Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Martinphi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] "alleged" and "purported"

WP:WTA actually says these are OK if used carefully and that they are the alternatives generally used by newspapers. This is just another example of Martinphi abusing WTA and WP:WEASEL in an attempt to force definitions into saying things like "Psychics have powers". Do we really need to go and remove all "qualifiers" from every topic of unproven existence? --Minderbinder 15:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes using qualifiers is the only way to maintain NPOV, and then they are essential, and would only be considered weasel words by .... (fill in the blank). -- Fyslee/talk 16:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the relevant section: "Alleged (along with allegedly) and purported (along with purportedly) are different from the foregoing in that they are generally used by those who genuinely have no predisposition as to whether the statement being cited is true or not. Newspapers, for instance, almost universally refer to any indicted but unconvicted criminal as an alleged criminal. Therefore, there is no neutrality problem with using them. However, there may be a problem of ambiguity—they should only be used where the identity of the alleger is clear." In the cases of purported psychics, the identity of those purporting is clear, it is the "psychic" himself and/or his fans. --Minderbinder 17:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

However, when genuine attribution can be given, such as "so and so defines X as Y", then you give the attribution, and eliminate the weasel. You don't continue to say "X is supposedly Y", and you don't say "So and so says that the supposed X is Y." This is a matter of attribution and good writing. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"So and so says that the supposed X is Y." You certainly can say that (although alleged, or purported, or said to be, or whatever is agreed to be the most neutral of those options could be better, along with fixing your awkward wording) when your sources define it as a supposed thing. The oxford american dictionary defines psychic as "a person appearing or considered to have powers of telepathy or clairvoyance". Some things are simply considered to be "supposed" by the mainstream and defined as such. And we are required to present the mainstream definition, at least primarily.

We obviously aren't required to say "Bigfoot is a big hairy creature" just because putting in "alleged" or "purported" or similar would be a weasel word (which they are not). The fix for supposed weasel words isn't to leave them out and end up with a factually incorrect and POV statement. Or are you arguing that's what we should do?

Your comments above would seem to support wording such as "John Edwards says he is a psychic medium", but you have opposed such wording (even though it's "genuine attribution" and "good writing" as you say). Why the inconsistency? --Minderbinder 21:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I opposed that wording because there was another word "performs" which was more NPOV. Now, you can say "a psychic is a suppposed X" or you can say "a psychic is defined as X". One is NPOV, the other is not. We do not simply parrot the mainstream wording, when another wording is avaliable which explicates things better and allows NPOV. That is called good writing. We explicate both positions on a subject, not stating either as fact. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Your posts here have been very illustrative of your POV issues, namely that you feel your wordings are "better" and "more NPOV" than mainstream dictionaries. You don't see that as WP:OR? And you haven't explained why you feel that "says", which is recommended by WP guidelines as neutral, is less POV? --Minderbinder 00:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess you didn't notice that the dictionaries give both definitions, and you, seemingly out of pure POV, wish to choose the one which throws the worst light on the subject. I, however, want to explicate all points of view. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is very illustrative of my POV issues to say that both positions should be clearly stated. You're right. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:56, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Park

Robert L. Park commented on this type of editor about 10 days ago:

WIKIPEDIA: HAS A BEAUTIFUL IDEA FALLEN VICTIM TO HUMAN NATURE?
Science owes its success and credibility to openness. Findings, including details of how they were obtained, are exposed to the scrutiny of the entire scientific community. It sounds like a prescription for chaos, but it's a mechanism for self-correction. The alternative is dogma. Could openness be extended to all knowledge? With Wikipedia, it seemed to work for a time, but for those who profit from a misinformed public, including purveyors of pseudoscience, the target is too tempting to leave alone. source

Bubba73 (talk), 16:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a great quote! Totally true. That is why I eliminate innuendo in favor of explicitly stating all positions. For instance, instead of a definition like this

A psychic is a person with supposed paranormal powers

I say something like

A psychic is a person with paranormal powers. Skeptics believe that these powers do not exist, but are merely self-delusion, fraud, or mentalism.

