User talk:Backin72/Archive 1

'''Unfortunately, I've been the target of threats and harassment on-wiki. Therefore, please do not release or repeat any personal information connecting me with this account. Backin72 (n.b.) 14:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)'''

Why civility matters on Wikipedia

Remember when WP:No personal attacks was an actual policy, not merely a guideline to be ignored if you're on a righteous crusade?

I made the mistake of assuming this policy was taken seriously on WP. I've also come to see why it exists: writing an encyclopedia is an elevated endeavor, requiring a welcoming intellectual environment. Use of ad hominem, rudeness, and edit warring ruin that environment. They may help get rid of trolls, disruptors and hopelessly clueless people, but they also drive away productive editors. In other words, the disease is cured, but the patient dies.

There is a better way: use normal means of dealing with trolls, stay civil, and use expert oversight to keep articls from drifting off track. Let a group of editors vert a "last good version" that is readily visible to readers, while editing provisional versions continues.

So, I'm strongly backing off of editing because the environment has become toxic, and nothing much is being done to stop it. I wasn't sure I was going to leave simply because, as the saying goes, "that's letting the terrorists win". OTOH, I don't really have anything else to do here; the one article I was trying to improve has hopelessly broken down. So, ciao, and best of luck editing happily within the existing, and flawed, rules & lack thereof here. --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome to Citizendium. We are looking for expert editors. -- Dēmatt (chat)  22:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Got that right. As usual your timing is exquisite. :-)  Dematt, I'm sorry, but if WP is sick, then CZ is dead.  Or, to be charitable, on life support.  The front page is messy and the interface is non-intuitive.  Larry blew it; by failing to fork WP's articles completely, CZ became a backwater.  It barely scratches the search engines (I posted an article there last Thanksgiving, and it's not in Google AT ALL, no matter what search terms I use).  At best, if they grow slowly, they might turn out to be a sort of Alibris.com to WP's Amazon.  see ya, Backin72 (n.b.) 10:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Greetings. I hope you stick around. I understand your decision and will still support you as an honest and well-meaning editor. Good luck. -- Fyslee (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Yeah man, I've been on the road to where good intentions lead for too long to turn around now.  ;-)  Hope your New Year brings peace and good times.  --Backin72 (n.b.) 09:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Request
Hiya, regarding the latest discussions on pseudoscientific topics, I have no opinion either way on what should go into the list. However, to make my job as an administrator easier, could I ask that you please try to keep the discussions and edit summaries a bit more neutral? Comments should focus on the article, not on contributors, and ditto with the edit summaries. If you do have concerns about any particular editor, there are better venues to express them (such as the arb case). That way the list talkpage can be kept strictly for discussion of the list itself. Or at least that is my fond hope. :) Thanks, --Elonka 04:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Elonka -- point well taken. In my defense, I don't want to make things worse, but everything I said is accurate, and I think WP:SPADE allows some room to state things as they are.  Look at the diffs you cited.  What's worse:  my expressing amazement that SA would make a false statement about my not discussing, or SA actually making that false statement?  What's worse:  my saying in an ES that he's misrepresenting the talk page, or his actually doing so?  If you're not warning SA about these things, the lesson I'll learn is that it's OK for admins to "shoot the messenger", and that some sort of double standard exists for SA.


