User talk:Unomi

Welcome!

Hello, Unomi! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - Eldereft (cont.) 01:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Aspartame controversy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Bad faith

This complaint is inappropriate. First, you are assuming bad faith and making false accusations about two good faith editors. Second, there is no 3RR on the part of Keepcalm. Finally, the noticeboard is not even close to the place to resolving your issues. You need to step back, review Wikipedia policy, starting with WP:NPOV, before you embarrass yourself any further. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you have this the wrong way around, bad faith was assumed on his part when he started deleting my edits without explaining his reasoning. I clearly explained why I thought the edits were appropriate and he never responded, merely kept deleting and eventually seemed to enlist the help of Tom Harrison who also made unjustified deletions. Unomi (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Please, do not repeat yourself on my talk page. I watch your page, and I'll answer here, as it clearly states at the top of my user talk--don't waste my time. And you are bordering on a personal attacks if you continue to accuse two editors of colluding. You have no proof of that, none whatsoever. Keepcalm has not even gotten close to 3RR. You are new around here, but you are getting really close to becoming problematic. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Cute. Unomi (talk) 23:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to assist in resolving this issue you should direct your efforts at spelling out clearly and precisely what it is you take issue with. Baiting will not help you. Unomi (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Aspartame controversy for inappropriate discussions you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Aspartame_controversy

Welcome to Wikipedia! I wouldn't recommend Aspartame_controversy as a good place to get your feet wet on Wikipedia. It's a toughie. The article isn't about aspartame -- it's about a controversy about aspartame. But don't let it scare you away from Wikipedia altogether. It would be easier to gain Wikipedia experience on easier articles.

There is quite a lot of controversy over Aspartame_controversy, and I don't know of any way to calm things down over there. I don't think there is a consensus there on what the article should be about, or even how an encyclopedia article should be structured. I stumbled into that hornet's nest with the vague notion that I could learn a bit about the controversy and make the article more NPOV. I soon stumbled back out again, convinced that I could not, at this time, reach my goal of improving that article by working to improve that article.

It seems to me that OrangeMarlin and KeepCalmAndCarryOn have become frustrated by their interaction with other editors of Aspartame_controversy. Both of these editors have a lot of experience editing contentious articles. You can find their signed comments on pages where discussion precedes administrative action. I have seen them make good points about biased and intransigent single-issue editors. Since you are a new editor who has only posted on a single topic, they may see you that way.

I hope your interaction with OrangeMarlin and KeepCalmAndCarryOn over at Talk:Aspartame_controversy won't make you feel less interested in working on Wikipedia. Certainly, they were not particularly gentle in their responses to your newbie transgressions. I do disagree with OrangeMarlin's assertion that "There is absolutely no reason to be civil or nice to you any further". I would choose to assume good faith. No doubt, they are interested only in improving the article.

You seem genuinely interested in improving the article. I am a newbie here myself. For what it's worth, here are my opinions.

• There is a dispute resolution process, but don't think you'll get the results you want by starting a formal process.
• Stick to the letter and the spirit of WP:EQ, WP:COOL, and WP:TALK. No matter what you may think of anyone else's behavior. On the article talk pages, stick to talk of how to improve the article. Avoid discussing the dispute. Discussions on how to resolve a dispute might fit better on personal talk pages.
• Sometimes, experienced editors aren't interested in explaining to a newcomer why a reference is or is not WP:RS. You may want to seek out members of verification projects as you gain experience.
• Assume good faith. If you adress other editors on their own talk pages, maintain WP:COOL. Let your words speak for themselves. Don't accuse anyone of unfairness, or bother to discuss anyone else's acussations of WikiLawyering or WikiBullying. Such discussions won't help resolve a dispute.
• Because your user page is not a good place to discuss proposed improvements to the article, I won't talk specifics about the article here. Here are some general thoughts on WP:OR and WP:RS.
  • I think User:Tom_harrison made a good point that primary sources are not always best.
  • It is pretty easy to read primary sources and draw your own conclusions. That would be synthesis. Which is WP:OR. Wikipedia should state the facts -- these sources say there is an aspartame controversy. The readers can go on to draw their own conclusions.
  • Articles on the Aspartame Controversy from generally-respected news organizations might be the most appropriate to document that there is a controversy.
  • Giving a lot of weight to the current back-and-forth in the peer-reviewed journals may be inappropriate. The work is obviously still underway, and drawing conclusions would be synthesis WP:OR. A small section summarizing "recent scientific work" might satisfy everyone's NPOV concerns.
  • It is not WP:OR to state the conclusions of GAO HRD-87-46. That report is a WP:RS.
  • It would be WP:OR to write the article to comment directly on the validity of the survey of 69 self-selected scientists in GAO HRD-87-46. That survey was the original research of the authors of the report, and was not subject to peer review.

