User talk:Costmary

Welcome!

Hello, Costmary, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Vsmith (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

I've undone your changes to astrology. Please discuss major changes and don't remove referenced information without giving a reason either on talk:Astrology or at least with edit summaries. Vsmith (talk) 15:43, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Notification
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to pseudoscience if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you continue with the behavior on Astrology, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. NW ( Talk ) 15:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you indicate which of the above is supposed to apply to me - have you even read the discussions that have been going on over the last few weeks? If you block me or limit me can I then appeal to the arbitration committee?Costmary (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Astrology ban
Please see. Moreschi (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Moreschi I have asked you several times on the administrator's noticeboard if you would be specific about the reason you have banned me, but you keep evading the question. The best I have had from you is that you thought a particular edit pushed a POV (not realising that I was not deleting the controversial comment but discussing its wording in the talk section); and then you made a general statement to say that your reasons are perfectly clear [for banning six editors]: "meatpuppetry, edit-warring and POV-pushing are not permitted". Please be specific if you think one or all of those criticisms apply to me - an indication of where and when I am supposed to have done this will be appreciated too, but if you are not prepared to do that, at least could you confirm which of the vague criticisms that have been indiscriminately applied to a large number of editors you accuse me of personally.

Also, I would like to ask you to recognise that your actions were hasty and unsupported, based on a suspicion that editors were colluding together following your discovery of an off-wiki blog that clearly belonged to someone who was editing the astrology page. The editor involved, Apagoneron, has now revealed himself and explained his actions. This external activity did not involve me, and please consider that I have never been significantly involved in the points of discussion that were the focus of that editor's input. This being the case I would ask you to please end this unsupported ban before creating the need to enter into arbitration. On a technical point I also don't believe that this ban is a legitimate one, because (besides failing to be clear about what I am supposed to have done wrong even after banning me) there was no prior warning of what I might be doing wrong, by which I could explain, justify or correct my editing behaviour. Also I would argue that you have a conflict of interest which prompted you to act thoughtlessly and rather brutally, in banning a whole collection of contributing editors for no other reason than they were contributing to the consensus of opinion on that page at a time when important points of policy on edits were being discussed - and that after removing enough editors to change the consensus of the discussion, you then entered the discussion yourself and attempted to steer it along a direction of your own preference. The page is now at a stage where very significant changes are (hopefully) about to be made. I would like to offer the benefit of my experience and offer constructive advice on this process. So now that Apagorenon has explained himself, can you please revert this action quickly and allow the discussion to continue without the worry of the consensus being distorted or deliberately biased. Thank you, Costmary Costmary (talk) 09:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, this is my response, which I have submitted for expected guffaws and ridicule on the adminstrators noticeboard and his talk page:
 * Finally, Moreschi attempts to justify his unjustifyable action: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moreschi#For_the_people_still_reading_this

Re the mass bannings - an answer to Moreschi
Moreschi I would not suggest that you have been seriously involved in the post-banning discussions, but you have shown an involvement, and that shouldn’t have been the case, since you’ve now lost the right to present yourself as an uninvolved administrator.

But finally – thank you – you have specified your cause of complaint against me. Although actually, by saying that this collective offering is only about a 10th of what you could write, you are not being specific at all, but vague again, pulling together a collection of individually-groundless criticisms to propose an argument that we are all ‘in’ on some kind of mass conspiracy that has led to a concerted campaign to edit-war.

Well you are wrong, but I have found that people tend to see what they choose to see here, so I guess your version will remain the official one. I’ll state my case for the record, as I have no doubt that an appeal to arbitration will be comparative in its judicial discrimination to your standards.

I openly admit to asking Wendy Stacey to comment in her official capacity as Chair of the Astrological Association of Great Britain, since those "reams of text" that you say "don’t lead anywhere" in the talkpage, were not designed to lead nowhere, and it’s actually shameful that they did. This was the result of some editors preferring to censor discussion rather than engage in it. I had offered clear arguments against a ridiculous point that needed to be removed from the lede, which maintained that astrologers "‘read’ the stars but don’t actually make use of them" or some such. The point is so ridiculous that there is no defense for it except the contorted, out-of-context inversion of the references I supplied after being requested to do so by an editor whose obstruction has definitely negatively affected the quality of the page content. Even in his admission that he lacked the necessary knowledge, this author demanded to define astrological practice in a way that would not be recognised by any astrologer. Not knowing that anyone could consider it to be a breach of policy I asked Wendy Stacey to comment, to bring that point to an end after the numerous references I offered were all ignored. The matter should have ended at that, since the debate concerned contemporary practice and she spoke as a representative of a professional body of astrologers - but it didn’t!

