User talk:Ubikwit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

/Archive 1


Tea Party movement arbitration case opened[edit]

An arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 23:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom comment[edit]

Don't forget to sign your comment.[1]goethean 17:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops, thanks. Cheers.--Ubikwit (talk) 17:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom section[edit]

You need to move your comment [2] to the "comment by others" section. You've posted in the "comment by parties" section. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 14:29, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops, thanks. Cheers.--Ubikwit (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


No drama intended by me by using the word 'secret'. Collusion is by definition secretive and improper, so when you asserted collusional behavior by a group of editors you were indeed asserting it was secret group acting improperly. I believe you weren't planning to make a personal attack on those editors, and I suspect the novel proposal won't be adopted, so thats all I will comment on this matter. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:43, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the followup.
I can see how the way I worded that can be taken to imply some sort of premeditated conspiratorial element, which isn't what I meant. I meant something more along the lines of shared behavior based on shared values, not requiring any pre-planning.
As you've pointed out, the collaboration vs collusion contrast has proven to be somewhat problematic, so I expanded the description a little to try and clarify the sort of editor interactions I mean to criticize so as not to even indirectly imply anything vaguely conspiratorial.--Ubikwit (talk) 07:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)


You've accused editors of advocacy, and apparently secret cabals/collusion, in several places on Wikipedia including here: [3] and here [4] and most recently here: [5] This is the Wikipedia policy on handling advocacy/COI. [6] Please note this sentence, "COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content." If you believe an editor has an advocacy/COI, there is an appropriate noticeboard for that here: [7]. As I told you earlier on the TPM moderator's subpage, I can't speak for the other editors, but if you accuse me of advocacy again, I will take you to a noticeboard. Given this: [8], and this [9] and this conversation about it [10], my best advice is to focus on the edit and not the editor. Thank you. Malke 2010 (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Malke, Welcome. I have indeed made a number of mistakes on Wikipedia, primarily because I am focused on creating content, not gaming the system. Unfortunately, my lack of understanding, due to nothing more and nothing less than my reluctance to put the time into studying policy, resulted in the blocks and the like which you've indicated. I have, as a result, made an effort to study policy so as to avoid such pitfalls in the future.
Here, I feel that I should mention that I am aware of the fact that there have been Arbcom cases in the past related to Tag team editing and the like, and that you are currently the subject of such a case. If you are here in an attempt to curb my editing of the TPm article by showing me that you've read my Talk page and threatening me with AN/I, I suggest you find better ways to spend your time.
But before you go, answer me one question; that is, do you consider yourself to be sympathetic with the goals of the Tea Party, uninterested, or otherwise?Ubikwit  連絡 見学/迷惑 18:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic to the goal of Wikipedia which is to build an encyclopedia. As for the current ArbCom case, it is not related to 'tag team editing' as your comment suggests. And if you are interested in not gaming the system and creating content, then I suggest you stop bringing this sort of thing [11] to admins' talk pages and to ANI, especially when you're not even involved in the discussion: [12] You keep making uninformed assumptions about editors' supposed motivations, even though you have no evidence or knowledge of anyone's motivations, or for that matter, about their personal or professional lives. You need to stop. A lot of people here have given you some very good advice. Take the time to read it again. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Malke, tag-teaming is an ongoing issue, as evident from current discussion on the Talk page, and I have referred to "affinity group" editing in the Arbcom case.
I have not accused you of WP:COI, so you are misconstruing my words.I would suggest that you read that page a little more carefully though, particularly the segment on "biased editing". There is also a section on "campaigning" that specifically mentions "advocacy", but I haven't implied that it applies here.
The Schmidt source [1] is very interesting, by the way. I think that there is much more in it that needs to be used. Thankfully, it is available as a pdf.Ubikwit  連絡 見学/迷惑 07:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Hi, Ubikwit. I've been following the current TPM case since it started at ANI. I am now wondering why you chose to characterize (at the arbcom workshop page) your own comment as 'improper' because, afaict, it seems appropriate. El duderino (abides) 13:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, I suppose that insofar as it presented her with something to construe as an indirect accusation to the effect that she was not editing in good faith it could be construed to be a personal attack on her conduct, not criticism of the content of their edit. That was not my intent when writing that comment on the Moderated discussion page in a somewhat sleep-deprived state, as the Arbcom page is the proper place to address questions of bias in her editing, etc.
Thanks for the moral support, and maybe the comment was not out of line strictly speaking with regard to policy, but I saw no need to defend it where there was a possible risk of being seen as uncivil. It seemed undesirable to allow her to unduly divert the focus with a spurious accusation. She has just posted a diff t the Arbcom page to one of the comments I made above, actually.
Thankfully, the tag-team edit warring, etc., is finally being discussed in the Arbcom case. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Ok, well if it was a part of the new moderated discussion, that may be a gray area. But I will say that it appears Malke is trying to intimidate you by linking other (irrelevant) disputes above and threatening to escalate. Also she is flat out wrong about the arbcom case: it addressed tagteam editing before hte comments above were made. El duderino (abides) 13:50, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again, I appreciate your support and comments. It's become a bit taxing dealing with the scenario.
By the way, I don't want to be accused of WP:CAN (exempt since this is my Talk page?), but since Silk Tork is making the effort to moderate and the discussion Talk:Tea_Party_movement/Moderated_discussion is a little under subscribed, if you have the time, have a look see. You might see something there that sparks a response impulse, and I'm sure that your participation would be heartily welcomed by all. The time frames have been tightened up, so it is somewhat demanding to be thorough in addressing the issues at hand.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ubikwit. I have seen you refer several times to a new book/source due out in May, during discussions about immigration issues, racism, etc., that you said might shed additional light on the subject matter. Would you happen to have the title & author handy? I think I recall you naming it on the TPm Talk page, but I can't seem to locate it. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Xenophrenic, sure, here's the Amazon link Change They Can't Believe in: The Tea Party and Reactionary Politics in America If you read the reviews, it looks like a damning study in relation to some of the controversial topics we've been trying to address, and it is published by Princeton, so it should be a worthy study. I would think the discussion should wait to see what this source has to say, but since I don't have the time to finish reading the Constitution references, I suppose it doesn't matter that much.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:53, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement Moderated discussion[edit]

Nice Cup of Tea.jpg

A discussion is taking place at Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion to get consensus on finding and addressing the main points of contention on the article, and moving the article to a stable and useful condition. As you have contributed to the article, your involvement in the discussion may be helpful. As the discussion is currently looking at removing a substantial amount of material, it would be appropriate for you to check to see what material is being proposed for removal, in case you have any concerns about this. If you feel you would rather not get involved right now, that is fine; however, if you later decide to get involved and directly edit the article to reverse any consensus decisions, that might be seen as disruptive. Re-opening discussion, however, may be acceptable; though you may find few people willing to re-engage in such a discussion, and if there are repeated attempts to re-open discussion on the same points, that also could be seen as disruptive. The best time to get involved is right now. SilkTork ✔Tea time 08:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

moderated discussion[edit]

Ubikwit, you need to go back to the moderated discussion and sign your comment [13]. Malke 2010 (talk) 16:44, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Your recent addition to the moderated discussion page appears to have been cut short in mid-sentence, and the signature is also missing. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. How long before you have the material on Agenda 21, etc., ready?--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Sorry - been busy doing several things at once here. I'll go dig up the source from the main article re: Agenda 21 now. I might be able to find better sources, too. I've been letting others (like you) take the lead on constitutional aspects, while I continue to examine reliable sources on that subject matter until I'm up to speed -- it seems to be rather bleeding-edge stuff in Constitution scholar circles. As near as I can tell so far, it appears the movement, in its early days, claimed to adhere to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. But the reality of their subsequent actions, protests, proposed amendments, etc., revealed more of a unique form of popular interpretation instead. Despite the varied analysis on how to define the movement's Constitutionalism, there appears to be wide agreement that the movement has raised constitutional issue awareness in both academic circles and in the general public. I think having a more comprehensive section on constitutionalism outside of the "Agenda" section is a good idea. If there is popular support for a "Constitution" section, we could save a lot of the specifics for that section and that should help us keep the 'Agenda' section more concise. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 19:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that constraining the focus in the Agenda section is desirable for two reasons, the first being that we are more likely to succeed in producing a consensus gaining version, and second, there is too much confusing information that would hamper readability. I think that the short quote I added from Schmidt supports the final sentence in the opening paragraph, and the quote from Foley does the same for the second paragraph, and it also mentions the balanced budget proposal as well as opposition to bailouts, stimulus packages and health-care reform, which are raised for the first and only time.
I haven't had time to look at the Agenda 21 material at all.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

start again[edit]

Perhaps we can have more civil exchanges the next time we encounter one another. You reverted me seven times in one day, by last count- including something as simple as an effort to correct errors in cites made by other editors, which perhaps you didn't bother to notice. Perhaps you should try to extend yourself and not imagine the worst in every other editor whenever they suggest something you haven't thought of yet, or a different phrasing: I was not "vandalizing," nor being "bias"ed, nor pushing a "POV", nor using "duplicitous" means. I'm an experienced editor with generally good working relationships here, and thought to make some contributions at Ten Lost Tribes based on learning from other related articles.Parkwells (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I would welcome that, and am not against constructive edits. I had to revert some of your edits because you made several consecutive piecemeal edits in a section with the first edit being the focus of my correction. I have not objection to your correction of the McLeod reference, for example, naturally. The edit summary for your first edit(Delete unsourced OR re: Mormon Church; delete unsourced statements about people aftr Cromwell) , which heavily modified the lead, mentioned nothing about the lead.
It bears repeating that there is no recognition in modern scholarship to any sort of historical veracity in the Ten Lost Tribes myths. I recall that there is some genetics data support a connection to Jews among the Lemba, but the derivation from Lost Tribes has been refuted Lemba_people#DNA_testing. Parfitt is probably the Western scholar who has studied them most thoroughly.
There was a book published on Oxford Univ. Press in 2009 addressing aspects relating to colonialism, etc., The Ten Lost Tribes: A World History--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Another source, which I referred to, is Steven Conn's History's Shadow: Native Americans and Historical Consciousness in the Nineteenth Century, U of Chicago Press, 2004. He looks at how this confusion with Scripture affected the development of archeology in the US.Parkwells (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U on user:Arzel[edit]

You took part in a discussion that dealt with user:Arzel, which took place here. Based on that discussion, I started a WP:RFC/U, here.Casprings (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

tea time with clingers[edit]

thanks for your flexibility on this article which is exactly what SilkTork's comment adressed. if we are able to give just a bit and allow some changes not 100% agreed to move forward, then we can get to more broad issues. is Dale really the greatest piece of the article you want to see remain/changed? wouldnt it be better to let this one proceed and focus on the immigration next? perhaps it will not even be next, maybe 3 or 4 down the road and you certainly will have a long wait trying to get others to support a trade issue for issue bargaining table session. what we need are bold strokes with little discussion while we have the grace of a true neutral party who also has the authority to move things along. as per ST comment, i fear we are exhausting our supply of time here and again ask you to change your oppose asap. (keep in mind, it isn't needed as of now and would be a great way to show unity without having to give up anything more.) Darkstar1st (talk) 10:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Allegations of bigotry in the Tea Party[edit]

I've just made this comment on the moderated discussion page:

There were four editors involved in the edit war: Phoenix and Winslow, Ubikwit, Collect, and Xenophrenic. Phoenix and Winslow and Xenophrenic have agreed to not revert. I haven't seen that commitment from Collect and Ubikwit. I will let them know that if they are unwilling to agree not to revert on the sub-articles either while they are being created or after they have been moved into mainspace, then they should agree not to edit the articles at all.

You may have mentioned somewhere on the discussion page that you agree not to revert, and if so, then please point me to it. Otherwise, would you mind stating that you either agree not to revert, or you agree not to edit the sub-articles we are creating? SilkTork ✔Tea time 10:29, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll agree not to revert, but I may simply refrain from editing the subarticles if you are unable to take a more active role in moderating the related discussions.
Would you agree that, fundamentally, the subarticles are dependent subsets of the main article? If so, then perhaps we should concentrate on straightening out the content on the main article first, as that will likely have a bearing on the dependent content in the subarticles. Part of the reason that the scenario is out of control is that while people were attempting to concentrate on the main article, others were somewhat covertly addressing overlapping issues in the actual subarticle in a manner that basically conflicted with the discussion related to the main article. I don't know if that was an intentional tactic, but it makes it difficult to AGF.
If you examine the context of my revert, it was made after false claims of consensus were being made by P&W here in part because I had not participated in any of the editing that led to the edit war, as none of that editing had been discussed on the talk page, as per the edit summary of Xenophrenic's edit here. I suppose I should have been paying more attention earlier, but by the time the claims of false consensus were being made the subarticle had been transformed almost beyond recognition, and there was no feasible option other than to join in the reverting cycle due to the scale of the reordering of subsections, etc. I suppose I should have also deleted the term "Alleged" before "incidents", but I believe that the edit summary reflected the shared concerns I had that refuted the false claims of consensus. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:01, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Content discussion, resumed[edit]

The discussion in the "Content discussion, resumed" section got out of hand, so I have closed it. A number of contributors to that discussion wandered away from commenting on the content into commenting on the contributor. I would ask that everyone make a special effort to word what they say carefully. For example: "What the hell do you mean 'Channeling Yoda'? I take that as an insult, and a blatant personal attack for which I'm going to see that you are called to account", is a direct personal comment, and a challenge which would tend to aggravate matters rather than calm them down.

