Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Psychohistorian

Hu's Baseless Accusations
Hu said:

"Alternatively uses a discredited abuser of NPA warnings (Lukas19/Thulean) as evidence of "multiple" warnings, even after [60] being told this was foolish"

Want to back that up? Lukas19 18:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Already done, thank you. Hu 18:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You just gave a link to User:Sugaar 's comment who was blocked for 6 hours for harrassing me. Clearly, your understanding of "done" in this case is hugely sub-standart. Lukas19 20:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Lukas: or you disengage re. my person or I start an RfC on your behaviour right now (and you know that there is a lot to talk about YOUR BEHAVIOUR, specifcally your abuse of policy, wikilawyering and so on). I have not done it yet because I promised to disengage but I can't disengage while you persecute me even in the most hidden corners of Wikipedia.
 * In any case the one who was harassing me with mostly unsubstantiated warns was you and the case of the block is not yet closed. I'm just waiting for the involved admin to return from her vacations to bring it to ArbCom, as it's a clearly unjustified block. --Sugaar 18:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Feel free to do whatever. In the mean time, refrain from baseless accusations...Lukas19 18:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc
It's funny that User:Addhoc calls us trolls when he himself is a POV troll who has been blocked for it before. It's also funny that he lodged a very similar NPA warning against someone for behavior that Psycho historian nearly precisely duplicates, but apparently anyone who is on the right side of his agenda is free from sin...


 * "-- No Personal Attacks --
 * Describing persons who are followers of a specific belief, in this case Matrixism, as kooks is a clear violation of WP:NPA. You have been warned. Addhoc 11:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)"

He refused on his talk page to give any justification for his snide, rude and apparently baseless "troll" comments on this RfC, and had the nerve to ask me not to post to his talk page - after he saw fit to troll my RfC.

-- Fourdee 14:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I wonder if your typing my name as "Psycho historian" was purely accidental.-Psychohistorian 17:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

User Addhoc was unblocked. Hu 19:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, Fourdee is alleging that I'm being rude while at the same time posting the following in Addhoc's discussion page, "I find it very strange that you saw fit to warn someone over calling kooks kooks, but I am a "troll" for objecting to Psychohistorian repeatedly and constantly calling people things like "paranoid", having "inferiority complexes", etc. Clearly whatever fits your persistent religious agenda is right, and everyone else is a troll... Perhaps it is not a coincidence that your obvious interest in mysticism leads you to portray me as a troll, since I am trying to remove the mysticism from the Emergence article?" I'm going to just ignore the fact that I have NOT "repeatedly and consistently" calld people terms like "paranoid" and said they had an "inferiority complex" (I did it in ONE post and after having been attacked by the editor I was responding to).  What I find particularly disturbing is the calibre of attack Fourdee is lodging here against Addhoc.-Psychohistorian 17:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion
I would agree with the assessment of Psychohistorian, this RfC has demonstrated a consensus supporting his conduct. Addhoc 14:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Irrelevant. It's been only a couple days. A Conclusion is premature. Lukas19 15:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah... so it would be ok if I called you paranoid and illiterate? Excellent.  Kooky seems reasonable too.  Fourdee 14:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since this behavior is ok by "consensus"... Let me see if I can put this "at your level"...  Maybe some day if you make it out of kindergarten you will understand.  You and your "psycho" "paranoid" "kooky" friends, all 5 of you, are good at stalking people's contribs and sticking together to promote your "kooky" "troll" agendas but this is no kind of "consensus" (if you spoke english you might know what that means) and this is all a very clear example, to anyone without psychological problems, personality disorders and "inferiority complexes", of blatant ad hominem.  Yes/no?  Maybe?  Only if someone you don't agree with does it, but never if one of your compatriots does?  Yeah, thought so. Fourdee 14:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Fourdee, Can I suggest you not to feed trolls? Lukas19 15:07, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was feeling a little kooky. Fourdee 15:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge, Addhoc and myself have never shared work on an article. Any such conspiracy theory concerning us being friends is unsubstantiated - he's a neutral third party as far as I can tell.-Psychohistorian 17:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why, but he posted on my talk page and asked me for a comment. I don't even know the guy.--Vercalos 17:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, we don't know each other. That's intentional.  I want someone who is familiar with  Thulean/Lucas19's and/or Fourdee's history to provide an outsider's perspective.  If you've got the time, I'd appreciate it.-Psychohistorian 18:00, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Funny that one of the people you tried to solicit for support (User:LSLM) has already been blocked for NPA violations himself. Fourdee 23:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You and Lukas9 are being silly. One of the people Lukas19 contacted soliciting support has been blocked twice. You observed Psychohistorian had contacted LSLM so the two of you pile on to punish him now and not earlier. I guess you thought that if two warning tags are good then placing six (6) tags and a hand worded warning are better. Then Lukas19 launched his own litigation against LSLM the fourth time he has done so (twice under his alter-ego Thulean) and posted a notice against him on WP:AIV. Perhaps it could be left to someone else to post on WP:PAIN and WP:AIV against that user. Hu 00:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You think we did all those to punish LSLM? Pfft. I'm not going to dignify that silly claim with more than this: . Lukas19 01:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't observe LSLM (via Psychohistorian) - rather I didn't take any note or make any examination of him - until LSLM started vandalizing the article and flinging insults. As usual Hu, your impression of the chain of events is quite, er, shall I be polite and say "creative"?  Fourdee 01:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

