User talk:Good Olfactory

Oliver DeMille editing his own article

G.O. - I don't interact with a lot of administrators, but I remember communicating with you in the past. There has been a lot of back and forth between me and some other editors on the George Wythe University and Oliver DeMille articles. It appears one of these editors has a clear conflict of interest. This edit alone [1] appears to be near-conclusive evidence that User:Ibinthinkin is none other than the subject of the article himself, Oliver DeMille. Note the extremely detailed narrative of his high school years, complete with references to obscure newspaper clippings of the time. But the damning evidence comes in footnote 19, where he adds a deep link to a scanned image of his own college transcript, complete with social security number and everything. This transcript is not linked anywhere at the hosted website, and appears to have been added for the sole purpose of being referenced in the Wikipedia article. The site hosting the transcript is owned and run by Oliver DeMille (see http://www.tjedonline.com/about). I really don't know what the next step would be, or how to make a formal accusation. I've already accused Ibinthinkin of being a sockpuppet of User:4by40, but this is something different. Could you point me in the right direction? --TrustTruth (talk) 14:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it help if I approached the editor and said someone has expressed a concern about his edits on this article, and it is suspected that he is editing the article about himself? I could also point him to Wikipedia:Autobiography for his reference. Depending on whether he denies it or acknowledges it, then we can go from there? If you'd like met to do that, let me know and I can do so. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:22, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be awesome. Thanks a lot. (I have already brought this up with him, but we're in a messy back and forth.) --TrustTruth (talk) 23:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Alleged Conflict of Interest

GO: I appreciate the information regarding autobiographical editing. Your tone was absolutely friendly, supportive and respectful. You may detect in my response a little emotional strain, and I apologize in advance for this. It is not intended as disrespect or frustration toward you personally.

As I have stated repeatedly, I am not Oliver DeMille. It seems to me if Oliver DeMille had an interest in editing his article he would have done so a long time ago. Based on the discussion history, it has been problematic for POV for a very long time, and it has crossed the BLP line on numerous occasions and for an extended period. It's pretty clear that DeMille passes on Wikipedia-- and that's probably lucky, because it's arguable he might have had a case for libel.

I intimated on TrustTruth's talk page that I have had occasion to form a personal opinion of DeMille. As he is a living person who knows a lot of people, it is my understanding that that, in and of itself, should not disqualify me from being an editor. Let it be noted that TrustTruth has some pretty strong opinions of his/her own, which have repeatedly been cited as a problem for this article, which is, for heaven's sake, a biography of a living person and should be held to the very highest standard of regarding negative bias--and on that basis alone, it should be TrustTruth, and not me, who is being called to account here. If an editor is guilty of sensationalizing a BLP toward the positive, that's just crappy editing. If toward the negative, that's potentially libel. Really? I'm the one being discussed here?

And is anyone saying my edits are not neutral? My word, I even put in a link to a totally stinky polemic's site. DGG removed it because it was a blog, which I guess you can't do for a negative source. I'm not experienced enough to have calculated that error to reflect on me; I honestly was trying to represent the whole picture.

But back to the point: I'm not saying that a positive bias is necessary to bring balance here. I'm saying, just because I know something about Oliver DeMille shouldn't take me off the list of potential editors of his article. I think this would not be much of an encyclopedia if that were the benchmark for selection of users.

I have declared affirmatively that I signed up as a user with the original intent of improving the Oliver DeMille article (I have subsequently decided that I really like being a WP editor, so after this hubbub is over, I'm moving on to less controversial encounters with editing!!). What more full disclosure could be owing here? And, agreeing that I am not Oliver DeMille editing his own page without disclosing it, what difference does it make who I am? I am subject to the same standards of quality as any other editor, and am committed to the purpose of this forum, which TrustTruth demonstrably is not. I implore you to review my defense of sockpuppetry allegations [2] for more on this. I don't know what to do.

Other than the concern that I might be Oliver DeMille writing an autobiographical edit without disclosing his identity, is there any concern over the content or POV of my edits? I noted in the talk page several days before I undertook to do it that it was my intention to revise it completely, and supplied for review a sample of the type of revision I intended to make, requesting comment. I received one from 4by40 (which prompted TrustTruth to request an official investigation of sock-puppetry on me).

TrustTruth/TheRealGW (they are the same person--see the link I cited above) did not comment on the substance of the proposal, although he did ask why I felt it was necessary. I supplied previous comments from three different users enumerating the deficits of the article. He did not comment further, although I took my request for comment to his page, where we were interacting, and DGG's page, where we were interacting. I think a review of my interactions with him will show that I am sincere, and his with me, that he has tried on two occasions now to use administrative action to silence me, rather than to undertake to engage the discussion of what neutrality and format might look like in the article on Oliver DeMille.

Upon making my major revision, I immediately asked DGG (the administrator who had been overseeing concerns about the article--forgive me if I misspeak; I am not well-versed in the processes or lingo here) and asked for his review for quality and especially NPOV, specifically citing the concerns TrustTruth had raised over my neutrality--this because TrustTruth had not weighed in himself on the substance of my proposal. Is this not the type of quality control you would want from an editor? Even if I were Oliver DeMille (and again, I am not), what more would you have asked of him? (yeah, a disclosure that it's him--but anything else?)

