User talk:JzG/Archive 24: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:59, 18 September 2006

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User Talk:JzG/Archive-Aug. Sections with less than two timestamps (that have not been replied to) are not archived.

I have moved house, am doing masses of real-life type stuff and will be below normal wiki-activity levels for a while.

Evolutionary musicology merger

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Musilanguage

I'm happy to do the merger, by the way. Uncle G 10:34, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Robertson article

Tyro nominated Chris Robertson for deletion and it was then speedy userfied by you (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Robertson). I was the orignial creator of the Chris Robertson article - and the article I wrote was about the sqaush player Chris Robertson, a former professional player who was once the world junior champion and ranked No. 3 in the world. I suspect that what happened is that Urbanaddict then changed the article to one about a different Chris Robertson (who may well be himself). I've now recreated the Chris Robertson article in a similar format to when I orginally wrote it. I think it should stay as the squash player is, in my opinion, encyclopedicly notable. But the page may need monitoring to stop Urbanaddict tinkering with it. Zaxem 03:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:There is no deadline

I am proposing a merging with this article and WP:GREAT due to the similarity in content. Agree? Please reply on my talk page.

RFA thanks

File:IMG 3666border cropped.jpg

Thanks so much for your support on my RFA, which closed successfully this morning with a result of (64/3/3). I will be stepping lightly at first trying to make sure I don't mess up too badly using the tools. Any further advice/guidance will be gratefully accepted. I hope I will live up to your trust! NawlinWiki 11:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC) talk contribs[reply]

RfA message

		My RfA video message
		Stephen B Streater 08:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ackoz

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ackoz. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ackoz/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ackoz/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 11:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support

I just came across the Arbcom case concerning ParalelUni and I would like to offer you my support. Comments like the ones he made have no place in Wikipedia, or in real life and I hope his ban will be endorsed by the Arbcom. Anyway, I hope this won't stop you from editing. If you ever need any help to get through a rough patch let me know. I'd be happy to share my recent Esperanza-ness with you. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Countries

What are these two countries?? Georgia guy 17:49, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

International Council for Accrediting Alternate and Theological Studies

Crazy nut is talking about his lawyer and adding uncited things about this accreditation mill.[1] And while this person is trying to pass off this accreditation mill as real, see what he did at the criticism of alternative medicine.[2]

Mitch Modeleski

There has been no activity on the talk page for over a month, and there's little precedant for keeping articles protected indefinitely without WP:OFFICE action. I'm tempted to unprotect, but I'll wait another week or so. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More fake med schools on wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/UHSA The purportents of this seem to be role accounts.

Long-Overdue RfA Thanks from Alphachimp

Thanks for your support in my not-so-recent RfA, which was successful with a an overwhelmingly flattering and deeply humbling total of 138/2/2 (putting me #10 on the RfA WP:100). I guess infinite monkey theorem has been officially proven. Chimps really can get somewhere on Wikipedia.

With new buttons come great responsibility, and I'll try my best to live up to your expectations. If you need assistance with something, don't hesitate to swing by my talk page or email me (trust me, I do respond :)). The same goes for any complaints or comments in regard to my administrative actions. Remember, I'm here for you.

(Thanks go to Blnguyen for the incredible photo to the right.) alphaChimp ^laudare 01:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Your thoughts welcome. Arbusto 08:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shady Side Academy

I wish you would have consulted me before deleting this, there are plenty of adequate versions in the history. Please undelete. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't consult because I rarely do when going through a large backlog at CAT:CSD. But I have no objection to undeleting. I didn't notice how much history it had, which should have alerted me. The substantive content at deletion was:

Shady Side Academy is an independent school in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. It was initially founded as a boy's boarding school in 1883, though the Senior School was only established at its current suburban campus in Fox Chapel in 1921. Fox Chapel High School, Shady Side Academy's other, is a public school offering the same opportunities for free.

Criticisms

The faculty is underpaid, none of them went to college, let alone high school, and students tend to be extremely flighty and dumb.

Just that. No formatting, nothing. It also had the text from the speedy and hangon tags copy-and-pasted into the article above and below the tags. A mess, like I said. Feel free to try and find a valid version in the history if you can, it's been the subject of vigorous edit warring by the looks of it.. Guy 18:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A persistent edit warrior has reverted to that version a few times. Thanks for undeleting, I'll try to keep a special eye on it. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. Let me know if it needs protection, I'll do my best not to pick the wrong version ;-) Guy 19:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you cared, the user who nominated the page for speedy deletion (User:Davej9475) was the same user who changed the content to the aforementioned shameful version. Thought you might want to know. "Country" Bushrod Washington 01:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was intending to spend a bit of time this evening looking into it, so thanks for that. I suspect I need to dust off the cluebat (and apply it first of all to myself...) Guy 14:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we might need that protection. The page has been once again been nominated for speedy deletion. This time by User:Random19, whose edits are conspicuously similar to those of User:Maxtor118, User:Davej9475, User:Random17, and User:Ak45m16. Please note that each of these users only have a few edits to their name, all to the Shady Side Academy page. Furthermore, all of their edits are substantially the same, that is vandalism. It seems obvious to me that this is just one, lone person with a vendetta against the school. Some kind of protection, and/or and I.P. level ban seems to be in order. "Country" Bushrod Washington 02:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bisexual erasure

Do you have any evidence of its being "commonly used"? The very low unique Google count indicates otherwise.
When will you learn? People don't need to provide evidence for stuff like this. They just know what they're saying is fact. -- Steel 19:21, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"LBU is not accredited to award doctorates"

What does this mean? You said it in the Rick Scarborough edit comments. A school doesn't need to be accredited to legally award doctorates. In effect, there is no such thing as "accredited to award doctorates." Maybe you misspoke. - JD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Delay (talk • contribs)