See the difference? One in underhanded and unclear. The other is open and explicit. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The part where you do get underhanded is when you go on to say "Psychics often say/do/believe..." as if there are any. This practice occurs every time, and you hide under the guise of merely defining a certain kind of psychic as one who reads minds/affects number generators/shoots lightning from his fingers/what-have-you. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 22:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Bad wording isn't necessarily underhanded. Being mistaken isn't necessarily underhanded either. Even making mistakes and never realizing that they were mistakes isn't necessarily underhanded. You can make good faith edits (the opposite of underhanded) and still be wrong.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 23:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Could you give the link for that? I suspect this is not what actually took place, but I may be wrong. I think you have mixed up "parapsychologist" with "psychic." Be assured, parapsychologists exist. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"The" link? Almost half the examples given in evidence item #2 are of you doing this. Here you are making the article read as if the girl actually had her powers. Here you are having an article tell about the things "clairvoyant mediums" say, as if there actually were such people. Here you are having an article assert that people really do experience "astral projections." Here you are having an article assert that "materializations of spirits" are sometimes formed from ectoplasm. Are you really this oblivious to your own editing habits? This isn't even touching the fact that each and every paranormal assertion you've inserted has absolutely no citation (not to say that one is possible). Simões (^talk/_contribs) 00:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if those links are the best you can dredge up, I have no idea what you are talking about. Because you obviously didn't acutally read the differences. In this link, people undebatably do experience astral projection. There is no dispute about that. The only thing that is in dispute is the interpretation. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 02:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That you consider these edits to be in line with WP:NPOV is one of the many reasons why this RFC was initiated. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite so. All you have done is give anyone with a neutral POV good reason to think that you are extreme, and I am NPOV. Quod errata demonstrandum. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Wow! m:MPOV anybody? Martin, you have often used "neutral" in this way (which was the first red flag I noticed in connection with your editing and comments), and the quicker you learn that no one is truly "neutral", NPOV, or objective, the better. Anyone who is really "neutral" knows little or nothing about the subject at hand. If they, after learning more, remain neutral, they may even lack the ability to see the difference between two opposing POV, IOW they are immune to cognitive dissonance. Such persons will likely never understand the NPOV policy.

Basically you should just admit you have a POV. Great! Be proud of it. I have a POV, others have a POV, and since none of us are NPOV when alone, we need to collaborate with others who hold opposing POV by presenting all significant POV without stating that any one of them is "the truth."

We just need to present verifiable opinions, and not state that something without incontrovertible and uncontroversial proof is fact. (Around here it is allowed to state that the earth is not flat without providing evidence...;-) The closest you can get to stating that psychic phenomena are "real" is to quote a believer's opinion from a V & RS, and then it must be NPOVed by the use of qualifiers or by clearly stating it is a believer's opinion, IOW a minority opinion. -- Fyslee/talk 08:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with Martin's "A psychic is a person with paranormal powers" is that without the qualifying words, it implies that there are actually people with such powers. Bubba73 (talk), 14:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible conflict of interest

Disclosure: I am a third-party not involved in any of these disputes, however in the interest of disclosure, I do sometimes agree with Martinphi's reasoning. Definitely not always, but sometimes. That said:

Having read over more of the edits being used as evidence, there's an apparent conflict of interest that should definitely be considered. Many, if not most, of these edits are differing opinions of Wikipedia guidelines. Some of these disputes have even gone to mediation. There's two sides in those mediations and the complaints here in the RfC are coming from editors on one side of them.

The requested outcome of this RfC is that:

"It should be sufficient that the user be admonished to significantly reduce (if not end) his participation in all articles related to parapsychology and the paranormal. He certainly has other interests and should contribute to articles related to those."

It's being asked that he refrain from editing these article that are already being disputed when resolvement of the disputes haven't been settled. The requested outcome circumvents normal dispute resolvement by barring Martinphi from participating in the articles and disputes. The requested outcome doesn't ask for Martinphi to be counseled on Wikipedia guidelines. It doesn't ask that he be warned of possible penalties of disruptive action (if any). It asks specifically that he be reduced or removed from editing the articles that are already in dispute by the complaining parties.

That's an apparent conflict of interest, or at least it's apparent to me and I believe anyone who would look at this RfC request who isn't directly involved in the disputes. I'm not saying that's the intent of the complaining parties, but the requested outcome could have been counsel instead of blocking. The RfC could have waited until after mediation instead of during. There's a number of ways this could be handled that are more amicable.

