Jump to content

User talk:Martin Hogbin/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Nijdam's solutions

You seem to be stating objections to my proposed solutions that would apply equally to the solutions presented in the article and by you. To save us going round in circles, perhaps you could give me your solutions, with clearly identified sample spaces in the following two cases, where the standard rules apply: Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Your statement is incorrect.Nijdam (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
The player initially chooses door 1 and the host opens door 3

As you know one description is in terms of the three random variables C (position of car), X (choice of player)n and H (door opened by host). any other description is equivalent to this. The relevant probability is P(C=2|X=1, H=3).Nijdam (talk) 11:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The player chooses a door and the host opens another door

Do you mean: The player will choose a door and the host will open another door? Or do we see what happens? Description of course as above. If the player chooses door x and the host opens door h, the relevant probability is P(C<>x,C<>h|X=x. H=h).Nijdam (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I mean that we only know that the player has chosen a door and the host has opened another door but we do not know which. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

And it's us who have to decide? We then will base our advise on the overall probability of getting the car by switching, being 2/3. In the MHP, as an extra aspect, we know that all conditional probabilities of winning the car by switching have the same value 2/3. So the advise off switching will also be best in all specific cases. In other problems however the decision to switch may be the wrong one in some cases. Nijdam (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me explain what I mean by quoting this version of the problem, 'You will be offered a choice of three doors, and after you choose, the host will open a different door, revealing a goat. What is the probability that you will win if your strategy is to switch?'.
What is your sample space and solution? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:11, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, you didn't explain what you mean. But anyway, apparently there are three doors, and I call my choice X, with values the door numbers (or letters, or whatever to identify them). The door opened by the host I call H. I do not understand the role of the goat. I assume this problem is not stated in a strict formal context, so I put P(X=x)=1/3, for all x. As the host in any situation has a choice of two doors, it seems reasonable to take P(H=h|X=x)=1/2 for all h<>x. Is this of any help?? Nijdam (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC)\ BTW, I didn't answer the question about the probability, as I have no clue what I might win. The goat? And does switching means, like in the MHP, finally choose the remaining closed door? Nijdam (talk) 22:31, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Another sample space

Nijdam, would you prefer this space then? C, G1, G2 each with probability 1/3. What matters is the object behind the door, the door and the number on it are unimportant.

The player initially chooses one of the objects. The host the reveals either G1 or G2, neither we nor the player know which, then the player, after receiving this 'information' decides whether to stick or swap. How would you tackle that problem? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I don't. A sample space is no more than a model of the situation. It reflects the essential aspects of the problem. Any relevant detail of the situation will be reflected in the sample space. In this way the problem is better accessible for formal treatment. So, list all relevant things that may happen in the MHP and construct a sample space. The player entering on stage is no relevant detail. Nor is the host sneezing, as nowhere is any indication that something depends on this. The choice of one of the doors by the player however is, as this choice may for instance be the door with the car. Etc.Nijdam (talk) 11:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

'Unconditional' solution

Nijdam, to make discussion easier, perhaps you could show me how you would do the calculation for the case where the player decides his strategy before the host opens a door. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Does the contestant have a strategy? And even then, the contestant argues that in the case she picks door No. x and the host opens door No. h, she has to calculate the conditional probability, or alternatively the odds, to base her decision on. Nijdam (talk) 08:39, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The player's strategy is to always swap. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What does she base this strategy on?Nijdam (talk) 16:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea but she comes to the show with the intention to swap. What is your solution to this problem? Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Another contestant has the strategy to stick to her first choice. Also a solution? Nijdam (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

If you like. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

This does not seem a very constructive approach, don't you think? Nijdam (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not understand, all I am asking is for you to show me the way that you would do the calculation for what is commonly called the 'unconditional' case. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Did you read what I write above? If the "unconditional case" is to be the situation in which the audience has on forehand to decide what the contestant's decision has to be, the I gave you my calculations. But again: the audience argues that in the case the contestant chooses door x and the host opens door h, the conditional probability on the car behind the remaining door, given x and h will be (under the usual assumptions) 2/3, for all values of x and h. Hence she better switches. Understood? Nijdam (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I was asking for how you do this calculation. What sample space would you start with for the unconditional case? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The "unconditional" case. as you call it, may need a more extensive way of solving, but further it needs the same sample space as any other form of the MHP. And you know what that is. Nijdam (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not call it the 'unconditional' case, that is what others call it. You seem to have changed your mind on how to solve it. Your opinion was, in common with all the sources on the subject, that the simple solutions were perfectly correct for the unconditional case and that a sample space consisting of only two elements (G and C) was all that is required to solve it. What is your reason for this change. ? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I did indeed change my opinion. The simple solution, the one that says: The chance you first hit the car is 1/3, hence when switching you get it with chance 2/3, is only an answer to the question: what is the probability the average player who always switches will get the car? Even for this case the sample space should be rich enough to describe all that may happen. The only thing is, that for the calculation of the answer (in the symmetric situation, of course) we may use an equivalent simpler sample space, as you suggest. Nijdam (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

So what sample space do you consider necessary for the question, 'what is the probability the average player who always switches will get the car?'? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:52, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

To describe the problem we need the well known sample space with 18 elements. The average player who always switches may have chosen door 1, door 2 or door 3 and then switches to the remaining door. The position of the car is also important, and the independence of choice and car position. We may reason that hitting initially a goat, gets the car after switching, so we may leave the host out and look at a sample space of 9 elements: {(c,x)|c,x=1,2,3}, etc. Nijdam (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Why do we need to start with a sample space of 18 elements? Why not more, to include every possibility, such as the host's choice of words? Why not fewer, because we can work out, as you say above, that some elements are not required. Why not the sample space G1,G2,C? The doors and door numbers are irrelevant, all that matters is what is behind the door. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