As part of this piling on LSLM, Fourdee then filed a 3RR complaint. The timing is as I stated, and there is also message traffic between Fourdee and Lukas19 at the same time. Hu 01:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think s/he thinks we are psychic. We were supposed to predict LSLM's edits (which happened in previous hour or two) and should have reported him before Psychohistorian contacted with him, which was a day before.Lukas19 01:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're imagining things, Hu. I filed a 3RR complaint because LSLM violated 3RR. That was my first interaction with him. It appears to be a mere coincidence that Psychohistorian had contacted LSLM beforehand, as I had no prior interaction with him of any kind whatsoever, nor did I discuss this with Lukas in any manner before the vandalism/3RR matter. This tendancy to link unrelated coincidences and fabricate chronologies might be a matter of concern. Fourdee 01:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Exact times: Time which Pshychohistorian connected LSLM: 17:43, 15 December 2006 . Time LSLM began editing White people and caused these reports: 22:11, 15 December 2006 . Lukas19 01:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed. If there is a link here it was between LSLM being contacted by Psychohistorian and LSLM deciding to vandalize the article.  Fourdee 01:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The sequence I stated can be verified and there are no chronologies fabricated, Fourdee. And the claim that LSLM would vandalize an unrelated article after a neutral message from Psychohistorian is ludicrous. As Lukas19 shows, Psychohistorian contacted LSLM earlier today before the two of you piled on. I have alleged no conspiracy, simply noted the timing. Only Lukas19 has alleged a conspiracy theory. Even if there had not been the message traffic between you and Lukas19, the fact remains that there has been a piling on. Your placing not one or two but six warning tags on the user's Talk page is, of itself, a piling on. Your direct claim of fabricating chronologies is false and should be retracted. Hu 01:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe after you retract your claim that I decided to report this troll for 3RR violations for any reason other than the fact of a 3RR violation. Indeed I asked Lukas for help, after LSLM decided to attack the article, which was totally outside my control and if anything might be linked to his being notified by Psychohistorian, but since I don't prefer to fabricate causes out of thin air, I won't make that claim as a fact.  Fourdee 01:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You already made the claim as if it were a fact and should retract it since it is false. All the same I retract any implication that you had observed the contact by Psychohistorian before you contacted Lukas19, though the timing does not preclude it. Hu 02:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The following was apparently deleted by Hu from the above post but I have responded to it:

"However, the piling on occured after you noted that Psychohistorian had contacted LSLM. Fourdee was the first to call out LSLM here and it was at 23:09 UTC, in this very thread, two minutes after placing the tags on the user's Talk page (could be coincidental or otherwise), before your messages to each other (which are not conspiratorial) and before the two of you filed the multiple litigations at 23:15, 23:17, 23:46. You were certainly aware of Psychohistorian's contact before you filed as part of the piling on."


 * It is difficult to know what someone was aware of at what point in time except by their statements, although sound logic and careful attention to detail might help in making that guess. Like I said, I had indeed noticed (not through contrib stalking, unlike you guys) that Psychohistorian had contacted some people about this article, because someone posted here wondering why he had done so.  I believe I did look to see who they were, but did not make any note of those names or have any particular concern with what context Psychohistorian had for thinking those people might be helpful to his cause.  Subsequently, this user LSLM started vandalizing the article, at which point I filed the 3RRV report and contacted Lukas for help.  After that, from LSLM's talk page when I posted warnings against his continued attacks on the article, I noticed that this was one of the very people Psychohistorian had contacted.  So, after seeing that this user had already been blocked for personal attacks, I found it amusing that Psychohistorian had solicited help from an already punished NPA violator, so I posted my amusement at that on this page.  So I completely disagree that I was "certainly aware" that this same user was someone who Psychohistorian before I decided to take issue with his behavior.  So you are still fabricating chronologies and concocting "clear" motivations and knowledge where there were none. Fourdee 02:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I corrected my remarks before you responded. I corrected them for a very good reason, that I do pay attention to detail and logic and am careful. I was not "fabricating" chronologies. I do apologize for making an error on the timing. You could help the situation if you followed Wikipedia policy and properly summarized your edits. It would also be helpful if you used the Show Preview tool or whatever means you choose to reduce the large numbers of your small edits that bulk out the edit histories of most pages you touch.