Go through this user's history. He added two Gastrich links to the LBU page. Arbusto 01:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated article needs some attention. Myself and two other editors have been warning two new accounts that are doing the same white washing at David Loren Cunningham. Arbusto 02:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Guy, I read your comment on my talk page and I am uncertain what you meant. The sources referenced to the geocities site are newspaper, magazine and documentary articles that are no longer available on the internet, but appeared in published form in the past. The geocities site was created as a neutral site in which articles (that were previously linked to controversial, partison and biased Anti-Sai sites) could be listed free of promotion of a particular POV. This was agreed to by all parties in mediation with BostonMA (including Andries). If you believe that the geocities site cannot be linked to, then what do you suggest? No links? Anti-Sai sites are no more trustworthy than a geocities site. They are worse because they push an antagonistic POV that is exclusively critical of Sathya Sai Baba. Furthermore, these articles were never originally published on Anti-Sai Sites. Are you saying that the previous agreement in mediation is no longer applicable? SSS108 ^talk-email 05:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In which case they are copyright violations. We should not link to offsite copyright violations any more than we allow them internally; we can cite treeware without having to link to a copy of it on the web. Just cite the original source. An "anti" site which can be traced to an identified authority, that is, an authority on whose expertise other authorities rely (for example, newspaper reports and TV reports) is quite acceptable, the reader is unlikely to be misled by an open statement of an agenda. As far as I can tell the balance of informed opinion is that SSB is a charlatan, and we need to reflect that in the balance of the article, which means we can't ignore the work of opponents. Guy 08:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Anti-Sai sites that can be traced to an identified authority. Also, I must disagree with you when you say that the "balance of informed opinion is that SSB is a charlatan". Even Andries (an Anti-Sai activist) conceded that all of the people and agencies involved (that reported negative information against SSB) either held an Anti-Sai view or were sympathetic with Anti-Sai activists (something I discovered through independent research). Needless to say, all this information has been purposely withheld. Particularly disturbing was the Salon.com article. I found private e-mail correspondence between Goldberg and Anti-Sai Activists in which she confessed writing her article in cooperation with them. A fact never divulged in her article. Khushwant Singh, a journalist interviewed by the BBC, had openly stated in previous years that he was an atheist, rationalist and was anti-guru. This information was withheld in the Secret Swami programme although he was a prime interviewee. All this points to bias. Furthermore, you seem to be unaware of the numerous books and newspapers [3] that speak favorably about Sathya Sai Baba and whose numbers far exceed Anti-Sai articles. Perhaps you can reference your sources for the "balance of informed opinion"? I agree that Sathya Sai Baba is a controversial guru and I have no problem with the article discussing that. As a matter of fact, I do not object to the opposing or antagonistic POV whatsoever. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The balance of informed opinion is that one cannot produce gold, ash or indeed anything else from thin air. This much requires no citation. Guy 19:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then that much you have. SSS108 ^talk-email 04:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was also thinking, would it be appropriate to say that the "balance of informed opinion" also contends that Jesus is a charlatan? After all, using your reasoning, multiplying fish and wine and walking on water would fall under this same stipulation. Is this type of commentary allowed on Wikipedia? It sounds like POV pushing to me. Please explain. SSS108 ^talk-email 05:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not many people take Bible stories literally. One common interpretation of the feeding of the five thousand is based on the well-known phenomenon of the "bring and share" meal. I have no doubt that the Bible would be a very different book if Jesus had lived in the present day. Guy 08:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with you, I am more interested in whether or not one can include a comment on the Wikipedia articles on Buddha, Krishna and Jesus that the "balance of informed opinion" contends they are "charlatans" (your word) because the miracles attributed them are not possible. That is what I want to know. Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 15:34, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you can compare a situation where a story was handed down by word of mouth for several generations before being written down, with one where an individual still alive makes extraordinary claims but refuses to provide the necessary extraordinary proofs. It's no different to Uri Geller, really. Guy 15:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, the fact remains that miracles are attributed to Buddha, Krishna and Jesus. Since that is the case, would it be proper to call them "charlatans". Sathya Sai Baba has not been exposed for faking anything yet. Dr Erlendur Haraldsson (who wrote a book about this very issue) investigated Sathya Sai Baba's alleged miracles and found no evidence of fraud. I consider this discussion ended because I don't think any Wikipedia article can state that the "balance of informed opinion" contends they are "charlatans". That sounds like your own personal view and POV pushing. I would like references to Wikipedia policy that would allow you to include such statements in Wikipedia articles. It all has to be referenced by reliable sources. Making these generalized and unattributed statements could be seen as potentially libelous and can be removed from the article without discussion in accordance with WP:BLP. SSS108 ^talk-email 16:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the determined rationalist can explain them away (there are many books whihc set out to do juat that). Moreover, we do not have contemporaneous reports of these figures claiming to do these things. And those were simpler times. What we have with SSB, however, is contemporaneous claims of physical impossibilities, where the means to test such claims exist and have been offered, and a steadfast refusal to undergo such tests. Of course in the Bible (to quote the one I know best) we have "do not put the Lord your God to the test", but that is not incompatible with an allegorical interpretation. In the case of SSB no allegorical interpretation is on offer. Also I am suggesting that the lead should say "Sathya Sai Baba is a fraud and a charlatan". I am saying that in order to reflect the dominant world-view, the claims of "miracles" should be cast in a sceptical light and the many valid criticisms fairly represented. All of whihc is somethign of a tangent from point A, which was that we shouldn't link to offsite copyright violations. Guy 17:41, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, okay, let's get back on track. I happen to agree with you regarding possible copyright violations (although many sites apparently can link to newspaper articles under 'fair use'). Talk to Pjacobi about "offsite copyright violations" on the Sathya Sai Baba talk page. He is currently working on the references section and links. However, you can be certain that Andries will not agree with you. So you better be prepared for a fight and be prepared to site Wikipedia policy because that is exactly what Andries is going to ask for. Thanks. SSS108 ^talk-email 18:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was pretty confident you would agree on that, from your past history (which is impressive). Linking to a newspaper article is fine, because we are linking to the copyright holder. And you'll see form my history that I am not averse to a fight where it is necessary. However: if Andries has a site which is authoritative, then we need to think carefully about whether we should link to it. The keyword being authority: if reliable sources have quoted or cited the site, then it's reasonable to consider it authoritative. I'll happily accept your word on whether or not that is the case. Guy 22:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andries site is not authoritative. No reliable sources have either quoted or cited his site. View Mediation Thread Where This Was Discussed. SSS108 ^talk-email 23:23, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe De Volkskrant cited exbaba.com Andries 17:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When, where and under what context? We need verfiable citations. It seems there is just no end to your Dutch references. SSS108 ^talk-email 20:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked whether your behavior at talk:Sathya Sai Baba is a violation of WP:BLP See Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Talk:Sathya_Sai_Baba Andries 17:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You already asked ArbCom to advise on this issue. Why are you taking this issue to other sources when you already submitted it to ArbCom for evaluation? SSS108 ^talk-email 20:07, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not include a question on this issue among my questions to the arbcom. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Sathya_Sai_Baba Andries 20:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. You were talking about Guy, not me. Adding a name would help :-) SSS108 ^talk-email 20:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It will be clear that I agree to a great extent with user:JzG. But I want to make two additional remarks. Of course the above polemical discussion has been made thousands of times regarding SSB. In the Netherlands and in India it raged in the newspapers more than a decade ago several times. The first one is that the view point expressed by JzG seems to be based on a somewhat skeptical world view. Nothing wrong with that, but it is just one world view among many. Clearly, it was not my world view when I was still a SSB follower. The second one is that quite a lot of report of miracles by SSB cannot be simply explained by sleight of hand. Andries 20:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You and Guy are entitled to your world-views and I agree there is nothing wrong with a scientific/skeptical world view. However, this issue all boils down to WP:BLP and reliable sources. No one can include potentially libelous comments in an article because it suits his/her world-view. The comments have to be sourced via reliable sources as outlined in Wikipedia's policies. Of course, Andries, I don't expect you to understand these things because you see absolutely nothing wrong with people slandering others using Wikipedia as their soapbox (Ref) SSS108 ^talk-email 20:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that I hold the opinion that the subject of an article can slander anyone whom he likes in his own article. For example, I think that in the article Michael Moore Wikipedia contributors can quote Moore making comments against George W. Bush that would violate WP:BLP in any other article e.g. in Talk:George W. Bush. Andries 20:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP is all about slander/libel/defamation. If you say "George W. Bush eats french fries with garlic butter", and Dubya hauls you into court for s/l/d, his burden is only to show that you made a defamatory statement and it cost you damages (so that the courts know how much of your skin to award him). If you can show it's true, however, you're in the clear. The truth is an absolute defense against s/l/d (in the US, that is; they have different rules in, for example, the UKoGBaNI).

If you say, "According to Jon Stewart, George W. Bush eats french fries with garlic butter", however, you don't have to prove what Dubya eats, because you're not alleging that it's true, you're only alleging that Jon said it. If you can prove your statement is true, you're in good condition, and it's Jon that has to deal with Dubya. But you've got to be very careful with this one.

That's why the policy is that you remove unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory material immediately. You can defame living persons all you want, but you must prove that your defamatory statements are true. ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 21:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self

Possible merge of Henry Willis and Henry Willis & Sons; also possible merge of Church of St. Mary the Virgin, Ewell and Organ of St. Mary the Virgin, Ewell. Both subjects indivisible and ocntain significant redundancy. Guy 14:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ChoralWiki

I fixed your request on Template:ChoralWiki just to let you know. —Jared Hunt September 10, 2006, 20:17 (UTC)

Oh great, thanks. Guy 20:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom accreditation

If you're feeling up to the task, maybe you can give this article on accreditation groups a UK perspective? Arbusto 01:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I'll do some reading around in the next couple of days. Guy 08:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also is Burton College legit? A school with the same name is linked to Carl Baugh, which some people have questioned.[4] Arbusto 02:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Fortuny on deletion review