We have been here before. You may "complicate" the outcomes, for instance by adding some words the host says, like the outcome: the car is behind door 2,contestant chooses door 1, the host opens door 3, the host says "hello", and it is raining, You then have to add also the combinations with the host not saying "hello", and with not raining. It enlarges the sample space, but does not change the analysis. To describe the event that the car is behind door 2, you have to combine all the outcomes where the car is behind door 1, so with the host not saying "hello" and with the host saying "hello" etc. If you want to describe the situation in which the host says "hello", you have to condition on this event. And guess what, as nothing depends on this "hello", the conditional probabilities have the same values as the original probabilities. The same holds for the host not saying "hello", so why bother. The point is that nowhere in the problem statement it says that anything depends on the host saying "hello", A smaller sample space however with less elements is not capable of describing the essential events that may happen. You say: the door numbers are not relevant, but not relevant to what? Presumably you mean, not relevant in the sense that for every combination of door numbers the desired conditional probabilities have the same value? Nijdam (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You say, 'nowhere in the problem statement it says that anything depends on the host saying "hello"', actually I would prefer to say 'pick' because we are told in the question that the host says 'pick'.
Nowhere in the question does it say that anything depends on the door number opened by the host. It is exactly the same. We are told that the host says 'pick' and that the host opens door 3. We know the host could have used a different word and could have opened a different door.
Why then must we include the door opened by the host in our sample space but not the words said by the host? Martin Hogbin (talk) 23:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is also a matter of common understanding of language. But, anyway, the best is you show me the sample space you have in mind, with an essential role for the host saying "pick". Nijdam (talk) 22:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Suppose we decide before formal mathematiziation that the symmetry of the situation means that door numbers may be ignored. We are only interested in the relation between the manifest and the hidden roles of the doors. Manifest roles are: door chosen by player, door opened by host, door left closed. There is one hidden role: the door hiding car. There are only two possible relations between these two sets of roles: car is behind door chosen by player, and car is behind door left closed by host. So if we insist on being pedantic and introducing a sample space etc etc we only need a sample space with two points. The two points are "car is behind door chosen by player" and "car is behind door left closed by host". Since the first of the two points has probability 1/3 the second must have probability 2/3. This is a completely respectable complete mathematical solution of MHP which coincides with most people's intuitive understanding of the problem and moreover the way it was introduced and solved by Steve Selvin and Marilyn vos Savant. The specific mention of door numbers in the usual statement of the problem is intended to confuse the listerner by giving them a clear visual picture of a certain stage of the game, forgetting the past. This leads people to jump to the wrong solution. MHP can be thought of as a joke: you carefully set up the listener so that they suddenly experience a conflict between what they expect and what you say. Most brain teasers are in fact jokes in this sense, two envelopes problem is a good example. In order to solve the paradox one has to make a sideways mind-jump - see the problem in another way. For instance, realise that door numbers are irrelevant and solve the problem by noticing that 2/3 of the time, your initial choice of door hides a goat.

The solution in the probability class where we painstakingly construct a sample space containing 27 or so points, a heap of random variables, carefully fill in all the probabilities, and then laboriously compute a particular conditional probability by going back to first principles, is useful for students learning about probability. It's not useful for solving MHP. Richard Gill (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom Request for clarification

I understand the Arbcom ban on certain users to apply to this discussion and any comments from banned editors will be immediately removed from my user space

Do you have time to make a Request for Clarification about the sanctions against Blackash, Slowart, and SydneyBluegum today? I would do it myself but I am crazy busy and should not even be writing this. I will second the request if you make it. Colincbn (talk) 05:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I will try to do that. I cannot believe that Arcom wanted what has happened. Martin Hogbin (talk) 07:48, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
from Arbcom has put a tag on the page for closing admins. I think this is the best we will get. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Well that is not good enough for me. ArbCom made a ruling in plain English that is not being upheld. Either they need to reword it or stop the violations. I will make the request when I get the time. Colincbn (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
What do you think would be a better wording? --Elonka 01:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the current wording makes their intention fairly clear. Arbcom were considering a complete ban on Blackash and Slowart but decided that, because of their expertise in the subject, they should be allowed to outlay proposals and background rationale at the commencement of the discussion (my bold). This seems fairly clear to me. In order to facilitate this process, I asked for contributions from both banned expert editors at the start of the discussion but got no response. What they have done, initiated by Blackash, is to try to game the system by using their 'one free hit' not to outlay proposals but to have the maximum impact on the closing admin. John Brandenburg's notice may go some way to reducing this impact but I agree with Colin that it does not really go far enough.
It is quite clear from Blackash's latest comments on the talk page that her only objective is to prevent the name 'arborsculpture' from being used. This reaction is not based on any WP policy but on her own commercial and personal rivalry with Slowart. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:33, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
If you would like to file a Request for Clarification, that is your choice. --Elonka 23:57, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Overreacting

I doubt some silly image of Mr. Breivik is going to result in more people dying. Breivik or no Breivik, image or no image, sicko's excist and commit their atrocities regardless. The article should be properly illustrated, and images of Breivik are available. So we shall use them untill a better image is found, licensed and uploaded. Maybe we should also consider protecting the page. Polozooza (talk) 15:41, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

You are no expert. Have you seen the video? That is the word by an expert on these things.Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
As it just so happens, I am an expert. I am not going to base my entire opinion on a single video, and neither should you. Polozooza (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Who are you trying to kid? Experts do not write "sicko's excist", or "I doubt some silly image of Mr. Breivik is going to result in more people dying". Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Not every "expert" is speaks English as a native language, brother. :) Polozooza (talk) 16:12, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I do have a sense of humour but if you want to make joke, please do it with something less serious. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:17, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

3RR

Watch out for it on Anders Behring Breivik. causa sui (talk) 16:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have asked the admins to intervene. This is far more serious that a simple edit war. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I see you are one. You have a duty to intervene and prevent WP form becoming possible promoter of mass murder. These people do this kind of thing because they want fame and glory, we must not give it to them. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

consistency of argument?