What I now realise is that it wasn’t for me to provide references to disprove the obstroculous editor’s ridiculous and unsubstantiated point – it should not have existed in the first place since it wasn’t reliable knowledge attributed to a credible source. There should have been no ‘edit war’ there, and if there was, then take to task the editor who insisted on making that discussion as long and as drawn out as it was, simply to make sure that his factually incorrect point of ‘irony’ got expression.

You have indicated 6 instances of suspected policy breach on my part – this point probably underlies most of them. You are wrong. Look at that page with your eyes open to what was really going on there: bigotry, bias, clinging to corrupt content in order to push a non-neutral POV. Being a new user I asked for administrator assistance at that point, and was told to “thrash it out through discussion”. That is what I tried to do and this is what generated what you now describe as a ‘time wasting’ discussion. In the process I asked for mediation – the obstroculous editor refused. I asked for 3rd party assistance – someone came in and said that he couldn’t get involved because more than two editors had contributed (but only one was being obstinate). Upon recommendation I raised an alert to ask for more editorial contribution from other Wikipedia editors – that’s why we got an influx of interested parties with widely differing POVs, and that’s why the astrology page (which anyone can see is full of flaws and badly put-together text, being the colleted results of territorial in-fighting of past editors) became so controversial again and full of new activity.

Your assumption of bad faith on the part of everyone who expressed a certain POV is like a witch-hunt based on unfounded allegations and negative speculations. Here we go with eagle-eye. I have no idea who eagle-eye is, but already smell the unpleasant aroma of someone being about to be censored for daring to express an opinion on the discussion page (!). Why don’t you include a notice “new discussion that we haven’t already had and agreed upon ourselves is not welcome here”? Why don’t you do a little tinkering with the wording of the 2nd principle of the Wikipedia ‘5 pillars’ policy so that it actually reads as it is being interpreted on the Astrology discussion page:


 * “We strive for articles that advocate a single point of view. Sometimes we need to pretend that we are representing multiple points of view, but by presenting other points of view inaccurately and out of context, we can then present our pseudoskeptic point of view as "the truth" or "the best view".

You have failed to make allowance for how I have shifted in my position to try to gain consensus, beyond what I personally believe. You have pointed to edits I made on the first day I joined as an editor, when I didn’t know the policies and made mistakes I later recognised and apologised for. You pointed to mined examples of edit changes that are disconnected to the discussion where my reasoning was justified. You have proposed that I have a non-neutral POV, when I do not. Your only assumption for this reduces everything I have contributed (as everything ultimately is reduced on that page) to an issue over the pseudo-science reference in the lede, and my argument that this was relevant but not such a dominant factor that it needed such stark notice and contrived highlight, so that it was mentioned twice in the lede, whilst the historical, cultural and philosophical significance of astrology, and the proper definition of what it is essentially is, was being wilfully ignored (except in dismissive terms that underlined the obstroculous editor’s need to express an imagined irony).

In short Moreschi, you have contributed to the reason why Wikipedia struggles to be taken seriously as credible reference of information, which I hope one day will be corrected.

I am going to leave a few suggestions for administrators below, in the full knowledge that they are likely to be met with the familiar chorus of guffaws and one-line insults that come from those who have learned how to quote policy procedures in such a way that the policy-intention can be evaded. Sorry if my comments lack the undertone of politeness and good faith requested, but I am frustrated, angry, and sad, that all my genuine and well intentioned efforts have been reduced to this.


 * (My suggestions for administrators is posted here)

Costmary (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Astrology topic ban
Thank you for your e-mail. In order that other administrators who have opined on these topic bans can read my message, I am posting my reply to you here. I must impress upon you the magnitude of the intolerance that the Wikipedia community has of attempts to undermine our policy on a neutral point of view (NPOV). I put it to you, per your contributions at Talk:Astrology (specifically, your interaction with User:Kwami), that you are nonobservant of the NPOV policy. In your e-mail, you talk about appealing the topic ban. Whilst I will be happy to assist you in the procedural aspects of submitting that appeal, I first ask you how you reconcile your claim that you are "not pushing a pro-astrology POV, but seem to have suffered as a result of concern that I might be" with your approach to the point of view of the Astrology article as established on the talk page.

I gather from the current ANI thread that an off-wiki blog is material to this matter, but I'm struggling to make the connection. I am deriving my conclusions exclusively from your talk page comments and other edits to the Astrology article. In any case, I see it like this: you have been topic-banned from the article because you have edited it in a non-neutral way. Any appeal you submit would therefore be unlikely to succeed, unless there has been something that I have misunderstood, or unless your appeal is a claim not that you have not edited non-neutrally but is a request for a second chance.

