospheric sciences, or kitchen management, does that have any bearing in a discussion about homeopathy? Is the unrelated expertise relevant? It seems to me that modern medicine might apply, if we're talking about related expertise anyway. I'm not sure about the others, however. And I guess I might also wonder if unrelated expertise, and the aforementioned discussion about experts potentially leaving wikipedia, has any weight in the context of completely unrelated pseudosciences. Tparameter (talk) 00:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question of specific disciplinary expertise is a second or third order issue compared with simply having a rational worldview. The frustration comes from continually dealing with aggressive purveyors of nonsense. And especially the continued protection and nurturing of said purveyors by influential members of the community, no matter the extent of disruption they cause. For example it doesn't require much disciplinary expertise to recognize the idea of communing with the dead through tape recorders as complete bollocks. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I'll get in trouble for this, but maybe it's just a matter of loneliness... :) MastCell ^Talk 01:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That might explain some of it. The fact that many people don't like the side-effects of drugs, the high expense, the potential damage that long-term use can cause, the over 200,000 iatrogenic deaths caused by drugs, the dishonesty of some drug manufacturers, the FDA lack of effective oversight, ... Anthon01 (talk) 01:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...makes them easy prey for whatever snake-oil salesman comes down the pike. Yup. I know people like that. But the shortcomings of conventional medicine do not legitimize quackery. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither I nor MastCell were trying to legitimize it. Just expanding on MastCells attempt to explain why. Anthon01 (talk) 01:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was making a general point. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't put it on. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You were making a point that diverge 180 degrees from what I was saying. I just wanted to make sure you understood the point I was making. Anthon01 (talk) 01:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, whatever. We're obviously not connecting, so let's just drop it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I now see you point. You are correct. It's been a long day. Anthon01 (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: "for example it doesn't require disciplinary expertise to recognize the idea of ... as complete bullocks". I agree completely; but, I'm also wondering then, why was expertise brought up in the first place? If a renowned cobbler were leaving because of kooks wrecking the shoe articles, I'd be frustrated along with him. But, if he's straying from his expertise, then I can't really feel for losing an "expert" if he's editing outside of that expertise. Losing a good editor, however, is always bad. But, framing it as losing an expert in that context doesn't fit. Tparameter (talk) 01:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Expert" was the best shorthand term I could think of for "rational, well-informed person." Although most of the people who have raised issues do have expertise relevant to the topics in which they're editing, they're more than happy to work with well-intentioned novices. I'll gladly help people whose knowledge has some gaps but are coming at an issue in a constructive way (see for example this exchange). It's dealing with aggressive POV-pushers and Kozmik Kadetts who are convinced they have The Truth^TM that gives people fits. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I do believe that there is a big difference between the two. I have expertise in mathematics - but, I often defer to those with more, a PhD for example. However, often the elite experts are not necessarily rational, or well-informed. I suppose breadth and depth are key, and if you invoke expertise, then you imply depth in a particular topic, presumably the topic at hand. It turns out, that you seem to really be talking about breadth - in which case you should clarify in your other discussion IMO. Anyway, with your clarification, I find no disagreement between your beliefs and mine on this topic. Thanks for your reasonable replies. By the way, your example over at global warming illustrates exactly why experts are needed here, for whatever it's worth. Cheers. Tparameter (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said Tparameter, I am sure you do not get it. --Filll (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tparameter, let's take another example, which is not exactly about "experts". Let's consider the abortion and pregnancy articles. Now we have a few doctors and nurses and choice and right to life advocates who are trying to construct an article or two that show all sides.

And one or two antiabortion editors come to the articles and unilaterally demand that the articles be written as they dictate, ignoring all sources that they dislike and deleting all material that they disagree with. And they are abusive and combative and uncivil and attack others repeatedly who are trying to have articles that include material from both the right to life and the right to choose sides of the argument, and from the medical perspective. They fight frantically to present the articles ONLY from the right to life view. When told about NPOV, they ignore it or twist the words tortuously to get their way. And many other editors give up and leave Wikipedia because it is too unpleasant to deal with these anti-abortion editors.

Then finally, RfCs and Arbcomm proceedings are started against the antiabortion editors. But they promise to do better, and get off and then act badly again, and the entire cycle repeats a half dozen times. Finally the anti-abortion editors are blocked, but then plead to come back and are allowed back, and start acting badly again. And more mainstream editors trying to operate within NPOV give up and leave. And to save one troublesome editor who is unwilling or unable to abide by NPOV, we drive off 5 or 10 others who are trying to abide by NPOV.

If there are experts in this picture, it is the doctors and nurses, who are discouraged from editing by these difficult editors. But the principles are the same as on many other articles.

This same behavior goes on over and over. My main concern and Raymond arritt's concern is on pseudoscience articles and science articles. Where one person claims that magic is real and the articles must be rewritten to include magic or else it is patently unfair. And they and their friends demand that science take a back seat in science articles to magic.