By pulling them out of the edit history you are erecting a straw man and then knocking it down. Your privilege.

With regard to your remark about so-called "contrib stalking", you make it necessary because you launch actions and litigation without notifying the people involved. You did not have the sense of fair play to notify LSLM of your action on 3RR, though you made sure to pile six tags on the Talk page (after you initiated the process). Of course it is now moot, because LSLM noticed your action and has responded. So you see, it is necessary for people to watch your contribs because you omit the basic courtesy of notification when you launch actions against users.

Now that I've apologized regarding the timing issue, will you do the same about the "fabrication" aspect? Hu 02:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. Fourdee 03:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You are not assuming good faith. Your privilege, but you are mistaken. You did not summarize that edit, so it seems you are also rejecting the Wikipedia policy which requires summarizing edits. Hu 03:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I wish you would leave me alone, Hu. It's very creepy to know you read my contribs like it's the daily paper, and have since before any of the supposed "vexatious litigation", as that's how you noticed the first complaint I filed.  And why would I want to notify you about anything and give you the opportunity to make up stories about me?  Please leave me alone.  Fourdee 03:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Clearly my instinct to look at what you edit was entirely justified since you did not notify us of the action you were taking against the Emergence article, or Psychohistorian (twice), or LSLM. I wish you would relax your death-grip on the Emergence article, which you said was a poor use of your time, and drop your bothersome litigation here, which is just a continuation of your frustration with the Emergence article and Psychohistorian's points there. Wikipedia is an open cooperative system and works best that way. If you feel the need to hide your actions, then you don't get it. Hu 03:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, Fourdee, I suggest you not to feed trolls. While it was funny at first, I'm sure you dont enjoy reading 3rd rate conspiracy theories. Read a good book instead...Lukas19 15:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Resolution
At this point my goal would be merely to have Psychohistorian (and others) acknowledge that at the least many of the comments were uncivil. These are perhaps not the most egregious personal attacks, but I believe many of them do constitute ad hominem in the rhetorical sense. I don't think it is too much to ask that labels like "paranoid" and "illiterate" not be flung around so persistently. Getting frustrated is not a good excuse for belittling others. Can't we agree to be civil and not insult others - or at least to be somewhat more circumspect in our criticisms of others, and focus entirely on what is wrong with what they said, rather than what may be wrong with them personally. I'm not free of guilt in this either, but I think Psychohistorian has been making quite a habit of it. I'm not clear why anyone would think this behavior should continue. Fourdee 23:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Honestly I don't think they are at all. Certain people seem to be hypersensitive like the one in the above that claimed to be offended because he was asked where he was from (and, well, he was from Texas, you know... - actually I know almost nothing about Texas, I don't have to). You should: (a) develope a thicker skin (first recommendation of WP:CIV), (b) not to read personal attacks in every single comment on, say, the weather and (c) when it's the first time (or even the second or third time, if it's not something blatantly aggresive) that you feel attacked you should discuss it with the alleged attacker and not look all around his/her history for other possible previous conflicts with anyone (real or imaginary) as you did, trying to aggravate the conflict instead of reducing it. I know that sometimes that's impossible but, sincerely this is not the case.
 * Additionally, I think that you are using double standards: you can dig in Psychohistorian history and you feel ouraged when Hu does the same with you.
 * Unlike what some of your friends think, Civility, NPA, Etiquette and other policies are not just weapons to use them against editors you disagree with but tools for working on NPOV content independently of what we may think of each other personally. They are intended to avoid personalization of conflicts and to keep them in relation to content. Trying to use them to displace other editors is wikilawyering, harrassment, abuse of policy and disruptive editing. Wikipedia is a cooperative project, people who don't know how to collaborate and don't understand WP:NPOV have little or no room in it (and Wikipedia is not a academy of cooperation either, at least not primarily). --Sugaar 01:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A lot of nonsense. Fourdee 03:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If the comments were uncivil, then your use of them on this page is a policy violation, in addition to a WP:POINT infringement. Perhaps, if you were to apologize first, that would help. Addhoc 11:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As a preemptive advice Fourdee, please do not feed the trolls...Lukas19 14:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Continued denials by Psychohistorian
Psychohistorian continues to deny that things which are blatant ad hominem are not personal attacks. This very peculiar notion of his that saying anything directly about the person with whom one is arguing (versus what they are saying) is not personal attack is utterly inconsistent with the usual meaning of ad hominem in debate. He summarily dismisses a number of cases of statements directed at the person as "clearly" not personal attacks when they could be nothing other than ad hominem.