Best of Luck to you! --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful comments and background information.

I must admit I was taken aback by the responses of User:orangemarlin et al. I also found it pretty funny that they would on one hand throw wiki tags at me without further explanation on how it applied, and then later accuse me of sock puppetry when I read them and used them. I have and continue to try to engage them in open discussion about how to move forward.

When I saw the line regarding the survey information I felt that it was poorly written, it was poor English, pure and simple. I tried to find ways where the information could be included in the least of contentious ways, which would be a simple table reproduced from the primary source.

The GAO87 is not used as a 'scientific study' it never claimed to be one. As the article already contained some of the survey information I figured that the inclusion of the survey was not contentious.

The 2 direct quotes that got the whole thing started are taken directly from GAO87 as statements of fact. It is hard to see how anyone who read the source document could have found it contentious.

I am considering getting further guidance on how GAO87 can be used as per wikipedia guidelines. Unomi (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

"XXX controversy" articles are more tricky than ordinary articles. They are not about "XXX" itself, but about the controversy. And they're controversial. You won't see everyone's best WP:EQ. You'll get a warped view of what a good Wikipedia collaboration ought to look like. Other editors are less likely to offer you gentle guidance. I think you've seen this already. OrangeMarlin and KeepCalmAndCarryOn spend a lot of effort defending articles against undue-overweighting from fringe POVs. They step in when the gentler souls have fled. They don't see themselves as school-teachers. No matter how you try, you may not get the type of discussion you want at Aspartame controversy.

Better to learn somewhere else. How about Peanut, or anything on the WP:WikiProject Citation cleanup list. Talk to any of the Citation Cleanup participants. Take a step back. Apologies again for offering unsolicited advice. Go learn, and enjoy. --SV Resolution(Talk) 19:40, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

A personal plea

Unomi,

I apologise for the alphabet soup that sometimes accompanies Wikipedia editing and disputes. It can be confusing, even annoying, for new editors. But it is also, often, the way we communicate. You were recognised as a new incarnation in a long line of socks at this article. That's partly why people didn't bother with niceties. Again, I apologise if everyone has been wrong about you and you are simply a new editor with an uncharacteristically advanced knowledge of Wikipedia editing.

At the moment, your single-purpose edits are viewed by other editors, including me, as tendentious and disruptive. Taking the same issue to multiple noticeboards is seen as "forum shopping", or trying until you get the answer (or an answer) you want. Reporting me for violating the three reversion rule (for a single reversion!), was puzzling, and you are fortunate nothing happened.

Please, if you want to be seen as anything other than a single-purpose, agenda-driven editor, take some time to reflect on your recent behaviour and take steps to change it. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to me; I accept and cherish your apology :)

I happen to be a computer programmer and deal often with wikistyle templates and have read my fair share of RFCs, while I am sure I still have much to learn, following the examples of others allowed me to apply the basics. I did not intend to report you for violating 3RR which you certainly did not, I wanted to report that we were embroiled in an editwar and I needed outside assistance in getting to the root cause of it(as none of the reverting parties were particularly talkative). As for 'forum shopping', I don't really think I did that, a number of issues seemed to be raised as is underscored by the number of wikitags thrown in the mix, these had to be resolved in different forums, I also had an unclear picture of where to go with these issues.

I am not quite sure what is entailed by 'Single-purpose, agenda-driven' editor, I knew nothing about aspartame or the surrounding controversy until a few days ago. As I've stated elsewhere, I happened to come across the Sweet Misery 'docu' and decided to read up on it wikipedia. I must admit I was surprised by the lack of a mention of it, as err, exists. I also decided to read some of the sources and came across some curious discrepancies compared to the Wikipedia article.

