User talk:JzG/Archive 24: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:47, 24 September 2006

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to User Talk:JzG/Archive-Nov. 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]

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]

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]

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

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 [3]. 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]

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]

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

[4]
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]

ZOMG! Rouge admin abuse! Seriously, if all your examples turn out to be trolls as disruptive as Zephram Stark then I'll not be too worried. I think you have failed to allow for the extent to which Wikipedia is now a magnet for every fringe theorist, vainglorious opinionated idiot and troll on the Internet. The higher our profile gets, the more we're going to have to fight off determined, intelligent and extremely persistent people who have an agenda to hijack parts of the project for their own ends. Blaming the janitors for the tiger shit is missing the point somewhat. Guy 12:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Guy, for the time you have taken to answer our questions. My name is Virginia and I have been heading up the task force to research the causes of vandalism at Wikipedia. You have been more forthcoming than most. The Wikia members involved with this project and I appreciate that very much. We are in the process of compiling our results. We will provide you with a copy of the report when we are finished in a day or so. Thank you again for your time and honest opinion. --Virginia from Herndon, Virginia 24.106.36.98 18:57, 21 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]

"Hi. I've looked into your claims and find them to be without apparent merit." This is fairly typical of the narcissistic rants found among exalted wiki administrators and editors. Utter claptrap. It purports to be a serious discussion but has as much substance as a cupful of deep outerspace. "Without merit" is legalese. Are you a lawyer? Have you been abused by too many judges or senior partners? I'm not interested in deleting articles, but apparently you are. Proskauer 17:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback, calls may be monitored for training purposes. The grounds for deletion are as stated: no assertion of encyclopaedic notability per WP:BIO. Feel free to work up a new version in your user space, including references from reliable secondary sources to allow others to verify the neutrality of the article. Alternatively if you feel you are being hard done by you can go to deletion review, dispute resolution, the administrators' noticeboard, or, as far as I am personally concerned, hell, because personal attacks from people who have failed to get their way are as unpersuasiveas they are common. And that, I think, concludes our little chat; I'm off to delete some articles. Guy 18:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I'm still wondering what your stake is in this deal and why you found it imperative to cut the article. Certainly, currying favor with your American counterparts will earn you some badges. Or is the Holocaust a particular interest of yours? I'll admit that CW Porter is a minor figure in the vast panoply of Holocaust revionists. Did you know that Dr. Johann Paul Kremer recanted his testimony about Auschwitz once he got out of Soviet-Communist controlled Polish prisons, back into Deutschland? I know, I know, these are all minor irrelevancies in the gigantic scheme of the Holocaust. But just humor me for a moment and "consider the possibilities" as Woody Allen's pal in Annie Hall once said about a pair of vixenish twins. Proskauer 06:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's turn that around shall we? I'm wondering what your stake is in this deal and why you find it imperative to recreate the article on what you freely admit is a minor holocaust denier - it was, after all, deleted three times by three different admins. I outlined your options above, I don't believe that imputing motives - while ignoring the rationale I gave you more than once - was on the list. Guy 06:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Well, you are answering a question with a question, and you are repeating your original argument, which I stated I didn't agree with and that I think it has to do with power rather than any rationale. However, in answer to your second question first, I find it imperative to have the same rights that other people enjoy, to wit, free speech. If three people with a shared agenda can get together to shut down my right to free speech on no more basis than taste and opinion, then I have suffered a loss and defeat of sorts. As to why I care about the Holocaust, perhaps it is something inborn in me that when I see untruths being touted and expounded as history, I feel the need to question the record and point out the discrepancies.