To sum up: as I am not Oliver DeMille, is there any other concern for the content or quality of my editing? At what point does the review of TrustTruth and his reign of misinformation and intimidation result in action against him? He has repeatedly brought the battle to me, dodged my attempts to reason it out, made accusations about me, and taken administrative action against me. I offered to discuss our differences in private to try to buffer him from administrative scrutiny, as I had detected that his privileges as an editor were under review. He chose not only to do it all in the light of day, but to involve others. Fine. I will defend myself.

Please, GO. I don't know my rights here. What recourse do I have against his attacks? I had previously recommended (in my sock-puppetry defense) that he be retained as an editor with a ban from the articles where his bias has been a long-standing issue. I'm at a place now where I think that there is more than a lack of objectivity at issue. He's downright hostile, manipulative and dishonest. Please help me, if you can. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I took your advice and read up on the autobiography section. As far as I can tell, it would not be a violation for Oliver DeMille to edit his own article. It simply warns that an autobiographer would likely get fiercely edited for POV and OR. That being the case, what are we talking about here? 1. I'm not Oliver DeMille, and 2. if I were it wouldn't mean I couldn't edit; I would be subject to review of other editors. I'm already subject to the review of other editors, so again: what are we talking about here? --Ibinthinkin (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Responded at your talk page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:04, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I commented on your latest communique on my talk page. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The Strip

In your close of the Vegas category, where do you come down on the Las Vegas Strip? I favor including items on The Strip and McCarran Airport in Las Vegas, Nevada (as they are in unincorporated areas next to Las Vegas), and Vegaswikian doesn't. So which way should we go on this?--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ooo dear, I didn't realise there was a division of opinion on this particular issue of categorizing the specific articles. Since VW didn't respond there to your caveat statement, I kind of assumed he was going along with it. If you want my personal opinion, it may be of little value, since as I suggested I know little about the area and how locals would classify areas. But if both categories existed I would definitely place the two you mention in the "Las Vegas, Nevada" one, since as an outsider that's where I would expect them to be (per the examples you give in your CfD comment). But at the same time I can understand the VW rationale. Any chance of a compromise, and having them in both, or would that not work? Now that I more clearly understand VW's w.r.t. these articles, I can't say that there's a "consensus" for VW's position on them. Would it be helpful to re-list this for further discussion, or do you think it's an esoteric issue that we won't get any more comments on? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's stopping me from finishing out the city renames. I guess I'll just nominate all of them and see what happens.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

User:4by40 sockpuppetry

Thank you for your help on this. --TrustTruth (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

questions

"On the other hand, if you are in fact Oliver DeMille but you declare now that you are not, it is possible that there will be negative consequences in the future if it is later determined that you are in fact Oliver DeMille."--from Ibinthinkin's talk page

• 1) Is it the policy of Wikipedia that conflicts of interest must be declared? What "negative consequences" happen to a user who fails to declare his conflict of interest, beyond the consequences that would happen to him anyway as a result of repeated tendentious editing? 2) Isn't it true that, in any event, Wikipedia has no mechanism for ascertaining the real-life identity of any given user, in the absence of self-disclosure? So how could those "negative consequences" against an undeclared-COI user ever be enforced? 160.39.213.97 (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

(1) I don't think "must" would be the proper word. "Strongly encouraged" is probably more accurate. Hypothetically, if you are Oliver DeMille, the "negative consequences" that would result would not be because you failed to declare your COI, but rather because you lied to an admin when asked about a specific issue. (2) See the duck test; if a consensus between editors determines that someone has outright lied about their identity, it could be enough.

I'm curious though why you seem so interested/concerned in this issue. Since you are not Oliver DeMille, shouldn't all of this be irrelevant? I wanted to give you a final chance to declare whether you were or were not the person in question. You said you were not. Isn't that the end of it? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Good Ol'factory posted a copy of this discussion to my talk, I respond to this on my own talk page. --Ibinthinkin (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, GO. (And for the record, I am neither Oliver DeMille nor Ibinthinkin.) Could I ask a follow-up question though? You seem to suggest in your answer that lying to an admin is a offense that could have negative consequences (blocking?). Sure, our mothers told us never to lie, but is lying-to-an-admin a violation of Wikipedia policy? 160.39.213.97 (talk) 10:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're not Ibinthinkin, I'm not clear who this is and why you're at all concerned with asking me hypotheticals. But whatever—the answer to your question is that it would depend on all of the circumstances of the particular case. It's not practical to have an invariable "rule" about that, partially because of the inherent difficulty of proving definitively that someone has "lied". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are you speaking in generalities? Take the extreme case--suppose that Ibinthinkin really is Oliver DeMille, that he blatantly lied about this to an admin, and that he is eventually discovered. Would he be blocked or otherwise sanctioned? The reason I am asking you these questions is that I was concerned that your warning to Ibinthinkin was, to put it bluntly, both baseless and toothless. Your invocation of WP:DUCK partially answered the toothless part, but I'm still not clear on what the basis is, in Wikipedia policy, for your warning in the first place. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 14:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a hypothetical I'm not willing to entertain, mostly because it doesn't matter in this particular case. The user has said he is not DeMille, and until/unless further information comes out that suggests otherwise, consideration of the "what ifs" is irrelevant. At the end of the day, since you are not Ibinthinkin, it's also none of your business. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You're not getting my point, and I persist because it concerns your future behavior as an admin. Let me try to put it bluntly again: I think it is inappropriate for an admin to warn a user of "negative consequences" for lying about whether he is or is not a certain real-life person. Do you disagree? 160.39.213.97 (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, in certain contexts. No, in others. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