Apparently he thinks he was being sufficiently civil as well, the elusive definition of ad hominem aside. All these implicit and explicit insults and condescending tone are apparently just fine by him.

Most of the attacks are not even phrased as "that's something an ignorant person would say" (which may not be the fallacy of ad hominem but is still not civil), but quite simply and directly "you are ignorant". If that's not ad hominem, nothing short of flinging swear words and insults against the person's appearance would be. That's not the standard for personal attack I have ever heard used.

Also he seems to have some confusion about "facts" when he says the examples of stating I have no training in the field of systems theory and have not taken freshman science classes. Your basis for these "facts" seems to be raw conjecture, like all the other "factual" attacks on people's ignorance, sanity, etc. I assure you that in at least the second accusation you are woefully mistaken (and still mistaken that I misused the term or concept of accuracy), and as to the first, you had no factual basis for making that claim - it seems to come out of a posterior orifice.

It is not difficult to be circumspect in your criticisms of people to avoid direct personal attack. If you wish to call someone ignorant, try calling what they have said ignorant (which you manage to do sometimes), rather than calling them ignorant, or making absurd claims about things you couldn't know.

If you cannot see that you are being rude, and making personal attacks, there is really little I can do for you. This is something like the behavior of a person who would try to squabble his way out of a traffic ticket or any other accusation against him of any kind, no matter how trivial. I don't see why you can't just say, "Hey yeah, I got a little frustrated and rude with you guys, I'll try to work on that."

I notice you did manage to include a somewhat circumspect personal attack in bringing up "Nazi" again from the LSLM nonsense. Perhaps you think there is some factual basis for calling a person who is not a member of the NSDAP a Nazi and who in fact was not alive when it existed, but I think that sort of thinking is pretty... creative. You obviously have some fundamental confusion about what "facts" are versus opinions and accusations.

I don't have a real problem with you psychohistorian and I really appreciate your work on the final collaborative version of the emergence article. However this persistent refusal to own up to any wrong doing (except the very most blatant case of it against the troll margrave, who shouldn't have been able to frustrate or anger anyone who didn't have an inferiority complex himself) totally perplexes me.

-- Fourdee 21:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A couple of things need to be clarified. First, in the context of Wikipedia, what is and what is not a personal attack is described in WP:NPA.
 * Second, most of the comments that I made do not fall under that definition. Of those that do, look at WP:Spade.  I do not consider it a personal attack to state something which is an obvious fact about a person.  I already confessed regarding those that are not covered by WP:Spade but are described by WP:NPA.
 * The issue you are making now (like most witch-hunts, you started with a scatter shot approach and, when that didn't work, you tried constantly changing targets) is about my calling you ignorant on the subject in question. The fact that you have consistently gotten professional jargon in the field wrong and gotten basic content in the field wrong is ample evidence that my comments fell within WP:Spade.  For example, I pointed out that, within the context of science, you were using "precision" and "accuracy" wrong (an example of getting profesional jargon wrong) and explained to you what those terms meant.  You then replied that you were talking abot a specific incident of taking a specific measurement, but, of course, my comment had been preceeded with "in a scientific context".  A single incident of a single measurement is not within a scientific context - scientific experiments depend on repeated observation (an example of you getting basic concepts wrong).  As for saying "hey, yeah, I get a little frustrated", I did that in the emergence article.
 * And you are confusing the concept of a personal attack when you have to make such a reach in claiming that one was made even when you can't identify who was being personally attacked (tell me, who specifically do you think I called a "Nazi" and where did I do it? - I didn't. That's an example of propaganda - a common feature of a witch-hunt).
 * As has been pointed out by many people already, your witch-hunt isn't productive to Wikipedia. Your refusal to admit that it was uncalled for and dispruptive - your persistent ability to own up to any wrong doing - totally perplexes me.  Incidentally, while I do not consider it a personal attack, I find your statement "who shouldn't have been able to frustrate or anger anyone who didn't have an inferiority complex himself" to fall under your definition of a personal attack.  So what about it?  Are you making a personal attack here? -Psychohistorian 22:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually that's the sort of circumspect statement I'm saying you should use to avoid direct ad hominem. Further, I genuinely just meant it as a good characterization of the behavior - a spade is a spade after all.