At this point it might be better if anyone has concerns about the behaviour of anyone else in the discussion, that they bring those concerns direct to me rather than raise them on the discussion page. SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Once again, without a commitment on your part to more timely engagement of issues that arise on the page during discussions, the tautological rhetoric and the like that has come into play is not something that merits further response. Whatever Collect was insinuating about me or my editing was uncalled for and demeaning, not to mentioned counterfactual.
I would suggest that like the Arbcom case, the modertated discussion has been dragging on for too long, and nothing has changed among the editors I have repeatedly described as belonging to an affinity group. In fact, they have picked up P&W and aside from an occasional comment by TFD, I am the only editor aside from Xenophrenic arguing for editing in conformance with W:V, etc.
If the Moderated discussion was intended as a lab-test for behavior patterns, then there should be more than enough to bring those patterns into relief by now. Those patterns have been repeatedly demonstrated by the same group of editors over a period of several years.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Re: "Those [behavior] patterns have been repeatedly demonstrated by the same group of editors over a period of several years." Here is an RfC/U regarding the behavior of Xenophrenic: [14] Please participate and provide diffs of your efforts to resolve these disputes with Xenophrenic, as well as any diffs of what you may consider to be his problematic behavior. kind regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

RFC on Arzel[edit]

I was considering restarting an RFC on Arzel. In my opinion, such an overwhelming consensus of users should not be simply ignored. If you would like, I could use some help drafting a better RFC. I placed the pervious one, here.Casprings (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


It's been brought to my attention that you recently made derogatory comments on the Tea Party discussion page that were so severe that they needed to be oversighted. As this incident was a month ago, before warnings were put in place on the page, no action will be taken. However, if there is a repeat of such incidents you will be blocked. Wikipedia talkpages are not a forum for personal opinions about other people, they are to assist editors with constructing articles. SilkTork ✔Tea time 05:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Your refusal of an informal iBan offered by Silk Tork[edit]

I see you've refused to participate in the informal iban Silk Tork has suggested [15]. Since your multiple complaints about me to ArbCom and Silk Tork's talk page have not resulted in whatever discipline you seek for me, then please go to AN. If you believe that I've committed any policy violations for which the larger community should be aware, then that's certainly the venue for you. Otherwise, please refrain from making further comments about me anywhere on Wikipedia. And please refrain from responding to comments I make anywhere on Wikipedia, as you did here, "Since Malke has chimed in. . ."[16]. That makes it the sixth venue where you've complained that months ago on the TPm talk Arzel and I did not responded to you. You've taken this complaint from the TPm talk to the ArbCom Workshop, Workshop talk, Proposed decision talk, Silk Tork's page, an ANI posting, and the RfC on Arzel. Please take this complaint and any others to ANI. Otherwise, please leave me alone. Malke 2010 (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Malke, you're welcome to comment on my Talk page, but do not assume an air of authority or set forth false assumptions regarding my editing of Wikipedia, or insinuate that I am harassing you.
Wikipedia has policies that define the parameters of acceptable editor interaction. You do not dictate those policies, nor do you have the authority to tell me what I can and cannot post in response to any edit you make on an article I am editing as well, or in a discussion relating to disciplinary proceedings in which I am participating that relates to your editing conduct. There are venues to address editor conduct if you feel I am in violation of policy.
The substance of the issue I have commented on involving you and Arzel has been made clear at the Arbcom case pages, and there is no need to repeat that here. On the other hand, I will say that my comments addressing edits you have made on the moderated discussion page have not been personalized since Silk Tork issued a caution against making such comments. I have addressed the substance of the content of your comments in relation to editing the article to create presentable content compliant with policy.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:17, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

References 25-29 at moderated discussion[edit]

Before I comment on the specifics of your — interpretation — of the references, could you match your comments back to the reference numbers. You're off by 2 at the end. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I was off one number and then fixed only the headings, but got around to that while I was bolding some relevant portions of the text of those articles. Now my text has been arbitrarily hatted, however, so I have to work on getting it back on the screen. Feel free to respond in the hatted text.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ubikwit. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 09:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 09:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


You are aware that commenting inappropriately on others is not allowed on the Tea Party movement discussion page, yet you made this comment, which has been brought to my attention: User_talk:SilkTork#I thought commenting on editors was barred on the moderated talk page?. You don't apologise on my talkpage, but somehow argue that your comment was justified because you felt the other editor was being tendentious. Please do not again comment on other users in Talk:Tea Party movement/Moderated discussion. Comment only on the content. If someone has made an edit you disagree with - example, adding 'Boo' to the article, then say: "I don't agree with adding 'Boo' to the article" rather than: "I don't agree with User:X adding 'Boo' to the article." If someone raises concerns about a source, then respond to the concerns, not the person who raised them. Another example of this, and you will be blocked. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:55, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Barnstar for positive contributions to the Tea Party movement discussions. SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:06, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Silk Tork, I appreciate it. There's been some rough waters on this journey, but your experience and insight into the editing particularities in this environment have helped us weather the storm.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:14, 22 June 2013 (UTC)


User:Matty.007/Wikipedia is not a Video Game

Here is that userbox you asked for... Matty.007 14:38, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Cheers.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
That's OK. You need any more, you know where to come... Matty.007 20:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


While I'm not claiming to be the Wikimaster, I believe one ought to be respectful of the possibility that other editors may have read and responded after one's comments, 2 hours later, and should restamp their additions, or more preferably, just add a new comment under their 2-hour-old version. TETalk 05:36, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Added as a party to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement[edit]

Hello Ubikwit, this is a notice to inform you that you have been added as a party to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement, you may wish to review the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the notice.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 02:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement case - final decision motion[edit]

This is a courtesy notice to inform you that a motion (which affects you) has been proposed to close the Tea Party movement case. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Re: Agenda of the Tea Party movement[edit]

Well now that's a little peculiar. You have repeatedly announced that you were abandoning the moderated discussion because in your opinion, it was hopeless. I can post the diffs of your multiple announcements for you here if you'd like. You abandoned the moderated discussion, Ubikwit. First you went on extended Wikibreak, and then you came back long enough to announce that you were leaving the moderated discussion. Your intentions to abandon this part of the Wikipedia project were very clear. And any ideas expressed in that discussion belong to Wikipedia, not to you. How is it possible for me to "hijack" something that you've very clearly abandoned? And how is such an accusation consistent with WP:AGF? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

A beverage on me[edit]

Something thick and satisfying

Here's a quick note to say I appreciate your work on Wikipedia. If I ever get the chance I will buy you a round or two of your favorite beverage just to hear the Digest version of the Ubikwit story. Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the fine brew, I could use one just about now!--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:12, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

March AgainstMonsanto[edit]

I think your edit was very good. As a note, I didn't feel I was't making her look irrational by using enraged. Enraged was the specific term used in the then existing ref. That said, I believe your new ref and formulation is better. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Policy doesn't require us to use an unreliable advocacy source. I suggest you read it again. We can decide to include an unreliable source when attributed, but we can also decide to not use a source. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:55, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
In light of the basic facts set forth in the cited passage, it would seem to me that those claiming the source is unreliable should bear the burden of seeking to have it disqualified. There appers to be nothing "unreliable" about it.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


The definition of fascism is out of keeping with existing norms in encyclopedias.

It is always defined as "rightwing."

It is also not a form of nationalism. Even the two citations justifying defining it as "nationalism" do not say that. They say it espouses nationalism. Very different from essentially being nationalism (and nothing else).

All existing encyclopedias define it as "rightwing political movement that was authoritarian, nationalist, xenophobic, etc."

The idea of nationalism can be retained but the essence of fascism is something else--a rightwing political movement that used state terror to impose rightwing values on a community.

Mryan1451 (talk) 12:18, 14 August 2013 (UTC)mryan1451

I think that your scope of understanding the subject would benefit from study of the development of "syndicalism" in Italy. Gregor has written extensively on the topic.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

List of indigenous peoples[edit]

I've spoke with one Kurdish editor about this issue, you can find it at bottom at Talk:Kurdish people. There's no doubt Kurdish motherland is West Asia, but 99% other ethnicities in region can also be called "indigenous" on such basis: Lurs, Laks, Zazas, Mazandaranis, Gilakis, etc. Since all current Iranian peoples are formed on Iranian plateau (except Ossetians), depending by definition they all should be included or excluded (not just Kurds, but Pashtuns also). --HistorNE (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Fascism Talk". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Cabe6403(TalkSign) 09:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI notice[edit]

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Uncontructive edit[edit]

Ubikwit, edits such as this are not constructive, in fact they disruptive to the case and editors being able to work together. Further disruptive edits, incivility or personal attacks will not tolerated and you may be blocked or banned from case pages relating to the Tea Party Movement case. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 23:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I didn't mean to be disruptive. It wasn't the most civil of remarks, but the radar analogy is one I made in a similar manner on that same page several weeks ago.
As the chorus of unabated claims of innocence has become somewhat more strident of late, even after months of evidence posting and contentious interaction, I will scale back the amount of attention I've been paying to the discussion on that page. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 02:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
At this stage I think that's a good idea. I'd also suggest (in a personal capacity not as a clerk) that it would be worth avoiding threaded discussions on that page and using it to respond to what the Arbitrators say on the PD page rather than other editors. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 02:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for clarifying that.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify what I meant, I would give the same advice to pretty much everyone of the involved parties, and some others. The way that some of the threaded discussions on that page have been going and ending up, I wouldn't want to be part of it. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again. This is the first of these cases I've been involved with, so the advice is appreciated. Late at night after a drink or two I find myself more prone to getting wound up a bit with some of that threaded stuff, which I would generally otherwise have ignored.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 08:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement closed[edit]

An arbitration case, in which you were named as party, has now closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

Pages related to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed, are placed under discretionary sanctions. This sanction supersedes the existing community sanctions.

The current community sanctions are lifted.

Goethean (talk · contribs), North8000 (talk · contribs), Malke 2010 (talk · contribs), Xenophrenic (talk · contribs), Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs), Ubikwit (talk · contribs), Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This restriction may be appealed to the Arbitration Committee after no less than six months have passed from the closing of this case.

Collect (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from all pages relating to the Tea Party movement, broadly construed. This topic ban will expire after six months from the date this case is closed on.

Xenophrenic (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Collect (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

Snowded (talk · contribs) and Phoenix and Winslow (talk · contribs) are indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, each other anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Review of your comments on my talk page[edit]

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ubikwit. Thank you. AGK [•] 23:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked you for two weeks for personal attacks, harassment, outing and making hidden legal threats. Please rethink your attitude towards other editors or you may be banned from this project for a very long time. We really do not tolerate such attitudes towards other editors Alex Bakharev (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Why don't you describe the basis of your claims regarding "outing and making hidden legal threats", in particular, as well as personal attacks and harassment? The only point in my posting that might be considered out of bounds is the mistake, detailed below, that he studied law instead of demonstrated an interest insofar as he claims to have made "substantial contributions", etc.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 00:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that was quick, arbitrators have clout, eh?[edit]

I had been in the midst of composing the following response.

Thank you for the magnanimity in overlooking my latter comments, AGK, you're too kind.
First of all, though it is true that I learned that NYB is an attorney from Wikipediocracy, there are no entries in relation to you on that website, as a simple search via their search engine would have indicated had you taken the time to check, as a courtesy [17].
The fact of the matter is, I learned about your status as an undergraduate studying law from your own User page Hi, I'm Anthony, an undergraduate and Wikipedia contributor from Scotland. where you make it a point to make it prominent that you are:
  • an undergraduate

*studying law (my mistake, maybe I transposed that from this statement substantive contributions to articles in the field of politics, classics, and law)

  • from Scotland

Well, good for you. Maybe someday you'll even become an attorney, after you graduate from college, and maybe pass a bar exam, that is.

Now, the edit summary of that diff of your eliminating that information from your User page is sort of interesting

(off-wiki stuff probably isn't interesting to most people)

And what is even more interesting, is that it occurred on August 24, just after you'd posted fallacious FoF about me and voted to indefinitely topic-ban me from the Tea Party movement article.

Why is it, do you suppose, that I, for one, would not be interested in such information about you?
Clearly there is a question as to your WP:Competence, as far as I'm concerned, but I will defer to Jimbo Wales on that point for our purposes here, as you are undoubtedly aware that there is an appeal of the decision you are heavily implicated in on his Talk page.

At any rate, I have to get some sleep now, so I will simply ask reviewing admins to visit Jimbo's Talk page and follow the links. I've linked to you Talk page there as well.

As far as I'm concerned, and I have stated this on the Tea Party movement PD Talk page, WP:SPADE is the operative policy here.
I've merely repeated information you'd posted long ago on your User page and recently deleted--for whatever private reasons.
Clearly I disagree with your FoF and decisions, and question your WP:COMPETENCE to serve on ARBCOM in light of the unjust actions you have take against me.
Is that a violation of WP:CIVIL?
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 23:37, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I think you are right the arbitrator thing had some bearing. If I bumped into an edit like this with a legal threat (... I understand that NYB is an attorney, according to Wikipediocracy, well, as I am not a complete stranger to attorneys and court proceedings, I would suggest that you seek the advice of NYB before engaging in such attempts to misrepresent reality...) and outing (reiterating real time information of a wikipedian that the wikipedian have blanked himself is an outing) I would probably blocked the author indefinitely. Since I know that you are disturbed by a result of an arbitration, since administrators and arbitrators are somehow expected to be targets of attacks of disturbed users and since I know that you (despite your long block list) is a valuable contributor (only valuable contributors have their cases considered in Arbcom) I only gave you the two weeks block. I suggest you to take these holidays wisely, relax a little bit, reflect a little bit on civility policy and consider your valuable contributions to the project without bullying other editors. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Alex, thank you for your reply. I could indeed use a break from this case, but yesterday was a very eventful day, as the case closed and then AGK answered a question I'd initially posed on August 22, meaning that he refused to engage regarding the false allegation he made against during the brief window during which I had a chance to respond to the FoF, and then when it made the response, it not only confirmed the "judgment on content" aspect of the FoF, if begs the question as to why he cited another diff including an exchange with Arzel in which Arzel not only ignores the content of academically published RS, he openly denigrates them in a thread where blocks of text of the Formisano text, for example, had been under direct discussion.

Regarding the perceived legal threat, I had no intention to make a legal threat. That was all sort of sarcastic play on words relating to specific sequence of events in the case, starting with NewYorkBrad's comment on my FoF on August 23, to which AGK refused to reply publicly until the case had been closed yesterday, more than two weeks later here.

There were also email exchanges between myself and NYB and AGK, which I will have to forward to Jimbo Wales at some point, after clarifying one point made by NYB on his talk page.

The import of the substance is firstly a pun insofar as I make an insinuation about sophistry in the legal field in relation to my perception that AGK aspires to become an attorney (or whatever they're called in Scotland). It is secondly an indication that I have taken the time to register at Wikipediocracy for future reference regarding earlier comments I had made about "the court of public opinion". And when did a little looking around there, finding an entry about NYB, for example, who had advised AGK that he didn't see any misconduct in some of the points of the FoF, so it was thirdly an indirect suggestion that he learn something from someone that is already an accomplished attorney.

If the reiteration of material deleted by AGK from his User page within the past two weeks is "outing", then that is a policy I shall have to examine. Note that I am not the only editor to have broached the issue of his being an undergraduate in the context of his judgment and actions acting in the capacity of arbitrator in the case at issue.

There's much more to say on this, but I need to get a couple more hours of sleep. I have tried to leave links to relevant discussions at Jimbo's talk page, but have only provided a partial synthesis of the situation, not even contrasting the complete lack of an FoF on Arzel, for instance, with the response provided to me on the PD talk page shortly after the case was officially closed yesterday.

If this statement settles some of the concerns regarding my intentions, and the severity of the infractions thereby diminished, I would appreciate a reduction of the length of the block to facilitate my engaging in the necessary efforts to conduct the appeal without having to exclusively rely on the email system. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

One relevant exchange from the PD talk page (where I ask AGK if he is an undergraduate studying law...)[edit]

This passage starts with AGK's semi-response to my queries by stating that he had replied in private to NYB. Let me reiterate that he refused to offer a substantial response until it was too late to have a bearing on the outcome of the case. Others will have to determine for themselves whether I am justifiably indignant insofar as the timing and content of that reply can be seen to represent a blatant violation of what should be open proceedings, etc., on the one hand, and the misapplication of policy on the other. At any rate, issues related to that are what I have attempted to broach in terms of the opaqueness of his intent , etc., in messages on his talk page.

Note that AGK made no response or comment in relation to my query regarding his study of the law an his status as an undergraduate made below on September 2. Not only didn't he even bother to respond, no one appears to have considered it to represent "outing" at that time. Also note that I first raised my concerns regarding WP:COMPETENCE below in this context.

I did respond privately to Newyorkbrad, as I am sure he can verify if you wish to ask him.

AGK [•] 11:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's good to know, but he asked you to respond here, and I thought these were open proceedings.

It is one thing for you to make an FoF alleging poor decorum, which could admit of a degree of subjective, impression-based judgment, but it is quite another for you to make an allegation that I "ignored sound arguments about article content ".

I understand that you are an undergraduate studying law, correct? Well, if this were a court of law, your allegation would require evidence, evidence of the sort of which you have provided only in error, based on a comment of which you misconstrued the meaning in a discussion the context of which you apparently failed to comprehend. But this was pointed out above more than a week ago, followed by the comment by NYB, and the "private" reply.

The above-described allegation is a false allegation, and I repeat, you have produced nothing to substantiate such a claim (at least publicly), which amounts to a prejudicial allegation made on the basis of refuted evidence.

Lastly, in your reply above to Snowed, you comment that the relevant issue is whether or not any of the allegations are incorrect, but you have failed to respond to a challenge to the facticity of an FoF against me that was raised in similar terms. There is a bit of confusion, perhaps, in that I referred to the "conduct" based rationale used for your finding, accusing me of deliberately ignoring sound arguments.

If this were a WP:COMPETENCE issue, I suppose that there would have to be a policy on arbitrators drafting FoFs (is there?) against which I could challenge your FoF and thus your competence to serve as an arbitrator. That is a harsh charge to make against you, but arbitration is not supposed to be an arbitrary process.