Why don't you oppose the inclusion of the image at Jared Lee Loughner, for which an equal consideration would seem to apply as to Breivik's? That is the problem I have with such an argument, if its to be made it should be made at a systemic level, not picking and choosing were it applies - unlike other editorial considerations which indeed should be case-by-case. --Cerejota (talk) 14:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

One major difference is that Loughner's image is a standard mugshot not a staged self-promotion photo. I am not against having an image of Breivik but not one that shows him how he sees himself, as some kind of hero. This represents an extreme minority POV and could pose a significant danger of promoting copycats.
In my opinion even the image of Loughner is not ideal as there is a degree of glamour attached by some to a criminal mugshot. Just a picture to show what he looks like would be better.
I agree that these things should generally be considered at a systematic level just as is the case with BLPs but in this case we do not appear to have a system to cover it. No system can cover every possibility and just occasionally a little common sense is required. When the dust has settled on this case I am going to suggest that we work on some sort of policy, probably as an extension to the BLP policy. I agree vehemently that WP should not be censored so the policy needs to distinguish cases like this from people who want to censor for personal, or POV reasons. It is a complex subject that needs to be discussed carefully, but not while ther might be a significant risk of promoting mass killings. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much

Thank you very much for your hysteria. Much appreciated. Not. :) Polozooza (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Canvassing

I'd like to hear what you think at Talk:Anders_Behring_Breivik#Proposed_compromise. causa sui (talk) 21:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it is quite wrong to have the self promoting image anywhere in the article. I see no reason for a compromise, why not just use another picture? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Editing comment

Martin Hogbin, I have slightly edited your comment at Talk:Tree shaping (removed bolding, and made it its own section),[1] since it might have confused other editors into thinking that the RM was closed, when it was not. Please let an uninvolved administrator handle the close and the determination of consensus, thanks. --Elonka 06:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

That is fine with me, thanks for clarifying. I did not mean to create the impression that the RfM was closed but I see no reason why I should not try to clarify and summarise the facts. Any non-banned editor who disputes my summary is, of course, welcome to comment as well. We are coming to the end of a very long dispute involving an Arbcom decision and to end it on a snap decision by a passing admin, as nearly happened, would not be right.
I am concerned that a passing admin may not have the time to study the history properly and might make a quick decision based on what, at first sight, might seem to me a lack of consensus. This is why I suggested that you would be better to close this RfM. You have not stated any opinion on the naming dispute but have remained only to help maintain good order on the page. In my view that makes you uninvolved but informed. Alternatively, might we ask a member of Arbcom, who will also be familiar with the history of the dispute, to either close the case personally or to propose someone who they know will give the matter the attention which it deserves. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:58, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I understand the concerns. However, there are extremely qualified administrators who patrol WP:RM, and given the nature of the move discussion at Talk:Tree shaping, since it's clear that it's part of an ArbCom case, I am pretty confident that no one is going to come in and make a snap judgment. In fact, I think that anyone who doesn't have the time to really read and digest the discussion, is going to steer well clear of the article! The close is probably going to be left to someone who has experience with closing "one of the tough ones". Of course, if the close is way off-base, there will be ways to challenge it (as we did with SilkTork). My own general read of the discussion is that it could close one of two ways: The article is either moved, or the RM is closed as "no consensus". But instead of playing "what if" at this point, I recommend patience for at least another week, and then we'll see what happens. Sound good? --Elonka 15:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
I am baffled as to how anyone could say there is no consensus. What do you understand by a consensus? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Patience... --Elonka 23:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
Advice taken. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:17, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


Please keep comments at Talk:Tree shaping focused on the topic, and not on other editors. If you would like to refute a statement about the subject, that's fine. But attacking the motivations of another editor is not. --Elonka 00:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Which bit are you referring to and which editor am I attacking? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Request

Is this [2] the link you were looking for from AFDhero ?Slowart (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I was interested to see what diff Afd hero would give me. The whole thing seems quite mysterious to me. AFD hero says '...move arborsculpture to a neutral name like Tree Shaping (as MgM suggests)' but I can find no suggestion from MgM. Can you shed any light on this? Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Er, is this discussion related to the naming issue, or something else? If the naming issue, we may be running afoul of ArbCom restrictions, since Slowart is banned from discussing it in userspace, as well as on article talkpages. Martin, could you please clarify? Is Slowart responding to a query you asked somewhere? --Elonka 16:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
It was in response to a question that I asked in replying to a post by AFD hero. Although I did not ask the question specifically of Slowart I would have thought that just providing an asked-for diff was pretty much what Arbcom had in mind when they allowed the banned editors to respond. If you are now interpreting things more strictly that is fine with me.
You might like to look at the link yourself and see if you can work out exactly who suggested 'Tree shaping' and on what basis. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
It gets even weirder. This comment:
*Comment Tree shaping (especially bonsai) and Tree trimming should be looked into as alternative less secret topics. - Mgm|(talk) 11:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
was made the day before AFD hero made his comment above but it shows 'Tree shaping' as wikilinked, and the article mas moved at: 05:15, 10 January 2009. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
It was probably a red link at the time, like "Tree trimming"? Johnuniq (talk) 08:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, AFD hero has confirmed this. It is still rather a cryptic comment though and it represents the entirety of the discussion concerning the move to 'tree shaping' . I remain completely baffled as to why some editors support this random and unsuitable title. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Martin,