But what is the basis in Wikipedia policy for such a warning ever to be issued, under any circumstances? 160.39.213.97 (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

It would vary depending on the particular circumstances of the case. As I said, I'm not going to entertain hypothetical situations or discuss it in the abstract void of any particular (actual) circumstances. In the circumstances of this case, you may be misunderstanding the purpose of the request. It was made to allow the user to deny his association with a "real world" person to an admin. It was not done to positively ascertain his identity. He had already willingly made the denial to other users, and I was obtaining a final denial so that I could return to the other user and say, "see—he denies he is this person, so let's let this dispute drop." But as I've said, I don't see this as involving you in any way, and the dispute has been amicably settled, partially due to what I did, so there's really no live issue to discuss here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You are an admin, with the power to block. You warned a user that negative consequences could happen if he lied about whether he was a certain real-life person. You say your warning "was not done to positively ascertain his identity." Even so, the effect of your warning, had the user been DeMille, would have been to force him to self-identify or face "negative consequences." Because you haven't pointed to any basis in policy for such a warning, I continue to think it inappropriate. Background circumstances of this particular case and your purpose to resolve the underlying dispute are, as far as I can tell, irrelevant to the question of whether issuing this warning was justified. Issuing such a warning--again, as far as I can tell--is never justified.

It's clear I'm not going to convince you, so I'll let this drop now too. I only hope that going forward, you would refrain from issuing warnings like this again. Policy, as I read it, never sanctions an admin to coerce a declaration of COI, let alone of a confirmation or denial of being a certain RL person. As I said, I will drop this now, but I hope experienced users or admins who are watching this page will weigh in on whether your warning was appropriate--again, not to protract this particular dispute involving Ibinthinkin, but to guide your behavior as an admin in the future. 160.39.213.97 (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:Vice

Hi, regarding "I'm more concerned here that the closer was the same user as the nominator!":
If that's also breaking a rule, I apologize for that as well. I thought I was correctly following the recipe in WP:CDP, linked from WP:CFD, which appear to imply that it's the nominator's responsibility to close off the case they began.
As I mentioned, it seems some CDP clarification is called for... Thanks, —EqualRights (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, perhaps. The page does link to Wikipedia:Deletion process, which in the lead states, "People should not close discussions in which they have been involved. To do so presents a conflict of interest." Maybe that needs to be added to CDP. I'm not thinking you did this in bad faith or anything, and you're big to be able to admit a mistake. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Gulp, it sure does. Well, I have no further deletion plans, but I definitely know what (not) to do next time. Thanks, —EqualRights (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You'll probably be fine. Probably the worst that could happen is someone could ask for your close decision to be reviewed at WP:DRV, and the discussion might be re-opened for an uninvolved closer to assess and close. But unless someone specifically takes the initiative to do this, nothing will happen. I don't foresee that happening—I'm not going to be doing it, at least. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

For future reference

• AN/I thread

For future reference. I also updated your archived notes. - jc37 10:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Had I known about it I might have contributed a word or two, but at this point it seems like a futile cause. Next time, I'll just block, I guess. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Cat:American Neoconservatives

Why did you delete this category? There was NO MENTION of a previous vategory being deleted called "American Neoconservatives". You have just ruined hours of good faith work. Please tell me where I can appeal against this. Vexorg (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

furthermore you didn't even bother to speak to me first before deleting it Vexorg (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

The "neoconservatives" category has been deleted a number of times after formal discussions, so I validly deleted it under speedy deletion general criterion #4. Doing so requires no permission or notification of the creator. Deleting it also does not imply any bad faith edits on your part. Appeals of deletions can be lodged at WP:DRV. For your reference:

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_26#Category:Neoconservatives

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_7#Category:Neoconservatives — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:American conservatives has also been deleted multiple times. Postdlf (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes; I should have mentioned that as well. Links to those available upon request. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I've seen that. That was 'neoconservatives' not 'American neoconservatives' so therefore there was no notice telling me of this previous deletion. In view of that you should have at least, out of courtesy spoken to me about it, and really put up a deletion review. Furthermore only 3 people commented on the review of 'neoconservatives' which IMO is hardly any kind of serious consensus. Vexorg (talk) 23:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Category:American conservatives is not Category:American Neoconservatives - two different things Vexorg (talk)

If you really want it put up for discussion, I will. But judging from the repeated deletion of "American conservatives", "neoconservatives", "Iranian conservatives", "Jewish American conservatives", etc., etc., I just don't think there's much of a question that it will ultimately be deleted, just as the others were. See the comments below by Postdlf for the reasoning. Let me know what you'd like done. (Incidentally, even if a category for American neoconservatives had been deleted previously, you still would not have seen the notice of previous deletion, because you capitalized "Neoconservatives". The proper name for the category would have been Category:American neoconservatives.)Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to continue to butt in, Vexorg, but while we're on the subject, a good general consideration regarding characterizations of political orientations is that they are just that—characterizations. These can never be considered objective fact; there's no way to identify a neocon under a microscope. Instead, it's all a matter of self-identification or applied labels, so you can state within an article that someone identifies as a neoconservative or is regarded as one by others. It is just simply never a matter of "is" or "is not". And that's one of the reasons why political characterizations are not used for categories. Postdlf (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