I have asked for a deletion review of Jason Fortuny. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 18:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things are taking an egregiously bad turn at this DRV. I haven't participated much in AfD, but anticipate posting to this one, but want to let you get your close reasoning in first. Newyorkbrad 22:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It's the drama queens, of course. I found a grand total of 91 unique Googles outside Wikipedia and mirrors, of which none were substantial coverage of the supposed article subject in reliable sources. I see no reason whatsoever why we should join ED in perpetuating this story. Guy 22:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This morning I wrote an impassioned reply to Kelly Martin on WP:BN. She basically took the position that "the community" is meaningless and that a few strong leaders have to make the decisions. I disagreed. Now I am going to post to an RfA where my position is that if necessary, the admins will have to overrule the majority of users. "A foolish consistency......" Newyorkbrad 22:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to say it, but I think you were hasty on this one, Guy. Your reasoning makes sense to me, but given the newness of the situation and the speed at which it is evolving, I think the speedy close was a mistake. Today's AP article in the IHT and the New York Times suggests that this is more than your average internet drama. Of course, I don't know what I would have done in your stead. The BLP concerns are completely reasonable, but stubbing and/or protecting an article doesn't fit well with the normal deletion process. Messy. But it looks like this will be a lasting issue given Fortuny's desire to exploit this and the possibility of legal action. Whether this will end up as a bio on him or an article on the incident, I don't know, but I don't think deletion and protection is the right solution. Sorry, William Pietri 04:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see some potential for a paragraphj in an article on online privacy, but we are a very long way short of having sufficient information for a biographical article on this person. 91 unique Googles outside Wikipedia as of yesterday also does not indicate massive notability. Guy 08:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And a paragraph is what I could make out it. See Internet_privacy#Noted_cases. I'll mention it on the deletion review, and I think a redirect would be best. William Pietri 17:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{Applause}. That was just what I had in mind. What annoys me is the indecent haste to get an article up - WP is very poorly set up to document events which are only just becoming known, witness the DRV comment offering the tomorrow's newspaper as a source. What's the hurry? We should wait until the dust has settled and we have all the facts. Guy 17:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. It was once the belief of historians that they had to wait 30 years after an event to write an actual history. I envy that. Now we have people liveblogging from press conferences. I think the real frontier is in writing articles about things before they happen. You know, just in case. I'm going to go get started on the articles for the US 2006 election results. William Pietri 18:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a guy on SlashDot who says he went to high school with Fortuny. He might be able to point you to Wikipedia:Reliable Sources for biographical information, such as a high school yearbook, local newspaper articles, etc. (You know next month, there will be some woman who will post a similar ad, and she'll also put up all the responses for public display, but with the explanation that she's no longer interested, and she hates to have all these wonderful guys go to waste. It'd be a lot harder to win a suit against her than against Fortuny, who admits to deliberately setting out to pranking people.) ClairSamoht - Help make Wikipedia the most authoritative source of information in the world 18:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki on a Stick

I wrote this article since I think the concept of wiki on a flash drive deserves to be widely known. I have nothing to do with development or promotion of this software. In my view wikipedia has a lot of articles about far less useful software, but that’s only my opinion which is not enough to suggest article deletion. I checked wikipedia policies and didn’t find anything obvious that this article violates. Please compare this article with others listed here List_of_wiki_software#Desktop and here List_of_portable_software#Wikis. I'm really confused why this article deserves deletion while say MyWiki is OK to keep. Please clarify the reasons for deletion. Thanks Abune 11 September 2006

Wikipedia does no, I'm afraid, exist to promote thngs which deserve to be known, but to document that which already is known. Wikinfo may be the place you are looking for? Guy 08:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weasel Words on LBU Entry

Come and see the weasel words on the LBU entry. Your input is needed. - JD

All Headline News

Hi JzG,

Is All Headline News significantly different to the version that got deleted? Thanks, Andjam 12:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat different. AfDed anyway. Thanks, Guy 13:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bazzajf

About the stalking allegation, he's reminding me of someone. I may try and get a checkuser request performed. --Lord Deskana (talk) 14:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially crazy idea: putting users on probation

Hi! Before I end my the-girlfriend-is-away multi-day Wikipedia binge (so much fun!), I wanted to run a potentially crazy idea by you. It seems like there's a lot of problem with blocked users coming back, especially those on indefinite blocks. With a new name, they can go on quite a tear, stirring up a lot of trouble before there's enough cause to block them again. And that gives an incentive for speedy banning of difficult but potentially reformable users, which leads to more grudges against Wikipedia.

I'm thinking there's a potential solution, one inspired by the notion of tarpitting. Let's call it putting a user on probation. The notion is that rather than blocking a difficult user outright, a user on probation would be given a limited number of edits a day. Maybe it's ten, maybe just one; it depends on the administrator's judgement. Otherwise, though, it works like a block: it's issued by admins as they see fit, and it can be for a defined period of time or indefinite.

I see a few benefits from a scheme like this:

The necessity to let somebody go on a long spree to gather evidence (like the recent Pussy Galore incident) is reduced.
Giving admins a less drastic option reduces the risk of an error, and will seem less hostile to well-intentioned but difficult newbies.
Some people who would have just made a new sock to evade a ban will stick with their old account's limited edits, reducing the number is-this-a-sock-or-not debates.
Deciding whether to unrestrict somebody becomes less of a drama, and more a matter of evidence; you just look to see what they've done with the edits they have.
Similar to the upcoming German solution, it moves us in the direction of greater openness.

The main drawback I see is that it would take coding work. But given that it's an extension of the existing blocking system, it may be pretty modest. What do you think?

Thanks, William Pietri 04:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my jumping in, but I think such intermediate solutions are a good idea. It wouldn't require coding. The editor is simply given a limit of 10 or whatever edits and their contribution history can be checked to make sure they haven't exceeded it. If they persist in doing so, then their lack of co-operation will have been demonstrated. Tyrenius 05:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'll jump in as well. I've always found the level of hostility directed at sub-optimal users a cause for concern, often leading to a self fulfilling spiral to destruction. A trick one learns in martial arts is to avoid taking the force of an attack full on, as channelling the energy to ones own advantage is much more fruitful. With limited edits, people will think about their edits more. I suggest limiting article edits but not talk edits to start with. Stephen B Streater 08:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. Now that you mention it, it's obvious that automatic enforcement of the number of edits would be convenient but not necessary. The 3RR rule is manually enforced, and that seems to work well enough. Thanks to both of you for the feedback. Since Guy's talk page is apparently a hub of activity, I'll let this sit here more for some feedback. But assuming nobody pokes big holes in it, I'll turn it into some sort of proposal. William Pietri 19:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea a lot. On the other hand, though, do you think this policy would have been useful in the specific case of PG? TheronJ 20:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no admin, so I can only speculate. But I imagine I would have used probation at the same time I removed a personal attack [5]. A look at the edit history then made me suspect trolling, but I didn't feel like a block was justified at that point. But limiting the user to, say, five edits a day would have reduced the potential for mischief if respected, and made a quick block easier if violated. And as Stephen suggests above, I think forcing the users to consider how to spend each edit will cause them to self-regulate more than they might otherwise. How does that fit with your experiences? William Pietri 21:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely like your idea, but just playing devil's advocate, and using Mr./Ms. Galore as an example:

If the 5 edit/day probation didn't include talk pages, it wouldn't have affected PG, who was on an apparent trolling rampage, but pretty much just on Talk.
Alternately, if the limit did include talk pages with the exception of PG's own talk page, would PG be entitled to respond to RFCU's, RFC's, AN/I's, etc. if she had already made 5 edits?
People tend to flip out when admin action of any kind occurs. (Let me know if you want some links.) Would probation have similar limits to blocking, particularly the "warn first" preference and the preference that admins not block if they're involved in a content dispute? If so, the probation may not have gone on any faster than the block did. If not, you'll get a lot more cabal, process, consensus, etc., complaints.

Thanks, TheronJ 21:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly appreciate the devil's advocacy; I'd rather figure out the issues early on. "The best kind of friend is like iron sharpening iron." Matching the order of your points:

I think Tyrenius's observation offers us the way out. When you put a user on probation, you say what kinds of edit are restricted.
I'd say yes. And thinking further, the page on probation (and probably the notice block on the user's talk page) would ask other editors not to bait someone on probation.
I think it would fall between. Warnings would be less necessary, and could be left to the discrection of admins, both acting and overseeing. I think bias that admins should only use their powers when they're not involved is a good one to retain here, though.

