User talk:Dr Zen

On clitoris polls

"If you wish to rely on polls, you need one that unambiguously states that it is about whether there should be a picture. It should not give options. It should simply say, picture yes or no. It should have the widest publicity possible, RfC, the village pump, the mailing list, whatever. If a large number of voters oppose it, you should accept that it is not consensual, regardless how many vote for it. Wikis are not democracies and a majority is not the same thing as a consensus. If the numbers opposing are not large, then you should be prepared to block anyone who removes the picture for vandalism. When that poll is done, if you have won it, which you might or might not, then there should be a straw poll here on this page without the wider publicity perhaps on whether it should be this particular picture. You cannot please everyone on this issue but you can do absolutely everything to try to. Here is the stumbling block for a wiki, Theresa. When they are small, they work as a community. Everyone knows one another, and they know what one another's boundaries are. When they grow large, this is almost impossible. You have to ask yourself whether you want a wiki or you don't. Why do I suggest the solution above? Because a community that purports to be based on civility, and on respect for one another, ought not to pursue paths that are broadly offensive. I believe that those who oppose the pictures are wrong but if I cannot convince them of that, I wonder what the right thing to do then is. I am not convinced that riding roughshod over their views is it."

On "edit warring" clitoris

25 to 9 is not a consensus. Votes do not create consensus. They avoid them. This page is not "stable". It's the centre of an intermittent edit war. Because some of your side are admins, and protect the page to their preferred version when it is reverted, and those with the opposite POV to yours are trying to resolve the issues by discussion instead of mindlessly edit warring, you can kid yourself that it's stable. This is rank, Tony. If it was being edit warred continuously, you'd be calling for trolls and vandals to be banned, blah blah, but because no one is doing that, you claim it is not disputed! I might have given up on any hope of your taking a more inclusive view of Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean I've lessened my opposition to your exclusivist hard line.Dr Zen 11:27, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC

• Notes, comments, blather all welcomed here

previously... more greatest hits... songs we have sung... Rogue admin threatens Zen and discussion

Alright, I've unblocked you. I am unnerved by Raul's threats, but I'm encouraged that at least one other amin doesn't classify this as vandalism (see block log). Stubornness, as I've noted in the past, is explicitly one of the things vandalism is not.

Please be mindful of the virtual inevitability of dispute resolution. Cool Hand Luke 02:27, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and it would be extremely prudent not to war on clitoris for th time being (hopefully for dispute resolution). I assume that you'll continue to be very restrained in your editing. I don't think I could support your cause in good faith otherwise. Cool Hand Luke 02:35, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

pic removal

Hi Dr Zen, welcome back. Concerning your last edit summary to clitoris,

Let's consider linking the photo like the autofellatio one. Does Jimbo have to be offended before others' feelings are considered?

I think it's a bit disingenuous to use what happened at autofellatio to justify your actions against "offensive" material on wikipedia. Although some overzealous people tried to interpret Jimbo's statements to mark the image in question for speedy deletion, Jimbo's actual intervention was only to link the image instead of keeping it inline while the poll for link/inline was ongoing. The poll had a majority in favor of linking. Although I was against it at the time, I think it was a reasonable action in retrospect. As much as I am against it, there are enough people who disagree with me that there would be an endless edit war. If anybody were to concede, the minority should.

It's kind of the opposite at clitoris. There were the polls a while back that overwhelmingly favored the inline image to even a disclaimer. If I remember correctly, maye a couple people (perhaps Robert the Bruce?) questioned the polls' validity because of poor wording. I think that doesn't hold any water, but if you feel that way, why not make another poll? Instead of just doing the once-a-day revert again and yelling at admins who threaten you, I think it would show a lot more good faith if you chose a proactive tactic like the poll, rather than the old "I don't agree that inline consensus exists, so I'll make a fuss until people satisfy me."