You call me in your e-mail a good administrator with an honest desire to see good information on Wikipedia; thank you, and I certainly hope that is true. Your contention that Astrology is not a psuedo-science, I respectfully say, is by no stretch of the imagination good information. I hope that you do not perceive my observations to be unfair, but they are founded on much experience with editors who would seek to manipulate a Wikipedia article in order to make it non-neutral (and thereby severely degrade its quality). I now have your talk page on my watchlist and will see any reply you post here. Regards,  AGK  [&bull; ] 22:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your response. No I don’t think you are being unfair since I understand your concern about degrading the quality of the page. But to be clear I have to maintain that I have edited from a neutral point of view, and that my motivation throughout has been to present a neutral point of view, and promote this within the article. I checked the section you referred to, and found three comments from me – the gist of which (I hope you agree) boil down to the sentiment of the last comment:
 * “I agree that the matter should be raised and discussed more fully, probably best to use the link you suggest. In the meantime the discussion here is that it's not a relevant comment for the introductory paragraph, since it makes no recognition of the pertinent fact that the practice of astrology is not considered to be a science but an art. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Costmary (talk • contribs) 17:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)”
 * That was (and remains) my honest opinion on what is best for the page. I have always believed that the pseudoscience definition should be fully explained – in terms of ‘what does this mean; why does it apply; when, why and by whom did the definition get applied? Etc’. I don’t agree with the definition myself but I see this as a matter that needs appropriate discussion within the section of the article that deals with astrology’s scientific standing and influence. At the time of the debate there was not just one, but two separate references within the lede to astrology being a ‘pseudoscience’ (there still is) but absolutely no coverage of its historical influence and cultural impact, and only a very poor and confusing introduction to what astrology fundamentally is, how it works and what it is used for. The content of the lede seemed to be deliberately confusing, considering Kwami’s insistence to mention stars, and then declare some imagined irony that they are not used by astrologers; and his input of complex, confusing points, such as “the prefix of astro which means "of the stars" should not really be used.” (Please read the section “Ironically not the stars”, to understand the backdrop to my interaction with him).
 * There was a lot of contributed discussion on the pseudoscience issue within the discussion page from various contributors - there still is; check the discussion page in the section “We're exactly nowhere, so back to basics”. The arbitration ruling given as a policy point at the top of the discussion page states “Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.”  It doesn’t say that they must be introduced as such, let alone that this must be repeated twice even before the subject is introduced and defined in an overall sense.
 * I still hold (honestly) to the views I expressed in the discussion page – not to push a pro-astrology POV, because I feel that the subject has many areas of valid criticisms which need to be addressed and explained within the page (and many of the most valid philosophical criticisms are not even currently mentioned) – but because the quality of the article was being significantly compromised by the desire to make the pseudoscience definition the main point of impact in the lede, and because of the introduction of irrelevant comments that seemed to be gratuitously placed to generate confusion and present a sense of nonsense within the subject. I was arguing to adopt the neutral POV, not to betray it.
 * However, when it became clearer to me that the strong attachment that some Wikipedia editors have to making the pseudoscience reference so prominent was not going to shift, whilst others were fighting to have it removed altogether as not justified - which I have never sought, because I do believe it should be included as a relevant point (if not, in my own opinion, a valid one) - and that this was going to prevent consensus, I asked other editors who were objecting to the reference to compromise on that (see for example my response to Erekint 18:40, 16 March 2011, under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Astrology#Proposed_Introduction:_Collaborative_v.4.
 * And even though my personal opinion is still as it was at the start, I shifted my position when I realised that the page would never be free of disagreement unless the lede included a comment with specific wording, such as astrology “is a pseudoscience” rather than “is considered to be a pseudoscience”, etc. Before being banned I proposed a suggestion for the controversial element of the lede, saying:
 * At this point we have a choice between adding an extra comment which says something like “Astrology is now defined as a pseudoscience for reasons such as being unprogressive, lacking falsifiability and being unconcerned with the need to evaluate its theory in relation to other modern sciences.[1]" Or we can link this through to the existing comment which currently states “Eventually, astronomy distinguished itself as the empirical study of astronomical objects and phenomena. In 2006 the U.S. National Science Board published a statement identifying astrology, along with ten other practices or beliefs, as "pseudoscientific". (‘Proposal’ section: 11:33, 21 March 2011 ) -
 * I can only be honest with you and say that I shifted my position, not my opinion, and did this only to try reach consensus when I had a better understanding of the politics of the page. Because (no) I don’t believe that astrology is a pseudo-science for reasons I have explained within my discussion, but I do believe that the arguments that have led it to be defined that way need to be explained and properly referenced on the page, through a neutral and informative presentation of relevant facts. I have always felt that way, but would still argue that there is no need to make that point the crux of the page, and the central point of focus in the lede.
 * You will have to tell me whether that gives you a problem, and gives (in your opinion) a justification for the ban. The way I see it, the page is territorially guarded by some editors who have a pseudoskeptical stance, who need to be examined on the question of their neutrality, and how this impedes their ability to recognise the worthwhile input that comes from other contributors who see the subject in a different light to their own negative view of it.