 * Apart from the last paragraph here (again, point taken), I am speaking precisely of his edits, which are really pretty bad. I'll tone it down if you like, as I understand your point about better venues to discuss this.  Still, I wonder if you really grok the points I'm making, and the fact that QG and SA are the real bad actors on that page.  QuackGuru is majorly into WP:IDHT, and SA is basically just making stuff up.  Do you see what I'm getting at?  regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 05:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for listening, I do appreciate it. And it's not only your comments that I'm pushing back on, I'm also sending notes to other editors, both on- and off-wiki.  My apologies if it seems I'm being unfair to anyone in particular, I'm just trying to do the best I can.  Though I realize that at the article talkpage it may look different to those in the trenches who have been involved with the discussions for a longer period, from my (more recent) point of view, it just looks like multiple editors all sniping at each other. So as an admin, my preferred tactic is to call a ceasefire, and then deal with anyone who keeps on shooting even after I asked them to stop. There's usually someone who keeps sniping, with an explanation of, "Well, they shot at me first," but my reaction as an admin is going to be, "I don't care, stop shooting anyway." I realize it may result in situations where people who fired off 90% of the volleys aren't being properly "punished", while one person who fires one lone shot after the ceasefire, manages to get yelled at, but I'm doing what I can here.  So please, back off of statements like the last paragraph here? It's just not helpful (I mean c'mon, do you really think anyone would receive a comment like that and feel less angry after they read it?).  So please, what I'd like you to do is to do your best to stay civil, and keep comments neutral or, if possible, friendly.  If enough editors can try to do this to reduce the noise level, it makes the genuine problem cases who just keep generating heat instead of light, much easier to deal with, as they're easier to spot against a quiet background. :)  Thanks, --Elonka 23:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Thanks, Elonka. It's really quite unlike me to get that hot on WP. I'm recovering from an injury, and the pain has been making me cranky. I'll be extra careful to be cool (I habitually am; check my block log). Obviously, even if my points are valid (and they are), nobody's going to listen if I'm all shouty.

Still, there is certainly WP:IDHT and WP:GAME going on with ScienceApologist, with Verbal doing nothing to help matters. As you know, SA and Verbal have asserted that consensus exists for their preferred version (i.e., including chiropractic). That is plainly false, as myself, Levine2112, and Dematt have objected, and have discussed on talk (too many diffs to cite, but I'm sure you can follow the discussion toward the bottom of the talk page).

So, here's what happened when I tried to steer back toward substantive issues (and yes, I know my initial comment should have been friendlier): please see the talk page, here, scrolling down to SA's statement "This is simply wikilawyering". In the comments that follow:

12:31, 6 January 2009: I ask (still too hotly) for specific responses instead than "wikilawyering" acsusations, and I recap my complaint about Verbal's edits.


 * 12:38, 6 January 2009: Verbal suggests raising a Wikiquette alert about me, and then says:  "Returning to the topic, I'm not convinced, and neither are others, and nor the long standing consensus of the page, by your interpretation of PSCI."  Notice that he just repeats the "consensus" assertion and doesn't back it up.


 * 13:09, 6 January 2009: I repeat my request for evidence of consensus: "Show me evidence of that supposed long-standing consensus on the page. I, Dematt, Levine, and others have objected. Out of ca. 10 regulars, I don't think that's quite consensus. Do you disagree? Explain why. As I said to SA, you don't own the objective high ground here, so stop acting like you do. We're debating a fairly subtle issue of demarcation, NPOV and sourcing."  I then restate my opinion that the substance of my post to his talk page was OK, although my tone was brusque.


 * 13:09, 6 January 2009: Verbal's reply, in its entirety:  "Please calm down. Wikipedia is not a battleground, and your first ever interaction with me was very rude and highly combative. Please keep discussion on this page on topic - improving the article, per WP:TALK. I will not reply to further such comments here, and I ask any other editor to remove such off topic posts made by anyone."


 * 15:39, 6 January 2009: My reply: "OK, let's get down to basics. Please show me evidence of that supposed long-standing consensus on the page regarding PSCI. I trust that request is not rude. And please withdraw your claim if you can't support it. That's fair also, isn't it?" Verbal doesn't reply (note:  prior to this contretemps, Verbal has never been the most loquacious guy.  Lots of "I agree" and "I don't disagree", and ignoring requests to explain reasoning.  Instead, we get the spectacularly uninformative:


 * 22:09, 6 January 2009: ScienceApologist:  "Verbal is right, the entire thing is getting way out of hand. We have sourced inclusions and people opposing the sourced inclusions. It's as simple as that."