I enjoyed reading your comments on the discussion page to the Wiki article on reactive centrifugal force. In my view you are completely correct. This is a bogus concept and should not be given legitimacy like this. But it is a difficult subject as you can see from the discussion that I started on physicsforums.com at http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=523212 AMSask (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!
Yes, it is a complicated subject, made more complicated by people who do not understand it. The problem is that historically the term 'centrifugal force' has been used with a variety of meanings, including the reactive force mentioned in the article. The reasons for this were originally that the subject was not fully understood, although by the 18th century I think mathematicians and physicists had a good grip of the subject. There is also no 'correct' meaning of the term. I has been made up by humans and it is up to us to decide what we want it to mean.
The problem has also been complicated by teaching of the subject. In the early 20th century some teachers, especially at in engineering subjects, considered that the concept of a rotating reference frame and was too hard for their students but still wanted an easy explanation for why., for example, turbine blades burst and they therefore put forward a, rather vague, concept of centrifugal force. Since the focus was on the engineering, the rigour of the physics was not considered that important. What then seems to have happened, in my opinion, is that some people were embarrassed by the fact they they were essentially wrong in their description of CF and invented, or maybe dragged up from the past, the correct but pointless definition of CF as the reaction to the centripetal force.
Later thinking on teaching the subject was that, at an elementary level, it is best to use Newton's laws in inertial frames only and therefore not to mention centrifugal force at all. The force is later introduced properly as the inertial force required in a rotating frame. I think there is general agreement that this approach causes the least confusion.
The problem is that there are still a few sources giving the reactive description of CF and some editors seem to think that we should therefore give this description equal exposure to the inertial force description. On the other hand there are many sources which support the idea of not mentioning CF at all in inertial frames and very few or none which say this is a good idea. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I think you make it more complicated that it is. I'm pretty sure I understand it completely, and I'm not asking that reactive centrifugal force be given equal weight with the fictitious force. But it's an actual and distinct different concept of centrifugal force, and should not be ignored. It is not incorrect, and though deprecated, not totally gone even from twenty-first-century literature. I don't understand the desire to pretend it doesn't exist. Dicklyon (talk) 22:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Good to hear from you Dick. I welcome the opportunity to discus this subject in a civil and logical manner.
I do not want to say that the term RCF does not exist, as you say, there are undoubtedly some modern books that use the term. On the other hand its usage is deprecated, which is something we should take note of in writing our own encyclopedia. I therefore think we should move RCF into a section at the end of the article called 'Alternative and historical meanings' or the like. Let us first talk about sources:
Sources

I think you must agree that the considerable majority of modern sources use CF for the inertial force only (I prefer this term as I do not like to call something responsible for hurricanes 'fictitious').

More important though is what sources say about the two usages. I do not have any sources to hand (although I am sure I could find some if required) but there certainly are sources that strongly advise against the use of the term CF to mean anything other than ICF. On the other hand I do not believe that there are any sources at all which state that RCF is a better way to use the term.

As the main purpose of WP is to convey information to our readers, I think we should take the advice of sources dealing with the way this subject is taught.

Physics

As you know, if we want to do Newtonian physics in a rotating frame in exactly the same way as we do in an inertial frame, we need to invent a number of forces that have never previously existed. As these forces simply do not exist in an inertial frame it is very convenient to give them special and unique names. 'Centrifugal force' nicely describes one such force, which always acts away from the center of rotation.

As you also know, Newton's third law tells us that every force has an equal and opposite reaction force. So for example: the bullet on a gun exerts a reaction on the gasses to the force the expanding gasses exert on the bullet; the floor exerts an upward reaction force to the downward force that your shoes exert on the floor; and an accelerating mass exerts an equal and opposite reaction force on the object that is providing the accelerating force. This is standard Newtonian physics and although we could give each instance of a reaction force a special name, there is no advantage in doing so, in fact it would make the subject very cumbersome.

To give the RCF, which is just an instance of my last example, a special name suggests that this force has a special significance or that it is somehow different from other reaction forces but, as you know, this is not the case. Also, as has been pointed out, in the Newtonian case of two mutually orbiting bodes the reaction to the centripetal force exerted by one body on another (the RCF) is, in fact centripetally directed; very confusing. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Athletics

I'm beginning to feel vaguely uneasy about this discussion. Specifically with your last reply. There's a difference between being conservative about what can go into the article and bare-faced lying to readers. Noym (talk) 03:24, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