 * Regards, Costmary (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Just to let you know AGK, I think it is great that the page is now benefitting from the input of some new (experienced) editors, who seem to be dealing with the problems I recognised with more efficiency than I did (being new, I felt I had to justify every point). But your suggestion that I have been ‘nonobservant of the NPOV policy’ and would be unlikely to succeed in an appeal unless I admit this and ask for a ‘second chance’ has been weighing on my mind. To me the recognition of what constitutes neutrality as a wikipedia policy is very important; more so than my concern about the content of that page. I have written a post this morning, detailing my concerns, on Jimbo Wales’ talk page You might want to look at ther views I have expressed there, although I think they are reflected in the above. Regards Costmary (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Re no joke in admin pages
Your comments at the Administrator notice board are accepted as sincere and appreciated as such. They deserve a less than dismissive, combative response. Like you, however, my opinion hasn't changed. I spent a long and increasingly nonplussed night, and the following day, reading through the change history of the astrology page for three years, and through the accompanying discussion. The overwhelming impression I gained was that a dedicated group of editors attempted to impose an irrational agenda on an encyclopaedia.

To be clear, by irrational I mean that no rational argument was employed or responded to. Instead, irrational demands to accord to personal beliefs the same respect and standing as credible sources were being endlessly repeated as a matter of personal faith. That cannot be allowed to stand for two reasons - 1.) Wikipedia doesn't actually give a shit what you or I believe, and says so quite clearly in its rules and principles. Wikipedia cares only about what you or I can cite from reputable sources; and 2.) the rhetoric of faith, particularly of the kind that is intolerant of opposing points of view, has been rightly excised from encyclopaediae to ensure the information presented is neutral enough to allow anyone of any faith (or of none at all) to draw their own conclusions.


 * Thank you for your message. I actually endorse what you say above, and similarly want the information on the page to be established upon agreed consensus of fact and reliable and credible citations.

If you say to me that there was no collusion between you and the other so-called 'pro-astrology' editors, I must accept your statement in good faith. But I must also point out to you that the repetitious and uncompromising restatements of the same positions over and over had all the appearance of an orchestrated effort to prevent resolution of conflict or accept counterpoints as valid when rationality alone would have demanded it. For example, you have yourself pointed out the ridiculous nature of a proposition that astrology has nothing to do with stars. How do you think any rational person looking at the enormously lengthy, unenlightening and repetitive debates about matters of belief rather than evidenced representation should react? At what point is it reasonable to demand that a pointless debate cease and certain ground rules are accepted?


 * I think it should have happened long ago.


 * Although I don’t feel it should be necessary (or rather, I’m reluctant to justify myself against the censorship that offends me) let me explain my motivation for contributing to the page as and when I have. (This bit is lengthy - sorry, but I may as well put it on record considering the unspecified insinuations behind my ban).


 * I came to this page in February after one of my students offered an incorrect historical fact about astrology, citing the astrology Wikipedia page for her reference. I couldn’t believe Wikipedia could hold information that was so inaccurate, and so I came over and checked the page, and was shocked at how flawed and badly put together the whole page was. I have published-research experience and editorial experience in print publications, but I have never edited Wikipedia before. I have used it often for quick reference to topics I don’t know much about, but have not studied or paid attention to the astrology pages because I'm well aquainted with up to date academic sources on this topic, which is what I tend to use myself.


 * In my naivety (and in two minds about whether to get involved at all) I decided to delete some of the inaccurate content. It took a while to figure out how to become an editor, and then when I started editing the page I got sucked into it, and ended up spending two or three hours making substantial edits to the whole page. It felt like it had been a drain on my time, but seemed to be a necessary thing to do. I was so uninformed about how the process works that I didn’t know a related discussion page existed and was genuinely gobsmacked when an administrator welcomed me as an editor but said he had undone my changes, and that I should discuss each edit before making them on the talk page. I was gutted, because it had all been such a waste of time that I ought to have spent on something else. But – having started - I couldn’t shake off the need to do something.


 * I decided that I could keep a copy of all my edits, go back to the beginning and work on a paragraph a day by explaining the reasons for the alteration in the discussion first. I didn’t anticipate any resistance to what I assumed would be welcomed contributions, and thought I could allocate maybe 10 or 15 minutes a day to this. If you start reading from the section “Ironically not the stars” you should get a sense of my frustration that even tiny corrections, on points that I thought were too obvious to even argue about, were made subject to endless dispute and reversions by another editor, who just undid every change I tried to make, despite all my attempts to justify the reasoning to him.  I now realise I wasted huge amounts of time and energy on that, because I was new, and felt I had to get his personal approval and persuade him around to seeing what was, to me, patently obvious factual inaccuracies that needed attention.