For the record, you are not in a position of outlining my options. You are not an authority over me and it is offensive for you and others to suggest so. Proskauer 13:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm pointing out that you appear to be interpreting your own bias as neutrality, accusing three admins of gross bias as a result, with no evidence to support that claim, and not listening to anything you don't want to hear. You also appear to share a fundamental misconception about Wikipedia: it is free-as-in-beer, not free-as-in-speech. Your rights in Wikipedia are limited to the right to fork and the right to leave. You have no other enforceable rights, this is a matter of simple fact. Your assertion that conventional wisdom on the holocaust amounts to untruths is a classic case of tendentious editing; Wikipedia does not exist to Right Great Wrongs, it exists to reflect what is known form reliable secondary sources, in neutral terms, without giving undue weight to fringe theories. Your options at this point are: deletion review, dispute resolution, or go away. Contrary to your assertion, I am in a position to enforce these options by blocking you from editing, just as I prevented you from re-creating an article which several individuals had agreed made no claim of significance for its subject. This, also, is a simple statement of fact. Now, if you would be so good as to pick one of the three options above, we can all get on with writing an encyclopaedia. Guy 14:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm listening, believe me I'm listening. Can you block me from ALL editing, or just editing here on your space? I'm genuinely curious, since I don't know. Can you block my entire address, or just this incarnation thereof? Do you have to go to a higher authority, some guy in Tennessee or in the Silicon Valley? Jimbo himself? Anyway, Wikipedia, like all egalitarian efforts, is quickly becoming an oligarchy (see Animal Farm) and again I'm not surprised. What I am is concerned and possibly disappointed because I earnestly hope that products of the British educational system such as you will maintain an objective and critical viewpoint, since most Americans are incapable of doing it. As far as evidence, ain't no evidence here, bro, ain't no evidence anywhere where the Holocaust is concerned, ain't nobody here but us chickens. (That's cultural reference which I don't expect you to get.) I don't see you offering evidence. Oh, I forgot ... you're an editor, you are under no obligations to adhere to any strictures with regard to reality outside of Wikipedia itself. "Fringe theories": ah yes, Galileo and the like. Rest calmly, good sir, Wikipedia will soon become all of reality and there will be no fundamental challenges in your life. Soon we will all be immortal in cyberspace. Proskauer 14:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can indeed block you or any other editor, block your IP address, lock your user and talk pages so you can't ask to be unblocked, delete any article I like or lock it to prevent editing. But most of the time I don't, because Wikipedia is not actually an oligarchy at all, it's a very egalitarian place where editors who earn the trust and respect of the community are given the ability to do these things and generally respond by using these tools only for the the benefit of the project. Three such trusted members of the community have deleted the article on what you admit is a minor holocaust denier, and others flagged the article for deletion. The only common point here is you, so asserting that the bias is on the part of multiple others not yourself cleary violates Occam's Razor. The idea that I would be ignorant of there ain't nobody here but us chickens is somewhat odd - for the record I prefer the BB King version - but I would remind you that throughout history there have been many, many examples of individuals or small groups who thought that they were right and everyone else was wrong; almost all turned out to be completely wrong, and those who didn't mainly pre-date or were part of the scientific revolution of the 18th Century. These days when every reputable authority in the world says you are wrong, it's probably because you are. To say nothing of holocaust denial being a criminal offence in some countries. Guy 15:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alrightalready. You're one up on me since I never knew it was a song. I heard it in the form of a joke from my uncle out in the country many years ago. I can guarantee you he never heard the song either, but it's quite possible the joke was popularized by the 1940's song. Anyway, I'm not particularly concerned about being blocked, but I suggest ALWAYS viewing ALL evidence from a fresh viewpoint without preconceptions. Just spend some time, actually a lot of time, looking at the photgraphs of the gas chambers and let the evidence wash over you. Allow yourself to come to your own conclusions. Proskauer

I have already spent all the time I can bear to spend looking at the pictures, thanks all the same. And please do not be tempted to try and convert me to your way of thinking, just accept that you would be wasting your time even trying. Guy 16:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guy, what you should also keep in mind is that Proskauer's biographies of Holocaust deniers are all copyvios. For example, the Porter article was a direct copy of this. His François Duprat article was a direct copy of this. His Mark Weber article was a direct copy of this.

Not at all surprising. He does not strike me as the sort to go beyond the superficial in this matter. Neither am I for that matter, but I'm not trying to rewrite history. Is it time for an RfC? Guy 20:32, 22 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]

It's baaaaaaaaaaaaack. At least this version looks decent, but it's still not sourced. Speedy delete and indef ban? AfD to settle the matter once and for all? Help me decide, or do it yourself, I don't care too much. Grand master ka 23:57, 20 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 [5]) Discussion on talk pages is encouraged. Admins can enforce the ban if needed. Crosspost from AN:

Based on this discussion on AN/I [6] 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[7]) as to reference quality required in a BLP with such a complaint, between two legal combatants.