Heck, if autofellatio is any indication, maybe you could link the image with only a simple majority in your favor. I'd hate to see the day, but it's certainly possible. TIMBO (T A L K) 02:57, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zen. By proactive, I meant doing something productive. From what I can tell, you have absolutely nothing to say that you haven't said ad nauseum before. I was not advocating a tyrannical "majority rules" approach as something to be enshrined on wikipedia. I was, however, saying that there are certain instances where there is no compromise that parties can agree on (or at least not one that has come up in the months and months of discussion on the topic). When that happens, by all means keep discussing it and try to convince people of your position, but something has to be done in the meantime, lest we have unproductive, frustrating, and angering edit wars. Are you saying the overwhelming majority should, directly opposite to their views, be willing to indulge the very small minority for the forseeable future? Excuse me if I'm being pessimistic, but that's never going to happen.

Also, you seem to think that linking is an adequate compromise (but forgive me if I misunderstand). It isn't. The overwhelming majority voted against it as well as even a disclaimer informing the readerer of the presence of the image. Thus I think a more appropriate conception of a compromise would be something along the lines of moving the image down the page, so the reader doesn't see the image immediately upon viewing the article. That's already how the article is, though. I don't suppose you're satisfied by that? TIMBO (T A L K) 20:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And judging by the comments on the clitoris talk page, you're not so much keeping the issue alive as keeping unproductive arguments alive. There's a great amount of frustration and negativity there, but not a lot of dialogue on the underlying issues (probably because it's all been said before). When I suggested a poll, it was because polls are much better at stirring up dialogue than edit wars. And with a new poll, you could actually show that there are a number of people, albeit a minority, who disagree with the current state of the article and want it changed. I think that would make many, many more people willing to work with you because (1.) it shows good faith, whereas even lethargic, once-a-day edit wars are often seen as in bad faith, and (2.) there is a general attitude among wikipedians to try to arrive at consensus when everyone is perceived as acting in good faith. Although one might think the opposite from the controversial image issues, I think the venom and anger there (from both sides) has marred what is usually a friendly and productive dispute resolution process on wikipedia. TIMBO (T A L K) 20:46, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In response to your statement that "I'm astonished that you feel that because the dissenters are a minority, they must simply be ignored" on my talk page, as well as similar sentiment throughout, I think you're really missing the point. In no way am I saying that the minority should be ignored. I am saying that edit warring, however slowly you do it, will not accomplish your goals or further the agenda of those opposing the inclusion of the clitoris picture. It's frustrating and angering to many people, who I daresay will be less willing to work with you as a result. I've said this before and I'll say it again: I think reverting once a day to "keep the discussion alive" is disrupting wikipedia to illustrate a point. (You've appealed to the fact the this is a wiki and anyone can edit it, but it's not that simple.)

Consensus is the ideal and something that should always be strived for. However, there are situations such as this where a compromise that could gain consensus is either nonexistent or has not been thought of yet (and perhaps won't). What do we do then? Edit warring, IMHO, is a smack in the face to dispute resolution because of its detrimental and antagonistic effect to wikipedian relations and dispute resolution. It simply will not solve anything that couldn't be better solved through a dialogue that includes good wikiquette and assuming that everyone involved is acting in good faith.

You pointed out the opposition in the old polls at clitoris. Thus I think there may be a compromise somewhere in the middle that neither of us will be happy with, but that we both can live with. Perhaps this would do with the size of the picture or its placement in the article. Just some thoughts. I fail to see, though, how compromise like this can come from edit warring and bickering on the talk page. TIMBO (T A L K) 00:28, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Zen, thanks for your note on my talk page. I am indeed open to compromise, although I must warn you that I will not accept linking the image – that's my POV. Linking the image legitimates a POV that in my opinion is illegitimate. In this sense my POV is in direct opposition to what you say may be a good compromise or representation of both POVs. It's not, which is why this situation is tricky. NPOV in this case is a little bit more involved than in the sense of reporting "some people think this, some people believe that" because we're talking NPOV in a different context: the inclusion/disinclusion of content. I have been saying that all along, although I recall you perhaps didn't believe I actually felt this way in a heated exchange at the clitoris talk page. I know many other people feel very much this way as well, and I can try to elaborate on it I guess, if this isn't satisfactory.