And I think more generally we'll want to do this with a "hold on a bit" tone. The notion isn't that we are punishing them; we just want them to slow down a bit while they get settled or get over some temporary brain fever. Perhaps we need a term other than probation, as that has legal connotations that would probably encourage the out-flipping you mention. William Pietri 14:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Guy, I actually put this here to get your feedback. Any opinions? Thanks, William Pietri 14:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reading and thinking. I can't make up my mind whether we can take this forward as a technical proposal for programmers, or whether we could ask for a technical fix which restricts users from editing in certain spaces (main or project or whatever), or whether it can be proposed as a comunity sanction. I'm also struck by some of the message behind the posting below in respect of SV. I want to do some reading around the project space here. I am becoming more convinced that there is an escalation of acrimonious disputes, but not sure whether this is a reaction to the profile of Wikipedia making us a more attractive target for POV pushers and vainglorious idiots. Problems like myg0t and ED also cause me great concern; there seems to be an attitude that communities have a "right" to be documented here and, conversely, that they should not be allowed to move in. What would Jimbo do? I know it's tangential to this, but I want ot think of a solution to the Brian Peppers problem. Of course, by solution I mean a way of ensuring it stays deleted out of ordinary human decency, but that of course is my own POV, whcih is where it all comes back to. Guy 23:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting. Regarding the latter part, I read up on the cases you mention (or at least the AfDs and linked materials), and my first reaction is that a number of editors and admins are giving the troublemakers exactly what they want, which is drama. It also seems like there's a Wikipedian POV bias, but I can't decide whether that's a good thing or a bad thing. Thanks for pointing those out; it's good stuff to chew over.

For the first part, my current theory is that this could start out as a community-enforced sanction. Then automation could be a good next step. As a progammer I have a strong automation bias, but I'm amazed at how much people get done here with just text. E.g., the whole warning notice system. Were I around when it was first proposed, I would have certainly suggested software features. But people seem to get by just fine with the text, and the system can evolve without code changes. Ditto 3RR. William Pietri 23:51, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest structures

Hi. I can understand your exasperation with my persistence, but there's no need to target me like that. All this is based on a very simple, easy to verify fact. Please understand that I know the fact of the matter from every possible angle as I live here, as do others who have contributed to the discussion. I'd also like to remind you that there's much more going on here than meets the eye - the misnaming has in part 'local' motivations and quite personal opinion seen elsewhere that I cannot bring up in our discussions - because doing so would be a quite personal attack. Another note you may have missed - that I have been openly accused of sock-puppetry, and this if anything is a personal attack, and one of the very reasons mediation was called.

I've kept it to fact, and nothing but that, and will continue to do so. Mediation will help in this, and I am waiting for it to run its course. I am concerned with the process, but in no hurry. Thanks for your understanding. THEPROMENADER 19:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not targeting you, I'm just telling you that you're wasting your time. No consensus exists to move and you have not persuaded anyone otherwise. I do not believe you have engaged in sockpuppetry, for what it's worth, but I do think you are taking the entire dispute way to seriously. Guy 06:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Kraepelin RfAr, User:Etaonsh, User:Continueddonations

The Kraepelin RfAr has been archived as rejected in light of Fred Bauder's indef block of Etaonsh/Londhard, but without attention to the status of User:Continueddonations who posted to the RfAr as his first edits with uncivil and anti-Semitic remarks and has continued his attacks on User:Ebbinghaus at Talk:Schizophrenia. This is a highly troubled individual. See User Talk:Fred Bauder for more. MgM has requested a Checkuser at WP:RfCU but it's an open-and-shut sockpuppetry case. You may want to take action if Fred hasn't already. Newyorkbrad 22:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have shown them the door. Guy 22:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Fortuny

I noticed you closed the Jason Fortuny AfD, citing WP:BLP concerns. I'm wondering how that might impact the mention of him and this matter at Internet privacy? Personally, I think it should be trimmed/removed since it simply is just the latest internet privacy issue to hit the news (presentist bias), but perhaps there are BLP issues there as well? Your thoughts are appreciated. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as it's kept neutral and sourced, the fact that it's in context should keep WP:BLP concerns to a minimum. Any slide towards an attack should be strongly resisted. Guy 06:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For your input. I contemplated crossing 3RR per WP:BLP, but said to myself, "no lets not do that and stir up a hornets nest, I want to avoid trouble, lets ask an arb for help." You could just have declined to intervene. Or you could have left some advice with a friendly tone on my page. Instead you left a message titled "warning" on my page.

You point out my allegedly disruptive edits on Scientology. A total of 4 edits EVER over 4 days (yes I also edited related articles during that period, never exceeding 3RR, and usually not even approaching it). Removing huge blocks of text? Na. Vandalizing? Na. First removing, a category, and then when it became clear there was probably a consensus against that, adding a new subcategory? Yep. Pretty tendentious on my part to compromise?

I'm sorry that adding the term "alleged" is offensive to your sensibilities. Which Wiki policy does it violate that you felt the need to add that to your "warning?" From my view point, and the viewpoint of one of the world's foremost experts on cults, its the equivalent of trying to remove the category "fags" or "niggers" from an article. And adding your insight that Scientology is "pretty much the dictionary definition of a cult" when the article itself points out that some experts disagree with this was also a nice addition to your "warning." Heck, anybody that would stand up for religious minorities must be disruptive, right?

I edit over 100 controversial articles over a week period and a massive groundswelling of 4 or 5 people leave some sort of response on my talk page. Mostly to invite me to join a discussion on the matter, which I always eventually did. The only "warning" other than yours was this one. And that one was BS because I did not violate the rule in that instance (or at any time on any of these articles). And then that editor added an ad homim attack to his next edit summary. Which he repeated in his edit summary just before you contributed to to the article. But you ignored that. I mean come on, anybody that would stand up for a religious outlier deserves to be attacked, right?

I hope that you were tired and made your comments in haste. You came off very heavy handed. I asked for help, and you chewed my head off, and gave me several "warnings" which included your personal opinion on the pronoun "alleged" when used in categories, and the "textbook definition of a cult." I am not a member of any of these organizations. I do not have an axe to grind. I care about dignity of all human beings, I have seen nice people driven to tears by having their religion called a cult. It may not be a big deal to you, but it is to them. If, within the rules of wikipedia, I can make tiny changes to an article that retain the same basic content, but are less insulting to certain groups, then I will try to do so. My editing history clearly shows that I don't violate 3RR to do this, rarely come close, and if it becomes evident that after a few days that its more than just one or two people who have a beef with my edits, I seek compromise, increase participation on the talk pages, and decrease editing on the article itself. Do you have evidence to the contrary? I found one case of WP:BLP violation, vigorously opposed it (per policy), asked for help when I was unsuccessful, and you gave me a "warning" for my troubles.

I hope you will reconsider your actions, and come to the realization that when a wiki participant asks for help, this is not the way to respond. Please assume good faith, when possible. I have listened to what you had to say. In particular I see your point about blanking my talk page. I had no sisnister intentions, it was just cluttered and I'm usually too lazy to archive, but now that you bring it up, I can see how it might be helpful to others, not just the people I've already talked to. I'll either archive in the future, or wait a few weeks after a comment before starting over.

