Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-13 Electronic Voice Phenomenon

Tom Butler

User:Tom Butler, one of the parties named, has said that he's left wikipedia [1]. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom has only said he's "left" Wikipedia twice already. He's still here, contributing. [2] -- LuckyLouie 19:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's like a ghost town in here. This request is for informal mediation. Considering the extent of the dispute and number of editors involved, I think formal mediation might be a better route. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that this article has virtually never been without a POV tag in all its life, formal mediation might be best. -- LuckyLouie 19:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every time I read the discussion page at EVP I come away feeling a little sick of humanity. The only place I ever deal with such willingness to manufacture material is there. So yes, I know a study in futility when I see one. On the other hand, if there is an opportunity to get ride of the article or to have fresh eyes on the subject, I certainly will try to participate.

Be careful LukyLouie, even here you tread too close to insult with your innuendo. Tom Butler 16:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So Tom, do you plan to accept and participate with this mediation, reject it, or decline participation but let it happen without you? Thanks. --Minderbinder 16:50, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I will participate. That is what I wrote above. Now that we have heard from SA, I am looking forward to read your compromise and that of LuckyLouie. SA basically wants more of the same, so I am hoping you two can move to the middle a little. Tom Butler 18:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of EVP

Truth be told it's a widely recognized and explained phenomena with a straightforward definition. The only "debate" is whether or not it's sometimes caused by "spooks" (the paranormal claims). Gwen Gale 17:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At Last!

All of my concerns with Wikipedia seem to be answered with Citizendium [3] See [4] So do what you want here. Tom Butler 00:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tom. Your good faith in Wikipedia was [pretty clear already] but I think that removes all doubt. SheffieldSteel 03:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's right. If Wikipedia had their system, we wouldn't have to go through all this bunk. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see anything in the articles linked saying Citizendium would treat psuedoscience more credibly than Wikipedia, but good luck and best wishes, Tom. --- LuckyLouie 03:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of expertise: a real expert is not a pseudoskeptic. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 04:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I don't think that necessarily follows. SheffieldSteel 13:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So based on this I guess I must ask again...Tom, are you still planning to participate in this mediation? Or is this the same as the other times you've "quit" wikipedia? --Minderbinder 14:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of you have never understood. The EVP article rates high in search engines and is used by the public as a source of information. That gives editors a social responsibility to make sure the articles are correct, and balanced.

Since EVP is part of my work, what is in the article matters to me so I have attempted to make sure it is at least correct. I have never wanted the article to be unbalanced, but I never imagined that some people's sense of balance would produce so much misinformation. We in AA-EVP cannot afford to make unsupported claims about EVP, but my efforts here have turned into a matter of self-defense as many of you have been happy to make such claims to discount EVP.

My attitude about Wikipedia is a learned thing, thanks to your help. So, yes, I am delighted to see competition for it, and no, I do not expect it to be anything but balanced and correct, and not a platform for what we want to say. I have plenty of ways to do that without enlisting a public tool. Everything I have asked you all to do to help stabilize this article has been addressed there (I think), so we will see if it works. In the meantime, there is a chance to have the public find an alternative reference for EVP that will contrast against the Wiki version. Perhaps I can go back to work now.

As a footnote, I do want to thank the pseudoskeptical community for the education. As I have said before, I have had little dialogue with skeptic and had not formed a mental model of who you are. Now I understand a little, and know a little more about how to talk about your relationship to the world. This has been an important education for me. Oh, and yes, I might edit here again, as the Spiritualist say, "The doorway to redemption is never closed against any soul, here or hereafter."

) Tom Butler 16:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as competition goes... let's just say I'm looking forward to seeing the Citizendium entry for Time Cube. As I'm sure you know, there is only one acknowledged expert on that topic. It promises to be fascinating reading. SheffieldSteel 16:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Soooooo...are you still planning to participate in this mediation, Tom? (assuming it ever happens) And Sheffield, at this point I'm looking forward to seeing their article on George W. Bush. I guess they'll get around to it eventually. --Minderbinder 17:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying Tom and hope the Citizendium presents a more balanced view. As it is here, and I'll leave you with this, we have a group of pseudosceptics so convinced their Scientistic World view is right, and so paranoid about the collapse of civilization as we know it if this view even appears to be challenged, that they feel ideologically justified in doing anything to protect and promote their view. After all, in war the ends justify the means, and no more so than in the holy war they believe themselves to be fighting against the forces of darkness. While in the meantime, all the values they espouse (the values that lie at the heart of the scientific method) fall by the wayside. Look, for example, at what the CSI(COP) charter has to say (a true skeptic's charter drafted by Marcello Truzzi before he left because nobody was actually interested in doing it): "Do not reject claims on a priori grounds, antecedent to inquiry, but examine them objectively and carefully" And compare this with what CSICOP's UK mouthpiece Chris French has to say: "I am biased in my approach to evidence relating to the paranormal…..I make no claim to be a neutral assessor of the evidence"; or Robert Carroll: "The reader is forewarned that The Skeptics Dictionary does not try to present a balanced account of occult subjects." This is why "pseudosceptic" is the right word for them Tom, and even if they do manage to force their view to the fore here, there are a few of us who see through them. As John Gardner put it in The King's Indian (as best I remember): "those who scoffed at all this spirit crepitation were such patent cynics, such mean-eyed low-browed habitual doubters, that they looked to any unprejudiced man like mightier fools than the mediums.Davkal 17:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All my life I have been considered the most skeptical, and sometimes pseudoskeptical, person in any room. And I say amen to this. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 20:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't belong to any evil cabal of "psuedoskeptics" with any master plan to do anything. Just wanted to clear that up. - LuckyLouie 21:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that was not my general impression. I have been dissapointed at some of the un-necessary bias in some of your recent edits, though. Also, it seemed as if you were acting as if what you thought of EVP mattered (as of course it shouldn't). Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 21:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice of you to slip in an accusation of bias, but I won't respond to baiting. On a more relevant subject: how does everyone feel about the progress of the mediation so far? --- LuckyLouie 22:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be nasty. I just had an impression of you as one of the few NPOV editors (which is an absolutely huge compliment), and I think a few of your edits lacked that reserve. I also got the impression on the talk page that you were slipping into bias. If you think the same of me, why don't you tell me? It is my hope to be NPOV, even where others are not. As an example of a skeptical editor who is NPOV and whom I can work with, I would point to Noclevername. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]