neoconservatism is notable and defined enough. There are plenty of sources to verify someone is a neoconservative and many self identify. I disagree with your premise. Vexorg (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you misunderstand my premise. It's not a question of whether neoconservatism is a notable or defined concept. It's a question of what such political labels mean generally. Finding sources that call someone a neoconservative does not establish that someone "is" one, any more than a source calling Obama a "moderate" or "liberal" establishes that he is such a thing. But he either is or isn't the President. Postdlf (talk) 23:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't get this logic. If a wide range of reputable sources agree that a person is a neoconservative, in what meaningful sense is the person not a neoconservative? Michael Ledeen's article describes him as a neoconservative. Ditto Paul Wolfowitz and Norman Podhoretz. By your logic, shouldn't we remove the relevant text from those articles? And for that matter we have categories like Category:American socialists and Category:American feminists to which your argument theoretically also applies; should we delete them?

Sorry to carry on this discussion on your talk page, Good Ol'factory. I understand and respect the reasoning behind your deletion. But this isn't the first time I've seen perfectly reasonable and useful categories deleted without real consensus. Jd4v15 (talk) 00:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem with using this space. I think confusion can result from equating article space and the application of categories. There are countless things that can be mentioned in an article that we wouldn't want to categorize. The reasons Postdlf gives are a reason not to categorize, but not a reason to not mention it in the article. (Man, if you can figure out that last sentence of mine ....) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:02, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

But the deletion of Category:Neoconservatives was just used as a rationale for changing the Michael Ledeen article so that it no longer refers to Ledeen as a neoconservative: [3]. I get the distinction you're making, but I don't think it's clear-cut, and deleting the category clearly has ramifications for what you can say in an article. I also made a few other points that you haven't addressed (a wide range of reputable sources find the label acceptable, and other categories exist which by the same logic ought to be eliminated); if you or Postdlf is willing, I'd very much appreciate a response to those points. Jd4v15 (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Why are you closing CFD discussions without consensus?

You recently closed a number of CfD discussions (here's one) where consensus was not reached. 2 in support of the nomination and 2 opposed does not constitute consensus. In support of your decision, you put up a note to say that this has been discussed elsewhere and so you're in essense disregarding the discussion of the category at hand. The discussion you direct people to is here, where the result of THAT discussion was 2 in support and 2 against. I fail to see where you justify any of those discussions resulted in a consensus to rename.--ABIJXY (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

First off, consensus is never reached by vote counting. Second, there are many other discussions used as precedent for such a move besides the one GO links to. Per WP:CON, Consensus decisions in specific cases do not automatically override consensus on a wider scale --Kbdank71 20:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. And note that the one I linked to was not linked as proof of the previous consensus; I was merely linking to incorporate the comments I made there into the other discussion. And if you are "vote counting", you're miscounting. I see 3 votes in favor, 2 against (in both). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Northwest Territories

There's never been a very strong consensus either way as to whether categories should be named "Northwest Territories" or "the Northwest Territories", to the best of my knowledge. I don't particularly believe the word "the" is necessary, though I suppose YMMV. Bearcat (talk) 12:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I was just going by Wikipedia:CANSTYLE#Territories. But I'm not sure how well that reflects consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Cancer deaths in Korea

Touché Are all these country categories inclusive of ancient kingdoms? It's not like we have Category:Cancer deaths in the Abyssinian Empire in addition to ...in Ethiopia, ...in Eritrea, ...in Djibouti, etc. I don't see why Korea gets a pass. That having been said, your point is well taken, as Korea has been a country. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

They are not inclusive that I know of. I wouldn't assume them to be, since we have one for the Soviet Union. Though not for cancer, we do also have similar categories for Czechoslovakia. But you're right that it could get out of hand, and I don't think we'd need one for Abyssinian Empire unless we had a number of articles to so categorize. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm

Thankfully this talk page is no longer on my watchlist, btw the Indonesian states created in XXXX i notice they are red cats - I do hope you are going to actually make them valid categories before you are off line :) SatuSuro 03:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC) also Principality of Hutt River was never a valid legal entity either - as far as I can remember - so what it has as categories are indeed open to question SatuSuro 03:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to delete any redlinked ones that remain now. I was adding them thinking I would create the category, but I only create the category if there are a few that have been added. They will eventually be created, and I'll come back to the redlinked years later, but for the time being the category could be removed because I'm not going to be working on this for the next few days. I don't think I left any hanging although there may be one from the 2000s, I can't remember. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of the scheme is that it applies to any unit that claimed to be an establishment of a state or territory, regardless of the legality. That way we can mostly avoid POV problems in deciding whether or not to categorize. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good - 'that claimed' - sounds like a good way to operate it - thanks for responding - enjoy the break :) SatuSuro 12:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

May I get you some Bactine?