Moreover, I am confident that I could easily defend myself against any logically inconsistent claims you might try to bring with response to content, so in fact, your allegation comes close to revealing that perhaps you disagree with my political stance in relation to the topical matter of this controversial subject.

If that is not the case, then why could't (or wouldn't) you defend your allegation in public by, say, producing a separate comment from another discussion? --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 05:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration policy on Transparency[edit]

In thinking about the issues described above it has occurred to me that it might be helpful to explore what seems to me to be one of--if not the--most important policies the Wikipedia community has drafted for governing arbitration proceedings

Transparency and confidentiality

Committee deliberations are often held privately though the Committee will make public detailed rationales for decisions related to cases, unless the matter is unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal or similar reasons.

Though Arbcom proceedings are not court proceedings, what is the role of transparency?

Part of the basis for the frustration I've met in dealing with the above-described issues is that the behavior that I find objection relates not to a concrete action as much as it does to a failure to act in a manner compliant with the Transparency policy for Arbcom proceedings. Perhaps I am presuming too much in assuming that the language is drafted in a manner such as to legislate that said detailed rationales are provided before the decision is rendered, and in respect of which arguments can be aired in public proceedings. It would seem that the stages and structure of the case pages are configured in a manner that would reflect the incorporation of such a conceptual framework.

I had repeatedly asked AGK to remove the FoF alleging that I have ignored sound arguments about article content or provide the detailed rationale and an alternative diff to the one which, though it seemed to be simply in error, turns out to have been based on a logically inconsistent rationale that he refused to provide until the case was closed. Moreover, even if such a rationale were hypothetically presumed to be valid (which is not the case, in my opinion), it would implicate the conduct evinced by Arzel in another of the diffs cited in the FoF on me containing the exchange with Arzel with respect to four reliably published books, three by academic presses.

The result of the explanation provided yesterday after the case was closed was basically to further muddle the scenario, or at least my comprehension of it. On the one hand, if the relevant policy assigns the arbitrators an obligation to provide detailed rationales for decisions, where in the arbitration process is that supposed to occur? On the other hand, if such a rationale as that used against me is valid, why was it inconsistently applied. It bears repeating that a simple comparisons of the diffs will demonstrate that Arzel's statement denigrating four RS represents an egregious case of misconduct with respect to same the type of sourcing violation with which I was accused on a much lesser scale, even though the diff containing the exchange with Arzel was being use against me to substantiate yet another overblown allegation of misconduct.

The system seems thoroughly dysfunctional, at least as it manifest itself in this case, of which I was on the receiving end. Maybe the language of the policies, such as the Transparency policy, governing process should be revisited. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:12, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

{{unblock|1=It is clear to me why I was blocked, and I won't repeat the conduct again. In the above passages I've attempted to provide context for some of the statements that I would hope demonstrates that there were mitigating circumstances with respect to the arbcom case. That is to say, I can see how one comment I made could be perceived as a veiled legal threat, but that was not my intent. I also had no intent at "outing" by referencing the data from the user's talk page deleted by the user two weeks ago. I can also see how the comments I left on the user's talk page may be construed as a form of harassment, but those comments are situated in the midst of an appeal of the arbcom case at issue that is being conducted at Jim Wales' talk page, and were, unfortunately, made in frustration after a period of perceived unresponsiveness which I have attempted to describe above and at Jimbo's talk page. The block is no longer necessary, and I basically only intend to edit in conjunction with the time consuming appeal while that is pending.}}

This block has expired. Kuru (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

page break for convenience[edit]

Ubikwit, can I ask a question? (I'm going to anyway). You were added to the case quite late, but you were given of course the opportunity to make a statement on your own behalf. However, as I read through the case, I see no such statement made by you in your own defense. To me, that's astronomically mindboggling - but it's not until now that you're trying to defend yourself. You seem to be trying to go all legalese above, but I don't know of any court anywhere that allows the accused to make their statment after the verdict has been reached. Can I ask why you didn't defend yourself when the time was right? I would also probably add that any unblock request would have to be coupled with a complete one-way interaction ban related to AGK ... what you said, and what you said you were going to do to him is almost as mindboggling as you declining to defend yourself ES&L 11:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
@ES&L, as described below, all of the policy grievances I have basically relate to the FoF-based conflict with AGK, so I cannot accept any form of i-ban, as I have to discuss what appear to me to be readily apparent violations of several arbitration policies.
Incidentally, I have posted an email to AGK below in which I warned him that I would take him to task specifically in relation to the false allegation he made in the primary FoF at issue. I think I have proved to you beyond a shadow of a doubt that I did indeed defend myself, and if what you are referring to above by what you said you were going to do to him refers to my entry on his talk page "Taking you to task...", well, as you can see, I had already told him that, and posting on his talk page was basically an expression that I meant what I had said and the process was underway. Note that he didn't reply at the PD talk page until after I posted what he referred to as the "curt" response that he subsequently hatted after stating he would respond on the PD talk page, but I already had an email reply from him from two days prior declaring that he would leave a comment.
So that the relevant portions of the exchange are readily accessible to all viewing this page

Sorry for becoming a bit testy with you, AGK, but I'm a very busy man, and I hold people to their word.

You stated in an email to me that you would leave a comment, and that was two days ago.

Please either contact me to say you have changed your mind, if you have determined it would be against your interest to leave the comment, or venture a response to one of the many comments I've left.

Otherwise, not only does your intention become opaque to me, but your comportment toward me appears to be embody a dimension of duplicity. It's unclear to me if you made the statement that you would leave the comment and then failed to follow through because you thought I would wait in silence while the case closed with me having an undeserved indefinite topic ban due in part to your faulty FoF.{...}--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:43, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

The Tea Party movement PD talk page is very busy, so I did not notice you had copied your message over as we discussed. Since you did not alert me to the message (before posting this rather curt note), I don't think I have anything to apologise for, but I will go reply now. Regards, AGK [•] 10:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I should add here that I have no idea to what he was referring by the statement "I did not notice you had copied your message over as we discussed", but at least he indirectly acknowledged the relevant email exchange.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Sure, glad to field a question in order to clarify as much as possibile.
I'm not sure how my behavior can be considered to represent not trying to mount a defense of myself before the FoF against me was posted. One doesn't even know the allegations until then. Aside from that, the allegations in the FoF wouldn't have seem to have merited an indefinite topic ban upon first glance, and note that after the FoF was posted, on August 19, I believe, NYB posted the comment on the 22nd regarding the fact that they didn't demonstrate any misconduct at all. I don't think it was unusual for me to expect AGK to reply on the PD talk page after that.
On the other hand, after the FoF against me was posted, and the IP pointed out the first discrepancy, I took up my defense as vigorously as seemed necessary, first replying this. I am responsible adult that is extremely busy in real life, working full-time, and raising a family. Moreover, I was involved in a real world litigation case recently, which is partly why things like sophistry, lawyers and the like are on my mind.
Since you have perceived my stance in defense of myself to be weak, I'll have to point out the tight time frame, and call attention to the increasingly strident tone of my appeals to AGK to reply. I also have records of the email exchanges with AGK, and have already forwarded those with NYB to Jimbo. My first email to AGK was on August 23. And on September 2, I sent him the following email due his refusal to reply on the PD talk page

Alright, AGK, what is your point about accusing me of "ignor(ing) sound arguments about article content"?

You can accuse me all day long of trashing the affinity group TPm adovates without attracting my ire, but when you accuse me of behaving irrationally with respect to content, which is basically what you've done, you're going to be taken to task.

I'm not looking for trouble, but the sanctions against me are a farce, so I am seeking relief from such abusive treatment at the hands of the authorities.


It is not the case that I didn't defend myself at all, but it should also be pointed out that I supported the voluntary 6-month disengagement from the article to give a fresh crop of editors a chance. You have to go back to Archive 1 of the PD talk page for this.
Furthermore, I did address two other of the FoF against me specificallyhereand here, etc., because, ironically, they dealt with sourcing, which was the issue that motivated me to take up the challenge of the Moderated discussion and commit the time and effort required to see that through.
I have no intent of hounding AGK or basically interacting with him at all from this point, and never have interacted with him prior to this case, though I did see his interest in the article on geopolitics, which is a topic I have a fairly high level of knowledge on and would contribute to if at my leisure.
My attempts to engage him have been to strike up the dialog in relation to the FoF he drafted against me and then refused to discuss. His action (or inaction, as it were) may constitute a direct violation of the arbitration Transparency policy, depending on how that policy is interpreted. I may have a look at the archived discussion on the promulgation of that policy sometime in the near future. In legalese, I believe that the English term for such an infraction is non-feasance, which is a cause against which legal remedy can be sought against public officials for abuse of power and erosion of public trust, etc.
I don't know whether the 1-way iban is necessary, but if you want to impose one for a short duration, I won't object.
I will make another email that I sent to the entire Committee public here later. That email was turned away at the door, apparently.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

The following email was sent on September 3, cc'd to NYB, but I used the wrong addressed and resent it, and it was bounced, for whatever reason. At any rate, perhaps I can bring a little retrograde transparency to the proceedings by presenting these emails.

To the Committee,

NYB suggested that I should send a mail to the entire Committee via this mailing list, as per his email attached below.

So, please allow me to briefly plead my case. I took up the challenge to support ST’s effort to moderate the discussion because I was eager to see how the editors with what NW has described as an emotional attachment to the topic would respond to the presence of a moderator with arbitrator status.

It was my intent to be a voice of reason in that dynamic, against a background which had hitherto evinced something of a tendency toward the editing of that article and the talk pages toward a team sport, as opposed to a collaborative effort to create an article reflecting the current state of the art found in reliably published sources.

Therefore, I have strenuously objected to the unsubstantiated allegation that I “ignored sound arguments about article content”.

Further contesting the decorum related allegations seems unnecessary, as I feel that the contextual significance of sourcing and reciprocal conduct issues of editors like <redacted> has been brought forth adequately, though insufficiently scrutinized. Some arbs voiced concern about judging content vis-à-vis sourcing, but I don’t think that the issue has to be taken as far as “academic consensus”, as there is likely to be less of an effort in academia to achieve consensus in relation to social sciences and controversial political topics as opposed to applied sciences. So, WP:YESPOV, WP:WEIGHT would seem to provide ample rationale for discrediting the baseless attempts to dismiss statements that are reliably published in academic sources.

At any rate, AGK has seemed to apply one standard to Snowded and another to me. Though I participated more than Snowded and got my hands a little dirtier in the nitty gritty of the contentious discussions that ensued during the moderated discussion, the nature of the decorum related FoF against us are similar, and I don’t see justification for treating me more harshly.


--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:39, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I appreciate the reply - but I see a little glitch in your logic. You are complaining that ArbCom is not transparent ... but you e-mailed ArbCom, instead of posting as part of the case in a transparent manner? You also say you agreed to a voluntary topic ban, but now you're angry that it's in writing as official? I'm reallllly trying to put A+B+C together here ... but these things aren't adding up ES&L 15:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I agreed to a voluntary page ban, not a topic ban and not a sanction based on false allegations.
Have you read the comments in the diffs I have indicated on the PD talk page?
Please see this section Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Proposed_decision#FoF_12:_Ubikwit.
The only reason I had to start directly emailing arbcom members is because AGK was not responding on the PD talk page.
I have already provided you a diff
Oops, My mistake, I see that I hadn't provided you with the diff from that particular comment, which was sandwiched between the comments for the two diffs I did provide, all of which are from August 22, here is the diff to the comment which starts

@AGK Excuse me for being a little slow to undertake this effort, but I am busier than most people I know. The more I examine your FOF pertaining to me, the more I have come to question the reasoning that serves as the basis for some of the "findings".

First, let me just state in advance that conduct-based claim for the above-described finding has been negated, so I would appreciate you expeditious removal of it. I wouldn't take issue with a valid finding of fact pertaining to my editing conduct, but this is purely errant, and I do hope you will revise it forthwith.

That is a clear demand made directly to AGK prefaced with "@AGK".
Maybe I am misunderstanding your query relating to my manner of self-defense during the case.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The first time I raised my concern regarding transparency (emphasis added) was in an email to NYB on September 2, as follows, which elicited the response that I forward something to the entire Committee.

Thanks for your reply.

If the proceedings were open--as I'd presumed was the basic premise--some of the behind the scenes maneuvering would be eliminated, increasing transparency.

I might email AGK to hear what he has to say, but he could respond to the comments I've left on the PD talk page. His disposition toward my status seems to be inconsitent with his statements to Snowded regarding FoF.


--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Arbitration policies relevant to the decision in the TPm case[edit]

Having reviewed this Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Policy/Update_and_ratification thread and found little of relevance, I will undertake a brief review of the following following policy statements with respect to the experience in the case at issue, in addition to that of Transparency addressed briefly above. The scope of the policies is somewhat lacking of well-defined language, so there is interpretation involved, and these are basically impressions and suggestions that stem from my perceptions of the case.

As it happens, the grievances I have in relation to the following policies all relate to the issue with AGK regarding his refusal to respond to my queries in a timely and comprehensive manner. As noted above, I supported the proposed voluntary 6-month page ban, but once that failed and the unfounded FoF were posted and came under scrutiny, the issues related to these policies ensued.

Scope and responsibilities

The Arbitration Committee of the English Wikipedia has the following duties and responsibilities:

1. To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve

Conduct of arbitrators

Arbitrators are expected to:

1. Act with integrity and good faith at all times;

2. Respond promptly and appropriately to questions from other arbitrators, or from the community, about conduct which appears to conflict with their trusted roles

The following diffs seem worthy of scrutiny with respect to whether they demonstrate a lack of impartiality or inconsistency in the treatment received by different parties to the case. They all relate to queries about FoF and the response thereto.

  1. AGK reply to Xenphrenic " I will remove the accusation in question, although please note it was made as part of my voting comment and not within the finding itself" in the thread Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Proposed_decision#Findings_of_fact_and_associated_remedies
  2. AGK reply to Snowded that "The only relevant question to ask in connection with each finding is, "does it make an incorrect allegation?" in the thread Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Proposed_decision#A_probably_final_comment
  3. Followup query by me to AGK Lastly, in your reply above to Snowed, you comment that the relevant issue is whether or not any of the allegations are incorrect, but you have failed to respond to a challenge to the facticity of an FoF against me that was raised in similar terms. There is a bit of confusion, perhaps, in that I referred to the "conduct" based rationale used for your finding, accusing me of deliberately ignoring sound arguments. If this were a WP:COMPETENCE issue, I suppose that there would have to be a policy on arbitrators drafting FoFs (is there?) against which I could challenge your FoF and thus your competence to serve as an arbitrator. That is a harsh charge to make against you, but arbitration is not supposed to be an arbitrary process.
  4. Initial request to AGK, as described above@AGK Excuse me for being a little slow to undertake this effort, but I am busier than most people I know. The more I examine your FOF pertaining to me, the more I have come to question the reasoning that serves as the basis for some of the "findings". First, let me just state in advance that conduct-based claim for the above-described finding has been negated, so I would appreciate you expeditious removal of it. I wouldn't take issue with a valid finding of fact pertaining to my editing conduct, but this is purely errant, and I do hope you will revise it forthwith.

Format of decisions

Decisions are written in clear concise standard English and usually: (i) outline the salient principles, (ii) make findings of fact, (iii) set out remedies and rulings, and (iv) specify any enforcement arrangements. Where the meaning of any provision is unclear to any arbitrator, the parties, or other interested editors, it will be clarified upon request.

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:17, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Analysis and suggested revisions to text of policy provisions[edit]

Combining provisions specified under the Scope, Format of decisions, and Transparency related arbitration policies, it can be said that:

  1. Decisions are written in clear concise standard English and... usually make findings of fact... in relation to serious conduct disputes.
  2. The Committee will make public detailed rationales for decisions related to cases
  3. Where the meaning of any provision is unclear to any arbitrator, the parties, or other interested editors, it will be clarified upon request.