And our administrative structure of admins and arbcomm etc are unable or unwilling to do anything about this situation. And they get 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 10th, 20th, 50th, 100th chances to improve and they never improve. And just drive regular productive editors working within NPOV away, and these regular productive NPOV editors are given no 2nd chances as the disruptive trolls, sock puppets, meat puppets, POV warriors and tendentious disruptive editors are.

Is that clearer?--Filll (talk) 02:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your frustration, friend. And believe me, I've been there. My main point over at the other discussion is very simply that "dysfunction" does not necessarily "prevail" at wikipedia. My main point here is that "expertise" as it was originally framed was misleading, and most likely irrelevant. So, for clarification, I suggest that you guys frame the discussion more accurately, and then you will be more persuasive IMO. You're really talking about kooks establishing a foothold, and effectively twisting articles to suit their faith. I have a lot of observations on these topics - but, I'd rather not further pollute his talk page. Last, your first three responses weren't helpful at all. Your most recent reply, however, made up for the first three. In the future, I would suggest skipping the former and sticking to the latter. ;-] (sigh, if only I practiced what I preached) Tparameter (talk) 02:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. Just most of the editors we are dealing with in the sciences are quite familiar with these issues already. You are right we need to be clearer for those who are not familiar with the situation.--Filll (talk) 03:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your discussion page

It is slowly generating discussion and a few good ideas even. What do you think?--Filll (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gents/Ladies, IMO, I starting to believe that there is no hope for the "paranormal/pseudoscience" type articles. Basically, Wikipedia has matured to a point where it’s modern bureaucratic nature doesn't allow for articles to be written, instead they descend into a pointless (and seemingly endless) war with the POV pushers. I for one, am going to abandon such articles to their fate. It's a vain hope and I doubt that it will be fixed, but I couldn’t be bothered with the Whigs of the world. Wiki wants itself to be taken seriously, but doesn't allow it's admins to police itself, in order to be taken seriously. So until this begins to happen, the project will be just a side issue out there in the "real world" (as it is at the moment). Hope is not lost, but it's time for certain admins to do some of the work rather than leaving it for long suffering editors. While I am not recommending you guys do the same, it would be beneficial to concentrate of “real” subjects in Wikipedia rather than those that attract wackjob POV pushers who think snakeoil is still a remedy... Shot info (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you might want to consider

[1]--Filll (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note at talk page

User talk:Raymond arritt/Expert withdrawal/Draft. Carcharoth (talk) 16:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded there. Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another example

[2]. Exactly because of the subject of the discussion page. It happens over and over.--Filll (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

I hope you accepted my apology on the homeopathy talk page. I was talking about the lead and you mentioned the whole article. I mistakenly, took it as hyperbole in an attempt to ridicule my suggestion. Anthon01 (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing comments

Thanks for your response at WP:ANI#User removing comments from talk page. I was just wondering if you could please remove the referenced comments again from WT:SPOILER. I'm at my 3RR limit there, and User:ChazBeckett is now unresponsive. Thanks! PS: Someone seems to have closed the entire discussion with an archive template, but the comments really don't belong there at all and should be removed outright (in my opinion). Equazcion •✗/C • 11:39, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather not as that could be seen as gaming 3RR. In the grand scheme of things it isn't all that important; just let it go this time. But the principle of removing off-topic bickering still stands. Raymond Arritt (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded at WP:ANI#User removing comments from talk page. Just to be clear, I'm fine with the discussion on the spoiler talk page being closed. It certainly was generating more heat than light. It's the condoning of Equazacion's behavior that I find to beinappropriate. "Right thing" and "props" to a user edit warring and making personal attacks? That's the part I have a real problem with. Would you mind taking a closer look? Thanks. Chaz ^Beckett 12:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did look closely to begin with. Here's the diff of the comments that were removed.[3] As I said before, this is just bickering: insults, counter-insults, counter-counter-insults, and so on. Reading the diff it's impossible even to know what article it applies to or what the locus of the dispute might be -- just unfocused oh-yeah-so's-your-mom level sniping. I also note that there are no comments by Equazacion in that diff, much less personal attacks as you state. If he made personal attacks elsewhere that's a separate issue which can be addressed. Raymond Arritt (talk) 13:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This [4] is the diff I'm referring to. "It takes a pretty low person to hide behind 3RR..." and "...eagerly await your response, if you do indeed have any idea what you're talking about." are borderline personal attacks, at the very least. Chaz ^Beckett 13:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was in reference to your choice to revert me with no reasoning (your edit summary simply stated "rv removal of others' comments"), even after I pointed you to the policy page that defended the removal, and without responding to my comments at either of our talk pages. That did look a lot like you were taking advantage of the fact that I couldn't revert you anymore due to 3RR, and so you didn't need to address my concern. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:31, 29 Jan 2008 (UTC)

My reasoning was that article talk comments aren't removed without good reason. You pointed to a section in an editing guideline (no specifics provided). 3RR had nothing to do with it. Chaz ^Beckett 13:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]