I see you've been on the receiving end of a little prick. Otto4711 (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

State Establishments

Why exactly don't you leave them as is, or at the very least leave the old one? The new one is ridiculously limited; what good are all of these categories when most only have 1 entry? --Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:03, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

They will soon have more. Don't worry. I'm working on it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There's only 50 states, and many were not established in the same years. In fact, the max any of these categories is going to have is 8, and twenty seven will have only one. It's an absolutely pointless change which only serves to seclude the category contents, with no tangible benefit or enhanced adherence to policy. What is your proposed reasoning for the change? --Human.v2.0 (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

The scheme is not limited to U.S. states. It includes all past and present sovereign states, as well as non-sovereign territories around the world. There are thousands of relevant articles, so your above points are not relevant as far as the scope of the category is concerned. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Good catch

I did a bit more reading, and was about to revert myself. Thanks anyway. :) TheAE talk/sign 03:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I find the distinction a bit weird too. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

List of fictional religions

Hi, Could I ask you to keep an eye on List of fictional religions where there's been repeated adding of Mormonism by an ip user from internet.co.nz, please? Here's the history. I'm off on rl holiday until early May.--Cavrdg (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Tiramisoo

Is back: Supergeekfreak (talk · contribs). Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Yup—looks like it to me. Thanks for keeping me updated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Gibraltar

I removed the category 'territories established in 1713' as it does not really fit. Although that was the date of the Treaty of Utrecht, British Gibraltar predates that considerably, and the territory was identified as Gibraltar prior to its capture in 1704. So its rather complicated ! The ToU was simply the legitimisation of a previous conquest, although the Spanish still argue they never did any such thing. --Gibnews (talk) 17:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks; I'm sure you know more about it than me. :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Cayman Islands

My first edit was about Helsinki. I see that Cayman Islands has had page protection for a year. It's a nice article with little edit warring or vandalism. It may be good to end page protection. It doesn't affect me but if Helsinki were page protected, I would have given up and not edited. But it wasn't. Since then, I've corrected a few errors in other articles that wouldn't have been done had Helsinki been padlocked. Do what you think is best; this is just a suggestion. User F203 (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

They are both just protected from being moved. Anyone can edit either article, as far as I can see. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Otto4711's chronic incivility problem

To pull some of your remarks from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 17: "(5) how do you know I or any other editor "routinely overlooks" Otto's incivility? For all you know, I've already dealt with the issue over email, or I'm dealing with the issue right now over e-mail, or I'm prepping some on-WP comments/actions as we speak, or, or, or .... It's kind of a pointless game to try to guess at how others regard certain behaviour. (6) All I can suggest for your personal feelings is that if another editor is rude to you personally, ignore him."

Every time a cop pulls me over, I get a ticket; The cop looks at my driving record and sees I've gotten previous tickets and won't cut me any slack the next time I have a police car with its lights on behind mine. My wife gets pulled over just as often, but every time she gets pulled over, the cop checks her record and sends her off with a warning, and the same thing happens the next time around.

We have the same problem here with Otto. I have no idea what you've done, if anything, to deal with one of the worst incivility problems I've ever seen on Wikipedia, one that makes anything I've ever said or done pale in comparison. You have seen the clearest examples of incivility from Otto -- calling me and others an "asshole", their views as "bullshit" and most recently telling me to "shut up" and calling me "arrogant" -- but have never, to my knowledge, left any public warning of incivility on his user page. While I'm sure that the possibility exists that you've sent a warning by email, the warning is worthless. Any other admin looking at his record then gets the false and misleading impression that his record is clean. Yet you have had no problem whatsoever in finding mere trivialities in comparison to Otto's to justify a block.

I find it extremely difficult to accept the ILIKEIT / IHATEIT approach that leads to wildly varying results at CfD, based on justifications that have no relevance to each other. The "rules" (such as they exist) appear to be applied with near complete randomness, based on the personal biases of editors. Unfortunately, Wikipedia "justice" appears to be applied with no more consistency. By failing to publicly address Otto's blatant incivility, it appears to me that you only encourage it. I assume you suggested that Otto lay low for a few days and make a greater effort to control himself, but he only jumps back in with more of the same incivility and personal attacks; Nothing has been solved, and Otto is only emboldened for some more incivility. And if you truly believe that the only response to incivility is to turn the other cheek (or as you state, "if another editor is rude to you personally, ignore him"), I fail to understand why you can't abide by your own adage when it comes to those who disagree with you.

As an attorney in academia and as a Wikipedia officer of the court, I am sure that you can understand that any system -- whether it be a legal system, Categories for Discussion or administrative blocks in Wikipedia -- can only have any measure of community acceptance if there exists a consistent set of rules and regulations that is applied on a consistent basis. The evidence, as I see it, is that CfD has little credibility as a consistent system, and the administrative approach to incivility is not much better. In both cases, you are the person best suited to achieving some much-needed balance. Alansohn (talk) 05:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've read this. I don't really have time to respond in detail right now as I'm going offline, but I hope to come back to it later. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Response

Where to start on this? You're really talking about two different issues here, though I see you've tied them together somewhat in your comment. I'll address the CfD issues first, then the Otto issue.

CfD issue

I think you're right to find it difficult to accept many editors' approaches in CfD. Most editors that I've talked to about it do as well; I do too. As you know, Wikipedia is ultimately ruled by people, not by rules. A consensus of users can pretty much overrule any WP guideline, and there are very few policies that are non-negotiable. In CfD, there are not really any "non-negotiables": everything is up for grabs. That can lead to problematic results, of course, particularly if (as you say) participants are basing their comments simply on whether they like a category, or don't like it, or other biases, etc. But at the end of the day, any editor can express their opinion and give the reasons that they want. Sometimes the reasons are based on the guidelines; sometimes not. But if enough people want to keep (or delete) a category, the category will be kept (or deleted), regardless of the strength of the arguments used. I'm not saying vote counting is or should be used—but it's just a recognition of the reality that ultimately there comes a point where overwhelming numbers will carry the day, whether it occurs at CfD or DRV.