In respect of the above, the problem with the specification of the Transparency policy becomes apparent. The crux of the matter relates to the scope of matter encompassed by the term "decision", and the time frame within which the "rationales" are to be provided.
According to the scope of the term "decision" provided for under the "Format of decisions" policy however, "findings of fact" would appear to fall thereunder. Therefore, the Transparency policy should probably be revised along the lines to reflect that the decision, as such, encompasses FoF, which presumes that the rationales therefor should be provided during the conduct of the hearing, not after the verdict in the case has been handed down. It does not appear to be the case that the FoF represent the "detailed rationales", though perhaps it is being construed in that manner. Perhaps a text along the lines of the following would suffice.

Question of time frame, proposed revision of Transparency and confidentiality policy:

Committee deliberations are often held privately, though the Committee will make public detailed rationales for decisions relating to pending cases; provided, however, that the matter is not unsuitable for public discussion in consideration of privacy, legal or similar reasons.

It should be explicitly noted, that as the Committee does not draft legal like decisions detailing the rationale of the judgement of a case heard before the Committee, there appears to exist no basis for presenting an alternative interpretation of the scope of the term "decision" as used in the above-described arbitration policies, but I would be interested in hearing opinions on this question. Perhaps the term "judgment" or the like should be introduced to add a level of meaning enabling clearer distinction of the interrelatedness between the decision and its constituent elements.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments on the block[edit]

It is unfortunate that the block reason include outing and legal threats, as those are bright-line offenses (when supported by evidence) and deserve blocks. However, the allegation of outing has turned out to be unfounded, and the legal threat, which was on shaky grounds to start with, is mitigable by clear assurance that it isn't intended, as has been supplied. Were those the only reason, an unblock would be processed by now.

That leaves personal attacks and harassment. I was concerned about the tenor of the remarks directed at AGK, and considered sharing my Ubikwit I regret not doing so. The remarks were not acceptable discourse, and deserved some rebuke, whether a strong warning followed by a block is not ceasing, or directly to a block isn't perfectly clear in my mind. Lest someone point out some of the wording used, which might well be block-worthy in many situations, I think the circumstances of this situation are partially mitigating; one who has just received sanctions in a case that many, including many arbs, feel fell far short of ideal is understandably cranky. I appreciate that AGK did not lash back, but AGK should not have been subject to that abuse. It is sadly ironic that the proverbial straw may have been a misunderstanding.

I am not inclined to unblock at this moment. I'm hesitant to do anything that would leave the impression that the block by Alex Bakharev was ill-founded. It wasn't even if I might have taken a different course. I would like to hear Alex's thoughts, included to what extent Alex is familiar with the back-story. There is some value in having a block issued by someone who is looking at the specific incident, without knowing the back-story, but there may also be value in understand some of the complicating circumstances (including a very unclean block log).

I do think we need to ensure that Ubikwit can proceed with an appeal, which may be awkward if only email is allowed. That said, my advice is to take a break, and see what Jimbo has to say. While I obviously do not speak for Arbcom, they are aware that Jimbo plans to look at this incident. They may choose to say their processes will continue as if that were not the case, in which case any party planning to appeal should do so under whatever time frame they chose, or they might decide that they are unwilling to entertain an appeal until such time as Jimbo weights in. I don't know what they will say, but if they feel that they would like to hear Jimbo's thoughts, then that argument for an unblock is not an urgent one.

(Sorry if this is disjointed, I'm making relish, and popping in and out of the kitchen, trying to switch mental gears.)

I am still troubled by the tenor of Ubikwit's statements at AGK's page. I don't know whether that is solely due to the frustration of the case, or belies a combative attitude that isn't consistent with long term Wikipedia life. I'll stop now, and see if anyone else has anything to add.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Replies to "Comments on the block"[edit]

@Sphilbrick I regret the bit about the "wannabe" comment I made, which can fairly be considered an personal attack. Regarding the perception of harassment, not to belabor the point, but I had been trying to get a response since August 22 regarding the primary FoF in question, and AGK did not provide it until after I left the comment he hatted and after the case had closed. After getting some sleep and further reflecting on that aspect of my comment however, it recurred to me that something was necessary to link my perception of AGK as an undergraduate student aspiring to be an attorney to the criticism of the perceived sophistry in AGK's belated reply (both the timing and rationale) to the repeated FoF related queries I made.

You have pointed out inconsistencies in the logic of AGK's belatedly provided rationale for the FoF, and I appreciate that as useful constructive criticism to this project as well as helpful in supporting the resolution of the appeal.

My aim was to seek engagement in relation to an issue he should be considered to have an obligation as an arbitrator--a drafting arbitrator--to respond. To see if my intuitive perception on that point is correct, I've begun a minor exegetical examination of sorts of the aribitration policy, and from what I have seen thus far, there are discrepancies. I do not feel that I was wrong is taking AGK to task (i.e., not assuming good faith with respect to his performance of his duties as an arb).

The fact that I was reaching a limit to my patience in dealing with him (i.e., his non-responsiveness) was expressed in no uncertain terms in the above-posted email sent to him on September 2. Seeing as there are attorneys on arbcom, they will be familiar with the concept of non-feasance to which I have referred above. I don't say this as a legal threat (so please don't perceive it that way) but to point out that there would appear to be gaps in the language of the policy provisions that need to be addressed.

The perceived legal threat was absolutely nothing of the sort, as I have described. In fact, if the truth be told, it was intended as a mockery of what I take to be his attempts at sophistry, and punctuated with a suggestion that he follow the advice of his senior arb and attorney NYB, who had already weighed in with a comment on the FoF on August 23.

I am not here to battle, but I am a serious individual engaged in serious work and study, and I find have found it difficult at times to suffer the disrespectful behavior from an undergraduate sitting in judgment on arbcom, etc. It is highly unlikely that I will participate in another of those proceedings unless the policy specifications are developed and clarified in a manner that clearly defines and constrains the action of the arbs. Transparency and equality before the law (impartiality) are the bare minimums to ensure for stability in such a system.

Let me stop here, but before I go, I want to thank you for stopping by and taking the time to comment, and I also appreciated your comment on the PD talk page. Thank you.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 22:00, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Your block[edit]

Hi Ubikwit. Firstly, I would recommend you reduce the length of your posts on this page. In my experience, many administrators aren't willing to read lengthy appeals or statements (even if they ought to), and your comments may not be effective as written. Something to consider, perhaps.

Second, I would like to explain why I asked for you to be blocked. It was not because I think you outed me or made a legal thread. It was because your statements against me were growing increasingly hostile, with the last one culminating in a textbook ad hominem (my real life identity is not relevant to my actions, any more than it would have been if I were a retired accountant to whom you said "and now I'm going to bring a decrepit old money-counter to task").

I fully understand your frustration at the finding I proposed against you, and at my not replying immediately to your challenge to it (you couldn't imagine how much of an arbitrator's leisure time this website takes up). I also sympathise that you still think the first part of the finding against you was unjustified. The problem was how fast you escalated your criticism, or how far beyond the acceptable limits you took that criticism. I just wanted to have my position on this put on the record, since various administrators agree the block was justified but for different reasons. With every best wish, AGK [•] 10:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello AGK, and thank you for your courteous note.
I harbor you no ill will, and apologize for any offensive remarks I may have made to you. Those in part derived from the perceived sophistry I have attempted to explicate above. I don't believe there was any tension between us before that issue arose, and if you'll recall, I supported your proposal for the voluntary 6-month page ban.
The posts are long, I admit, but as this is my first encounter with arbcom, I now have to evaluate the interactions between arbitrators and parties with respect to policy. The only way I can determine where fault lies, if there is to be fault found, is by going through that process methodically.
Note, for instance, in my sketching out what appear to me possibly to represent inconsistent treatment of parties by you in relation to FoF, I do directly quote your response to Xenophrenic that the charge you agreed to remove was not actually part of your FoF.
So first, I am examining the terminology used to set forth the provisions as policy, and have found one possible issue relating to the overburdened use of the term "decision".
I would welcome your participation in the ensuing discussion.
Since this is being undertaken in conjunction with any appeal however, as it were, so I do have to endeavor to clarify the basis upon which I feel that the appeal was necessary and the decision should be overturned. I gather that you feel my criticism the FoF was excessive and escalated beyond reasonable bounds. Given that I'd found somewhat glaring faults and contradictions in a couple of the findings in succession, it is possible that I was overreacting to a perceived pattern of unjust findings. I'm not sure that should be considered contempt of court, though, as it doesn't rise beyond the level of strenuous objection. I read one finding after another, as time permitted, the second approximately 11 hours after the first, etc.
As per the Arbitration policy, one has the right to expect arbitrators to act in good faith--which I would presume includes undertaking the drafting of findings--and due process in open proceedings, and I'm not sure that those findings rise to that level.
If you are claiming something along the lines that because my criticism of logically incoherent/inconsistent FoF was excessive and escalated beyond acceptable bounds, it was justifiable to maintain such FoF against me on the basis of my critical response to the discovery of what clearly seemed like evidence that should have been inadmissible to begin with, I'm not sure that the logic of that argument is sound. For one, it should be borne in mind that NYB pointed out my responses on the PD talk page and asked that you reply there.
At any rate, the system seems to need a little attention, so I will take this opportunity in making my appeal to examine the relevant aspects and present my findings here.

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Non-responsiveness vs. “Outting”, Harassment, etc.[edit]

Since I have been blocked for an excessively long period in part for misunderstood context of comments that were perceived to be somewhat outrageous, and AGK has pointed specifically to the ad hominem. In relation to the ad hominem, which consisted in my misconstruing that AGK was studying law and calling him a “wannabe attorney”, I’m going to provide a couple more excerpts to further clarify the relevant points.

Note that, as per the policy relate sections above, responsiveness to questions to arbitrators by parties to a case during the hearing would appear to be an obligation assigned to the arbitrators under the arbitration policy. Without such responsiveness, it is impossible to examine the merits of claims and counterclaims, which is the object of the hearing. In other words, a refusal to respond is the equivalent of a denial of due process, and reduces the hearing a mere formality necessary to rubber stamp a decision by the Committee.

I have also come across a comment by AGK that is indirectly related, and feel compelled to post it along with the following, as it opens a separate horizon of meaning to be considered.

First, note that the following posts to the PD talk page made on September 3 to a large degree incorporate that comments I subsequently left on AGK's talk page, which were by and large a rehashing of the following.

Second, note that in addition to the above-quoted instance from September 2, there are two other instances in which I refer to information (undergraduate, etc.) that he’d removed from his User’s page only a week earlier. That makes it three queries on the PD talk page over a period of three days to which a response was not given in relation to that point. AGK has subsequently commented above that hi “real life identity is not relevant to my actions”, but the question relates more to level of education and competence than identity.

Let me make something clear to you and the rest of the Committee--more specifically, those voting in support of the topic ban against me on the basis of an errant FoF that has been indicated as such by NYB's comment on the PD FoF--you people are elected to serve the community here at Wikipedia, and if you fail to do that and cause me undue grief in the process, I'll present your actions for scrutiny to the court of public opinion for all who are interested in this website and its governance.

First, you, being an undergraduate law student have not earned my respect by refusing to redact the false allegation, or by including a diff in another allegation that would seem to implicate Arzel--an original party to the case--against whom you have made no FoF--with a bltant violation of sourcing policy, which I have mentioned repeatedly as an explicit concern. Perhaps you are deliberately attempting to antagonize me?

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC); 03:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, the fact that you are an undergraduate law student the fact that you have obstinantly refused to retract a false FoF, even though it has been called to your attention and you have made a statement in response to another party to the case in relation to FoF being correct or not, seems to think he can ignore even his own statements about procedure and probity and conduct himself in a manner evincing what can be seen to represent an arbitrary exercise of power as a member of the Committee. .--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC); 03:29, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Finally, in 2011 AGK declared that he had a Master’s degree during a discussion on a user’s talk page in relation to an attempt to mediate a content dispute[18], apparently.

Now, I don’t understand why AGK would declare that he has a Master’s degree in 2011, but on his User page in 2013 declare that he is an undergraduate. This discrepancy may have some bearing on the evaluation of his actions as arbitrator in this case. Though I had been primarily calling into question his competence, in light of his self-proclaimed "undergraduate" status (removed after posting the proposed FoF and Remedy against me) in respect of the errant FoF (and lack thereof) as well as his failure to meet his obligations to respond to my queries while concurrently responding to similar queries from other parties to the case, this self-proclamation of having a Master's degree adds another turn to the manifold labyrinth.

On the other hand, to be fair, I don't think that the blame lies entirely on AGK, as he is one arbitrator of a collaborative body, and there were others that voted in support of both the FoF and the "remedies" against me. The (insular corporate) culture of the Committee would seem to be out of touch with the community. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 08:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe AGK went back to college in a different field? I know someone with an MS in history who then decided to study (as undergraduate) computer science. Similarly, I know two guys who have an MS in computer science and then studied law as an undergraduate. People change careers for what is more profitable and other reasons. People's education is generally irrelevant on Wikipedia, unless they try to bank on it. We even had taxi drivers on ArbCom at some point in the past. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:05, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Maybe you’re right about the education angle, but one would imagine that the undergrad status would generally be prefaced with already held degrees in such a case.
Regarding a comment you left on Jimbo’s page, since it is directly relevant, I’m going to cite it and respond here.

I mostly agree with MastCell on this. Some of the topic bans appear based on little and marginal evidence, but it's still better than the omnibus decision they had considered earlier. At least with individual evidence being listed, the editors have more of a chance at appealing after the next ArbCom is elected. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

First, the “omnibus” decision was not, strictly speaking, a decision. It was a motion to avoid the rigors of having to produce an actual decision after the Moderated discussion had been tacked on to what had already been presented in the original case. In other words, I consider the proposal for a blanket “page ban” to have been an attempt to solicit voluntary cessation of editing activity on the related pages for 6 months coupled with the imposition of discretionary sanctions. There was a lot of sanctimonious objection to that, which was all posturing, as far as I’m concerned.
First, see the proposal here
Then, see my response here, and what preceded and ensues thereafter.
Note that my appeal of the decision has been made in light of the faulty FoFs, lack of responsiveness to queries about those FoF and the like, and the irresponsible votes for sanctions made on the basis of the faulty FoF. In other words, the opening remark I left in my comment supporting the voluntary 6-month page ban

In order to forego the enormous amount of work it would take to sort through the policy issues and conduct of each editor, this sounds like a reasonable approach.

has been more than borne out by the apparent lack of effort on the part of numerous members of the Committee to conduct a case in a manner conformant with the policies that govern arbitration proceedings.
It's one thing to be amenable to motion that assigns no culpability for conduct violations, yet enables the community to improve the article by temporarily removing a group among whom content disputes had become largely intransigent. It's entirely another thing to accede to a decision based on illogical, unbalanced (as in not impartial), or extremely flimsy FoF making unwarranted (and unsubstantiated) allegations.
  • One striking example of how the Committe failed to do its job
Here is the earliest incident in which I used a phrasing similar to that in the diff cited in the first FoF against me as implicating me for "ignoring sound arguments about article content".
The discussion is from April, during the early stages of the Moderated discussion.
Trimming 2 thread

There is no problem using the more detailed information, but you have left out relevant context in a manner that seems to portray the TPm candidates as gaining more than they did in the senate, for example. What percentage of the senate does 5 members account for? If you are going to insist on details, then the context is necessary to maintain NPOV. The more I look at the sources the more apparent it becomes that the text in the article is not even close to reflecting what they say.[19]

No one on the Committee noticed that comment, and thus failed to intervene in the drafting stage of the FoF--if there is such a stage. So the comment in the diff cited in the faulty FoF relates to a series of similar comments related to a pattern of uncovering faulty sourcing and the like that occurred repeatedly throughout the examination of the text of each successive section of the article.
Taxi drivers as arbitrators? Well, if they have a degree, why not. Hell, there are probably taxi drivers with MBA's out there! Don't get me wrong, I don't mean to be uppity or exclusionary, but this is an encyclopedia, not a blog. No wonder there is a high attrition rate of editors that subject themselves to one of these so-called "hearings".--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:53, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
In many British universities, a Masters degree is the equivalent elsewhere of a Bachelors; the discrepancy in naming that seems to have confused you is a historical anachronism, and students can indeed take an MA in one subject then start an BA/MA in another subject or an LLB. I removed the reference to my current level of study because, although I like my fellow editors to know what I'm currently doing with my life, I'm not willing to put up with the grief it causes me on this site.