Feel free to discuss. --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 00:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The possible conflict of interest is further compounded by statements on several paranormal-related articles that an arbitration is pending or planned, and then one of the key people who has a strong opinion on the outcome of any such arbitration, and who would be involved in it, is asked through an RfC to not participate in paranormal-related articles?

The requested outcome could really have asked for something other than blocking especially considering all the other things going on.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 00:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

And again, without saying it is the actual intent of complaining parties, it does seem strange that [1], timestamped 19:56, 1 April 2007 on the talkpage of an article that is directly related to this RfC was followed by the creation of this RfC, timestamped 22:51, 1 April 2007. The comment states the goal of a suggested RfC (though the editor isn't a complaining party here, nor was it directed at Martinphi) to "go for a community editing restriction or ban. Simple cases do not require extensive processes," which is an obvious attempt to circumvent normal dispute resolution. And again, this RfC asks for such a restriction on Martinphi.

It may not be the case, but it is strangely coincidental. And again, why not ask that Martinphi be counseled on Wikipedia policies, or any of the other softer requests on WP:RFC, instead of going straight for a ban?

From WP:RFC: RfCs brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are not permitted.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 01:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You're having quite an odd discussion here. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's sort of one sided because you, the complaining editor, haven't addressed it. It sure would be nice if you responded to it instead of making fun of it. Am I completely wrong that the timestamps, wording, and all of the above suggest a motivation to circumvent normal dispute resolution? I mean, it is a request for comments. I would love to hear yours.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 02:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It's somewhat difficult to take you seriously when you begin by declaring yourself neutral and abstaining from speculating on my intent and then conclude by insinuating that my intent is to harrass. And I have no idea what you're talking about with coincidences'o'plenty, especially given that I (the person who initiated this RFC) have never touched the article or talk page to which you're referring, and also that these portions are referring to some other hypothetical RFC. Typing paragraphs of text is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to warrant a response. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 02:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

No, what I said is that I can't speak for you and say it was your intent. I also didn't say that I am a neutral third-party, just that I am a third-party not involved in any of the disputes listed. And I'm not. I don't have a strong opinion which way they go. I do have a strong opinion on this dispute, however, and that is that it is wrong to request that a person be banned admonished from editing articles where disputes haven't been resolved, especially when other things could have been requested, especially when there's at least some question as to the motivation behind it. That's my opinion. Has nothing to do with any of the disputes listed beyond this one, the RfC.

I never said I'm not speculating. Obviously I'm speculating. I also didn't say harrass. I bolded the "remove an adversary part" thinking that might help clarify. I also said that the EVP article was related to this dispute and that's evidenced by your first edits to the RfC (before anyone else showed up) where you link to the dispute on the EVP article as an example of a dispute that hasn't been resolved [2]. The portion talking about how one can get rid of a person they find troublesome by filing a RfC, and how that was easier than sticking out a dispute, was in there when you linked to it. Since you listed it as an example of a dispute that hasn't been resolved, I speculate that you were familiar with it.

I will say thank you for at least responding to my request for more information eventhough you thought it was unnecessary. Your response was clear. You deny it. That's a fair answer and I'm sure people can make up their own mind.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 02:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

An RFC-as-such cannot result administrative action. You're the first person to mention banning on this page. Furthermore, "admonish" isn't even an approximate synonym of "ban." As an illustration, I presently admonish you to not conflate "ban" and "admonish." Note now that you've not been banned. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to clearly state your desired outcome then? Jeez, or at least state how "to significantly reduce (if not end)" isn't asking for his edits on paranormal articles to end?

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 03:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was pretty clear. It is asking for his edits on paranormal articles to end (or, as you have quoted, be reduced). It was thought that the mountain of evidence showing his unending pov-pushing would do something besides inspiring him to self-adulate. Sure, I suppose it was naive to hope that he'd stop editing paranormal-related articles outright and make a foray into other parts of the encyclopedia. A significant reduction, on the other hand, was (at the time) thought to perfectly be reasonable to expect. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 03:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I respect that. But you know, you're not being very agreeable with me. You've belittled what I had to say more than once. What if I said I think I'll file an RfC on you and request that you be admonished (not to follow Wikipedia guidelines) (not to stick to the RfC guidelines that say to be respectful) (but instead) to not participate in the discussion at all. See how that sounds? I mean, I don't have a problem with you making fun of my complaint. I don't have a problem with you disagreeing with me. But you're asking him to be directed not to participate. That's a little extreme.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 03:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If you seriously contend that Simoes filed this RfC specifically with intent to harass or remove User:Martinphi from taking part in ongoing mediation or any other dispute, then you need to show diffs, edits, Talk page posts, etc. anything substantial and conclusive that will support your contentions. The links you provided to the EVP mediation page and an admin discussing Davkal's behavior don't support a "conflict of interest" on Simoes part. --- LuckyLouie 05:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