I'm sure you know all this, but it's worth being reminded of it. CfD does not operate like a court of law, with strict rules that are not deviated from. (I track CfD cases for my own use in helping me remember what consensus decisions have been made in the past. I've never claimed that my lists at User:Good Olfactory/CFD and User:Good Olfactory/CFR are anything other than personal lists. (The CFR ones should make that clear, since I track only the rename subjects of particular interest to me.) They are not official WP guideline lists, which is why they are in my personal space and not in a WP space. But I use them because they help organize my thoughts as I approach CfDs. It's also true that others are free to use them for any purpose they wish to use them for, but no one is ever compelled to use them or acknowledge that they are somehow authoritative. It's just part of my approach; it doesn't mean it's the one and only correct approach.)

Thus, if you or anyone else is concerned that the CfD "system" (such as it is) "little credibility as a consistent system", I say—"Welcome to Wikipedia!—I'm glad you've recognized how it all works!". This is not a perfect system. It is probably not as effective or efficient as a court of law, and courts of law in many jurisdictions are not very effective or efficient. But at the heart of your complaint is a dissatisfaction with the underlying principle of rule by consensus—it's nothing inherent in CfD that doesn't also exist elsewhere in WP. (Why do you think so many people have sincerely suggested at various times that there are different types of "cabals" that control certain aspects of or topics in Wikipedia? CfD is not unique in this regard.)

What can be done, then? One person can only do so much, of course; I just try to contribute my part. All my contributions at CfD are done as good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia, as are (I believe) the vast majority of editors' efforts there. I can't name a single editor who regularly participates there who I would ever accuse of having any ultimate motive other than to improve WP. The fact that editors differ in their approaches in how to achieve the betterment of WP is unavoidable, though. That's the rub. And it will continue to rub, so I wouldn't hold your breath for any great meeting of the minds to suddenly occur there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Your remarks only further undermine the credibility of the system you administer. I have no "dissatisfaction with the underlying principle of rule by consensus", which would lean towards counting votes consistently in all cases. The system we actually have has admins counting votes in some situations and then has closing admins toss out clear consensus when the claim is that it disagrees with "guidelines" that are said to contradict consensus. In other words ILIKEIT / IHATEIT in action. It is very hard to take seriously a statement that "All my contributions at CfD are done as good faith efforts to improve Wikipedia" when you describe the justification for your vote here as "the thought of an editor hawking this solitary result ad infinitum as a 'unanimous' so-called endorsement of some questionable principles of 'precedent' is more troubling than the prospect of actually having to keep the category around. Hence I dissent". I hoped that you would deal with the issue of consistency, knowing full well that your alternate choice was to do nothing. I never anticipated a third option of seeing you casting a vote out of spite, solely as part of an effort to undermine a unanimous vote from good faith participants. Alansohn (talk) 13:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You can take seriously whatever you like and assume bad faith where you like. I've noticed a trend in that regard, however. Once again you've taken an isolated quote from my entire reasons for deletion out of its context, thereby suggesting that the reason you quoted was my only reason to be in favor of deletion. Nice try, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You describe your own actions as being taken primarily out of pure spite. If you can provide a good faith explanation for your actions in stating here that "the thought of an editor hawking this solitary result ad infinitum as a 'unanimous' so-called endorsement of some questionable principles of 'precedent' is more troubling than the prospect of actually having to keep the category around. Hence I dissent", please share the explanation with all of us. Far from an "isolated quote", you offer it as your primary reason. Alansohn (talk) 00:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You assume too much. It is not my primary reason. My primary reason is the first thing I say, which you keep leaving out. The criteria is subjective. The other is supplementary. I've no compunction about saying it's how I feel. It should give you a good idea of how others generally react to your approach. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe the term is "hoisted by your own petard". I can't stop you from thinking about taking actions out of spite, but when you put that down as a reason, even one of many, the question of absence of good faith seems rather obvious. If you can explain this statement, I'm all ears. Alansohn (talk) 00:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a reflection of how I (and others) have come to view you. People have feelings, even about you. As I said, I've no problem with airing them. Do you want to know more? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Otto issue

First of all, my comment that you should ignore Otto were prefaced by the following phrase: "All I can suggest for your personal feelings is that if another editor is rude to you personally ...". You left out this part of my comment, and thereby attempted to use it against me by stating, "I fail to understand why you can't abide by your own adage when it comes to those who disagree with you." I don't always ignore comments that conflict with my own opinions, but in general I'm also not personally hurt by the comments! The whole point of what I said was not to simply ignore all other editors and what they say, and that you shouldn't have any dialogue with anyone—rather, it was that if another user says something that upsets you or hurts you, ignore it. That's just my advice, though. You don't have to take it. I've been upset by others' comments about me in the past. Sometimes I have ignored it, sometimes not. But just because an advice giver is not perfect doesn't mean it's not good advice. And maybe it's not even "good" advice. It's just advice. If you don't like it, just don't do it. No need to tell me it's bad advice.

But on to the substance of your comment—my reading of your message as a whole is that you are, essentially, advocating for a block to be imposed on User:Otto4711. You're concerned that as compared to him you've been treated more harshly and there has not been equitable treatment. You've been blocked; you think he should be blocked.