 * I ended up asking the original administrator who welcomed me to step in, because I considered this editor was being deliberately destructive. The response I got was to seek mediation (he refused); to request 3rd party assistance (that was denied because more than two editors had commented); and to issue a call for the page to get more attention and input from other editors. Hence you see why the page attracted the influx of contributors, because this turned into the pseudoscience reference in the lede discussion, which was holding back revision of the lede, and that generated other discussions about the whole pseudoscience definition, and the controversy brought in a load of new editors arguing for or against that. I just wanted to make the changes in the lede, thinking I could then move on to the next paragraph (!) - I do now realise how naieve I was.


 * BTW, When I contributed to the ‘ironic stars’ thread I had never heard of policies such as sock puppetry, and so on. The only time I asked for someone to get involved is during that thread, when at one point I decided to telephone an author that the obstructive editor was quoting out of context (Bernadette Brady), thinking that if she (as the author) stated that he was misinterpreting her words, that would be an end to what was turning into an infantile discussion. As it happens she was out so I contacted Wendy Stacey, Chair of the AA instead, and she agreed to make the statement that was put into the thread. I don’t think anybody had a problem with that, and it never entered my mind that it might be seen as a sinister intervention.


 * Everything else is recorded on the page; although I doubt anyone will bother to read the full history of my involvement, which shows where I am coming from. It’s only now that I’ve been banned that I think I’ve finally got a good understanding of how this thing works. But there is a lot that stinks here, and that’s what I’m disheartened about. Every time I made an appeal for assistance or guidance I got a response that *I* should go edit a different subject, instead of this one that I actually know about, or that *I* was doing something wrong and needed to change *my* editing behavior. No one has ever shown support for my view that some editors here were being deliberately obstructive for whatever personal agendas they had to keep poor quality content on the page. I now see that some of that advice was friendly and delivered with good intent, but it always felt like yet another biased editor taking exception to my attempt to change text that had already been published, not even listening to what I saw as a legitimate complaint. (I’m more relaxed about that now in general terms, but would still definitely argue that neutrality has been significantly compromised by those who claim to champion it).

Just to be clear about my premise here: I call some of the people I suspect of collusion 'pro astrology' in quote marks because I think they have actually done more harm to any respectability or social acceptance of astrological practices than any hundred sceptics by behaving like fascist thugs, figuratively ganging up on all who dared to question their views, beating them to the ground with illogical rhetorical devices, using pejoratives that amounted to written bullying, and clearly coordinating tactics for denying rationality in the debate by employing rhetorical strategies that were made famous by the Jesuits during numerous heresy trials over several centuries in pre-modern Europe, and used extensively in Nazi show trials last century. It is a matter of personal principle that raises my hackles when anyone assumes I am so ignorant I can't recognise someone is trying to manipulate me that way, hence my progressively sharper, but never rude, responses in the astrology discussion over the past couple of days. I am downright furious if someone thinks they can bully me with irrational claptrap, hence my determination not to step away from that debate, which was my initial instinct. The challenge for me will be to maintain rational objectivity - that is to recognise in even my most implacable rhetorical opponents the faintest glimmer of valuable contribution.


 * I share your experience, and so I can relate to it and empathise, but I have seen it from the other side, and you have no idea how much I have appreciated seeing contributions that have agreed with points I have made, because it felt like I put a lot of work and persuasion into getting those points raised for discussion. But I absolutely agree that the challenge is to maintain rational objectivity. I would rather have all ‘iffy’ and belief-ridden comments removed (for or against astrology), just as you have suggested, and have the page rebuilt to a credible standard that merits the opportunity for students to reference it.

It is not that I believe Wikipedia rules are always right, but they are actually better than most of the half-arsed demands I've seen made by lazy thinkers (not just in the astrology page) to be taken seriously when there's no reason to do that. You cite the comment before mine on the admin pages. That editor had the gall to describe himself, and maybe some others, as subject matter experts! Yet my reading of the astrology article made it pretty clear to me that the citations for the theory and practice of astrology were so poor that if there were subject matter experts present in the debate, they remained silent about their expertise for years. Isn't it characteristic of subject matter experts to be able to rattle off any number of citations and authorities or precedents?

So, Costmary, these are the reasons for what I do on the astrology page. Lest you are in any doubt, I have had my run-ins with admins, and fierce disagreements about how Wikipedia policies and guidelines have been interpreted by them.


 * Your motives seem straightforward and honest to me, which is why I gave you my full support, even though I don’t personally agree with some of your comments or proposed changes. What this page needs is a mentality shift that breaks through the territorial possessiveness of some of its past editors. If you can achieve that, strive for credibility and real neutrality then the page will have the opportunity to develop appropriately over time from collective involvement, just as it should. That will be brilliant if the new influx of editors can achieve that. I can't speak for the other banned editors, but my feeling is that I'd be happy to stay out of the process, if being involved would move it backwards to past conflicts set in the same old grooves, etc.