The extent to which you have delved through my past edits is frankly creepy. Please stop it. AGK [•] 12:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation.
By the way, I did not searching through your edit history to find the Master's degree quote, that version of Tenmei/Enkyo2's talk page was cited by EdJonston in an AN/I case Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Enkyo2_still_hounding_me about a Japan-related topic I happened upon. Here is the diff.
You presume a bit much to think I'd have read through your individual edits to find that. I'm not obsessed with this matter, just intent on seeing it resolved in a satisfactory manner moving forward.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"ludiculous, basically..."[edit]

Well, we have to laugh at ourselves, sometimes, and this made me chuckle.

In reviewing the diffs cited in the FoF on me, I noticed that I'd cited a diff that wasn't included in the FoF on the PD talk page. Moreover, that comment generated a more substantial discussion about the source at issue and sourcing in general than any of the other comments I made on the diffs. That was this thread Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Proposed_decision#Another_diff_from_the_FoF

In the meantime, for posterity's sake and easy reference here, I'm posting the other diffs and the corresponding discussions, with slightly expanded context in a couple, one of which includes the "ludiculous, basically..." neologism (nihilogism?) of the case.

Diff 36


I looked at the first part of this section and came across:

The term teabagger was initially used to refer to Tea Partiers after conservatives used tea bag as a verb on protest signs and websites. Members of the movement adopted the term, and referred to themselves as teabaggers. Shortly thereafter, however, others outside the movement began to use the term mockingly, alluding to the sexual connotation of the term when referring to Tea Party protesters. Most conservatives do not, for the most part, use the term with its double entendre meaning; rather it seems the political left has adopted the joke.


1. ^ "Scenes from the New American Tea Party" Washington Independent, February 27, 2009; Retrieved April 24, 2010.

2. ^ Alex Koppelman Your guide to teabagging; April 14, 2009

3. ^ The evolution of the word 'tea bagger'; The Week; May 5, 2010

Now, looking at that and the sources given, this part of that section is true: "conservatives used tea bag as a verb on protest signs and websites"; but nowhere is there any evidence for this sentence: "Members of the movement adopted the term, and referred to themselves as teabaggers." They used the term (one article says "innocently embraced the term"), but nowhere do these articles say they referred to themselves as teabaggers; they used teabag as a verb to refer to others and as a form of protest (e.g. "sending tea bags to elected officials", "Tea bag the fools in DC").

I thus recommend that the whole sentence "Members of the movement adopted the term, and referred to themselves as teabaggers" be removed, or a source be adduced as proof. TuckerResearch (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Yet another example where the text of the article doesn't reflect what the cited references say.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑09:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Diff 37 [21]

"The Tea Party is opposed to the bailouts, stimulus packages, and has expressed an interest in repealing the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments." While this may make sense in the present, years from now this may not be understood. we should clarify and cite exactly what bailouts and stimulus packages are being being referred to.--Asher196 (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Comment Yes, good point. The level of detail related to important topical matter is so poor it's ludiculous, basically. The Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments?

What are those? Ubikwit  連絡 見学/迷惑 18:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Very easy solution — transform each term that may be unclear in the future into a Wikilink to the corresponding article. "The Tea Party is opposed to the bailouts and stimulus packages, and has expressed an interest in repealing the Sixteenthand Seventeenth Amendments." I wish all the problems with this article were solved so easily ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

That is not a solution at all.

Obviously there should be wikilinks to TARP and the 16th and 17th Amendments. There should also, however, be a level of analysis vis-a-vis the TPm agenda, particularly with respect to the constitution and Amendments that is in accordance with what is found in RS, particularly high-level academic RS such as the sources by legal scholars, the content of which has been repeatedly reverted in a blanket manner without justification.

It is probably the case that the opposition to TARP is related to taxation, for example, and to which Amendment would that relate? I believe that there is also a constitutional rationale for attacking universal health care. A great deal--if not the entirety--of the agenda of the TPm can be explicated with respect to the corresponding positions on the constitution, and that is why there are a number of high-level studies of that issue in particular.

Why is it that you and other editors are intent on keeping detailed analysis of the TPm agenda off the article page?--Ubikwit  連絡 見学/迷惑 00:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Diff 38 [22]

I think it is impossible to regard astroturfing as a minor opinion, it may be in the media but it appears to be the mainstream view among academics. Wayne (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Who said anything about it being a "minor opinion"? It is, however, minority opinion per WP:WEIGHT. Xenophrenic's position is that a politically "leaning" organization should be allowed to provide a self-serving definition of itself for the lede sentence of a Wikipedia article about it, per WP:SELFSOURCE. Here's the diff: [94] Since the Tea Party movement says that it's agrass-roots movement without any mention of Astroturfing, and since well-established, respected, thoroughly fact-checked news organizations like The New York Times agree, that's how we should describe it in the lede sentence. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are simply trying to cherry-pick sources to present a statement in the lead that does not meet the requirement of NPOV. The manner in which you choose to construe Xenophrenic's comments is irrelevant, and the attempt to introduce it in a partisam manner is in violation of WP:TE.

The editor you responded to clearly indicates that the Astroturfing "appears to be the mainstream view among academics".--Ubikwit  連絡 見学/迷惑 04:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Diff 39 [23]

Peer review for opinion is little more than grammer checking. Peer review for mathmatical equations and hard facts is much more rigorous. I done quite a bit of peer reivew and it entails checking math and making sure that what they are saying makes sense, not whether it is correct factaully. If anything books like these are the worst reliable of all. Each chapter has only a few eyes checking it for factual mistakes. Newspapers, at least, have thousands of eyes double checking the final product for factual statements. Arzel (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Arzel, perhaps you should stick to math, because you seem to not know much about social sciences research. You are deliberately attempting to denigrate academic sources (from outside your field, apparently) by dismissing them as mere "opinion". The information contained in the academic sources is of a higher order than that in new media. Your condescending attitude toward the social sciences is perhaps somewhat problematic.Ubikwit  連絡 見学/迷惑 15:17, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 18:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Samsung page[edit]

Dear Ubikwit, I have manually reverted the edits to the Samsung "Controversies" section, as the grammar was sub-standard and the references are not written in English. Can you please provide further clarity—if you have a personal issue with the company, this is not the appropriate forum to vent that. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 07:28, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Hello Soulparadox.
There seems to be a slight misunderstanding here. If you would have taken the time to read the edit summaries and actually check the text and refcites before reverting, you would have found that I replaced the Chinese language sources with reliable English language sources.
Do you have a WP:COI in connection to Samsung? If you do, please state so on the Talk page and discuss controversial edits in advance.
Please self-revert your edits. Thanks.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
The "Viral marketing" section is intact. Please refer to the previous two sub-sections that are the actual subject of this discussion. Thank you kindly,--Soulparadox (talk) 09:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
OK, I see that you just edited the text, not revert my insertion of the section.
However, there are some issues with the text. Since the article talk page is the place to address this, I have started a thread there and will check that later.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin[edit]

Hi. Since you contributed to the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Igbo Jews[edit]

It was Wikifavor who removed Christian and slave, I never thought it was you. I'm just not sure where I stand on quotes in leads, so I haven't gotten involved there. I now have Parfitt's Ark of the Covenant book if you ever want anything from it. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Doug. OK, thanks for letting me know you have that book, but I wouldn't have time to read it even if I had it at present, so I'll have to defer to you in relation to that text. I'm sure it ust be an interesting read.
As you can see from the following posts by an IP, there are still issues. I've left a comment on the article Talk page.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Evisceration of article Ten Lost Tribes[edit]

Ubikwit has made over 40 edits to the article Ten Lost Tribes that have removed a significant amount of valuable information on the subject and replaced it with clear NPOV violations. Examples:

  • Replaced the article header with controversial and revisionist opinions.
  • Removed numerous valid paragraphs and indeed entire sections.
  • Added numerous unencyclopedic statements.

Since at least the 17th century both Jews and Christians have proposed theories concerning the Lost Tribes

was changed by Ubikwit to read:

The increased currency of tales relating to lost tribes


background of general belief

was changed by Ubikwit to read:

Fanciful accounts concerning

Those are just 2 of many examples. The voluminous nature of the verbiage added by Ubikwit has made it virtually impossible to remove his/her additions.

Furthermore,Ubikwit has asserted in said article that historians are in general agreement with statements that are not widely accepted as fact.

Ubikwit has done so much damage to this articel that I, as a novie editor, could not fix it. Someone else who knows how will have to do it. Additionally, it appears this article has been the battleground of an ongoing edit war going back several years between Ubikwit and several other editors. From what I can tell Ubikwit has un-reverted changes made to correct NPOV errors several times to advance his/her personal viewpoint.

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Ubikwit. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ten Lost Tribes. Thank you. --Bahooka (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments in edit summaries, etc[edit]

You really need to cool it a bit. Angry comments really not only don't help, they hurt you. I'm not taking part in the RfC but I did get it reopened. I think if you had asked it would have been reopened. Dougweller (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello Doug, I had actually (mis)placed a request on the editor that closed that on his (Userboxes)Talk page about four minutes before you commented there. I have since moved that.
Regarding the RfC, no one has provided a policy based rationale for removing the quotes, but if that is considered to be consensus in the end, then I'll move the quotes to the body of the article and summarize them in the lead.
There is a ton of religious POV pushing going on on the pages related to so-called lost tribes, at least one of which should probably be deleted. I don't have a lot of spare time at the moment, so it is bothersome to have to argue about unsourced material, misrepresented sources and the like, not too mention the attempt to keep "apocryphal" out because it is deemed to be a negative representation by an editor that prefers the term "religious". At any rate, I have just added a refcite for a book published by Oxford U. that should suffice to support the use of that term, and added a few others on the Talk page.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. What other pages? I know of some but they may not be the ones you mean. Dougweller (talk) 16:48, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
I did some substantial cleanup on a couple of articles (House of Israel (Ghana), Bukharan Jews, Igbo Jews) a week or two ago, mostly removing unsourced material or material not reflecting what I found in the sources. The Ghana related article was particularly appalling. After removing much material and then finding that what was left was purely promotional, I submitted a speed delete request, which was quickly removed on the basis of a rather weak rationale and source[24].
There is an Israeli woman making a documentary about that "community", which consists mostly of children, and the related article is where better information was found than that from other refcites (including primary), but the documentary apparently aims to promote a lost tribes origin for the community. That is not the source the editor that removed the delete request considered as reliable, however. Maybe the topic is notable because of the unusual amount of effort being put into "the community" by media outlets and a documentary maker, but the community itself would seem to have a questionable degree of notability.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:07, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ten Lost Tribes may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Bukharan Jews[edit]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE stop rewriting the Bukharian Jews page. You are erasing very vital information that is part of Bukharian Jewish history. You are essentially rewriting/erasing history and I see that you do that a lot judging from your page. Please stop writing and erasing things that you know absolutely NOTHING about. I will continue to find appropriate sources for the information in the article, which is 100% correct. If you want to help me, go write ahead, but please do not rewrite history. Many of your facts are incorrect.

1.Most Bukharian Jews DO trace their ancestry to the Middle East. 2. The Russian Jews that came to Central Asia were NEVER part of the Bukharian community. They are Ashkenazi, not Bukharian, and most Jews living in Central Asian are Ashkenazi now

and you additional erased very crucial information. Please stop! (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You need to stick to what the sources say; it's that simple. If you have a source that distinguishes between Bukharian Jews and the Jews now living in Bukhara, then elaborate. The information in the article is from one of the few sources that seems reliable, and it does not differentiate between 'Bukharian Jews' and 'Jews in Bukhara'.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:06, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

The very definition of Bukharian Jews are Jews that are originally from Central Asian countries (not just in the city of Bukhara) and who have lived there for thousands/hundreds of years. Over the years, they developed their own culture, language, music, etc. Russian Jews who came to live in Central Asia to escape persecution in Russia and the holocaust were not originally from Central Asia at all and did not share a culture with Bukharian Jews. Look at the "Culture" section in the page. Bukharians follow that culture and Russian Jews do not. It's already in the page and you're just making assumptions about things you don't know about. If you don't know the difference between Ashkenazim and Sephardim and don't know anything about Bukharian Jews, then please refrain from making further edits. And it looks like many other users are annoyed with your illogical edits as well, so I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one. Coolforschool (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ten Lost Tribes[edit]

Okay, you've reverted my attempts to make the awkward, incoherent phrasing into non-mangled English. If you don't like my version, you need to write something yourself that isn't so terribly written. It can't stay the way it is, so if you won't allow others to edit it, find something more appropriate. Liz Read! Talk! 20:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with you or anyone else editing that, and presently don't have an alternative less awkward phrasing to propose. What I tried to point out in the edit summary is that the claims have by and large been made by outsiders by Western Jewish and Christian missionary types. That's true for the Americas, the Far East and Central Asia, too, apparently.
You're probably right that there is a better way to word that, and if you have the time maybe you can think of a way to reflect the above-described factual disposition less awkwardly.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:01, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Bukharan Jews. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Toddst1 (talk) 20:00, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Ubikwit (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

This block was imposed without any discussion by the imposing admin at the corresponding AN/I thread Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Another_SPA_POV-pushing_and_edit_warring_at_Bukharan_Jews.2C_WP:NPA_on_article_Talk. Nothing more than a warning has been issued to the freshly minted SPA that attempted to revert to a version that had basically been deemed to include WP:OR and in violation of WP:Rs through a thread I had to initiate at the RS/N board. This would seem like a punitive block imposed in a arbitrary manner without examination of the details of the incident. I'm not even sure whether the imposing admin realizes that the "stable version" of the article that has been reverted to is the version resulting from the RS/N process and is the version from before the edit war. Technically speaking, under the WP:EW policy 3RR is not necessary to be deemed edit warring, but the lack of discussion at the AN/I case of the specifics of the incident is the equivalent of providing no constructive input into resolving such matters, even though I had been through almost the same series of actions two weeks ago with a different SPA that was an IP. Such action would seem to indicate an inability to handle even complicated cases like this at the AN/I board, where there wasn't even any mention of a rationale for applying WP:Boomerang]]. Accordingly one is led to believe that filing an Arbcom case is the only way to resolve such an issue. It has not even been suggested that I have not followed the proper dispute resolution procedures in a repeat performance of basically the same scenario that would appear to have been resolved through the RS/N discussion. Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 02:19, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring, so let's consider two questions: (1) Were you edit warring? Yes. (2) Does your unblock request indicate that you accept that you were edit warring, and that you will not continue to do so if unblocked? No. Therefore, your unblock request is declined. (This decision is unaffected by the other, irrelevant, issues that you raised, such as your apparent belief that a new editor with no prior warning about edit warring should be treated in the same way as an editor with a long history of blocks for edit warring and other disruptive editing.) Since during the block you have used talk page access to make personal attacks, your talk page access will be removed. Since you already have a history of personal attacks, including a previous block for personal attacks, the length of this block will be doubled. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page for as long as you are blocked.