Generally, I give very little heed to any user who approaches me to advocate for a block of another user. I find that almost invariably such requests are motivated by the tit-for-tat approach of "equal WP justice". You're free to advocate for a block all you want to whomever you want, but doing so will not be the motivation for me to impose a block. You called me a "a Wikipedia officer of the court". I reject that designation, because there is no standardized Wikipedia "justice system" or "penal system". "Equal WP justice" is a fable. I don't know who made it up, and I have no idea why. I suppose it's an admirable ideal to strive for, but I'm not going to strive for it by handing out my blocks for "balance" or "consistency".

After my spectacular failure several months ago when I tried to "help" both you and Otto, only to have my good faith effort thrown back into my face for its lack of "equal justice", I have given up on trying to bring any sort of resolution between you and Otto. I don't care if you get along or not. I hardly ever block users for reasons related to incivility, but when a user is on an officially-imposed editing restriction, as you are, I am far more likely to act. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have never asked for a block for anyone; I have only asked for consistency. Your vote made out of pure spite here speaks volumes about your approach to fairness and consistency. Alansohn (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

If Otto was under an editing ban, then I would likely treat you "more equally" in your eyes. Since he is not, I do not. But perhaps you could tell me what you are asking for, then, specifically. What is it you want? If not a block on Otto, then what? And let's be specific. No platitudes about "equal WP justice", because as I said, there is no such thing and it doesn't help us know what we should actually do. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The same circular logic the cop uses; I've never given even a warning to Otto for his blatant civility which was swept under the rug, therefore he has a clean record, so the newest example of blatant incivility on Otto's part can be ignored. The complete and utter failure of any admin to take any public action to deal with the Otto problem only perpetuates and enables it. Are you actually OK with any editor calling someone else an "asshole" or pushing "bullshit" opinions? Alansohn (talk) 00:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

So, what is it you are asking for? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

To start dealing with the Otto problem publicly, in some vaguely consistent fashion. Or to just say that you won't deal with Otto's chronic incivility problem. Alansohn (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Specifics? What do you want me to do? If you can't offer anything apart from generalities, then I'll assume you just wanted a tit for tat, which was my initial impression. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(Incidentally, in the name of full disclosure I notified Otto that this conversation was being had.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Fictional religion.

In which case Religions such as Jedi, Sith from starwars, Origin from stargate, And many other Fictional religions should not be in the list as there are people who sincerly practice them. Scientology as everyone knows, and scientologists acknoledge, was made up as fiction, The creator declaired himself that he simply made it up. Just because some whackos wish to play a fool and practice it, does not change the fact it is fiction. Okay, Ill give you mormonism. But to remove scientology, means removing most of them, as I guarentee, most of them are practiced by someone. 210.185.5.18 (talk) 11:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You'll "give me" Mormonism but then you'll add it back to the list? And you'll add Scientology even though multiple editors have disagreed with your adding it to the list again and again? The page has been semiprotected so that the persistent vandalism to it will stop. Find me a notable group that practices "Neptuanism" as seen on Spongebob Squarepants and perhaps I'll agree that you have a point. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not say ALL, I said most. And I added mormonism back only because I was lazy and just hit undo. It is not vandalism if one is puting ligitimate infomation in. Fiction is fiction, regardless of what people choose to make of it. If I chose to Practice "Neptuanism", Would that make it any less fictional? No. 210.185.5.18 (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

To just argue that Scientology belongs because "fiction is fiction" is not convincing. And yes, your edits would be considered vandalism when they are opposed by multiple editors. At the very least they have been disruptive, which is a good enough reason to protect the page. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

No, I argue it shouldn't be there because it originated with known fiction. It is a fact that he made it up. he stated that himself, If the fact that it is practiced is reason not to include it then the same reason would be enough to disclude Origin, Sith, Jedi, Bajoran, Goa'uld, D'ni and all the many other religions practiced that originate from known fiction. I have nothing against the religions in question, I list them as fiction due to the fact that they are fiction. You cannot state one is okay to list but another is not, when they are in the exact same situation, It's okay to list Jedi, despite the fact MANY sencearly practice it, And yet not okay to list scientology for the same reason? Double standards. Absaloute hypocracy!210.185.9.115 (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you attempt to gain a consensus for your views on the talk page of the article. Then you can add Scientology if there is a consensus agreement with you. I wouldn't count on it happening, though. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Counselors in Presiding Bishopric

Thanks for your comments regarding those called as counselors in the presiding bishopric. It does make for an interesting thought or discussion, one that I can see a couple ways. So, this comment is intended to get your discussion thoughts.

I guess it might depend on how "called by" is to be interpreted. As you implied, the Presiding Bishop has opportunity to recommend who might serve with him as counselors. That recommendation is then approved by the First Presidency, with the call then extended by a member of the First Presidency. So, who really "called" them? The one that recommended them to serve or the one who has the authority to extend the call?

The Presiding Bishop also doesn't function in a role - or more directly - doesn't have authority to call someone as a general authority. Since the bishopric serves as such, does there service there begin by a call from the president of the church?

I agree that linking to who a man served with as a counselor in the presiding bishopric has lots of merit in tying that bishopric together.