But there is one common ground: most of them will respect rational, reasoned, principled argument. And I do too, being prepared to yield on almost any issue if persuaded rationally.


 * One relief is that the page does now have a lot of attention that has brought new opinions into it. I do accept that most editors are not as biased as they seemed to me to be in the past, but whilst most are as you say, one or two bad eggs can do (and have done) a lot of damage.

Wikipedia and all the topics in it do not belong to me, and aren't tools for my self-validation, gratification or ego masturbation. There are limits, such as points of principle. I wrote to an admin the other day that consensus isn't always a sustainable justification for doing things: just because, say, a whole bunch of people could agree that killing Billy Bloggs or Mary Jones is the right thing to do, that is no reason for me to yield to that consensus. But that kind of example is rare in life, and hopefully in Wikipedia.

I hope that I have now illustrated that while I disagree with your methodology on the astrology page, I don't wish you ill, nor do I think that there won't be opportunities for us to work collaboratively and positively on projects and towards outcomes that we both regard as positive for shared or separate reasons. It is on that basis that I urge you not to lose heart because you feel aggrieved about this issue. Take time out to reflect, regroup, dissolve the bad karma, etc. Then return fresh and maybe avoid polarising topics for a while. Wikipedia needs you and and all the others I oppose on this issue. We would be a poorer collective intellect if we lost you because of this one disagreement.


 * Since we share the most important underlying principles I don’t think we would be in opposition. I cheered most of the suggestions you made. BTW, I always felt my contributions were valuable (because they took up so much of my valuable time, that I wanted to spend on other valuable projects!) but it is nice to hear this for the first time, from someone who has not then been accused of being in collusion with me. We’ll see how it goes – it’s taking time for this to settle with me, and I’ll stay banned if the arbitration panel doesn’t accept that I have tried to argue in favour of neutrality rather than against it, or that being a single interest user is not a policy-breaker. This subject is what I know about and have an interest in. That doesn't mean I want to push it or promote it, or that I don't consider critical analysis to be just as important as explaining its logic (and why that has been enduring and influential, rightly or wrongly) – but I’m not going to be able to spend time looking for other pages to edit, though I would correct inaccuracies if I happened across them.

I hope this discourse has not been too long, too boring, too patronising, or too late in the piece to find receptive eyes and judgement in you. I wish you well and hope to encounter you here again under more congenial circumstances.

Regards Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   13:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks; same here – hope I didn’t bore you with the long story of my experience as a new editor. We’re on the same page fundamentally, so I’m sure you realise you have my moral support for what you are doing on the astrology talk page, even if I can’t support you in the discussion there.Costmary (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

First experiences
Reading what you had to say about your astrology page experience makes me think that you had an incredibly bad first contact with Wikipedia, which convinces me even more that you should not turn your back on on it. What you experienced is atypical, not indicative.

There are thousands of people here you'd just love to death, and they you. And there are thousands more who are gruff and dismissive, if only because they are busy and bad at interpersonal communications.

I firmly believe, having read your words, that you are the sort of editor Wikipedia needs as a longer-term contributor, and that this will happen only if you see the benefits in sticking around.

Reviewing in my mind your experiences as you relayed them to me, two things went terribly wrong for you straight away: 1.)you had no exposure to the considerable discussion about Wikipedia etiquette that has been developed over a decade to guide editors in how things work here; and 2.)no experienced editor took you aside to explain the significance of what was happening to you while it was happening. That's unfortunate, but not really anyone's failing so much as a fact of life in a community of interest that is as harsh and nasty, and as rich and rewarding, as the world outside it.

So let me start where someone else should have. First, I am not an administrator, nor really what you would call an experienced editor at Wikipedia. What I say to you is on my own behalf. You can look me up on my user page here. My own philosophy on Wikipedia has evolved since the early 2000s to not editing anonymously anymore, to using my real name as a sign that I accept all consequences and responsibilities that flow from my own actions.

I notice that you have never created your own user page. See here for how to do that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_page. Playing in your own user space gives you an opportunity to make mistakes that no one will give you grief about.

I also highly recommend that you read some of the stuff that comes off this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Contents/Getting_started. This isn't an assignment, but if you're ever in front of a computer for a few minutes with some spare time, it's not a bad intro to how things work here.

From these two starting points, your inquiring mind will draw you to other information, resources and interesting things in the Wikimedia space. It's a matter of exploring and absorbing. Wikimedia is the overarching project that includes Wikipedia, but many other information-related endeavours as well.