Regards, Dr U 06:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been editing against consensus, and you have been dismissive of the opinions of others. Many of your edits have been considered problematic. The warning was, I think, fair, in that I did acceot that you are acting in good faith, but so are the other editors. And it was couched as a warning because if you don't start to work more productively with others you are likely to end up blocked, and you need to know that. Believe it or not, I was actually trying to help, in that I was telling you that if you carry on as you are, the only one marching in step, you will end up in trouble. Guy 06:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A comment

On the American side of the pond, your tone in [6] can call to mind racial prejudices that are perhaps better off forgotten. I assume you didn't mean anything by it, and quite plausibly didn't know the history such comments evoke, but it might be better to find other ways to poke fun in the future. Dragons flight 17:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I had no idea. I am English, as you know, that is the language of Jeeves (or a poor facsimile thereof). What's the context? And thanks, by the way, I got sidetracked and never went to look at the article, which I had meant to do. I never could get the hang of Thursdays. Guy 17:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The exagerated subservience brings to mind the stereotypical way a "well-behaved" black man was expected to talk to "inherently superior" white men. Keep in mind that in the American South many people believed that about the best a black man should ever aspire to be was a butler, so in practice I guess Jeeves-like language took on extra overtones. Dragons flight 19:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OIC. Never even occurred to me! I always had that shit in the "massah" bucket, but that's the result I guess of not having read enough serious American cultural literature? Anyway, one lives and learns, thank you for setting me straight. The seocnd "u" in humour is all-important, isn't it? Guy 19:06, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've only ever been called "Sir" by rich white Americans, so there you are. Stephen B Streater 19:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One of our Australian sysadmins always addresses me as Sir in email. Guy 20:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thank you, JzG, for voting on my RFA, which passed 95 to 1. Now that I have the mop, I hope I can live up to the standard, and be a good administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. —this is messedrocker (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wpittman

The first thing he did was apparently create an article about himself, then he created an article about his unaccredited Bible college alma mater by copying promotional text from the website. I left a non-newbie-biting message on his talk page, but it's a just-slightly alarming pattern. So, you know, have your mop ready, just in case. A.J.A. 20:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

curiosity.

I suppose I'm more curious than frustrated about it: [7], [8]. You satiated me by being polite and not vandalistic; but I an wondering what you meant by "The link list for YTMND is too long to be easily manageable". What's a link list? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:47, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly reasonable question. [9] is the list as it stands, down from something over 300 links a month or so back. The major problem is the addition of YTMNDs to mainstream articles, many of which have soundtracks which are copyright violations. Guy 21:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting. I didn't even realize that was a feature of WP. Thanks! — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 00:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pride in Aberdeen - thanks! and a query

Thanks very much for moving the content for me. How long does the user page stay available? Do I need to save the content somewhere else, or can I work on it there? Yonmei 22:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no hard and fast rule, but keeping deleted content in your user space is generally discouraged, it has been abused as an end-run around policy in the past and WP:NOT a free web host, so it's a short-term thing. Guy 22:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD/Speedy Delete for enviropop

Hi Guy, Thanks for deleting the Greenest Piece page. Can you also delete enviropop? It was created by the same user. Let me know if I should just go through the nomination process again. Thanks, H0n0r 22:43, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied as empty. Guy 22:50, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much :-) H0n0r 23:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Return of an old friend

Hi there,

this page speaks of moving and other such Real Life fun stuff, but I thought you'd be interested in GST2006 (talk · contribs): in particular, his account creation date, compared to the date of departure of some other wikipedians, and his contributions that are starting to look familiar. Now our friend WikiWoo has been gone for a while, so as I understand a checkuser is out of question, but he sure looks familiar.

Currently, our friend has a bit of a financing issue with l'Conseil scolaire de district du Centre-Sud-Ouest, where he managed to get into a bit of a revert war with another new wikipedian, apparently a CSDCSO employee, but they haven't been too bad yet. Of course, there is a problem in that we can't just revert him summarily, since his claims of company employees censoring wikipedia would have at least some reflection in reality this time around.

He hasn't become unmanageable just yet, but I wouldn't mind some admin back-up in case things do escalate further. I was thinking to watch him a few more days, or is it not worth it? He did bring forward a valid issue at the CSDCSO page, but once again he is the one speaking of controversy, no notable group that we can cite so far.

Feel free to reply on this talk page, no need to incite anger, and who knows what he might do if he sees your nick on a talk page of someone he's talking with right now. Cheers. --Qviri (talk) 23:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking quite likely. Let's keep an eye. Guy 23:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples

Hi, I gave some more examples as requested. Thanks. -- Ekantik 01:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --FloNight 02:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go raibh maith agat!

File:Ireland 37 bg 061402.jpg

Hey Guy!

Thank you so much for supporting my RfA! It ended up passing and I'm rather humbled by the support (and a bit surprised that it was snowballed a day early!). Please let me know if I can help you out and I welcome any comments, questions, or advice you wish to share.

Sláinte!

hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 05:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Vandamalism

[10]
I was hesitant to block this guy for longer because it's a shared IP, but look at the block expiry times and the times of the subsequent block. This guy just keeps coming back almost immediately after his blocks expire. Would a (much) longer block be appropriate? Get rid of him for 6 months or something? -- Steel 10:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Check the box for anonymous only and uncheck the box for allow account creation, that should do the trick. Guy 10:53, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding critical mass

Hello Guy. I'm Joel from Wikia. I do not edit articles here, but I am very interested in the process as it relates to the collaborations at my site. Several of my fellow Wikians and I have created a project to investigate the critical mass of vandalism at Wikipedia in order to avoid it on our pages. To aid us, we are asking several dozen administrators about their blocking and support of blocking decisions in regard to other editors who have significant positive contributions and who are acting in good faith. My question for you involves a decision to support SlimVirgin's indefinite block of User:Xosa and decline the unblock request that he made on User talk:Xosa2 after SlimVirgin locked the User talk:Xosa page. In this case, an indefinite block was created by an administrator who was involved in a content dispute. Do you feel that your support of this block moves Wikipedia toward or away from critical mass? --24.10.172.236 14:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion either way. I looked at the block of Xosa2; the account was clearly created to evade a block. A block of Xosa2 allows for debate to continue on that Talk page, but not for the user to edit. The editor is in dialogue with SV and others, I am choosing to accept two findamental premises here: first, that SV knows what she's doing and is prepared to be open-minded about the possibility of an error; and second, that Zephram Stark is indeed a serial vandal who should be excluded from the project. If I am wrong in either of these assumptions I would like to know about it.

One thing I would say: Wikipedia has now achieved a critical mass in another sense. It is now big and significant enough that it is a primary target for people aggressively promoting fringe theories, and for the vainglorious vandal. It is probably the prime attraction for both classes of people. That fundamentally changes the dynamic, I think. I was very taken with William Pietri's comments, which I worked into an essay at WP:TIGERS. Sometimes you have to keep the tiger on a chain, other times you have to shoot it. Guy 15:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Tigers is a very interesting premise. I’m sure most people, vandals and administrators alike, agree with it. The only dispute would be over which editors constitute the tigers. At Wikia, we assume a premise that there is a little bit of tiger in all of us. As such, we need to be aware that all “truths” are opinions. WP:Tigers says it best with it’s quote from WikiEN-I:

You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral.

I think that quote can apply to anyone who adopts “the truth” of another person just because she is established. Avoiding critical mass, something we have been able to achieve so far at Wikia, is primarily a function of assuming good faith. In the context of assuming good faith in Xosa, everything he has done is for the betterment of Wikipedia. Since Xosa has broken no policies or guidelines, it takes assuming bad faith in Xosa to think that his obviously positive contributions might have an ulterior motive. For SlimVirgin, however, we don’t have to assume bad faith to see that she has permanently banned an editor with whom she was having a content dispute.