I would think that it is quite normal and natural that newcomers to wikipedia will find one initial article that they want to improve, rather than throwing themselves over a swath of articles all at once. I hope to later add and improve other articles but obviously this one has bogged me down for now.

Of course wikipedia will attract all kinds of folk, and not all will be able to improve or appreciate what wikipedia strives to be.

In my mind there are good and important reasons as to why Assume Good Faith, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV are important tenets of wikipedia. They need to be honored no matter what the situation, IMO. Perhaps down the road I will consider myself so great an authority and wikicitizen of sufficient standing that I will forget that these rules apply to me as well, but I sincerely hope not.

Returning to the aspertame controversy article: I will continue to work on it for the foreseeable future, I continue to hope that all involved work together to improve the article. This is not because I have vested interests or that I wish to push a certain POV, but simply because it is deeply problematic the way it is now, if I were sufficiently surprised at missing information to add it, then so (I hope) would others. Hopefully we can save them the effort and allow them to work on other aspects of wikipedia instead. I think the term WP:TEND is inappropriately directed at me, please see the second to last item listed under 'characteristics of problem editors'. As far as I remember, but correct me if I am wrong, the only information that I have tried to add has been well cited and pertinent. Also please see what [disruptive] means in this context and take a fresh look at the talk pages. Please let me know if you still feel that I was the one being disruptive or tendentious. I promise that I will take your further comments to heart.

Again, Thank you for your apology and taking the time to respond to me here, I hope that we will all laugh about this later :) Unomi (talk) 19:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Aspartame controversy for inappropriate discussions you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI

I have filed a report on your tendentious editing behavior here. I am also intending to add a sock report, since it is clear you are an abusive sock of one or more editors. That should be posted soon. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to bringing this drama to the appropriate authorities, I welcome the upcoming discussion. Unomi (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:NPA. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have read it, I am curious as to why you bring it up, perhaps you could clarify. By the way have you seen Civil? Unomi (talk) 05:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Please see this sockpuppet investigation.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, this should clear the matter up. Unomi (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Focus, Purpose, and goals at Aspartame controversy

The aspartame controversy is a pretty wild ride. The wikipedia article Aspartame controversy doesn't have to be so wild, even though it can state that things are pretty wild ... in the wild. Here are some questions. I don't need to know the answers. What is your goal at the article? If it is consistant with wikipedia policy, are there any actions you can take that will help you reach that goal?

Are you doing anything that is distracting you from reaching that goal? If so, are there other actions you could choose? You have considerable energy. How can you use it effectively? You only have the power to choose your own actions.

Have you ever observed a Wiki project or article where editors collaborated in a congenial fashion, used "this is not a vote"ing to spell things out and reach consensus? I was an editor at Wikijunior:Solar System when it first started up, until sometime in 2005. The work was sometimes frustrating, but people got along. They offered their opinion, voted, reached consensus, joined teams, and made progress. Of course, the level of controversy there was much lower. I think a non-controversial project would be an excellent place to observe and practice the ideals of wiki etiquette and working by consensus.

If you cannot reach your goal by working to reach your goal -- what is the purpose of your work? What is the sound of one hand clapping? Again, I don't need you to share the answers to any of these questions with me. --SV Resolution(Talk) 18:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I find that wikipedia is too important to simply 'give up'. There is no goal, only process. Sorry for the short answers but I am a bit pressed for time. Perhaps we can talk of this later. I am looking forwards to the 'new start'.