Every page you travel to will have a talk page where you can find existing Wikipedians discussing the issues that interest them. Those discussions are mostly signed. By clicking on a signature you can go to an editor's page, and once there, seek help, advice, assistance, or just leave a comment. That's how you get to know stuff here. You just have to know when to ask, and not to be disheartened if you get no reply, a reply days later, or an off-putting one. Everyone here has a life outside Wikipedia and not everyone writes with an eye to how it reads back.

I won't blather on much more, except to say that Wikipedia's purpose is not to offer a platform for opinions and self-validation. It is not a social medium. It is an encyclopaedic endeavour. It is the biggest information endeavour in human history. It doesn't really care whether you and I live or die. Only other people do. So don't confuse the work done here with the character of the people who do it. They must be separate qualities. The work is impartial and uncaring. The people are as infinitely varied as the ones you meet in the world.

I strongly urge you, again, not to retreat from Wikipedia. Take time out, by all means, but look some more, talk some more and absorb what makes hundreds of thousands of people roll up their sleeves and give their time freely to constantly create Wikipedia.

If you do that, and you come across stuff you don't understand or need help with, ask. Ask me, ask others. No question is ever silly or a bad reflection. Not asking is the only way to fail.

Give it some time, then apply to have your ban lifted. Ask me how to go about doing that if you want, but probably more useful for you would be to ask someone who is an administrator, and not one who was involved in the astrology debate. I have taken the liberty of asking a Wiki guide (a volunteer to act as a guide to new editors at Wikipedia) to drop in on your page and say hi.

Take the time to ask the questions you want. Start slow and briefly so you don't overwhelm whoever it is. No one took my hand when I first got here, and I got the shit kicked out of me a few times, but I always came back for more, and there were people who offered help, people I approached myself, and people who just dropped by out of the blue to offer kind words and assistance. That, not the astrology shit-fight, is my perception of what Wikipedia is all about.

I'm always here if you need a chat or some pointers. But I have particular views and you should be exposed to more than just those.

I repeat, I wish you well, and hope you decide to stick around Wikipedia.

Regards Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   00:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks again Peter. I have to go out today but will respond again later or tomorrow.  Just so you know, I am trying to appeal the ban. The section in my talk page above - Astrology Topic Ban - shows my discussion with a non-involved administrator who has been requested to guide me through the process.  As you can see, his initial opinion is that an appeal is unlikely to succeed unless I admit to pushing a non-neutral POV and ask for a second chance. I would never do that because it is simply not true. I explain my resons above. I do have more that I would like to say to you in response to your comments and will come back when I have more time. Cheers for now Costmary (talk) 09:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Peter there doesn’t seem much more for me to say now, having posted what I felt inclined to say in response to Moreshi’s accusations on the Adminstrator’s noticebard hereand here. No doubt my comments will be dismissed as a ‘rant’. I think it will be hard for anyone to understand the frustration I have tried to overcome, until it was causing me too much distress to ignore. I am making this my last submission to any page of Wikipedia – they can ban me from the user pages too for all I care. I have spent too much time here that I could have been spending on pleasant and productive things. I didn't realise when I joined up as an editor that I would be signing up to this much trouble and hostily. I just hope I have time to get across this message of thanks – even though our experiences and perspectives differ dramatically.


 * Were the situation not as it was, your encouragement would definitely have worked and I would have been motivated to re-enter the discussion. But I thought about all this very seriously last night, and the realisation of the practicalities dawned on me, so that I know that I have no chance of winning an arbitration appeal. I have noted that many of those who judge these kind of matters have openly declared interests in upholding the (to be worshipped above all else) 'pseudoscience policy', and I have spent a lot of time trying to understand how to instigate an appeal, but am completely confused about what action I should be taking and how the necessary templates are supposed to be completed and submitted. Following Wikipedia recommendation, I requested help from a non-involved administrator who advertises his willingness to guide users through the appeal process. As you can see above, he felt the fault was on my part and has not responded to me again since I tried to accommodate and answer his criticisms several days ago. If I can’t convince the person who I hoped would guide me through the process, well… it’s pretty obvious.


 * Offering to put me in touch with good editors was a wonderful gesture on your part, but my position is that I would have to start a whole new battle, just to have a reinstatement of my right to comment, in the knowledge that every comment I have made so far has involved a non-productive battle that ended up being used as ‘evidence against me’. I don’t want to have to fight to ‘win’ the right to remain in this place, whilst all those who have perpetuated a policy of idiocy, ignorance and censorship are patted on the back and congratulated for their forebearance in having to deal with “rented astro-mob rantings” from such as myself. If I could see a way around the obstacles and thought I could make a difference to this ridiculous policy-mentality that has acted to the detriment of Wikipedia content I would; but I can’t see a way to succeed with this one. That’s just the way things go sometimes.