Thank you for taking the time to give me feedback on my question. You have shed much light on the reason Wikipedia is having so many problems with vandals. --24.10.172.236 20:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, SV blocked a sockpuppet of an already banned user. Maybe she should have asked someone else to do the needful, but there is credible evidence that this was indeed an abusive sockpuppet and thus a righteous block. But I have found this exchange illuminating, thank you. Guy 21:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a righteous block and it might not be. Observers only see that SlimVirgin has broken policy, and the person she effectively banned has not. Anything else, we can only assume on faith. Are we to presuppose that everything SlimVirgin does is righteous? This goes against the Wiki concept of peer review. In fact, the only neutral conclusion that observers can reach in this matter is that they better never disagree with SlimVirgin. If that is what Wikipedia is trying to portray, why have open editing at all? --24.10.172.236 22:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a difficult one, though. If an admin is an active editor on an article and a sockpuppet of a banned user appears to insert POV for in a manner for which they were banned (which is what I understand happened here), then it is not unreaosnable for them to block, but in such circumstances openness is important and posting on WP:ANI is clearly a good idea. I've been beaten up for this before myself, in the case of egregious violation of WP:LIVING; in that case I was very much convinced of the validity of the actions because defamatory content was being added to an article on a serial litigant. If you want to take it further I can't stop you, but I don't see this as a big deal. Maybe I'm wrong, the identity of the user means I really don't care sufficiently to get wound up by it. Guy 22:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in fixing Wikipedia in the slightest. However, the ramifications of letting the same type of self-reinforcing vandalism movement happen at Wikia are repugnant to me. I desperately want to get to the bottom of it. People are naturally going to rebel against authorities that make secret judgments that appear to only serve their personal interests. Secret judgments are naturally going to increase in a system that allows them, especially when vandalism is growing. So my root query is: why does the system allow them? How did Wikipedia go from being a peer review environment to one of grunts and incontestable authorities? How can we keep the same thing from happening at Wikia? --24.10.172.236 23:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guy, I've not seen any plausible evidence that User:Xosa is a sockpuppet of Zephram Stark. As such it is undeniably bad form for SlimVirgin to be blocking him when she's involved with a discussion over a content dispute with him (or her for that matter). (→Netscott) 05:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First up, I don't see Wikia as being particularly likely to suffer the same problems. It's not as popular or as widely discussed, it doen't have the policies regarding original research and neutrality which underly most of the really vicious content disputes, and it doesn't appear to encourage schoolchildren to replace images in Wiki templates with penis.jpg. It's less of a target. In reply to Netscott, the diagnosis was, according to SV, supported by one of the original arbitrators in the Zephram Stark case. They know more about that than I do. Guy 07:44, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are enough vandals to try a random test on the effectiveness of different approaches. I suspect some new users come here with only a mild inclination to be vandals. There are only so many times adding a swear word to an article can be interesting. This is magnified by the negative reaction they receive at the start. Stephen B Streater 08:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem stems from the fact that people who aren't vandals are being accused of being vandals in order to control content. Take Xosa, for instance. His contributions clearly show a shyness about contributing unless everyone is in agreement. There isn't anything in his edits that could remotely be considered vandalism. He appeared to spend most of his time making suggestions on the talk pages, changing articles only when everyone agreed. Xosa didn't make a single edit to the article where he had a content dispute with SlimVirgin. He only made suggestions on the talk page. His suggestions seemed to be centered on parts of the article that he thought were better suited to another article. Looking through the 7 pages of archives and 2 pages of mediation arguments, we find that the same dispute has come up many times. I can understand how SlimVirgin might be tempted to simply accuse Xosa of being a sockpuppet instead of going through all that again, but I believe her actions have much broader implications for the vandalism movement in general. While it appears that Xosa has quietly slipped away, other people might take extreme offense at being called a sockpuppet or a vandal with no viable recourse. After all, how would one prove that he isn't a sockpuppet or vandal when there is no evidence that he is in the first place? Instead of falsely accusing contributors in order to avoid rehash a common dispute, this problem could be solved by creating a Frequently Addressed Disputes page summarizing and citing common issues with a delicate article. --24.10.172.236 03:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at Talk:Roman Catholic Church you will see that frequently addressed disputes will be dragged up frequently until the people with very strong opinions get their own way. Some people are absolutely intent on righting great wrongs, User:WikiWoo being an example. There is no way we can accommodate that within policy, nor should we aim to. User:Xosa engaged in behaviour which caused SV to diagnose it as a sock of Zephram Stark; this was backed up by a member of ArbCom; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Zephram Stark applies - the problem here was tendentious editing, not vandalism. Incidentally, I don't see any credible evidence of the supposed use of blocking to gain advantage in a content dispute in the case of Xosa, so perhaps you could provide diffs.

There are users who are falsely accused of vandalism. My Talk archives will show that several POV pushers have accused me of vandalism in the past for removing their biased edits. Can you cite diff evidence of admins falsley accusing users of vandalism? Guy 08:22, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can cite diff evidence of hundreds of cases already and I am still continuing my investigation. I intend to post it at Wikia and at Meta when I'm finished. I would be happy to post a copy of it here as well. However, you may not find it very flattering. I use your actions as an example of how Wikipedia has failed to avoid critical mass. There are "tigers" in the administration and they are quite easy to spot. They are the ones that ban editors with whom they disagree and get their friends to back them up with secret evidence. But that's not where Wikipedia fails. Wikipedia fails when the administrators looking for tigers turn a blind eye when its one of their own, or actually accentuate the malfeasance by denying an unblock request based on technicalities. --24.10.172.236 05:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Whitlock Porter

What's your point in deleting and blocking CWP article? As an adminstrator you have, I believe, an obligation to act responsibly and explain yourself. You are not the only person on the planet whose opinion merits credibility. Proskauer 14:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me for butting in, but I was dropping by to see if Guy had responded to a question above. If you look at the delete log you'll see that the page has been deleted by three different administrators. If you think the page merits inclusion, you should start by assuming good faith in your discussions with fellow Wikipedians; civility is the fastest way to get things done here. For a biography, you should gather citations for reliable sources that have enough verifiable information that we can write a biography, one that complies with our policy for biographies on living persons and hopefully with our notability guidelines for biographies as well. You may want to present this information at deletion review, so that you get a number of perspectives at once. And as you read these documents, make sure you follow the spirit rather than arguing the letter; to do otherwise is not appreciated here. Thanks, William Pietri 14:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Good faith" would include a discussion by adminstrators doing the deleting. I have now seen the record you mention and find only terse remarks. This is not "good faith" discussion. As far as the merits of the article are concerned, it's all relative. Proskauer 15:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time looking into this one, I saw no assetion in the article that this is a notable person per WP:BIO and saw that two other admins had come to the same conclusion. Feel free to take it to deletion review. I also looked in detail at many of your contributions. They leave a nasty taste in the mouth. You appear to admire some extremely unpleasant people, and promote some exceptionally vile ideas. Guy 15:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that other people are not acting in good faith because they aren't doing what you think they should is not assuming good faith; it's just the opposite. If good faith were immediately obvious based on somebody's actions, we wouldn't need to make assuming good faith part of the core of this enterprise. Perhaps you could try it out for a while and see?

As to the merits of the article, that a standard is relative (and I don't think WP:V particularly is) does not mean that you don't have to do the legwork to meet it. If your goal is actually get the article back, you'll need to show that it lives up to the policies and guidelines I mentioned. If you fail to do that, people will suspect that you are here for some other purpose than building a good encyclopedia. William Pietri 16:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, I don't care about the bad taste in your mouth. And the fact that two other administrators agree on the issue is absolutely irrelevant, in my book. The article had just begun, and I see many other stubs that are not deleted. POV and double standard. Proskauer 15:55, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that other articles of questionable significance exist therefore this article of questionable significance must exist, has never been persuasive. Neither has accusing admins of bias, strange to relate. Take it to DRV if you like. Guy 15:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Usually I let my interlocutors have the last word, if only to give them the sense of having won the debate whilst others have the chance of reading the discussion. In this case I have one word for you: "What-everrrr...." Proskauer 16:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If William Pietri believes that to have good faith one must assume it in others, then what about the editors who peremptorily deleted the article because they found it to be distasteful. Were they assuming good faith in me? There are thousands of wiki articles on two-bit, third-rate actors, writers, and various other players on the world stage, which remain unmolested. THE ARTICLE WAS DELETED AND BLOCKED BECAUSE THE SUBJECT IS A HOLOCAUST DENIER. Claiming anything else is hypocrisy. In any case, it is sheer idiocy to talk about whether an argument is "persuasive", as Guy does. Administrators have the POWER here and I do not. Power does not equate with quality of intellect or consistency of principle. It never has and never will. And, by the way, this whole thing is pretty much par for the course on Wikipedia. Proskauer 16:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've looked into your claims and find them to be without apparent merit. I agree that people are more likely to delete bad articles that they don't like than ones they do. This, however, is a volunteer effort, one staffed with people, not saints or robots. If you would like to put in the time deleting those articles you think unworthy, then please do it. But absent that, inclusion is not an indicator of notability. We already have a number of articles on notable holocaust deniers; see Holocaust_denial#Notable_Holocaust_deniers_and_revisionists. I've looked for evidence that Carlos Whitlock Porter is notable under the appropriate standard and found nothing. If you have some so that we can construct an article with facts verifiable from reliable sources, then post them here. If not, I (and likely all the other serious editors) will continue with my belief that he's in the 99.99% of humanity that don't qualify for an encyclopedia article. William Pietri 16:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enough