So the question is what to do when you can't really satisfy both sides. The most sane thing to do, IMHO, is not to take POV into account at all when deciding whether or not to include something; rather, whether or not it is "encyclopedic" should be the question. I recall you didn't like this very much, because who is to decide what is encyclopedic? It's an apt question, and I think one that should be discussed and debated in the appropriate space. The criterion, though, should only be the encyclopedic merit – not whether it will or will not offend people.

I think this is already what goes on at all the other articles that wouldn't normally be characterized as "controversial." For example, I bet a lot of people wouldn't want to come upon the pictures at conjoined twins. I have a mild phobia of spiders, so I just went to spider. Needless to say, I don't want to go back there again! I wouldn't take those pictures down on my account though, or even if I knew there were a lot of people who felt the same way as me. I recognize the pictures add to the article, even though it's my POV that they're gross and offensive. (And I recognize you say you aren't offended by the clitoris picture yourself, BTW).

Perhaps this is the fundamental misunderstanding that's getting everyone so angry. TIMBO (T A L K) 02:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I must say that I just do not agree that the message implied in linking the image is in any way neutral. In fact, it's directly contrary to my POV, and I'm not being facetious when I say that. You rightly argue that holocaust denial should be included in wikipedia (and I think it's a load of shit too), but that has to do with article content NPOV, which is fairly straightforward. If some people think something, we report that in an article for all to read. What if there were a picture of an interracial couple kissing, or posing with their children etc., and it offended a white supremacist? (Perhaps it would be in an article on a famous person/multiracial family.) If we linked it, we'd be legitimating the POV that miscegenation is disgusting, against nature, etc. – "We know some are offended," as you say, and we're going out of our way to pander to that.

(And I'm not at all painting you as a white supremacist or anything of the sort!) I'm just hoping this might be a more clear example of the prolems inherent in linking the clitoris pic. Of course, we have a ton of articles on miscegenation, white supremacy, Hitler, etc. from a NPOV. I just can't reconcile playing those games with the inclusion/disinclusion of images/content. There are cases where you just can't include everyone in the way that you propose.

Template:LinkimageIt's unfair to expect you to defend nazi sensitivities, and they are obviously very different from those who are offended by vagina photographs, but I do think the cases are similar in the way that there are two opposing sides that cannot be satisfied at once as far as inclusion/disinclusion of content is concerned. Can you imagine the outrage someone might have when happening upon this? -->

You made some other points too which I'd like to address (I'm not just ignoring them), but for now I'm going to bed. TIMBO (T A L K) 04:26, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Blocking

Cool Hand Luke unblocked you, and I do not intend to reblock you this time (I have, in fact, told the others not to block you). However, if you should remove the picture again, I'll be raising this with the arbcom. →Raul654 03:22, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

---

You should take the issue with Snowspinner to the arbitration committee -- of course, Raul will have to recuse himself. You are not the first victim of Snowspinner's vigilantism and you should strive to check his abuses before more innocent people are hurt.

Yes but I'm not a big fan of dispute resolution. We're all big boys here. Snowspinner likes to play the game but frankly I don't.Dr Zen 21:51, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

Arbitration has been requested against you. Snowspinner 22:45, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

An RfC regarding Snowspinner is open, regarding his admin actions Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Snowspinner. -- Netoholic @ 01:29, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

Free passes

Adam Carr is not an admin. --Michael Snow 03:31, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi

Hello Dr. Zen. Yes I was bullied on the clitoris page, and was blocked for 24 hours by Theresa Knott for 24 hours because I happened to have removed the picture...(I didn't even break the Three-Revert Rule!). I am willing to compromise with the other side so long as they are willing to talk. Now I found picture on the Autofellatio page that is clearly pornographic, now I'd like you to help me out as much as you can there (check the history also). Thank You Dr. Zen, also if you need any help (dealing with your Arbitration case) I'll help you out.--198 05:21, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes I'm willing to compromise. I'd frankly like an image-link on that page. Although I am fairly resonable and willing alter my position if there's clear support against my position. Yes I am willing to talk to those on the other side also--198 05:44, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes I can compromise--198 05:48, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Do you ever actually do any editing of articles?