Comment from blocking admin: This edit summary makes it crystal clear that Ubikwit knew s/he was edit warring as s/he continued to revert. Toddst1 (talk) 13:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

And why didn't you discuss this at the AN/I thread? And why didn't you block the SPA trying to replace essentially the same material as the IP from a couple of weeks ago, again without engaging on the Talk place. I suppose I should have filed an SPI, as the editor in question has the same verbal mannerisms, makes a similar assertion that he is Bukharan Jew, etc. An admin examining the situation more closely would probably have picked up on that.
And when the SPA did engage on the article talk page he made a somewhat bigoted personal attack that you ignored, while someone else at least warned him on the Talk page.
I don't believe that I've seen a block issued in the manner you imposed this block, that is to say, with not discussion, and apparently not examining the circumstances of the case at all.
The SPA has continued to revert now that you've blocked me, and he has removed more sourced content published by an academic press, apparently because it expresses a POV with which he disagrees.
If you don't want to take the time to examine the details of an incident or engage in discussion when an editor takes the trouble to report a disturbance at AN/I, maybe you should find a more constructive way to use your time and stop wasting other peoples' time.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Also, you may technically be correct that diff you cite is a 4RR, but the content was altered, so it was not the same edit by CFS. Moreover, that content had been part of the material subject of the RS/N thread. You also appear to have overlooked the fact that I had engaged CFS on his Talk page well in advance of his continued insistence to attempt to restore that content, which is not what the source says. I followed proper dispute resolution by going through RS/N, and you ignored it because technically I was edit warring to prevent what could be considered vandalism insofar as the issue had been resolved (temporarily) at RS/N and no alternative consensus had been reached at the article talk page--where the SPA had refused to engage even after the edit warring warning I left on his talk page.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
  • @Toddst1 You are a block-happy admin tool, and you are not welcome on this page after this block expires or is lifted. I hope that is also "crystal clear". Fuck off.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Just so you know, you can request that I not discuss non-administrative issues with you, but I am in no way prevented from interacting with you further in an administrative capacity. We have not had any type of conflict that would prevent that or would qualify me as in any way WP:Involved. You cannot arbitrarily decide which admins can take administrative action. Toddst1 (talk) 20:43, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

arbcom addition[edit]

I am unsure why you added the info about Japan to the arbcom case. That section is not really a part of the dispute, and only had one editor advocating for it. I think it could be deleted via normal WP:BRD easily. The nazi issue hs been going on for months (possibly years) and is something that needs the hand of ArbCom to resolve. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

It's just another example of the fact that there is advocacy editing being carried out against policy, and relates to an anti gun control pov similar to that being pushed in the ongoing content dispute. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 22:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
We may end up on different pages here due the to core philisophical difference of opinions - but I think there is a great difference between mentioning the Nazi thing which while certainly controversial and promotedby those of a certain polticial leaning, is discussed and debated (and condemned) in many forums, magazines, journals etc vs something that has gained no traction (even within a subgroup of advocates) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's not what I'm addressing, only pointing to a pattern in editing conduct of promoting an anti gun control pov, in the case of the Japan section, based on bullshit.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 22:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
@Gaijin42 By the way, I noticed that you are among the editors favoring inclusion of the material at issue in the present dispute, and I don't want to get involved with that, but generally agree with the opinions expressed by ArtifexMayhem and FiachraByrne to the effect that proper context is essential for inclusion of such peripheral and somewhat controversial material, which itself appears to be based on sourcing that seem to be marginal with respect to WP:RS. That is a content dispute, pushing a pov to advocate a cause without adequate sourcing, etc., i violation of policy is a conduct issue. The Japan related material is also very marginally sourced, and the pov being advocated is also taken out of context and not supported by RS. In that regard, there is a parallel with respect to the editing conduct/environment on that article.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 23:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Have you read the proposed text (currently in the protected article). The sourcing and neutrality of presentation is significantly stronger than what was in the earlier version. There are literally DOZENS of all different caliber (including many very neutral gun control books) of sources discussing this, and very notable people involved in the gun control debate. Certainly it is a controversial position, and one that it is legitimate to disagree with, but to say it is one that is not significant is crazy. Gaijin42 (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, you're probably right, but the question as to its "significance" is where the context comes in, and the framing of the presentation of whatever is deemed to be significant in context is where consensus would have to be built assuming that there were consensus that it was not fringe, which seems yet to be established. Anyway, I don't intend to get involved with that discussion, I just happened to notice the errant material in the Japan section, and since that is a topic about which I've read relevant sources, I engaged. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 23:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Gun control, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. It does not appear that consensus has been reached on the talk page. That you made such a bold move in an uncivil manner is not at all constructive either. Toddst1 (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but what is your assertion based on in relation to my being uncivil? The use of the term "bullshit" to describe the material in the section? Please clarify.
And disruptive? WP:BOLD is the relevant guideline, and it is not necessary to seek consensus to revert such content. Should someone seek to defend it they are welcome to do so, but what is the point of your intervention? Are you tracking my edits in a manner falling under WP:Stalking? I just checked the editing history of the article and you have never edited the article or its talk page prior to today.
The deleted content was not adequately sourced and even the title of the section is historically anomalous. Those points have been mentioned on the article Talk page and the Arbcom case request, respectively.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 22:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


to be so slow, but I'm also swamped. I see Parkwells is at the Lost Tribes article now. I don't think semi-protection is appropriate though. Dougweller (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Gun control arbitration case notice[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 19, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gun control/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Kokuchūkai and Nichirenism[edit]

Could you please have a look at the mentioned articles? I created them today and would welcome any input.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm very busy but took a quick look, and those look like they're off to a good start, maybe they can eventually be integrated into a single article related to "Nationalism and lay Buddhist organizations in post-Meiji Japan" or something along those lines.
If you have time, I would recommend integrating some material from related to Kokugaku in the kokutai article, and the Shin'ron could use its own article. One of the best sources I've read on these topics is "Tokugawa Ideology", by Ooms, and I noticed that there is as yet no reference to that text in any of the articles, including Mitogaku.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

New Komeito[edit]

Your input on above mentioned article would be VERY much welcomed.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Mises Institute article quote symptom of problem[edit]

I've passed my 500 word limit at Arbitration Request, but per your quoting a lead sentence of a section of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute article, I just wanted you to know that that sentence is an example of the problematic edits that have caused so many problems; out of context primary source quotes, highly partisan sources or misintepreted neutral ones are synthed together in a negative, exaggerated and even false story line leading to conflicts which the offending editors refuse to engage in conflict resolution about. Another editor described the problems in that section, including that quote, at this talk page section detailed problems with the sources and their use at that time. (He opposed any such section; I myself didn't have a problem with it if it used only NPOV secondary sources.)
It was from the Institute article that User:MilesMoney was banned for BLP reasons, before being banned entirely. However, his two close compatriots who have been listed as part of the arbitration entered and/or consistently supported this kind of material, including in BLP. I haven't done an Arbitration before but I surely will make it clear that no statement in any of the articles should be taken on face value without a thorough investigation. Correcting these and other issues with constant opposition is just too exhausting for even 3 or 4 more neutral editors to deal with. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 8, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian economics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (TCGE) 01:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit, I read your comment and was a little confused by your statement "I basically agree with her position on social infrastructure, and have edited the Government spending article to introduce the concept where it was implied but missing and basically obscured in a somewhat jumbled and unwieldy paragraph." I don't see that there was any dispute on that issue. The only dispute and material removed in the diffs she referenced was the statement about public subsidies in education paying for themselves and the accompanying graph (full discussion), which we were having trouble verifying. You cover that in your next paragraph, but that prior sentence gives the impression that you agree with Ellen (and presumably disagree with the other editors) on a topic which was never disputed. :) Cheers Morphh (talk) 18:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello Morph, I just meant that I agree with the premise of her statement, not whether it is supported by the sources. I don't think there was a dispute on social infrastructure per say, I just noticed that only "physical infrastructure" had been explicitly noted in the article in the same paragraph as the material related to social infrastructure under debate. With the intent of adding a little clarity to the article and discussion, I added the explicit reference to "social infrastructure" and broke that paragraph into two.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Complexity of Public Subsidies for Education[edit]

Hi Ubikwit,

I noted your comment on the Arbitration page. The one example I cited of apparent WP:SYN by EllenCT is a good example of how difficult it can sometime be to find a source that supports what we'd all think is common knowledge. Since you've expressed an interest in learning a little more about economics, Morphh tried to break out how EllenCT's conclusions need a reliable source. I've quoted his exposition from the Government Spending talk page as follows:

Ellen, I'm not sure how to respond to that. We've discussed WP:SYN many times with your edits. But let's go through it again, "if one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research." Concluding C would be a logical fallacy, because B could also simultaneously lead to D, E, F, which could alter the conclusion C. Your mathematical reasoning postulates that:
  • Higher education leads to increased income tax revenue (verified with the source). (A)
  • Subsidization increases enrollment in higher education (assumed to be true - no objection). (B)
From this, it appears you make the hypothesis that subsidization increases income tax revenues and pays for itself multiple times over (C) without a direct source making that conclusion. Per SYN, "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article. What could possibly mitigate that conclusion:
  • Subsidization (taxation) could directly decrease economic growth reducing income tax revenue. (D)
  • Large subsidization could cause inflation of college costs, negating or reducing the subsidy's intent. (E)
  • Increased college attendance could have effects on academic inflation and educational devaluation, something we've seen in the economic downturn. (F)
  • The increased supply of college educated individuals pressed against the demand could decrease the average income of that group. (G)
  • Decreased or negative ROI for those that don't graduate. (H)
  • Opportunity cost of public dollars subsidizing education of wealthier students who would have been willing to pay more or go to a private institution. (I)
I'm not saying these possible adverse effects do or do not change the outcome. I don't reject the idea presented in your hypothesis. I'm just saying we need a direct source that makes that conclusion, as I don't see that it is WP:CK as you suggest.

I'm not going to propose that Morphh has captured all of the salient considerations, but just because a government invests in education, it doesn't mean that it in aggregate will lead to a positive return on tax receipts for that investment. Certainly there are millions of individuals who benefit from public subsidies, and we can write about that and easily find sources to support it. But when EllenCT (or any other editor for that matter) makes bold declarative statements that she cannot find a source to support, well then you see what happens.Mattnad (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mattnad. Yes, I can see that it is a complicated topic. It seemed to me that maybe the discussion of ROI that I pointed to--and to which you responded--on ElenCT's talk page might vaguely support some of her suppositions--maybe not the entirety of her statement--so I was oping to engage her regarding these somewhat opaque sources.
I would be very happy to see sources support that statement, but considering the student loan crisis and related issues, it would seem to be perhaps theoretically true under proper circumstances, but I don't know if it holds true under the present conditions when you read about people with degrees that are among the long-term unemployed.
Anyway, that is just my personal thought on the matter, and the sources are what matter.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
If you feel like getting into the nitty gritty, here's a paper that tries to explain some of the puts and takes [25]. In a nutshell, the author concludes that the ROI on public investment in education "depends". At least this source directly addresses the question. Mattnad (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. It looks like an interesting study, I will read it when I have some time--not for a while... You should introduce that into the talk page discussion, if you haven't already.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 21:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I did introduce it and it was discussed. EllenCT was non-plussed by it and ignored it because the Pope Center is sometimes critical of higher education spending choices (ie, More money for big stadiums, less money and rigor for coursework). She felt is was partisan, therefore should be ignored.Mattnad (talk) 16:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see[edit]

User:Smallbones/Questions on FTC rules Smallbones(smalltalk) 03:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Smallbones(smalltalk) 19:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
perhaps you might be interested in [my comments on the relevant talk page [26] DGG ( talk ) 18
15, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Walter Block[edit]

Note that he has recently been admonished by his university's president for making "assertions, without argument or evidence, to gain attention." A dozen or so of his colleagues have also joined the Loyola U President in condemning Block's remarks that, while slavery was wrong because it was involuntary, the day-to-day life and work of an American slave was "not so bad". Note that these remarks don't just characterize him as holding fringe views but criticize his scholarship. Steeletrap (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC) Thanks. That's quite stern and deserved criticism, unless he is tenured he will probably be dismissed before long. I suppose it should be edited into the bio at some point.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing I"m accused of TE for -- reporting the ostracism the Misesians meet in academia. Block is tenured so I doubt he will be dismissed. Steeletrap (talk) 03:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I would, however, recommend creating a section detailing the various controversies he's been embroiled in at Loyola U. It is rare and worthy of mention that two consecutive university Presidents would publicly condemn a professor for poor scholarship (the previous one condemned BLock for his claims, for which he provided no evidence, that the m-f wage gap disappeared when controlled for lifestyle preferences). This is remarkably similar to an "furor" Misesian Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe ignited when he claimed to a class that gays have a higher "time preference" then straights -- that is, they plan less for the future. I'm too lazy to link to all this, but if you visit Hoppe's wikipedia page, you'll see that he too was called out for failing to provide evidence for his claims. According to former Mises Institute scholar and self-described "ex-cultist" Gene Callahan, Hoppe and Block are the two most prominent "fellows" currently at LvMI. Steeletrap (talk) 03:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Religion in Japan may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Keiko Sakurai and Michael Penn; Islam in Japan: A Cause for Concern?, Asia Policy 5, January 2008]</ref> It has been estimated that the Muslim immigrant population amounts to 70-100,000 people,

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


Thank you for your efforts and support and also for the appreciation on my past contributions to articles that are quite controversial at times. Guess the whole thing would have gone unnoticed if I would not have asked for support or reported the incident as such. At times one can wait for days before an admin shows up. Blocking went astonishingly swift. It does give me the impression that content and quality of an article are of less interest though. I do work on other Wikipedias too,but if that is the state of affairs in the English Wikipedia its a sad state. --Catflap08 (talk) 16:44, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes in 3RR policy?[edit]

I can't see where policy has been slackened, can you enlighten me? I know there has been discussion about 3RR, but how has the policy actually changed? Dougweller (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Last year sometime, I believe. I just did a quick check of the policy page and found this, for example

Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 21:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
That seems to have been policy as long as I can recall. See this[27] which is 3 years old and isn't a basic change in that sentence anyway. We've been able to block for edit-warring that isn't 3RR for, again, as long as I remember. I still don't see evidence for your claim and I don't think your advice to that editor actually helped, sorry. Dougweller (talk) 13:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, I didn't mean not to be helpful, and I'm not as well versed in policy as you.
What I did recall was the following change of name of the noticeboard and related discussion. Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring/Archive_2#Proposal:_3RR_board_.E2.86.92_Edit_warring_board I don't have time to go through it, but the opening reads as follows

I have a proposal that I'd like to put out there. We've recently moved away from the technical restrictions of the three-revert rule, and began focussing on revert warring.