Don't sweat the small things. Without a goal or purpose, how do you know which process to implement? --SV Resolution(Talk) 00:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked - apparent sockpuppet of User:Immortale

This account is indefinitely blocked due to apparent sockpuppetry, operated by User:Immortale. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(block message removed following unblock - gwh)

{{unblock|Because I am not a sockpuppet. Please review the evidence, please run checkuser, this is frankly disconcerting}} Unomi (talk) 05:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

So checkuser was run, and it apparently came up :

For what it's worth, this is a really really really strong negative checkuser result. Does the sort of editing involved seem like that of someone going out of their way to be dishonest? Just a thought. (Only reason I'm here is I saw Unomi's unblock request.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 06:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Predictably, orangemarlin continues to hold that I am a sockpuppet based on

conclusive evidence of behavioral sockpuppetry 

The details of this evidence is unclear. Apparently it centers around the fact that I disagree with OMs POV and have imperfect sentence structure. I have tried to address some of the misapprehensions that OM at and others hold here. Unomi (talk) 07:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

A quick note: this user came to #wikipedia-en-unblock, and after cursory inspection of their edits, I'm not sure that Unomi is the same person as Immortale. A couple of things stand out to me:

• 08 March @ 21:53 by Immortale
• 08 March @ 21:54 by Unomi.

A little too overlapped yet manic for it to be the same person.

• newbie 3rr report.
• Similarities in talk page postings might be due to monkey-see-monkey-do of a new user trying to ascertain The Wikipedia Way, so to speak.
• Controversial articles tend to draw in more people, more frequently (and make them seem like new socks).
• Sharply different geolocation on the ips that were visible without checkuser.

Could still be a sock/meat of someone, or it could just be a new, quick-to-catch-on user. But, my initial guess is that at the very least Unomi != Immortale. Keep in mind, I'm also typing this while up late and in an WP:AGF mood, so I could be totally wrong. :P I'd support an unblock, though. I'd also suggest that the editor in question possibly consider undertaking edits elsewhere on the encyclopedia (the backlog? Maybe other controversial articles? :P), mainly to better establish an editing pattern outside of the given topic (and thus avoid allegations of sockpuppetry).

--slakr^\ talk / 07:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking

Checkuser evidence indicates that the behavioral identification I made above was likely a mistake. While it is not impossible that you and Immortale were somehow working together, the checkuser was emphatic that you're not anywhere close to each other.

Reexamining the evidence, while your cooperation with Immortale and behavior were extremely suspicious, I don't see enough cause to conclude that you have to be coordinating at a distance somehow if you really are some distance apart. While I am still suspicious about some behavioral similarities, we have a higher standard of evidence than mere suspicion, even by experienced administrators. I don't think I can meet any reasonable burden of proof versus a verified geographical distance between you two.

On that basis, I have unblocked both of your accounts. While your behavior raised eyebrows and caused me to investigate in more depth, if you really aren't coordinating with Immortale then there's nothing about the current behavior that requires an administrator to intervene at this time.

I apologize for the disruption the block caused.

I want to ask you to make an effort to cooperate with OrangeMarlin on a civil and constructive basis - there is obviously some pain and distrust there now. Hopefully you all can get past your mutual distrusts and cooperate on making the encyclopedia better.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict with unblock notice) FWIW, I strongly support an unblock. I have rarely seen such an unequivocally negative checkuser statement as that about Unomi, Karloff and Immortale at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unomi. As to disruption: The only disruption that I have seen on Talk:Aspartame controversy was that caused by the article's current owners: OrangeMarlin and Verbal. Their disruptive (to the point of childish) behaviour can be observed particularly well at Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-03/Aspartame controversy. It is evident that these two users have zero interest in reaching a consensus, presumably because consensus means something can be changed about the article and they are happy with the status quo. To prevent a consensus (or at least with that effect):

• they have endlessly repeated sockpuppet accusations in response to on-topic contributions by their opponents or attempts at reconciliation;
• they have told their opponents
  • that they need to obtain a consensus before editing,
  • that even if a consensus were reached it would be useless because a consensus can't trump policies,
  • that the particularly strict standard of WP:MEDRS applies to every aspect of this article about a controversy that was widely discussed in the popular media, and
  • that they are POV pushing;

none of this was supported by evidence that I could see;

• they have not addressed (AFAICT) the complaint that the article makes statements about a government document that are contradicted by a straightforward reading of the document itself, claiming that reading the document is original research and that it cannot be used because of WP:MEDRS.

This is probably not an exhaustive list. In any case, nobody should be blocked based only on repeated unfounded accusations that they are disruptive or a sockpuppet. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)