Other than reverting the image on the Clitoris article in violation of consensus, the last actual edit you did, other than reverts of other editors, was in mid-January, when you edited Creation-evolution controversy. Why are you even here? RickK 05:43, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

So the nasty things you're saying about me on WP:AN/I isn't "calling names"? RickK 05:49, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well, see, I was going to follow you around and make tiny little edits on all of the articles that you have edited, but then I saw that you haven't edited anything. RickK 06:03, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Creativity Movement

Do you object to having a "see also: Neo-Nazism" in Creativity Movement? It seems relevant. As for the edit summary, I was reverting a highly POV editor and also reverted an anon who deleted the "see also" without any edit summary. If you want to see a truly fraudulent edit summary, look at what I was reverting. [1]. (and at the editor's other edits [2]) That's why I wrote that I was reverting a "spelling change". Cheers, -Willmcw 09:04, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Whew! I thought I was in big trouble! Thanks for your note. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:11, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

Please don't think that by voting to accept the case that I (or indeed, the other arbitrators) have already come to any conclusions about the case. I felt, based on what was there, that there may be a case to answer, and accepted on that note. It doesn't appear to be the most clear-cut case I've ever seen, and I'll need to read some evidence before I make up my mind on the matter. Ambi 11:15, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

The Arbitration Committee has accepted the case against you. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Dr Zen/Evidence. Thank you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:24, 2005 Mar 10 (UTC)

Hi...

Hi Dr Zen. Sorry to see that an arbitration case has opened against you. We've briefly encountered each other in the past, and I found you a very smart and thoughtful person. I regret that I don't know the clitoris article, and so can't comment on the merits of the case, but if I can help in a general way, please let me know. - Jakew 23:25, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey.

Lucky you, embroiled in clitois. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:30, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

And that's why I'll be there defending you, even though I disagree with you on a fundamental level. There is no way of reconciling something that is not reconcilable! Incidently, taking off the clitoris from the clitoris page constantly isn't really something you should do. On a side note, as RickK has decided that you don't contribute, are you going to focus on an article and get it to featured article status? that would silence him, and make us a more valuable place. Besides, if you do get blocked it will most likely only happen for a short time. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:40, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I bowed out of those controversial articles a while ago. They are one of those intractible disputes that I don't think I'll be able to help resolve any time soon now. But I know your point about the majority being wrong: look at Nazi Germany. That said, there are times when the majority is totally write and a minority is wrong: see Childlove movement. Also, there is such a thing as an eroneous viewpoint. Nevertheless, we need to at least represent viewpoints.

FWIW, removing the photo from the page is not a solution. We need a way of tagging images as offensive in the Wikimedia software and have a user editable option to suppress them in the preferences (with the the default being to show the image), but that opens a whole can of worms too. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:01, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

creationism

we've started a movement to "fairly describe creationism" at User:FACTS -- i remember you expressed an interest in this on my RfC -- you'd be more than welcome to contribute if you like:). Ungtss 23:24, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Request for Support

I've filed a complaint against user Jayjg for abuse of Admin powers and blatant Anti-Arab bias. The link [[3]] will take you there. I think that you too have been subject to Jayjg's treatment, and I would appreciate any additional evidence you can provide.A.Khalil 02:46, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re: "Trolls"

I'm very sorry, I'm not refering to you as a troll. Again, I couldn't support you if I believed that.