That's why I said possible, and please get it right, I didn't say harass. I don't have to prove anything to comment about it. This is a Request for Comments. That's my comment. I'm basing it on what I already linked to, the admin on the EVP page giving the suggestion that one can be removed through an RfC, the admin saying that it's an easier and quicker process, the timing of that with this RfC, the frustration people were feeling on the EVP page, and the link to the edits showing that Simoes was familiar with the discussion on the EVP page. I never said that it was Simoes intent because there's no way for me to know what Simoes intent was. But my argument doesn't rest on Simoes and isn't dependent on Simoes being aware of the EVP mediation at all. Other editors who are contributing to this complaint, and who endorsed it, definitely have a conflict of interest.

You ask me to be substantial and conclusive, but nothing on this RfC is. This RfC is all about collecting examples of Martinphi's POV-pushing, and getting him kicked from the articles for POV-pushing, when that's dependent on a mediation to determine whether it actually is POV-pushing, something no one bothered to wait around for in the normal dispute resolvement process.

That's my comment. You guys jumped right to asking for a user to be directed to not participate at all instead of going with something softer, like being directed to be more neutral, knowing that there's already a discussion going on that hasn't been resolved. I'm saying you guys collectively because it's more than Simoes who endorsed the complaint and the requested outcome. The editors who endorsed that request knew about the EVP page, knew about the mediation, skipped right over any resolvement there and jumped right to this RfC asking for a pretty extreme request. Even if Simoes somehow didn't know all that was going on, you guys did and you endorsed the extreme request anyway, and you're contributing to the complaint.

I have a comment about that, sorry.

It's an extreme way to get your point across, even if you're not aware that's what you're doing. One one hand you're criticizing Martinphi for forking articles, but here you're forking dispute resolvements, knowing that if you win here you win there. If this RfC is resolved the way it was asked to be resolved, all the editors who endorsed that request get what they want in other disputes, elsewhere. Any dispute Martinphi is involved in on any page, many of which the endorsers here are involved in, are automatically won in the endorser's favor if the requested outcome here is fulfilled. That is the very definition of a conflict of interest. I said possible before, I'm saying definite now because I don't have to prove any shady actions for it to be logically true.

It's not even all about Martinphi. A planned or pending arbitration is being talked about against other editors who agree with Martinphi's editing style. A win here benefits that pending arbitration as well, if it ever comes about, because it removes one of the editors who would probably be involved in it. Again it's a conflict of interest. Winning here reduces their numbers. I know it's weird to think of it that way, as armies on a battlefield, but that's sort of what it is and there's more editors involved than just Martinphi. A penalty here is a penalty there, unfairly.

And again, I don't have anything to do with those disputes. My opinions are just about this RfC.

I'll go one further. I'd be happy to withdraw all my comments from this entire RfC if the extreme request that Martinphi be directed to not participate in paranormal-related articles is reduced to something reasonable. Then I don't have anything to say about it because there's no conflict of interest.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 07:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy if Martinphi would just stop POV pushing on paranormal articles. But since he insists that his POV edits are neutral, I doubt he's going to change his behaviour on his own (he has even continued to do so since this case was filed). It doesn't help that with his 3RR block, his meatpuppet case, and his posting "welcome" propaganda, he has insisted that he did nothing wrong and had every right to do what he did. It's unfortunate if it comes to that, but when an editor refuses to follow WP policies, sometimes the only option is intervention from admins, arbcom, or the community in general.

Neal, I'd also disagree with your assessment that you're not involved in the situation. The disputes include the articles Psychic and Mediumship, both of which you have been involved with. You're involved (as I'd say all those listing "outside views" so far are), you just happen to agree with Martin more than some other editors do. I am a little worried by your overlooking of the outright policy violations Martin has done - do you really think it's OK that he has revert warred (including violation of 3RR), used a meatpuppet, and sent advocacy messages to newbies? --Minderbinder 13:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

 --Minderbinder 13:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)