What lie are you referring to? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
"[N]obody apart from those involved in the tests, does know. Quite rightly, the results of a persons medical tests were not made public. This means that we cannot answer the question of what physical condition Caster might or might not have."
Um... what?
For one thing, Semenya's condition is openly named and discussed in a fairly large number of refereed scientific publications, in journals including Int J Sport Comm, Int J Sport Physiol Perform, J Genet Couns, or J Med Ethics. These journals are not exactly exotic; they are among the leading publications in their respective fields. Every life science department on the planet subscribes to these journals. Everybody with a browser and a credit card can order reprints of these articles.
Semenya's condition is also named and discussed in refereed humanities journals, for example the Duke journal of Lesbian and Gay studies and the Wellington journal of World Affairs. It is discussed in articles in law journals, for example Zaccone 2010 in the Brooklyn Law Review, Larson 2011 in the Pace International Law Review, and Adair 2011 in the Sports Lawyers Journal. There is a book by now, Krijnen et al. 2010, and there are at least two review articles, Tucker 2010 in the Int J Sport Physiol and Perf, and Martinez-Patino 2010 in the J Human Sport Exerc.
For another thing, there is the 2010 International Conference on Sexual Differentiation Disorders, which was convened by the IAAF specifically to discuss the Semenya disaster and the lessons to be learned from it. Of course this was not an open junket you could have simply walked in to, but they did solicit input from every endocrinology group in the known universe with a working knowledge of English and a listed phone number. The proceedings of this thing are not exactly secret either.
For a third thing, even if we didn't have the actual publications we'd still know what Semenya has simply from official statements by the IAAF. One the one hand the IAAF has confirmed the veracity of the leak in two separate interviews - perhaps not verbosely enough to pass BLP, but still. One the other hand the Berlin statement didn't leave a lot of questions unanswered anyway. We all know what specific tests they did in what specific order; it's spelled out pretty explicitly in the IAAF's official regulations. We all know that the fact the matter was not settled either after the imaging or after the karyotyping can mean only one thing.
I'm not going to edit the article. I respect BLP, even though I don't understand why leading geneticists writing in leading peer-reviewed genetics journals are somehow not reliable sources. I can live with the fact that BLP can occasionally cause articles to be inaccurate; I accept that BLP is more important than the absolute, perfect accuracy of any one single article. I do, however, find it disconcerting that we should lie. If you are uncomfortable with answering the question truthfully you could have simply not answered at all. It would have cost you nothing.
Noym (talk) 16:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
I am no expert in the subject but this is all news to me and has not been presented by anyone editing the Semenya article before. Is any of that information accessible online or can you post the relevant excerpts here? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Sure, I can post excerpts. The full text of most of the scientific papers is behind their respective publisher's paywalls. You'd need to either buy these papers or get someone in a research hospital or in a bio department to download them for you. Some of the legal stuff and the humanities essays are on the open web. You realize, of course, that if I post detailed citations here then people with agendas could try to use them to get the medical specifics into the article, right? Noym (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Just to be clear, are you saying that there are publications in which Caster Semenya is clearly stated to have a specific medical condition? Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Yes. There are publications that specifically state which kind of gonads Caster Semenya has. There are publications that specifically name the reason she would look the way she looks in spite of having these gonads, the inability of a certain nuclear receptor protein to bind and retain a certain steroid hormone. There are many publications that do not directly identify the type of gonads or the pathenogenesis but that do use either the MeSH or the IDC-10 name for the class of conditions. Noym (talk) 19:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
There would seem to be a serious breach of medical ethics involved somewhere. Surely it is not usual for patients to be named in scientific papers. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
The IAAF felt free to disclose the diagnosis because of the waivers that Semenya had signed. Scientists generally feel free to discuss things that are general public knowledge anyway. Looking at the timeline, first the IAAF trumpets the exam results in their Berlin statement, then all kinds of activists and humanities people use the diagnosis in all kinds of essays and proclamations, the we have the leak, then the IAAF confirms the leak, then finally the scientific papers begin to appear. I don't think that, say, Dr Martinez-Patino of the University of Vigo in Pontevedra committed an egregious violation of anything when he began writing his review article two years after Berlin. Noym (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your informative response, you seem to know a lot about this. My comments were based only on the sources quoted by others here. I completely agree that WP should not misinform but it should, on the other hand, respect individual privacy.
I am no expert on medical papers but is still seems wrong to me that someone should publish a medical review paper in which living individuals are named, even if it was a case that 'everybody knows'.
You say 'The IAAF felt free to disclose the diagnosis'. Where did they do this and is it possible to see what they published online? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
I award this Barnstar to Martin Hogbin for highlighting and taking a stand against premature and selective archiving of discussions despite having no strong view on the actual material in question. Shakehandsman (talk) 20:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Request from Sydney Bluegum

Martin I feel your summary on the tree shaping change of name move was unnecessary. You have constantly misconscrewed the truth regarding myself. Your comments are perpetuating the untruths that were expoused by Ellen of the Roads when she did a terrible job of handling the Arbcom case and made up evidence against me eg made up the story where I supposedly stated that certain editors cut down trees with chainsaws. My whole comment was taken out of context, twisted and used against me.I believe none of the Editors read the evidence given or this would have been noticed and acted upon. You can jump up and down all you like and spruck on about whatever but stop spreading untruths.You have waged a campaign against any new editors that come to the tree shaping page that dont agree with your point of view eg Sockpuppet allegations against myself and oygul. There is absolutly NO evidence that we are linked. I do not know who this person is. It seems we live in the same city or area. 3 million people live my area. Helloannyong had feelings that we were linked but no real evidence. Also stop acting like an Administrator. Woo be the day that you made the grade,It will be a sad day for Wiki. Perhaps you could spend time outing the sockpuppets that you know. Ohh sorry they support your point of view.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 02:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Tree shaping AE