It seems that most editors percieve you to be a troll. Many editors think the same for Robert. Anthony and Cantus? Almost everyone thinks they're trolls. I think it's a convenient myth for the majority that all of the opposition behaves in bad faith (and hense can be ignored). I don't believe you're acting in bad faith, but your methods are confrontational enough that some of the majority might think "aha: they're all trolls." This is a misperception I'd like to correct.

I think it's a hard situation, a Catch-22. Talk page discussion is being actively ignored by some because the article is "stable". But making the article unstable (even symbolically, just once every day) is allegedly disrupting Wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 08:05, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As a part of the "other team," I don't think I've ever said that article was stable or used that as a reason to stifle opposition. (If I did I was wrong, but I really don't think I did). I don't think anyone should ignore the talk page discussion or any proposed compromises. I do think, perhaps, that because Zen was the only one intervening (except for 198 that last time) that it could be construed as stable save for a disruptive dissenter. Considering the huge number of people that have participated in that article, maybe that's not too far off the mark. That's just speculation though. TIMBO (T A L K) 08:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well it's my view that the article is as stable as we're likely to get, and I recognise that it's not necessarily anybody else's. As to the feeling that Anthony, Dr Zen, Cantus and the like (all different users with diverse and obviously strongly felt views) are trolls, it's not my perception. Anthony has been called a troll elsewhere but I don't know why; his actions that I have witnessed always seemed to be motivated by his strongly felt beliefs. I disagree with Dr Zen's methods, and I think he's inconsistent in his arguments, but he seems to be sincere. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:16, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re: Blanking talk pages

Thanks for your comments; they have given me something to think about. When I first joined Wikipedia, I read a lot of the policies, guides, and tutorials—I thought I read something about how talk pages were also a way for people to see how the community interacts with you and that was why blanking was discouraged. I do disagree with you about user pages versus user talk pages—although maybe I am in the minority. I always thought that user pages were basically under the control of the user, to do what he or she likes (within reason, of course). In contrast, many users rarely make an edit to their talk page, aside from perhaps copying their reply and archiving. I almost feel like user talk pages belong to "everyone else"—although I do adjust mine by assigning headings and adding attribution when necessary. However, I don't think it is any sort of policy. When I was restoring comments to that user's talk page, it wasn't so much that I thought the user was violating policy by blanking his or her talk page, but that as it was a talk page I could add comments that I would want other editors to see. I am not certain if this makes sense. In any case, I am going to have to ponder and/or research this issue more.

You are right about the invention of policy, and had I been administrator I still would not have blocked the user (at least for talk page blanking). If I am elected to adminship I intend to be very careful about blocking someone—it is not a power to be taken lightly. I don't want to drive away anonymous or newly-registered users. One of the areas I want to work harder at is catching those who are vandalizing or being unhelpful (adding copyvios, creating vanity articles) and redirecting them into useful contributors rather than driving them away. It's too easy to say "Get out! We don't want you" but a lot harder to say "Thanks for your contributions; that's not exactly how we do things around here. We could really use your help with ——". But we'll see how well it works out. Thanks again and I welcome your further input on this or other matters. — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:48, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I wanted to thank you for the kind words you left on my Request for Adminship. I try to always stay open-minded and to always do the right thing. I hope I can keep it up. Also, I notice you haven't been around the last few days—I hope you'll be back soon. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:41, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adminship - User:ABCD

As you may remember, you rejected my nomination for adminship in January. I have recently reapplied. You may wish to vote here. Thanks, User:ABCD/sig 19:11, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hijacking Catastrophe

A fellow Jaynian, nice ta meet ya! Thanks for the terror reference, I'll check it out. RoyBoy 18:17, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) (PS: Moving answers from my talk, to the proper page... sorry! :'D)

More schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:

• VfD: Blake Junior High School (renominated)
• VfD: Franklin High School
• VfD: Lake Dow Christian Academy
• VfD: Red Lake High School
• VfD: The Sage School
• VfD: Toowoomba Grammar School

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\^talk