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:03, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Doug, sorry about that, I now see that the link I posted to is from a thread in 2008, but what I recall is a more recent discussion about that issue. I don't recall the context.
In any case, my basic advice to the retiring use was that learning policy--to a certain degree--and following dispute resolution was the only way to try and resolve disputes and the like here. In my experience, however, I have found that various policies are subject to being applied in an arbitrary manner at the whim of an administrator not willing to spend the time to look into a matter that would result in a more beneficial result for Wikipedia all the way around, including with respect to editor retention.
While I'm not necessarily saying that was the case in Catflap's block, I don't see where blocking him has served to further the interests of building an encyclopedia. It may cut down on the admin overhead, but if someone that is a good editor retires because of a perceived systemic imbalance in handling disputes, then maybe the system could use some adjusting. The other editor had violated various policies and not been held accountable, therefore the dispute escalated. I don't presume to have the answer to that type of problem, but is does seem to be a problem. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


Hi Ubikwit. I !voted for both the merge and the move. Do you think that's a legitimate thing to for me to have done? I prefer the merge, but if the merge fails, then there might still be a move. And, the new title (resulting from the move) might facilitate a renewed merge proposal later. That was my thinking, anyway, and I hope it was okay for me to !vote for both at once.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, good question. I don't know, but I hope so, because I did the same. I tried to follow that up with a comment that the merge should be undertaken henceforth, whereas if consensus is not gained there, then the next step is a move to the title you've suggested, probably followed by similar requests after the dust has settled, so to speak.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
You wrote (in the move discussion): "Support merge with 2014 Crimean crisis". That's fine if it's what you meant, but it's apparently not the same as !voting for both the merge and the move. It's more like a second !vote for the merge.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Thx.  :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)No problem. In fact, thanks for pointing that out.
I think that there is currently a level of detail that will become background noise once the scenario has resolved.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:41, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Soka Gakkai edit[edit]

Hi Ubikwit, You are right that those lines are from primary source let me summarize it into one sentence. But the next sentence which states "Like other Nichiren sects, the Soka Gakkai reveres the Lotus Sutra and considers repeatedly chanting its title in Japanese the road to happiness, material wealth, and enlightenment. is derogatory please dont remove the "citation needed" teg from that I wish to see that sentence in a better form. Naveen Reddy 16:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveen Reddy (talkcontribs)

Why did you remove the UNODA lines about disarmament they are not from the primary source its from : UN office of disarmament affairs" Naveen Reddy 16:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naveen Reddy (talkcontribs)
The lead is supposed to be a summary of what is in the article. What I was suggesting is that you add a statement about the organizations NGO status in the UN in the main body of the article. If it is not in the article, it shouldn't be in the lead. And even if you add it to the article, it would be too minor a point to simply repeat in full in the lead.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 23:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Gun control arbitration proposed decision[edit]

Hello. You have participated in the Gun control arbitration case, or are named as a party to it. Accordingly, you may wish to know that the committee is now voting on its decision for this case. The decision is being voted on at the Proposed decision page. Comments on the decision can be made at the Proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, AGK [•] 11:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


You may or may not have noticed, because the counts were added a few hours after you added evidence, but your evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics/Evidence is beyond the desired limits. Could you look into trimming? --S Philbrick(Talk) 00:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Ubikwit, I see a lot of diffs related to the Tea Party Movement. Since that case was arbitrated and decided, I don't think the ArbCom would (or should) consider them. I'm thinking of commenting about the case overlap on the Arbitration talk page. But I thought I'd give you a heads-up. I suggest you remove the TPM diffs and focus on non-TPM serious conduct dispute diffs. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I've already confirmed the scope with the arbitrators on the Evidence Talk page, but thanks for the heads up. I suggest you check the Evidence Talk page before posting whatever you intend to post.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:25, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I understand that the case was opened in part because of on-going edit disputes. (Duh – seems that the TPM arbitration did not solve all problems.) And I did not compare your diffs with the TPM arbitration time-line. If your diffs arose after the TPM decision, then they are good because they pertain to on-going disputes. But if the diffs come from a pre-TPM arbitration time frame, then I don't think they would be helpful. IMO, the current case is getting off to a bad start. If Arzel is a party, Arzel should be named as a party. (Same goes for other editors.) Also, you mention Phoenix and Winslow at the end of your evidence. FYI, P&W has been indeff'ed for using multiple accounts. – S. Rich (talk) 16:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Ubikwit, I've looked at the diffs you presented. They are regarding edits made before the TPM ArbCom issued a decision. What is the Politics Arbcom going to do with the diffs you presented – go back and issue a new decision or what? (Please note I am not commenting on whether the diffs present evidence pertinent to this case, only that they relate to the Tea Party Movement. IMO that case is over.) Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I have entered an opinion about the usefulness of your evidence, at the workshop analysis of evidence section. I intend to implement this opinion in around 48 hours, by removing your evidence submission, if you have not acted by then. Thank you. AGK [•] 12:37, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure whether you have disabled "pings" on Wikipedia, so please be aware that I have already replied to your last. AGK [•] 13:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, I didn't disable the ping function, but never was promoted to enable it. Where can I check that setting? --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 13:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Check out Preferences → Notifications (In particular, the "mention" item) S Philbrick(Talk) 15:47, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Winters used twice?[edit]

Do you not note that Winters now gets two separate mentions - although he is clearly a bit on the "fringe" on the Oligarchy topic? Collect (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, once for his work overall, and again in reference to the concept of "civil-oligarchy". You are aware that

"Jeffrey_A._Winters 2011 book Oligarchy was the 2012 winner of the American Political Science Association's Luebbert Award for the Best Book in Comparative politics.

Yet you characterize him as "clearly a bit on the fringe"?
The quote has again been removed, and I find that unacceptable, but will continue this discussion on the Talk page/edit summaries. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Absent cites showing his work is widely accepted - yes it is overuse to present the same person for the same viewpoint twice in one article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Plutocracy - Unions[edit]

You've already (fairly resoundingly) won this argument in my opinion ... don't gloat too much! To be honest I had already trawled (accidentally) the 'vigourous debate' on various pages about this subject before (attempting) to be peacemaker ... it also from the beginning puzzled me how ANY mass movement (other than inadvertently or by its failure), could possibly contribute to plutocratic drift. Take care. Pincrete (talk) 16:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks for taking an interest in this issue. I appreciate your comments and am glad that we basically agree with regard to the text.
I didn't mean to demonstrate a pretense to gloat, just to provide a convenient link to the paper and another brief quote.
This issue is at Arbcom now Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics/Evidence, in case you weren't aware of the case. I have asserted that the source has been misrepresented in that case, and will have to undertake a somewhat more thorough presentation of the paper during the Workshop phase where people usually participate in analyzing the presented evidence. I had already mentioned the two paragraphs posted to the Talk page there in the evidence posting. There is a little more context that will require some elaboration.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom evidence[edit]

I note that you adding evidence about Collect to the Arbcom which includes the very recent diffs to the articles & article talk pages that we are working on. (And IMO, the diffs do not represent serious misconduct.) Please note that "Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process..." used "where all other routes to resolve the conduct issues have failed,..." Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 16:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The Arbcom case is not about specific articles, but "US Politics", which is the topic area within which the relevant sections of the articles fall. Other editors have added evidence against Collect on different articles in the relevant topic area, also made very recently. Thank you.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 16:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Quick comment regarding [28]. There are a lot of areas and discussions where I might or might not comment. Just because I have not commented on Thenub314's Arbcom evidence does not mean my comments about your evidence are invalid. Maybe I don't have anything intelligent or worthwhile to say. Maybe I want to see where the discussion is heading before commenting. Maybe Thenub314's evidence is not worth commenting on. As for your evidence vis-a-vis Collect, I think it is weak and the Arbcom will not make any decisions about Collect based upon our current article talk page discourse. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
You may have been correct about my misinterpretation of AGK's reply to my request vis-a-vis TPM case evidence and what I posted concerning Arzel, but I think you are in the wrong about my posting evidence against Collect in relation to recent editing on articles falling under the scope of the case.
Moreover, what makes you think I should care whether or not you think my evidence about Collect is weak. Your opinion regarding the strength or weakness of the evidence is neither here nor there, as it is for the Committee to evaluate. Not only are you not a arbitrator, you are involved in the content disputes.
Your posts are increasingly demonstrating an imbalance in which I am beginning to see problems.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 07:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
You are right, it does not matter if I think your Collect evidence is weak. If it is strong, then your evidence will convince the committee. You said "I note that he hasn't raised the issue with respect to the evidence presented by Thenub314, so maybe this is just targeting me?" I was trying to address that thought -- I really haven't looked at Thenub's evidence. Nor have I raised the issue of EllenCT's evidence -- it is not worth the effort. – S. Rich (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
If you haven't already, I suggest looking at the comment that Sphilbrick (the Arbcom clerk) posted on Ellen & Victor's talk pages. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


check your email

Abcrom comments[edit]

I noted your comment here. The graph is not "self compiled" as you put it. If you had bothered to check the external link, you'd see it's a tax foundation graph I rebuilt instead of using a screen grab so that there would be no copyright issues. Please correct your comments and offer an apology.

It's not OR in the least and the tax foundation incorporated ITEPs calculations. I'll add that I did not make any changes to Lawrencekhoo's material in the article and kept my comments to the talk page. The last I checked, that does not constitute a "content dispute". It's called a talk page discussion.

As for personal experience in other countries, I used that as a rhetorical point to illustrate how Laurencehkoo's unsupported supposition that few other countries outside of the United States and Canada have local taxes, not that it should matter given his illogical inclusion of an argument against the the OECD study in the article. Ironically his additions to the article are original research. Neither source provided by Laurencehkoo discuss US taxes in a comparative global context. Mattnad (talk) 03:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Mattnad, I somewhat misunderstood the origins of the graph, and apologize for that. Since the graph has passed the copyright screening process at WP commons, it would be hard to imagine that it is WP:OR. Other issues are still somewhat unclear, so I've responded on the Workshop page to your comment there. A reply from LK on the article Talk page would help clear things up, as it is his sources and edit that have been deleted. I have to admit that I am not an economist, but Krugman's pieces are eminently readable.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 08:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Krugman's writings are accessible, so let me ask you something. In the cited Krugman article, does Krugman discuss the OECD study, or how the US compares overall on progressive taxes with other nations? If not, why should it brought up as a counterpoint to the OECD report?Mattnad (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, Krugman doesn't, but what the Krugman source does do is to support LK's assertion that the US tax system is essentially flat, making any statement about it being "the most progressive" in any measure something of a distortion in absolute terms insofar as "progressivity" goes. In the international context, therefore, what would it mean to be "the most progressive" when your system is only nominally so?
The discussion from there branched off into the code versus the other related factors, with what seemed to me to be a standoff on some points, so I thought that LK's edit was reasonable. I could also see including a prefacing statement along the lines of "While the US income tax code is among the most progressive by many,". I am unable to evaluate the claims in the document on the basis of which you made the graph and the graph in the doc cited by Krugam. Accordingly, if both are valid RS, then both POV's should be reflected in accord with WP:WEIGHT. Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑
Well, I'm not going debate Krugman's position that the tax system is flat, because I doubt even he says that. It's not as progressive as he'd like, but it's certainly progressive, even including payroll taxes (which are actually insurance or retirement programs that pay lower income people back more than they pay in, according to the CBO). What's more pertinent is that we have a reliable source (OECD) that says the US has the most progressive tax rates when compared to other nations. Krugman's comments only refer to the US with no comparison to other nations. So LK's citing Krugman in the context of international comparison is basically Apples and oranges. While I did not remove his changes to the article, I was hoping he'd respond to the talk page.Mattnad (talk) 20:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, I think that the content your referring to (added by LK) was reverted by VictorD7, and the relevant discussion is back on the article Talk page. Anyway, I was basically concerned about the use/misuse/dismissal of the sources in a way that seemed to exclude a valid POV. Looking at one revert and the related discussions is enough to dissuade me from pursuing this any further.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 20:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your arbcom evidence talk page comment, I think you should find an experienced editor you trust to discuss possible courses of action rather than posting something for the community to peruse. In the particular instance, the request for advice was too long and it ended up getting unwanted attention from Victor. (IMO, posting a short note that says "I request permission to post x diffs as evidence" is better. Elaborating on the on-going article talk page discussions is not helpful.) Another course of action to get advice is posting a {{Help me}} template on this page. – S. Rich (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 21:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

James T. Butts, Jr.[edit]

I saw that you were active at BLPN and was hoping I might draw your attention to this article RE BLP concerns. There is currently an ongoing discussion about the use of op-eds and primary sources for contentious material. I posted at BLPN here, but in the past I have seen my BLPN posts archived without discussion or remedy unless I ask editors to participate, like I'm doing now. CorporateM (Talk) 15:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Kagan - relevant portions of BLP policy[edit]

"Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment."

"The burden of evidence for any edit rests with the person who adds or restores material." <-- this burden has obviously not been met.

"Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is unsourced or poorly sourced" <-- opinion pieces constitute "poor sourcing"

"Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints"


"Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."


"Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Also see #7 [29].Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This discussion belongs on the article and BLP/N pages, not here.
You have already been reported for disruption, etc., at AN/I, and I suggest that you abide by consensus and not attempt to exaggerate certain vague aspects of BLP policy while ignoring others, particularly WP:PUBLICFIGURE.
Moreover, you are already aware that @Nomoskedasticity: has weighed in against your claims [30], yet you persist and make yet another revert.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
If you knew how many times I'd been "reported for disruption" and how many times those ended up in a WP:BOOMERANG you wouldn't be that excited about it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit, I think that your post on AN/I may have been flawed, because it had the effect of trying to draw the administrators into a content dispute, which they are not enthusiastic about. I have attempted to put together a request for intervention that focuses more on behavior issues, and you may have something to say about that: ( I see that Marek is boasting here on your page that he can get away with pretty much anything; I hope that is not really the case. Joe Bodacious (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Gernally speaking, I'm still trying to sort out the intermingling of content and conduct issues. -Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 09:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Nostalgia isn't as tasteful as it used to be![edit]

This is a TOTALLY un-editorish observation, but looking at 'your' Roosevelt quote : Of all forms of tyranny the least attractive and the most vulgar is the tyranny of mere wealth .... I couldn't help but wonder when it last was that a public figure using the word 'vulgar' would, not only be clearly understood as being disapproving, but also as expressing his UTTER distaste, also when last such a public figure using that word wouldn't immediately be the object of satirical sniggers ... especially if he was from a relatively priveleged background and hadn't mastered the art of hiding that background. How times change!!Pincrete (talk) 16:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Pincrete: an amusing observation. You have to hand it to TR for having the resolve and temerity to get the job done, even though he was from a privileged background, he had the "start from scratch" pioneer spirit. We have to raise the level of public discourse, a least to what it was back in the early 1900s, including the vocabulary.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


Your input at the Michael Wines section of WP:BLPN would be appreciated. Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

List of atheists in "Religion in Japan" article[edit]

Could you please explain your recent edit on the corr. talkpage JimRenge (talk) 18:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Replied at Talk page.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 19:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks JimRenge (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Trying to correct a misunderstanding[edit]

At the now-closed ANI thread, you said that I presented those two diffs as examples of misconduct on your part. I had actually only said that you had "spoken harshly", and I do not consider speaking harshly to be misconduct, at least not at the level of administrative action (obviously not best practice, but not, for example, a violation of NPA either). I wouldn't want you to think that I was asking for you to be blocked, because I wasn't. I hope that's clear. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, but there was a lot of tendentious bullshit going on in that thread for which some of the editors should be blocked. You shouldn't be so quick to make the appearance of taking sides in such a dispute without having read the reams of bullshit that led me to file at AN/I.
My "speaking harshly" was in response to the tendentiousness, and that eventually led to the filing of the AN/I complaint. This issue is probably no over yet, because it appears that there is a determined group of editors aiming at squelching what RT has to say about Ukraine, the USA, etc. I won't wait so long to file the next complaint, because in this case, new editors--including bobrayner--started coming out of the woodwork when it looked like the thread would be wound up with a reasonable consensus, and using language like "crap" to try and denigrate articles they didn't like because they didn't like it, and dumb down the thread to the lowest common dumbominator. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 23:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Just for the benefit of anybody else who stumbles across this talkpage and is at risk of taking Ubikwit's comments at face value, this "new editor" has been working on controversial topics for several years and has made 144 edits to WP:RSN. Which is rather more than Ubikwit. But if we're now ditching the allegations of bias, sockpuppetry &c in favour of canvassing, I'd love to see the evidence for that. bobrayner (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
What are you babbling about? When did I call you a "new editor"?
What the fuck do you mean about taking my comments at face value?
You showed up with an agenda on the RS/N thread, and I'm going to take you to task.
Stay away from this talk page.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 00:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You asked me at the now closed SPI page about whether you had done something wrong with the word "interlocution". No, I was responding to the other editor, who seemed to be quoting you as having said "interlocking". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, ok, that's funny. Time for me to get some sleep. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 00:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Yank Barry for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Yank Barry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yank Barry until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. - Cwobeel (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Voice of Russia[edit]