Why don't you place your case on WP:AE? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. If nothing is done, I will. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Martin Hogbin, you are skating the edge of restrictions yourself, because you keep bringing up the same issues.[3] This has already gone through multiple checkuser requests and an ArbCom clarification request. It is understood that you do not agree with the decision, but please, let it go. It is not appropriate to be starting sections with headers such as, "My worst fears have been realised,"[4] or to call naming discussions, "absurd".[5] In the future, please keep your comments on the talkpage civil, conservative, and focused strictly on the article content. If you have new concerns about an editor, you are welcome to bring them to my talkpage, but the decision on the older issues (who can participate, how they can participate) has been made. It is final, so please stop bringing it up. --Elonka 05:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for policing the situation, but what is needed is investigation of the issues—one of Wikipedia's most prolonged COI cases. Do you have any suggestions for dealing with that? Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Put it on AE, which is the appropriate venue for this. Seriously. Its not "if nothing is done" - its where you go to get it taken care of. When you see a vandal, you report the vandal on AIV, you don't post on an admin's talk page and say "here is a vandal", do you? I don't understand why you aren't doing this, you are choosing a highly ineffective approach and placing the procedure provided as a last ditch resource instead of using it as it is intended. Can you explain why you're doing it this way? I'm deeply puzzled. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Elonka. You are right that I should not have commented on the actions of other editors on the talk page. If any new issues arise I will bring them up in the appropriate venue. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks! --Elonka 05:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi Martin, just to be clear: The Requested Move for Tree shaping to Arborsculpture has been closed as "no consensus". This discussion went on for several weeks, and had the input of multiple editors and administrators. Since there is clearly no consensus for that title, editors are going to discuss possible alternative titles for the article. If you would like to engage in the discussion for alternate titles, you are welcome to do so. However, if you continue with the stance of "There is only one title I can support",[6] then you may risk having your access to the talkpage restricted. The choice at this point is yours, so I hope that you will give careful thought to possible compromises, before returning to the naming discussion. Thanks, --Elonka 14:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Martin, regarding your recent comments on my talkpage:[7] You have been told clearly, on multiple occasions, that the RM is closed as "no consensus", and that multiple administrators have reviewed the situation. I realize you don't agree with the decision, but you've made your arguments, and now it's time to stop arguing about it and get back to working on Wikipedia. If you continue protesting the RM closure, then you may risk having your name added to the list of editors who are banned from discussing the naming issue. So please, let it go. There are plenty of other things to do on Wikipedia, thanks. --Elonka 10:57, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to Tree shaping. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tree shaping#Final decision section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page. No sanctions are being placed at this time, this is just a notice to ensure that you are aware of the procedures. Thanks, --Elonka 01:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Elonka, I have looked at the links you have posted above and I am hard pushed to see what I am doing wrong. Perhaps you could enlighten me. I have not posted on the Tree shaping talk page since 5 October when I said that I would support any of Colin's suggestions. As far as I can see that is in line with your request to consider alternative titles.
Regarding my comments on your talk page, I understand and accept that the RfM has closed. I was responding mainly to your attack on my editing style. You said, it is being noted that in your own contribution history, Martin Hogbin (talk · contribs), you seem to be spending nearly all of your time jumping from dispute to dispute. This has nothing to do with Tree shaping or discretionary sanctions it was a personal attack on the way that I choose to do my editing. You do not state exactly who has noted my contribution history or where it has been noted and you have not responded to my requests to answer these questions. I would therefore ask you to withdraw your comment. Is there some off-wiki discussion going on about me and, if so, who is involved and why is the discussion not in public?
As I said on your talk page, different editors have different ways of contributing to WP. Some add good information, which I have done on many occasions, some remove bad information because this damages the reputation of WP. As I also explained, I do respond to Requests for comment because that is what people want to happen, they ask for outside opinions. On the Harriet Harman article, for example, where there are good reliable sources supporting both sides of argument and no sources stating a preference for either side, I am pushing politely but firmly for a compromise. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:39, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi Martin, like I said, no sanctions have been placed. This was just a followup to the earlier informal warning, to make sure that the notification was correctly issued and logged. You hadn't done anything new over the last 24 hours that escalated the issue or anything, so I wouldn't worry about it. As long as your future participation in the Tree shaping dispute remains constructive and helps the debate move towards a compromise or consensus that the participants can support, then all will be well. --Elonka 12:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Actually all is not well Elonka, you have still not explained what you meant by your remark about my editing style. Who has noted things about me, where have they been noted, and why? Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I think you're putting too much emphasis on the word "noted". The phrase "It has been noted" simply means, "I have noted", it's nothing more than that. Any formal notes or logs are all public here on-wiki, as you've seen. --Elonka 13:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying that, I am surprised that you consider it acceptable to comment on my general editing style in such a way considering the strong stand you generally take against personal attacks. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin, I see that you are bringing up the ?oygul issue again.