Okay Man just remove all the details for P...... B... and clean all the pages and disscussions for Amoon and Ammoonamoon, whatever its irelevant anyway. Please clean all the details.... REMOVE THIS PAGE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Buri

STOP SHOUTING. I am quietly going aboutn the business of removing it, removing your blocked accounts, and allowing you to quietly vanish, OK? If you want to come back with another username and make a fresh start steering clear of that particular subject, I'm sure you will be quite welcome. But I'm not being paid to do this and I have to fit it around real life, so it may take a few hours. Guy 15:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC

Okay thanks, Take care, I enjoy wikipedia and will probably make a new fresh start with new user name and this time I will be a perfect civil wikipedia member. Take care, have a nice week end ( make your best to clean all the stuff to make sure that things will not come up again.) Best Regards.

Sure, and if you can stay calm and not take things too personally you'll do just fine. Best of luck, Guy 20:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xosa

Hi Guy, there were patterns in the edits strongly suggestive of Zephram Stark. Interestingly, Xosa seems determined not to e-mail me to discuss it, which I invited him to do. I asked one of the arbitrators who dealt with Zephram during his ArbCom case to review the block, and sent him the evidence. His view was that it was either Zephram or another sockpuppet who was just as bad. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:15, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, thanks. As you see from the comment above, a thought provoking point was made. I reckon this is an event with a long tail and there's not much anybody can do to turn it round. Guy 20:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zephram is always able to be calm or otherwise as he chooses. :-) Bear in mind what the arbitrator said: if it's not Zephram, it's another sockpuppet account and just as bad. Even if you reach the conclusion that it's not him, it would still be wise not to unblock. If you're familiar with Zephram's editing, you'll see what I mean when you look at the contribs. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:28, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I'm not about to unblock. Just trying to make sure everything's above board. Guy 21:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you say I was in a content dispute with him? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:32, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because Xosa and the meta user both said so. I guess it's time to go and make up my own mind, and I bet I know what I'll find. ZOMG Rouge admin abuse! Guy 21:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Buri

Sure... I don't care at all. It's not a big deal. Grand master ka 18:07, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have done the needful. Guy 21:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New article surrounding a diploma mill needs speedied: St Clements University Network. Arbusto 21:30, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eatonsh=Continueddonations=Returnoftheman

With literally no break at all, permanently blocked user Eatonsh aka Continueddonations is back, this time exclusively focusing on the main Schizophrenia and the Talk:Schizophrenia page. That they all are the same user is obvious if you look at his writing style, interpunction, topics, timing, appearance, mode of reasoning, etc. that IMHO it does not need any further proof. However, I am not sure how to deal with it any further; I admit I am somehow involved in this by now (he has called me a Nazi perhaps once too often by now), and reverting him all the time is a drag and looks, in spite of my explanations, odd to some other users on the page in question, some of which are helping him. Thus, I am herewith asking some of the users, admins and ArbCom members who were involved in this case previously to check and to either suggest what to do or to initiate some remedial course of action. Many thanks in advance. Ebbinghaus 23:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just a note that this user is still engaging in violations of Wikipedia content and conduct guidelines using the sockpuppet Cestlogique (talk • contribs); Icankeepthisupforever (talk · contribs) is another probable sock. --Muchness 08:46, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Please report on WP:ANI for faster response, though. Guy 09:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will do so in future. Regards. --Muchness 09:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mccready is issued a 30 day community probation related to Pseudoscience articles

Hello

Based on the comments left on AN/I, I issued a 30 day topic ban to Mccready. (see Community probation log [11]) Discussion on talk pages is encouraged. Admins can enforce the ban if needed. Crosspost from AN:

Based on this discussion on AN/I [12] and the numerous comments on Mccready's talk page, Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is issued a 30 day ban from editing all articles related to the Pseudoscience. Mccready is encouraged to discuss his ideas on the talk pages of these articles. The the suggested sanction for disregarding the article ban is a 24 hour block with the block time adjusted up or down according to Mccready's response. Admins are encouraged to monitor the ongoing effectiveness of this article topic ban and make appropriate adjustments if needed. FloNight 23:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion about the ban or request for enforcement can be made at AN/I or AN. FloNight 01:12, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mercola BLP issue

JzG, you seem to specialize in WP:BLP. Joseph Mercola, a nationally known alt med DO, has previously, publicly complained about the quality of the Wikipedia article about him. Having some familiarity with Mercola & his newsletter, but also agreeing with a number of criticisms of him, I have run my own article improvement on the article. With regard to one final element is an issue of WP:BLP on settlement of a lawsuit between Mercola & Stephen Barrett, "quackwatcher". A QW partisan, Fyslee, is eager to finish the article with a spamlink to QW that claims Mercola made a $50k payment & a retraction. I think that such a claim would be fine if there is evidence beyond Barrett's mere claim in a case of where a BLP actually has a public complaint, but I question Fyslee's interpretation (Mercola-Barett lawsuit discussion with regard to article on Stephen Barrett) over NATTO's, "withdrawn" (which is similar to mine[13]) as to reference quality required in a BLP with such a complaint, between two legal combatants.

Edit dif series starts here [14]. Could you give us an opinion?--I'clast 11:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a nasty one. I' ave a suggestion, though... Guy 11:20, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have read your comments and replied. There is a misunderstanding, as there is only one version of what happened. -- Fyslee 21:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy. I cannot spend all my time checking the talk page so have not been able to reply immediately at the time Fyslee, who is the one who complained, posting his reply. There is quite a lot on the talk page , including the archive so it is difficult to have a clear understanding with a a quick look. I noted the comments above regarding Dr. Mercola. Certainly if all articles related to living persons were properly referenced and editors took pain to make sure that facts were correct, it would be a big improvement, in my opinion, for WP. Verifiability is fine however there is a level of quality involved... That is what we are trying to do with the Barrett article.

As for the POV tag on the section on controversy and litigation, this is probably the best referenced section with many of the references being from court document and legal rulings. Also when critics make claims about Barrett , they are clearly identified as claims and Barrett is quoted to give his version of the situation. Fyslee does not like it because many of the court decisions have been against Barrett.

Finally I was under the impression that Wikipedia was a community were issues are properly discussed and open to either consensus or agreement. Maybe I misunderstood :-).NATTO 02:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your misunderstanding is in what constitutes consensus or agreement, I think. What is required is not truth but verifiability, as stated on the Talk page. Guy 11:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected your honour. Verifiability it is. I assume that you accept that there are degrees of verifiability and that not all documents are of equal value... Or is that another of my misunderstanding ? NATTO 12:27, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed degrees of reliability and verifiability, and we should be careful not to give undue weight to any individual criticism of a living individual. You will always have a problem here, given that you are solely interested in supporting the side of non-traditional remedies, that Wikipedia's policy by its very nature supports the scientific consensus. Medical journals are reliable sources, websites making extravagant claims of benefit are not. You will see this friction in places like pseudoscience. Guy 12:57, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad I did not misunderstand that one. Thank you for your in depth analysis of my sole interest. Of course I am only a trained health professional who has written peer-reviewed scientific articles so what do I know about these issues.... NATTO 13:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: your sole apparent interest in this project. You give every appearance of being a single purpose account, all your edits appear to be in support of non-traditional health subjects. Guy 16:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