 * I didn't misuse the term accuracy in laying out the "fallacies", I used it once, and correctly, whether by the scientific or usual meaning (and the statements sounded more like philosophy than science anyway). An imprecise observation is less accurate.  Specifically I said "[...] it is incorrect to say that the view of an object or system at a larger scale is more accurate than the view at a small scale."  Even though that is not a scientific statement, it is philosophical, it also adheres to the scientific usage of accuracy, meaning correspondence to the true value - "the view" is a singular observation, and a single imprecise obvservation is (obviously) not accurate.  You're harping on a totally trivial straw man of your own concoction.  If you like quotes, try this, from Dr. James A. Plambeck, Department of Chemistry, University of Alberta (he actually has his graduate degree):


 * "It is impossible to obtain accuracy if precision cannot be obtained, but precision does not guarantee accuracy."


 * Note that he says impossible.


 * QED. That means "you're wrong" in terms that might be "at your level" (spade again?).


 * And even someone making an error, misstatement, or being ignorant of something in particular does not create a "fact" about anything other than what they've said. The "fact" you perceive is a matter of conjecture.  Otherwise I might call it a "fact" that you and Hu are illogical and paranoid and a "fact" that you have an "inferiority complex" based on some things I might consider evidence of that.  That would be uncivil, improper, and on top of it all - illogical.


 * -- Fourdee 00:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

When one writes "An imprecise observation is less accurate", one has to say "less" than what. There isn't anything implied in the surrounding statements, leaving it rather empty. Hu 01:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "QED. That means 'you're wrong'"

No, it means you don't understand the point he's making. What he's saying is that the potential for accuracy is limited by the potential for precision (a rather obvious point, I think, IF a person has a good grasp of the basics). That's not the same as saying that precision (as distinct from the potential to achieve it) is a requirement for accuracy (i.e. that data can only be accurate if it is precise). Further, the context in which the disputed dialogue occured was that of science, not general philosophy.-Psychohistorian 01:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're making stuff up now. I'll stick with what the doctor says, even after you get your degree in making-up-stuff-ology.  Fourdee 01:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's funny because you mangled what he said. But I will see about sending him email and asking him to clarify whether or not data must be precise to be accurate.  Then, if he replies, I'll post it here.-Psychohistorian 01:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, in the interest of fairness, I want you to see and approve the question I send him before I send it to him. "An acquaintance and I are having a debate about a comment you made and we're hoping you'll clarify.  The comment in question is, "It is impossible to obtain accuracy if precision cannot be obtained, but precision does not guarantee accuracy."  Does this mean that accuracy is limited by precision?  In other words, given two sample datasets drawn from the same population, is it possible for one dataset to have a higher accuracy but a lower precision than the other?"  (btw, I feel stupid asking him that - that's Statistics 101, but is it agree that it represents both positions neutrally?)-Psychohistorian 02:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Datasets are your red herring, so no. The question is regarding my original statement about a single observation, isn' it?  "The view".  Not to mention I only said that the less detailed view was not more accurate, not that it was less accurate, but let's assume I said it was less accurate.  I think, if you are asking for my input, it would make the most sense just to ask him to explain his statement without loading it with an example of your concoction.  Fourdee 02:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, because a single measurement is outside the context of science. Science is based on repeated observation.  Further, I did not load it with an example of my concoction, I used the neutral term "dataset".  I specifically kept from doing so (but that's beside the point because I'm not going to ask a scientist I don't know for his opinion on something that has nothing to do with science - that is, a single measurement).-Psychohistorian 02:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well my use of accuracy was about "the view" and as I said, I considered it to be a statement of philosophy and it was written as such. At any rate, I would suggest, if you want something to bring back to this discussion, just asking him what he meant by his statement and let him explain it however he would like, as a doctor of science - datasets have nothing to do with how I used the term "accuracy" in describing the alleged fallacy so generating a response on that particular topic doesn't really address what I said, or supposedly misunderstood.  I assume that his response would include a mention of what he meant by accuracy and if appropriate, its use in reference to datasets.  I do not agree with the question you've phrased, or that the question reflects the dispute, or that a response directly to the question about datasets would address what I had originally said.  What would probably speak the most directly to this dispute is a simple explanation of his statement, in the terms of his choice.  Fourdee 03:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If one actually goes back and reads the discussion, it is clear that you were talking about science. Here's a quote from you from that discussion, Where I "get the idea" is explained in the examples above showing clearly how the less detailed observations are less accurate (perhaps you think the earth is blue or it is a sphere).