[8] Please, stop. This has already been thoroughly investigated, with multiple checkuser requests. I can assure you that I am watching ?oygul's edits closely, as well as those of other editors at the page. Please stop accusing ?oygul of being a sock, thanks. If ?oygul appears to have similar views to that of Blackash, so be it, ?oygul is allowed to express those opinions in a civil and measured way. As long as ?oygul's edits are not overtly disruptive, nothing else is going to be done. If disruption does occur, it'll be dealt with at that time. --Elonka 19:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I was not accusing ?oygul of being a sock but pointing out that they are a near SPA, words I think you used about them yourself. I have not been active on the page for some time but in that intervening time I have done much editing on other articles. Now have a look at ?oygul's contributions over that same time, of 27 edits this year 20 are about or directly related to 'tree shaping'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Martin Hogbin, I see that you are again complaining about the October 2011 RM close at Talk:Tree shaping.[9] These comments must stop. The RM ran for well over a month, was reviewed by multiple administrators, and closed. Let it go. Continuing to state that you disagree with the outcome is not helpful, and may lead to you being banned from the discussion. To avoid this, please try to focus on new points of discussion or possible compromises, and try to get things moving forward. --Elonka 05:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I was responding to a comment by you in which you raised the point about new independent editors. It seems most improper as an admin to insist on making your point and then threatening anyone who disagrees with you with a ban. I am perfectly willing to follow the best practices of Wikipedia editorship, to remain polite and civil at all times, and not to attack other editors but I am never going to be persuaded that WP articles should be given names which have never been in common use in good quality reliable sources and which are based on commercial interests. I am also perfectly willing to accept a consensus decision, even if I disagree with it, and indeed I have done on other occasions, but in this particular case a clear consensus was ignored.
WP proceeds by polite discussion, there is nothing in any WP policy which says that I must agree with you or that says decisions made in the past are immutable. I have refrained from editing and commenting in the 'Tree shaping' article for several months to give other editors a chance to speak but there have been no suggestions from new editors to resolve the conflict that I could respond to. It is a rather quiet and insignificant backwater of WP but that does not mean that we should allow bad things to happen there. I would be delighted to join in any new discussions, in the full spirit of cooperative editing, if there were any new ideas being presented by new independent editors but I have not seen any. I am also perfectly willing to compromise but I do not believe that compromise is appropriate for matters which are completely against the spirit and independence of WP.
You continued attempts to silence me are wrong and I would ask you to think about what you are doing. I am not a rogue or tendentious editor pushing some obscure minority view I just happen to be the only one of a considerable majority who cares enough to try to sort things out. I appreciate your sticking around to help enforce the Arbcom discretionary sanctions but I can see no way that these sanctions extend to silencing a particular point of view, provided it is presented in a civil manner. I am quite happy for you to point it out to me if you ever think that I am being uncivil. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:50, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Martin, I've seen this tactic used before by the pro-arborsculpture editors. It was done to RegentsPark and others. ?oygul (talk) 13:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Martin, you are welcome to continue participating at Talk:Tree shaping. The point that I am trying to make, is that continuing to complain that the close of the October 2011 RM was improper, is not helpful. The RM was not improper, and your continuing to claim that a "clear consensus was ignored" is not helpful. Most RMs run for a single week, and are closed by a single administrator. This RM ran for several weeks, and had the input of multiple administrators. It had the most attention of any RM that I have seen, in all my years on Wikipedia. It ran, it was closed, and the decision was final, so you need to accept that and move on. If you continue to complain about it at the article talkpage, that may be regarded as disruptive. So please, try to find some other way to move forward? --Elonka 18:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
No decision is final on WP (except maybe for certain Arbcom decisions) and disruptive to what? If there was a new RM discussion going on at the page I would happily participate but there is none. Are you saying that the article is now stuck forever with a silly title for which there has never been a consensus?
Is there a WP policy which says that no one can challenge a RM result? You continue to state your opinion as fact and as though it carries some special weight. As I understand it admins are people with access to certain administrative facilities, not editors whose views have special importance or command special respect. You say, 'continuing to claim that a "clear consensus was ignored" is not helpful'. Not helpful to whom? It is obviously not helpful to those who would like to keep the page where it is, but it is helpful to the majority who want to move it.
Please stop telling me what to do and threatening me with sanctions. If I am breaking any WP policies or going against the arbcom ruling on the article by all means let me know and I will stop doing it but just telling me that my opinion is disruptive is not on. On the other hand I would welcome any suggestions you may have for a way forward.Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
Martin, John Vandenberg's comment may be helpful.
"I think that no consensus is the unfortunate result, and that result needs to be accepted as the current status. Unless we have a very different RM, based on fundamentally different arguments, another RM in the next six-twelve months will be a waste of time. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)"
?oygul (talk) 00:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
I note that John calls the result "unfortunate". He also describes a new RM on the next 6-12 months as a 'waste of time' but certainly does not suggest that comments on the result should be banned.
No doubt we will get some new editors some time in the future who will look at the problem afresh, unfortunately the same commercial conflicts of interest will resurface and it will become impossible to get anything done. Until then I guess we are stuck with erroneous information in Wikipedia which is not based on reliable sources, making the project look foolish and supporting those who still call WP unreliable. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
The reason that I am involved with this article is not any particular interest in the subject (although I am a keen gardner) but a desire to make WP a worthwhile project. A tiny and unimportant bit of it has gone wrong because of a COI and I would like to fix it. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
Comment for Elonka, I thought that the above post was from you so my reply was directed to you:
I realise that I am banging my head against a brick wall and I am going to stop, for the time being at least, but I think you are being overly heavy-handed by threatening me with a ban every time I mention what has happened in the past. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Stop harassing me