Just wondered what your thoughts might be. I am just throwing a few ought there as I wondered about them this evening. Thanks! ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hm; I would think it would make more sense to link to whomever "selected" the person, not necessarily who formally "called" them. It was my understanding that a counselor in the bishopric isn't called by the president of the church in the same way that, say, an apostle is identified and called by the president of the church. In a way, through the line of authority, I suppose everyone is "called by" the president of the church ultimately, so I would be inclined to narrow it down a bit more to the person who did the selecting. (Originally, I wasn't sure if somehow you knew that the counselors are more like counselors in a local Young Men presidency, which are selected not the by a YM president.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I also did actually wonder about the example of a local YM presidency as you noted. (Of course the YM organization is probably the main "non-presidency presidency" in the church) It is my understanding the newly called/existing presiding bishop has that opportunity to recommend names. So, I am good with having it show as it's been - looks like on most of the others, so thanks for updating HBE when you did the other two. It just looked a little "odd" to have someone called as a GA by someone other than the president of the church. That's why it caught my eye initially. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts! ChristensenMJ (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I figured this was as good a place to respond as any, though not in the topic thread we originally started here. Thanks for your kind comments about sustaining dates vs. ordination dates. In some of the places, I've not looked extensively enough to ensure consitency, meaning whether the intent for a specified list had been to use sustaining or ordindation dates. Anyway, the real intent of this comment is to thank you for the GA info boxes. Nice to know who had established them. I believe they are excellent and really add value to the articles they are associated with. ChristensenMJ (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Request

I'm hoping you will see this, and I'm anticipating that you will—but just in case you don't for some reason, I want to make sure that this request has been brought to your attention again: [4]. Thanks. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

My response there was as follows, per your request. Please let me know if you have any further concerns in this regard and I will do my best to address them:

I assume that you will be demanding that User:Otto4711 revise his patently offensive and blatantly false remark here in response to mine that he is "unlike some I could name who have a kneejerk desire to keep practically anything and everything". Otto's response to me at the time was "I mentioned no names. If you choose to believe that the descriptor applies to you, either in reality or in how you are perceived by others, that is a matter for you and your therapist." In this case, you are certainly not the only one that was covered in the statement as I was referring to all of the editors involved in the 25 previous cases cited as "precedent", but there is some merit to the issues you raise and I will reflect your concerns. I revise my remarks to read "As those pushing for deletion throughout the process have not indicated that there is a single ethnicity category within the Category:American actors that justifies retention and have offered no guidelines to distinguish between those that should be retained and those that should be deleted, the choice of dealing with this issue one category at a time just ends up wasting community resources for no beneficial purpose." Alansohn (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

(originally posted at CfD)

• No, I won't be pursuing anything re:Otto's comment since it doesn't appear to involve me. I think I tried to bring peace between you and Otto once. It didn't go so well. Perhaps some other brave soul would like take a stab at it and put out their shingle. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The reason it didn't go too well then or now is that you have not dealt with the clearest possible incivility from Otto in any public manner. Again, by ignoring it, the behavior is enabled. He got away with it before and he will again, if no admin deals with the problem, and I have asked you explicitly on multiple occasions to step to the plate and deal with Otto. Alansohn (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

(not posted at CfD)

• • • Hm, that's one interpretation. Unfortunately it's based on a lack of inside information, and is of course is biased in that it comes from one of the antagonists, who of course will blame the other side or the mediator for scuppering the effort. I've asked explicitly above what specifically you would like me to do, but I can't get a response to that either. All I hear is I need to "deal with" Otto and offer "equal justice" or do something in a "public manner". "Step to the plate", you say. And do what, exactly? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, this is getting tiring, and all I'm doing is watching this unfold. Alan, if you have such a problem with Otto, please assume responsibility and take it to dispute resolution. Your constant demands that GO handle it when he is under no obligation to do so is quickly turning into harassment, and is very clearly a waste of everyone's time. --Kbdank71 02:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Consistency, and the lack thereof

Your grotesque paraphrases at Wikipedia:List of cabals severely misrepresent the statements I have made about the dysfunctional nature of CfD, including the lack of any mention of a "cabal or coordination. Posting a blatant personal attack of this nature after demanding changes of your own is in rather bad taste. I look forward to your corrections. The double standard is alive and well. Alansohn (talk) 05:35, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a humour page. If you don't like your comments being linked there I'm sure you're permitted to remove it (though that may be viewed by some as the epitomy of taking yourself too seriously). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:21, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

For someone who takes himself so seriously that you have made repeated claims about being mischaracterized, including when direct quotations are used, you appear to have no qualms about doing it yourself. It's a clever gimmick to put personal attacks on a page and call it "humor". Alansohn (talk) 11:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

BYU-Hawaii text usage

First, not being totally sure if I did it right to give you notification, but wanted to be sure you saw the message I threw into our discussion thread about the presiding bishopric.

When I first began participating in efforts to "help" and contribute to Wikipedia, you were quite patient with me when it came to my efforts to update text and style usage for BYU-Hawaii. So, I thank you for that. I hadn't fully realized they were not using text guidelines that would have them be consistent with that of BYU-Idaho, which would be the desired intent. I believe they have completed making the necessary adjustments in that regard. An updated copy of their identity guidelines is now available through one of the sites you helped steer me to: http://webmasters.byuh.edu/node/19 or http://ur.byuh.edu/communications/identity_guidelines.

So, with you being far more accomplished in use of Wikipedia, my question to you is what is the most effective way to update the primary Wikipedia page and resulting links throughout? Is it use of a move function? Also, {maybe this is actually the first question} would it be necessary or appropriate to have opportunity for discussion before making that change? Just seeking your counsel on the best way to proceed. Thanks for thoughts you would have. ChristensenMJ (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)