So, Elonka, there you have it. This pattern is recurrent. Lots of gaming, refusal to discuss, and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. No answers to the question "how can you be sure there is consensus", no addressing the issue of whether the sources meet WP:PSCI (and the related issue that the WP:BURDEN is on editors who want to include, not omit, the material). And no acknowledgement from Verbal that yes, if you're going to revert based on WP:BRD, it's good to do the "D" part. Sorry I got hot over all this, but if there's any justice, you and other editors will look past my lapse to the substance: after all, one of the principle defenses offered for SA'a chronic incivility is that he gets so frustrated with other editors who he thinks are obtuse.

Bottom line, I'll be extra nice, but I'd like to see some evidence on-wiki that you, with your admin hat on, are taking these issues that I've raised seriously. (Either that, or I'd be grateful if you could explain why they're not all that important.) regards, Backin72 (n.b.) 07:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw you said that you were injured and thus cranky from it and the pain. I totally understand this and just want to tell you to get better soon.  It's hard to edit nicely when in pain and not feeling well but it can be done with a little extra thought before hitting the save button.   Basically I just want to wish you to feel better real soon and to take it easy until you are feeling better.  I know harder to do than said.  I fell into this myself lately.  Good health soon, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Crohnie, you're one of the nicest people on WP. I'm sure that what I'm going through is minor compared to what you face much of the time.  I just hope you're able to get the best treatment and support possible.  Here's hoping your New Year is one big remission!  best, Backin72 (n.b.) 08:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, boy would I love a remission. That would make me absolutely thrilled.  Had one a long time ago, 2004 for 8 months and had a wonderful time outside my own home and with no doctor visits.  Would love this, take care, as always, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

January 2009
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. ''This is not an appropriate discussion.

'' Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 17:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks OM, agree I should have put it much more nicely than I did. I've seen you lose your temper too, so I know you know how challenging it can be when things get contentious.  That said, there wasn't a single personal attack in that post, just a series of bluntly-put requests to change course, and all backed up with diffs:  misrepresenting consensus, misapplying WP:BURDEN, invoking BRD without discussing.  Those are relevant issues that weren't answered.  I understand why, because I offended the editor.  I'll be extra nice from now on.  --Backin72 (n.b.) 06:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about me. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 06:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes we are. This is my talk page, and I get to reply however I want, within WP's rules.  If you want to talk about civility, I get to point out that you're doing the WP:KETTLE thing -- here's just one example.  You've had chronic incivility issues, for which I don't especially condemn you because your edits are pretty good, but still, incivility is bad, right?  I figure, of all the editors around here, you might understand how hard it gets to keep cool.


 * I remember one time you told a guy to get the fuck off your talk page when he posted one of those little warning templates like you just did. So don't lecture me.  Chill out.  Making a better encyclopedia includes being fair and not having double standards. --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey
... despite my attempt to back out of anything involving wikipolitics and process, I've been involved, at least tangentially, in the most recent ArbCom case relating to "fringe science". I saw your statement in the evidence section there. We haven't interacted much, particularly recently, but I just wanted to let you know that I've found you to be generally reasonable and a good editor (which is the best I could say about myself, on a good day). When I see the problems encountered by people like yourself and Dematt - that is, people with practical experience in "non-mainstream" areas who make an effort to work within Wikipedia's strictures - it greatly discourages me. There needs to be some sort of room on Wikipedia for people who practice "alternative" or non-mainstream concepts, but are able to wear their Wikipedia hats and be editors first. I'm concerned that in the present environment, there is no such room - everything is too polarized to admit any nuance.