Are you sure Voice of Russia is connected to RT (TV network)? According to their WP article they are owned by International Information Agency Russia Today, but I don't belive they are connected in any way. Other than that I believe it's a quite simular and relevant discussion. Regards from Norway. Erlbaeko (talk) 09:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for pointing that out. They seem related, but maybe not directly connected. The same person, Margarita Simonyan, is director of both of them. For all intents and purposes at the RS/N discussion, it should be considered similar, as you suggest. If somebody complains, I'll remove that post. I think that the quote is a representative case in point.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks. Erlbaeko (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

clear edit war[edit]

This is an official warning that you are single-handedly at 4RR at The Shock Doctrine and you are urgently asked to self-revert on that article post-haste. You have reverted three separate editors, making your self-assertion of "consensus" quite suspect. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

ANEW notice as you requested[edit]

See WP:AN/EW as you demurred on any self-revert and actually asked that the report be filed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Ubikwit, please read my warning at WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
@BBb23: OK, I've read the warning, and will focus on contributing to the article constructively.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Warning regarding disruptive edits: read and heed WP:BRD[edit]

You appear to be making disruptive edits on the Oligarchy and Plutocracy articles, such as this edit removing sourced text.
Contrary to your assertion in your revert, subverting the BRD cycle, that there is no consensus on the Oligarchy article with respect to the material you have reverted, there is consensus and the text has been the subject of much discussion.Limestoneforest (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Making unsupported assertions about consensus established on the Talk page is disruptive of the consensus building process, and not a sign of collaborative editing. If there is evidence of this consensus to which you refer on both the oligarchy and plutocracy page, then it would (at the least) be incumbent on you to show me exactly where this consensus is. Limestoneforest (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Fuck off, troll.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
As it happens, I agree with that editor. But even when we don't agree, we should try to assume good faith. Please keep the language civil, even if it's on your own talk page.Mattnad (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
The editor copied the text I posted on their Talk page in a tit for tat mockery here.
And that was after ignoring what I'd written about the BRD cycle and reverting without discussion at the Talk page.
Don't show up here to preach to me about assuming good faith unless you've read the relevant discussion. As far as I'm concerned, the editor is a troll and is not welcome to comment here again.
You agree with that editor? What do you mean by that, exactly? With which edits on which page? All of the above?
If you think you agree with what that editor is doing, then why don't you try to explain his edits, or at least your interpretation of them, instead of coming here to condescendingly proselytize about good faith.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
That's a fucking good one. Your attempt at victimhood (for an argument that you started) is as hilarious as an arrested school shooter moaning about unfair treatment by the justice system.
"As far as I'm concerned, the editor is a troll and is not welcome to comment here again." If you couldn't take the heat, then you shouldn't have stepped in the kitchen. Limestoneforest (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
You are not welcome to comment here, troll.
Do so again and I'll report you at AN/I.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:38, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
For your own sake, don't report me to AN/I because the only thing that will happen is that it's going to boomerang back to you with the force of an edit block. That said, I've already sent the message that I needed to send so your talkpage won't be of any further use to me, although if you're still angry about this exchange, you're free to rant about it on my talkpage. Limestoneforest (talk) 16:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, Wimbledon is on[edit]

Erdbeerteller01.jpg My Grandad was from Kobe. Nothing else to say. Gregkaye (talk) 13:45, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Kobe has nice hills overlooking the sea. Like many places, it's somewhat overbuilt at present. Thanks for the refreshing strawberries.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at ANI[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

June 2014[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at History of the Jews in Nepal shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Thomas.W talk 18:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I see that you have not left such a warning at the User:Tomwsulcer's talk page, hich somewhat curious, especially since you have not taken part in the discussion.
As to your warning, what is the RR count at which you have posted this warning?
Since the only interaction I've had with you on Wikipedia has been at an An/I thread where you made a baseless accusation of WP:OWN, consider this a warning against behavior that might fall under WP:STALK.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I see now that you responded at the ANI thread, but still find your warning to be somewhat questionable.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 2 July[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


I apologize for my response to your posting at ANI. It was out of line and I regret it. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 01:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, apology accepted.
If you don't mind some advice, there is a lot more going on in the background on Wikipedia than meets the eye, and it takes time to see some of the patterns of interaction. If you aren't simply aiming to become an admin, you should probably restrict participation on the notice boards to topics that you are interested in so that you don't mind reading the background to the dispute. Only then can you form an informed opinion as to where the disputants stand in relation to the topic matter, and even more importantly at An/I, policy.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 07:13, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not misunderstand[edit]

Please do not interpret my Strong Oppose for the ban proposal as support for your participation at ANI. I agree with User:Volunteer Marek that your actions resemble battleground mentality. You are engaging in some areas with strong feelings, which often escalate, but that's just a good reason to try to avoid quick escalation. Do not assume everyone who disagrees with you is a bad person, do not jump to ANI whenever someone fails to accept your position. If you continue on the same path, I predict you will get banned, but I strongly oppose jumping the gun. In the same way I think you jump the gun too much, I see the community's reaction the same way. I'll say it again, I am not supporting your approach to things, but I do think we should urge you to take things a bit more calmly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the counsel.
Wikipedia has policies, and policy is supposed to regulate emotion when editing controversial topics. That is why it is important that policy be enforced uniformly, and not in a selective or arbitrary manner. I'm not here for social networking, but building an encyclopedia, and I do make an effort to be collegial.
When others stray from RS and NPOV in a case such as the article at issue, where a lot of fringe material was introduced in an attempt to influence an AfD discussion, it is not that I think the other editors disagree with me, it is that they are editing against policy. They can disagree with me all they like as long as they have RS to support their assertions.
In the ANI case at hand, I ignored the personal attacks in the AfD thread, but sometimes when you do that the person takes it as a license to continue. The article at hand is somewhat trivial, as Ravpapa has indicated, and I wouldn't want to let that jeopardize my ability to contribute to more important articles. It is somewhat disturbing that not a single admin has said a word to IZAK about the attacks.
I'm going to scale back editing Wikipedia for a while after I appeal a topic ban at AE. I have more important matters to attend to in real life, but will continue to monitor a few things here. --Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 14:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to History of the Jews in Nepal may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • [lemongrass]]". Nardostachys jatamansi is a spice grown in the Himalayas of Nepal, China and Iindia).<ref>{{cite book|last1=Groom|first1=Nigel|title=The new perfume handbook|date=1997|publisher=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yank Barry[edit]

As a favor to me, would you consider striking the word "inept" from your comments to Formerip. I don't know what interactions the two of you have had in the past, and I don't particularly care to know. But on that article in particular, I would like to have an exquisitely collegial atmosphere.

Much appreciated,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I thought I'd deleted that before clicking the save button.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 07:59, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
@Lesser Cartographies: OK, I've gone to great lengths to explain the concern with the use of "real" in this context, as a central issue related to the sourcing pertained to the distinction between the original band and the cover band and the conflation thereof. Please respond there, and let me know whether the RfC close should be challenged on a procedural basis, or whether FormerIP can amend/clarify it in the case, for example, that he hadn't read the archived thread to which I linked, etc.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 12:07, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

1) I assume you're familiar with ratio decidendi and obiter dictum. As far as the RFC is concerned, the ratio decidendi is Barry should not be identified as a former member of The Kingsmen in Wikipedia's voice. As best I can tell, you agree with that wholeheartedly. The rest is dicta. Coming out with metaphorical guns blazing ("you have no appreciable knowledge of intellectual property law", etc.) because you got the decision you wanted but without your preferred rationale is, as we say in the hills, borrowing trouble.

Editing here is an exercise in continuous compromise. RFCs are unusual in that there are well-defined winners and losers. If you've won on the merits, have the good grace not to insist on winning the dicta as well. If you establish a reputation as someone who compromises easily and often as without any fuss, other editors will (over time, on average) tend to be willing to make larger compromises in their positions when collaborating with you. On the other hand, if you establish a reputation of being unwilling to compromise, especially when you're right, then you'll end up accomplishing less, as there's no incentive for folks to compromise with you.

2) I find this particularly troubling: "The issue does not hinge on whether or not there was a decision handed down by the court, because the legal issue is clear and uncontested...". That's not what we do here, especially for WP:BLPs, and most especially for WP:BLPs who are looking for additional editors to fill out their John Doe roster in their active lawsuit. If there's a reliable source that says the legal issue is clear and uncontested, then we may be able to say that with attribution. And that's as far as we go. I'll point out, though, that the issue was unclear enough at the time that one group of people thought they could legally start a cover band, and another group of people thought otherwise. They had access to the contract. We don't. (It wouldn't surprise me at all that the controlling interest did own the copyrights, but decided it wasn't worthwhile fighting the issue in court. The music business has a well-deserved reputation for wonky contracts.)

3) As to cease and desist letters: they require the issuer to have $45 and a pulse (I may be exaggerating a bit; having a pulse is not strictly necessary). I can send you a c&d letter to stop violating my copyright in your posts; it doesn't follow from this that I have a copyright interest, or that you've violated it if I do. If you get to court, the existence of the letter may be helpful in demonstrating that you made the other party aware of their actions by a certain date, but that's about it. Even DMCA notices require good faith; a c&d doesn't even require that.

4) Finally, you've done a lot of good research here, and I respect both your thoroughness and your passion. I am also cognizant of your comment (far) above: "I am focused on creating content, not gaming the system". You might want to consider focusing less on content creation and more on being an effective editor (which has the nice side effect of making content creation a lot easier). Never belittle another editor ("I'm not understanding where you're coming from wrt copyright" comes across a lot nicer than "You don't understand copyright"). If someone attacks you, limit yourself to a neutral, one-sentence reply and let it go. If they keep attacking you, ask an admin to handle it. Take the extra time to whittle a 300-word reply down to a 60-word reply, and then wait a few hours before hitting "save page". It also doesn't hurt to say "thank you" and hand out a few compliments.

Is this gaming the system? Sure, if you want to look at it that way. But the best editors here aren't necessarily the best researchers; the best (in terms of effectiveness) are those that have figured out how to make other editors feel good about collaborating with them, even when they disagree. (Dennis Brown excels at this, if you're looking for an example.)

Just so you don't think I'm being sanctimonious, checkout Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prabhat Samgiita, where (as Garamond Lethe) I grabbed the debate with both hands and wouldn't let go. Was I right? Sure. Was I able to quote chapter and verse of policy? Absolutely. Am I proud of what I accomplished? No, not really. We cleaned out a lot of bad articles, but that wasn't worth the herculean efforts I put into refuting every argument that came up. I didn't like the person I was becoming, so I took a break and came back with a different nym. I'm still learning how to say less and when to say nothing, but I'm getting there.

And with that, I think I've trespassed on your patience more than enough.

With much respect,

Lesser Cartographies (talk) 18:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the cordial reply and editor advice based on a long history contributing here
As I mentioned above to Sphilbrick, I'm trying to wrap up a few loose ends here and take a break. I don't even remember how I got involved on that article, but it is not something I intend to spend more time on. At the same time, I don't want to see a point that much time and effort was spent on get obfuscated.
I would agree with regarding the "ratio decidendi", etc, but what follows that in some ways comes close to outright contradicting it.
The point about the cease and desist letter is that the cover band was disbanded after the letter was issued, no contest, therefore no issue. One editor put it in simple terms in his !vote in the RfC

Oppose. We have good sources that he was a member of a cover band organized by a party who lacked the rights to the name. At the time, tbough, Barry apparently thought, with reasonable cause, that he was a member of the Kingsmen. --John Nagle (talk) 20:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

If the distinction between the original (i.e., "real") band and the cover band (or whatever you want to call it) is lost, then there is a likelihood that the reality of the scenario is going to be misrepresented in the article. I don't think it was a good choice of wording to use in the close because it seems to call the distinction into question, whereas that is clearly refuted simply by the fact that the cease and desist letter was issued by the members of the original band in the first place.
There's one further point that people not familiar with "moral rights of the author" would not be aware of, and that is the fact that those rights cannot be transferred or violated by anyone, as I recall. In France, according to the Wikipedi article, the right are perpetual, inalienable, and imprescriptible. I'm not sure those are protected in the USA, and apparently not as strongly as in Europe, but the Berne Convention is in effect (though I now see that the US made some stipulations regarding the moral rights clauses). My understanding of the application of moral rights of the author in this scenario would be something like the law precludes the possibility of a band not comprising members of the original band to ever be presented or to represent themselves as the original band, regardless of whether the management has control over neighboring rights related to the bans music.
There is only one band called Radio Head, for example, and no other band will ever be permitted to represent themselves as the band Radio Head. A hundred cover bands playing radio head's music might come and go, but they will always be cover bands, even if they are employed by the management of the original band and that management has control of some of the neighboring rights associated with the bands music. (Maybe a UK band is not a good example, though, as I note that in the UK moral rights are: "economic, can be waived, must be asserted".) At any rate, that was one point of copyright law to which I was referring, maybe the provisions of Berne are weakened in the USA Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988. That doesn't change the fact that a cease and desist letter was issued and the cover band disbanded, though (some sort of rights were asserted by the original members of the band).
Anyway, I appreciate the camaraderie, and if you have further info on the applicability of moral rights in this case I'd be interested in hearing your comments and learning more about the issue, which I find to be intrinsically interesting.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 11:40, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Ubikwit, First, "moral rights" were not operative in American law at the time.[2] For an excellent example of how the US approximates moral rights using the Lanham Act, see Kingsmen v. K-Tel International Ltd.[3] Which isn't the only lawsuit the Kingsmen have been involved in, as you well know.[4] Given that background, "[it] is clearly refuted simply by the fact that the cease and desist letter was issued" doesn't seem to be to be very clear at all. When you start getting into the evolving legal definitions of what is a "band", who is a "member", and who owns which bits of copyright, royalties, and trademarks, there's very little information you can glean from a single c&d.
Complicating this further is wikipedia doesn't particularly care about the legal determination anyway. Taking your example: of course there can be a new band called "Radio Head". They probably can't establish a trademark and they may have a problem keeping any money they make after Radiohead sues them, but that wouldn't prevent them from gaining enough notoriety to get their own article and make several albums.
Ultimately, that illustrates what we're doing here. It's not up to us to determine if there was only ever one band called the Kingsmen, or two bands, or one band and a cover band, and who the members were and who owned what. We just summarize what's in reliable sources. Where the sources are silent, we should be as well. Where the sources are contradictory or incomplete, our articles should note the contradiction and not fill in the gaps. (And even this isn't the full story. WP:OR exists on a continuum, with some areas being verboten, some accepted, and a large, evolving gray area in the middle. But that's another sermon for another time....)
Anyway, I think I've exhausted my interest in the topic. Thanks for the excellent conversation.
Lesser Cartographies (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
It's a good thing I relied on WP sourcing policies instead of my half-baked understanding of IP law, especially as implemented in the US.
Fortunately the World Cup will be over soon, and I can catch up on some sleep...
I look forward to going through the paper on "Droit Moral" when I get the chance. That looks interesting.
Thank you for the excellent conversation and references.
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

FRB vote[edit]

Hi, I'm contacting everyone that contributed to the fractional reserve talk on banks as intermediaries because I added a little vote request as to how to proceed. Your input would be most welcome. Reissgo (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC case opened[edit]

You were recently recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Evidence. Please add your evidence by July 26, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Media Viewer RfC/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. Before adding evidence please review the scope of the case. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Reverted Dhammapada addition[edit]

Would you please explain why you reverted the Dhammapada page addition comparing Solomon and The Buddha's proverbs? Thanks. DavidBenjamin (talk) 16:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)DavidBenjamin

The material you added appears to be something you compiled by yourself, and that is not permitted on Wikipedia, according to the policy WP:NOR. If you know of a WP:RS that makes such a comparison, then please post the citation to the source.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 17:22, 29 July 2014 (UTC)