If you are driving down a road I suggest you wait until you have traversed, or at least seen, the entire road before you make any assumptions about whether it is straight or not, or you will run off the road. Extrapolations and false assumptions about what has not yet been observed fall under the caveat I listed above. One might believe that the earth appears "flat" from the surface, unless one traveled past the horizon, observed tall objects near the horizon, and made the other important observations to understand that the surface is curved. It is not necessary to view the earth from space to know that it is not "flat"; its shape can be surmised at the smallest scales, ableit with some time, effort, and sound logic. Making (bad) assumptions about the unseen does not fall under the concept of close observation - that falls in your realm. Unfortunately for you, the "hobgoblin" of evidence, verifiability, proof, replicability of results and the other standards of science will continue to hound any statements you wish to make on Wikipedia. I suggest at the least you employ citations of experts, even scurilous "experts" speaking oustide their field or using standards of evidence other than those employed by science (like blind assertion, conjecture, mysticism, religion, etc.), or your edits will be promptly deleted per wikipedia policy. We can get the article unprotected but my first action will be to delete all the uncited and improperly cited statements per policy. Or you can work with me to come up with a definition for emergence which reflects the differing opinions of scientists, philosophers and systems experts, and retain the opinions which you feel are accurate in the article. Your choice. Fourdee 02:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC) You repeatedly mention "science". You do not -anywhere- say that your discussion is about philosophy.-Psychohistorian 13:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you look at the original statements of the fallacies, as are at User:Fourdee, they appear to be purely philosophical. Talk about whack-a-mole; you seem to hop around from attack to attack until you find something you think you can harp on.  You're drawing on statements I made in repsonse to things you said (i.e. loaded by you again) about the fallacies.  Who would think that descriptions of fallacies are science?  Especially when one of the examples was a person's attractiveness.  They might be theory of science but that is a matter of philosophy as you are fond of stating.


 * Nonetheless, my use of "accuracy" was in regard to a single observation ("the view") and the example was of single not repeated (from the same scale) observations of the earth. I stand by the use of accuracy as obviously correct in either the usual or the scientific sense.  Feel free to ask the doctor what he meant by his statement that accuracy is impossible without precision, which you seem to have dropped realizing what he would likely say, but even with loading the question trying to him to direct it away from the meaning of "accuracy" to the accuracy of datasets, it's unlikely you will get an satisfaction from him - as he already made a clear statement that you are wrong.


 * Allow me to repeat: "It is incorrect to say that the view of an object or system at a larger scale is more accurate than the view at a small scale." There is nothing wrong with that statement in any regard, even taken out of the context of describing a "fallacy".


 * Please continue this on my talk page if you wish, this is quite off topic for this RfC, and I assume by your ignoring the other successful points I made about circumspection and civility that you have nothing to say to them.

-- Fourdee 18:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Allow me to repeat: "It is incorrect to say that the view of an object or system at a larger scale is more accurate than the view at a small scale." There is nothing wrong with that statement in any regard, even taken out of the context of describing a "fallacy"."

Is wrong. That's obvious. You already admitted it was wrong when you said that a person should take a road all the way through before determining if it is straight or not. The earth looks flat up close, but from a distance, it does not. As for "ignoring the other successful points", you haven't made any successful points that I've ignored. You are just trying to hope that people will think you've scored points by constantly claiming that you have - yet another common characteristic of witch-hunts.-Psychohistorian 19:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Should we close this?
OK. Psychohistorian's gotten several comments, and people are now aware of his somewhat abrasive discussion techniques. Does it really need to be discussed further?--Vercalos 08:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Can we consider him 4th degree warned on the matter of civility? Fourdee 18:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Coming at this *completely* from the outside (I stumbled across this discussion while looking for something else at PAIN) - I do see a consensus here: general support of Psychohistorian's conduct, with the caveat that he is somewhat abrasive sometimes. I certainly don't see any consensus that would support a 4th degree civility warning. Perel 07:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Perel, Addhoc 11:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)