I once proposed at WT:MED that the best way to improve our coverage of alternative-medicine articles would be to identify reasonable, quality editors with expertise in those areas - I had in mind people like you and Dematt - and support/co-opt them. The best bulwark against extremism of any flavor would be a strong middle ground of reasonable folk. It's really just rational self-interest - I really think that the job of defending Wikipedia's content against "undue weight" would be much easier if we could reach out and support people like you. Unfortunately, I never had the time, energy, or balls to go through with anything of the sort. Anyhow, sorry for rambling, but I just wanted to say that I've found you in the past to be a good editor, and I'm deeply sorry that the atmosphere here is what it is. I will also apologize for my part - I feel responsible on some level for not taking a more active role in improving the atmosphere. Best wishes. MastCell Talk 22:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that note. I really appreciate it, and I think your expert oversight idea is excellent.  Don't feel too responsible for the present atmosphere; you're only one out of how many?  I'm really burned out, and don't know whether sticking around is going to be a net positive experience.  Good luck, happy editing.  --Backin72 (n.b.) 14:17, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hertzsprung–Russell diagram according to mainstream astrophysicists
True, but it is more amusing than a more reasonable example; hopefully I argued the nuances well enough in the rest of the section. If not, it appears to be no loss unless the arbiters change their minds. I think that the standard Wikipedia 'everything must be well sourced' requirement suffices for that article, you appear to prefer that it be made more explicit - I can live with that. Incidentally, I agree with MastCell above - there is a reason why RationalWiki does not feature highly in most search engines. - Eldereft (cont.) 03:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks... it's become a very tiresome, obsessive-compulsive debate, with a couple of editors dug in strongly. It's weird how no one else seems to care that stuff was edit-warred onto that list without consensus.  You and Fyslee, for example, know it was wrong, but you're cool with the result, so you let it remain.  Why should I bother?  Anyway, good luck. --Backin72 (n.b.) 14:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I give up
There are some good people here (as is obvious from the comments above), but the overall editing environment is just too toxic. It's all about fighting, not sincere intellectual exchange, compromise and collaboration.

It doesn't have to be this way. WP could have instituted expert oversight a long time ago, but has resisted, in its fetishization of egalitarianism. Incredibly, WP has instead tolerated abandonment of basic civility. This isn't usenet: it was supposed to be an elevated thing, something good, something about spreading knowledge.

But it hasn't worked out that way. Admins and Arbs are significantly responsible for all this, but the buck stops with Jimbo Wales. You blew it. You let the ideal of consensus degenerate into a sort of slow-motion mob rule that has equated "NPOV" with "mainstream", and doesn't care about properly weighting significant minority views. I'm sorry to say that, but WP:SPADE and all.

My disillusionment has reached critical mass. There are better things to do with my time. --Backin72 (n.b.) 15:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Almost got back into it to try and fix an article, but not worth the hassle. Ciao. --Backin72 (n.b.) 07:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a little in the dark here. Did I say or do something to drive you away? -- Levine2112 discuss 07:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, more just the nudge I needed. I thought I could help fix up that list, but it's too polarized, and I've been on the cusp of leaving for a long time.  best, Backin72 (n.b.) 07:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see you go. If it is any consolation, I think Fyslee and I may have agreed on plausible solution which could make everyone happy - we'll see though. There's a little wP:BRD happening now, but you never know! If you truly are leaving, then "Happy trails, amigo." :-) -- Levine2112 discuss 08:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Question for you
Hi, sorry to see that you are totally stressed out here at Wikipedia. I really hope you just take a long break and return fresh, free of the stress. Anyways, I am thinking that you are the one that has a special board you maintain to help people who need it on how and where to find help when disabled or looking for help in SSI & SSD information. If I am wrong please let me know. But if you are the one who gave me useful links I would appreciate it if you would email me the information again. I lost my links when my computer had to be rebuilt because of a Trojan virus that got through. I have tried to locate the information again but I don't know the right words to search properly for the site again. I sure hope I am right and that you were the one who gave me the info or I will feel really stupid.;)  Thanks in advance, if you don't already have my email addy my link on site is active to email me.  I would love to hear from you in general but I really need to find this information because I am in dire need of having to try to figure out how the heck I am going to take care of my medical and SSD and SSI aren't helping me.  I don't want to say anymore on line but if you are the one, and I think I am correct, I would be more than happy to expand my needs further in private.  Thanks Backin72, you take care of yourself and I hope you are feeling a lot better too.  -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  17:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please check your email, and best of luck. sincerely, Backin72 (n.b.) 23:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)