Martin, I'm not a "near SPA" your diff doesn't show all my edits on different articles unrelated to tree shaping unless you are saying articles like FP-45 Liberator are related? Ever since I went near pleaching you have continually called my editing, and who I am into question. It appears to me that you are trying to bully me away from tree shaping. I have looked at your contributions on other articles and it appears this is your style. You seem to make only token edits to the main article, you like getting into arguments and pushing your POV. I believe you need to stop focusing on other editors' behavior and start focusing on content. The way you edit, you are a disruptive editor. ?oygul (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Martin Hogbin. You have new messages at Noleander's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

NPOV noticeboard - speed of light

There is a section here[[10]] you may be interested in. 이방인 얼라이언스 (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

power structures

with respect to this: [11].

You know I've brought these kinds of issues up in a number of different places (AN, ANI, ArbCom, personal talk page, project pages), and the upshot is that there does not seem to be an appropriate place to talk about this on wikipedia. Whenever and wherever I try, I run into the following flak:

  • Editors/admins who dominate a particular topic area and are angered by any suggestion that might loosen the stranglehold they have over content.
  • Editors/admins who want to dominate a particular topic area and are angered by any suggestion that might keep them from doing so.
  • Editors/admins who are hung up on the concept of unrestrained liberty and fearful that any rules whatsoever will turn the project into an autocratic nightmare.

The project is perhaps the purest form of dystopian liberalism I've ever seen: everyone is so fearful that others will impinge on their rights that they are unwilling to do anything will preserve the rights of the people they distrust. It's the world's first post-apocalyptic encyclopedia. Fascinating, in an aggravating sort of way. --Ludwigs2 15:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

We may disagree about content but I do agree with you about some principles. Important decisions in the democratic world are made in two ways, by votes and by courts. With votes, everybody gets one vote and every vote counts, it may be imperfect but nobody has found a better way. Countries in which the validity of some votes is assessed by an administrator before they are counted are generally not considered good ones by the rest of the world. In the pregnancy dispute it is quite obvious that if I closed the discussion by considering the weight of argument on each side, the 'oppose' side would win but if you were to close it the 'support' side would win. If you have votes, the admin should just count them. In another dispute, I am being chastised for objecting to a 8:4 vote being overturned by the closing admin. In the Pregnancy dispute, despite losing, I am happy to give in gracefully. I may not like the result but at least it was arrived at by a recognised procedure.
If WP is not a vote then we need a way of settling protracted content disputes, along the lines of a court or perhaps Arbcom. Unfortunately Arbcom refuse to decide on content. The current method whereby a passing 'uninvolved' admin quickly sums up the weight of argument on both sides is unsatisfactory and is like no other precess in the free world. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, let's set aside the fact that I disagree with your assessment of the arguments. If I were to summarize the arguments without all the crapfest, there are good arguments on both sides. I happen to think the support-the-change arguments are stronger, but of course I'd think that (just that way that you'll naturally think your side's arguments are better). The closing admin (if s/he's doing what s/he's supposed to be doing) is simply supposed to examine different discussion points, look at general support, and evaluate policy considerations: it's essentially the same role that the supreme court hold in the US (a guardian role that ensures fair compliance with core principles). It's a bit screwy that it's just a random admin - part of why I tried to get a particular person to commit to doing the task - and it has some practical limitations since admins don't have any specialized knowledge or skills for the role, but it's not a bad system inherently, and it's currently necessary because the other decision processes on project are so piss-poor. If our discussions didn't get so consistently tangled in their own crap, we wouldn't need an outsider to come in and dictate common sense to us. but they do, and we do. --Ludwigs2 17:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The idea, or assumption that any admin is "uninvolved" is not certain. Many will indicate they are, but that is debatable. For example, ArbCom outside contributors. Comparing such mostly anonymous internet people to sworn officers of the highest court in the US is not valid. 76.205.67.182 (talk) 21:25, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
not comparing the people; comparing the social roles. --Ludwigs2 21:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
The comparison is still invalid. 76.205.67.182 (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
suit yourself. --Ludwigs2 23:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I think 76.205.67.182 has a better idea of what I am getting at. There is no system in the free world where disputes are discused at length by the interested parties then a random person turns up quickly assesses the weight of argument on both sides and makes a decision. We have two main ways:

1) The interested parties discuss the issues at length and then a vote of the interested parties is taken. The majority vote decides.

2) The interested parties put their case to some kind of independent panel/tribunal/court/committee the members of which are chosen in some specified and understood way. There are procedures to try to ensure both sides are allowed to make their points clearly and all the points are understood by members of the panel who will then make a decision, normally based on some recorded policy. That is roughly how Arbcom works here.

Neither of the above works perfectly but they are the two models that have evolved over centuries to solve disputes in the free world. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Martin, the intention (which is spelled out quite clearly in the in the Pillars) Is that Wikipedia is supposed to be a pure consensus system - one in which editors discuss article content and come to reasonable decisions collectively. This is a very good system if you can get it to function correctly, but it is a very difficult system to get functioning correctly. Consensus systems are not voting systems (though they may vote on some things); consensus systems do rely on committees or tribunals (though they may use them on occasion); consensus systems do exist in the real world (but usually only in small, homogenous, highly educated groups). The nice thing about consensus systems for wikipedia is that it places power where it ought to be for an encyclopedia - on reason and informative sources. Other systems place power elsewhere and are open to abuse. You want to change the power system because the current power system is not doing what you want you think is right. That's perfectly valid, but try to raise you perspective - shift the power system to twhat's good for the encyclopedia, not just to a system where you think you will have more power. --Ludwigs2 14:01, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Whatever it claims to be dispute resolution is WP is not consensus based system. There was no consensus in the Pregnancy article there was still close to a 50/50 split of opinion. A random admin made the decision, based mainly on their own assessment of the arguments, and the vote.
I am not trying to get more power. I support the vote system even though I lost out on the Pregnancy article. I would like everyone to be able to see where the power lies, whether it is with everyone and we vote, or it is with a select panel of editors. At present, regardless of the discussion, an random admin can close the discussion any way they like. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Martin_Hogbin/Archive_4&oldid=505257577"