JzG, thank you for your prompt attention to the Mercola BLP matter. Both Fyslee and NATTO are open partisans about SB and the QW site. I have not encountered NATTO before so I don't know his story. Given your SPA concern, he might be simply contra-QW in Wiki interests or a SPA anti-stalking handle among other possiblities. You aver to "reliable sites" and "pseudoscience". I am not examining NATTO's edits too closely. QW is a polemic site that seems to attack *everything* that it doesn't like, fairness, accuracy and science be damned. Interesting to read. I refer to it for some things, with reservations, but also recognize that QW is served as a opportunistic hardball without regard to fairminded scientific accuracy, rather more legalistically - "so sue me". So far I have avoided edits on the QW related sites. If you look around, you'll find hardcore scientific skeptics, well credentialed, about QW's reliability although it seems muted. Perhaps they are trying to keep volume low, in house for right now. Don't know. Anyway, may I request that you address the BLP part separately from NATTO's SPA question as there are several of us, counting statsone, that seem to have an interest, in general, and specifically, the Mercola BLP. My reading of the rules is that SB gets to give his personal version, within reason, on the SB BLP bio, but that Wiki requires hard references for legally controverted BLPs where Wiki itself has been publicly criticized and is itself in question. I want to see your directed opinion on BLP since you have faced the issue more. Frankly, I would truly like to see QW partisans dish up the actual hardcopy on any amounts and other details, rather than just rumor mongering. Trust but verify.--66.58.130.56 18:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freestylefrappe/Tchadienne/KI/Republitarian/NOBS etc

I thought you might be interested in commenting on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposing community impatience ban for Freestylefrappe as I think you were involved with him (as Tchadienne) at the same time I was. Apologies if this is of no interest. --Guinnog 12:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher

This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. ParalelUni's community ban is endorsed. Any of the single-purpose accounts mentioned identified in the case, or any other accounts or IPs an administrator deems to be an account used solely for the editing of St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages, may be banned from that article or related pages for disruptive edits.

For the Arbitration Committee. FloNight 17:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You are out of order

How dare you threaten me. You are referring, of course, to the GLF article, which I merely reverted to the previous position because of the directions of the Wikipedia Legal Team. I have been unable to find where that team have given the go-ahead for restoration of the illegal materials within it and so I correctly reverted the article. No "vandalism" was involved and you are out of order.Chelsea Tory 06:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are out of order. I did not threaten you, I wanrted you, which is different. Also, the assertion that material is "illegal" is solely promoted by fans of Lauder-Frost, who were quite happy to have the case mentioned as long as it was in the context of a blatant falsehood. You may not blank an entire article because you dispute a single fact within it, and you may not remove cited content against consensus. As a single-purpose account you may also be banned from editing that article. Guy 09:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin war?

Its always a little confusing when one admin says one thing and another admin goes and does something completely different. I am refering to Slimvirgin's intervention of the GLF page in which she has basically restored Chelsea Tory's edit and, in my opinion, made a nonsense of the whole article. I'm also a little cross that she specifically requested myself and Endomorph not to edit the article but said nothing of the anonymous IPs who have been vandalising it for almost a week. I'm worried she might ban me if I go and revert it so perhaps you other admin could bang your heads together and reach some kind of consensus. Guidence needed! Thanks.--Edchilvers 17:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your note

Guy, I completely understand your concerns. I spent some time last night going through the edit history and I can see it was GLF or friends who created the article as a vanity piece, and then added a reference to the legal case but misrepresented it. I also agree entirely that it can't be a hagiography. What would your overall preference be — to have a full article with the conviction, or a stub? My concern is the editing by Edchilvers and Endomorph who seem to have been involved in a libel action before in relation to a friend of GLF. That complicates things enormously. I've e-mailed Brad for guidance, by the way. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:11, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

stormfront

I've used talk and thoroughly supported the paragraph with 11 cites. Cites are directly to legal statutes and directly to where the content is found in the forum. As for having to defer to majority opinion when I am outnumbered - is it wiki policy to have an article say "1+1=3" just because more people want that in than the people who want "1+1=2"?

My content gets scrapped repeatedly even though it has 11 cites and the best excuse they can come up with is 'original research'. That is incorrect. They also accuse me of editing first and posting to talk after. That is incorrect. They also accuse me of merely reinserting the same text. That is incorrect. I have tried to rephrase it in many different ways, they still auto delete it.

I'm totally behind the whole freedom expression goals of Wikipedia but not to the extent that a tiny subculture can remove factual content from the wiki page about their forum merely because they don't like the way that content makes them look. The wiki article is not an extension of their forum. It is not an advertisement or a recruitment opportunity. It contains fact and should be objective.

I offered them to counterbalance my paragraph by mentioning some ways of accomplishing a White Nation that do not fit the legal definition of genocide. They have been unable or unwilling to do so. If that is because there is no other way presented on the site, that is not a reason to excuse my paragraph - if anything, it makes the paragraph that much more pertinent.

The entire site is perfused with 'white nation', ethnic cleansing, and Nazi icons and other imagery that evokes images of the holocaust. Several of the forums have stickied threads devoted to the holocaust or ethnic cleansing or other militaristic strategies.

I have not passed judgment on them - if you look carefully at the paragraph they keep scrapping, you will note that it does not say that the conduct is genocide. It merely cites some of the content, describes it, and gives the legal definition of genocide under US and international law. That is also cited. It is not original research - original research is not going out and finding facts and referencing them, but that's what they appear to think.

I do not attribute the content to the webmaster or the forum itself - I only note that the content is present there. This is partly due to a statement that the site does not permit advocating or suggesting illegal content. This is clearly lip service only - like if Tony Soprano circulating a memo prohibiting whacking people. A policy that is not enforced is no policy at all.

Please take a closer look and, if you like, reassess your conclusions in light of what I've said. Thank you, Stick to the Facts 18:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another note - you should know that one or more of those involved have been practicing extensive forum shopping, trying one admin after another to try to get them to side against me. If you really believe in impartiality I hope that you will discourage them from doing this in the future and instead, encourage them to use the normal process.

UberCyrxic (sp?) has contacted admins before, trying to get be banned for violating 3RR without going through the usual process. Please remain impartial and discourage this behavior. Thanks, Stick to the Facts 18:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable collectible card game players

I noticed that you recently participated in the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roy St. Clair (4th nomination). You may also be interested in the following discussions for the following collectible card game players:

Thank you. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 505: / Line 505: @@
 :::: To clarify: your sole ''apparent'' interest ''in this project''.  You give every appearance of being a [[WP:SPA|single purpose account]], all your edits appear to be in support of non-traditional health subjects.  <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 16:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
+:::::JzG, thank you for your prompt attention to the Mercola BLP matter.  Both Fyslee and NATTO are open partisans about SB and the QW site.  I have not encountered NATTO before so I don't know his story. Given your SPA concern, he might be simply contra-QW in Wiki interests or a SPA anti-stalking handle among other possiblities.  You aver to "reliable sites" and "pseudoscience". I am not examining NATTO's edits too closely.  QW is a polemic site that seems to attack *everything* that it doesn't like, fairness, accuracy and science be damned.  Interesting to read. I refer to it for some things, with reservations, but also recognize that QW is served as a opportunistic hardball without regard to fairminded scientific accuracy, rather more legalistically - "so sue me". So far I have avoided edits on the QW related sites.  If you look around, you'll find hardcore scientific skeptics, well credentialed, about QW's reliability although it seems muted.  Perhaps they are trying to keep volume low, in house for right now. Don't know.  Anyway, may I request that you address the BLP part separately from NATTO's SPA question as there are several of us, counting statsone, that seem to have an interest, in general, and specifically, the Mercola BLP.  My reading of the rules is that SB gets to give his personal version, within reason, on the SB BLP bio, but that Wiki requires hard references for legally controverted BLPs where Wiki itself has been publicly criticized and is itself in question. I want to see your directed opinion on BLP since you have faced the issue more. Frankly, I would truly like to see QW partisans dish up the actual hardcopy on any amounts and other details, rather than just rumor mongering. Trust but verify.--[[User:66.58.130.56|66.58.130.56]] 18:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 ==Freestylefrappe/Tchadienne/KI/Republitarian/NOBS etc==