 * I made a user page as an exit gesture. I know this wasn’t what you had in mind, but it’s a reflection of what I wanted to say :) I also hope you realise that my comments on the Admin noticeboard were partly motivated by concern that your good efforts don’t go to waste. Although I disagree with a lot of things you have said (both discussion principles and topic content-points) I realise that this is only because we are coming from different experiences rather than different principles. I can see you are a good egg and are clear about what you are doing because the motivation is appropriate, so I know I could have worked productively with you had I been given the chance. I’m sure you realise how much your correspondence has meant. Sorry it couldn’t have been more fruitful.


 * Best wishes to you personally, and good luck with what you are doing here Costmary (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A thought..
I'd suggest that a better path for you would be to find some other articles to edit here for a while. I'm no admin, and not even a very involved editor, but I can tell you what I've seen work well and what hasn't.

Looking at your edit history, you behave and appear at least superficially to be pushing a point of view. Posting on Jimbo's page, etc, mostly make you look a lot like another in a long line of POV pushers that rant and rave and then quickly vanish. They waste everyone's time and make for a quick flare of drama and not much else.

A better solution (for Wikipedia... because editors are good! ) would be to find some other articles that interest you, perhaps a less conentious article. Learn the ropes, and edit for a while, and learn how the systems work. Then with that experience appeal the ban and help improve the Astrology article. Its a big place and being banned from a topic really shouldn't be that big a deal.

Hey, what the hell do I know, so do what you want with the advice. Delete it, I certainly won't take offence. Guyonthesubway (talk) 01:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. Go on ... your point was .... ?
 * Peter S Strempel &#124;  Talk   11:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you Guyonthesubway. I appreciate your well meaning advice. The problem is that I am not someone looking to fill up spare time; I suffer from a lack of spare time. I tried to contribute only because I saw a page that was badly in need of improvement. I didn’t realise that the page was as controversial as it is; didn’t know that I needed to fully equip myself with emotional battle armour, mental bloody-mindedness and in-depth knowledge of wikipedia pseudoskeptical politics. And I certainly didn’t realise that the page was intended to be focused on pseudoscience (I just thought it was about astrology).
 * Perhpas it shouldn't be, but it is actually a big deal for me, to discover that for all the time, effort and patience I put into trying to get across some common-sense points demonstrated by good quality sources, and for all my best intentions and best delivered efforts, my contributions have been judged to be not good enough to be allowed to appear on the relevant discussion page. I realise that to appeal the ban would entail a long fight just to have my right to comment restored. But if I was treated with such prejudice and assumption of bad faith as a new user without a history – how much worse would it be to succeed in the appeal and come back with a pre-attached label of suspicion for being “another in a long line of POV pushers that rant and rave”?
 * I genuinely appreciate your honest attempt to help and hope your kindness comes back to you in other ways, when you need it. For me it is unfortunately too late, but thanks anyway.Costmary (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Peter, I am writing a response to you, but first I want to make some comment on the specified criticisms that Moreshi has made of me, and get that out the way. I am pretty much done after that (sorry, I feel a sense of letting you down, but this thing is bigger than I can deal with and it has infiltrated into too many suppositions of bad faith now for me to realise any hope of pulling it back). My response to you will be my last, since your attempt to help me through this has meant a lot. That's ultimately what I will try to retain out of this - that good people can always make a difference.Costmary (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your user page
Like it. I didn't know. What conditions does it take to grow it?

My favourite plants are aloe vera and citronella. Aloe vera is really good on burns, cuts and gunshot wounds. Citronella is pretty aromatic, but excellent as a non-chemical deterrent to mosquitoes and other bitey parasites.

Both grow with minimal supervision in a pot or in the ground. I'm also partial to lipia, the coloquial name for a ground runner that takes the place of grass in arid far north-west Australia, where precipitation is irregular and the ground can harden into a conrete-like pindan for many months of the year, and then turn to waist-deep slush when seasonal cyclones hit. Lipia does take lots of nurturing to start it, though.

Had you considered putting up a page about your namesake? Botanists may have hijacked the discussion on the scientific properties, but we need someone to disambiguate the term, so anyone looking for it under a colloquial name can find it.

Burn the witch was an eye-opener for me when I was at school in England. It taught me that rationality isn't subject to the kind of gibberish the totalitarians were using to subvert open and disciplined discussion about the ends of human endeavours (and they were using it to kill people, send them to gulags and all sorts of other nonsense). The Monty Python skit said to me that the absolute right of one's own conscience being the only church anyone should recognise is more sacrosanct than any religious pretension (well, that's actually Tom Paine, but I think John and Terry meant it that way). I'm with you in principle, but not on the specifics of the astrology article.

Regards Peter S Strempel  &#124;  Talk   23:09, 25 March 2011 (UTC)