Edit dif series starts here [8]. 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]

Guy, 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.--I'clast 19:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well expressed I'clast. NATTO 23:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism from reliabel medical sources would inevitably carry much more weight han criticism from - well, quacks, for want of a better word. Feel free to replace the acres of "there was an earthquake, a fire, a terrible flood, an old friend came in form out of town" etc. with some hard evidence of real criticism from people whose criticism actually carries some weight. Guy 23:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If medical doctors are not enough, is a California Superior Court judge acceptable or do we need a peer-review study listed on PubMed ? 00:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me that somebody is trying to argue that because he is not a board-certified psychiatrist, he can't possibly be an authority on health scams. Not a very persuasive line of reasoning... Guy 09:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What the article says is simply factual a) he was never Board certified in his own field of professional activity b) a judge found him to be no expert in at least one of the modality he is critical of and even found him to be not credible at the trial ( all referenced with legal documents ). His critics are voicing their opinion . Barrett then explain what qualifies him to write on so many topics ( his own words ) All factual and referenced. I am sure the readers can make up their up their own mind. NATTO 10:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of which would be so much more credible if it wasn't for the self-evident fact that some of these critics are charlatans. Whihc is why I want to collect the criticisms by person. Guy 10:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the Mercola article, this 1998 editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine references an ongoing general bias in medicine against nutrition[9], dif. I don't think Mercola's WP:BLP should depend on the QW/SB/Bolen is-too, is-not byplay. However, with respect to QW, SB et al as polemics questioned for reliability on alt med/nutrition subjects pertaining to Mercola, this article[10], dif seems more independent and relevant than the current critics cited at SB. I would especially take time to read this latter, it's an eye opener.--I'clast 15:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Negrete is a lawyer, fully licensed in the state of California, Dr. Chopra and Dr. Sahelian are M.D. the same medical qualification that as Barrett has, Peter Barry Chowka is a former adviser to the National Institutes of Health's Office of Alternative Medicine and Haley J. Fromholz is a judge of the California Superior Court... What is the problem with them... They do not share your POV, is that the problem ? It leaves Bolen which Fyslee does not like at all and constantly rails about. Like it or not Bolen is openly critical of Barrett and Barrett is openly critical of Bolen. This is factual and well known so it is relevant. By the way Guy calling others charlatans and quack does not help progress the discussion.NATTO 12:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What a lwayer says tends to be dependent on, and should be viewed in the context of, who is paying him to say it. That is a large part of the problem. And there is little doubt that there are many charlatans in the alternative health market, and all of them would be a great deal happier if consumer advocacy groups like Quackwatch went away. Which is why it is vital for any criticism to fully establish the bona fides and conflicting interests of the critic. This is a general principle and is not so very controversial, I think. Guy 13:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very general statement that is not helpful in progressing the discussion. Please be specific. If you think that Negrete, Chopra, Sahelian , Chowka , Fromholz fit your above description, then please provide factual information instead of ranting based on your view of the situation. NATTO 21:06, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. Guy 21:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if some history of the criticisms could be mentioned where relevant. The Bolen connection to many (certainly not all) criticisms and most libel suits is worth mentioning and is verifiable. Sometimes it should also be possible to identify what types of criticism we're dealing with: libel, ad hominem, straw man, ethical, professional, educational, scientific, etc.. Many of these would be combinations, as most of the last few I've mentioned are actually ad homs or straw man attacks. It would be a service to readers to identify just why the critics make their utterances: Bolen is paid to do so by quacks that have been exposed by Barrett. Others parrot Bolen because they have had their own unethical or unscientific practices criticized by Barrett, etc.. His criticisms that motivated their attacks could be linked to. In the few instances where he has been attacked prior to specific exposés of individual quacks, that could also be mentioned.

What is lacking is more serious criticism made in a proper manner, using scientific research and without personal attacks. I've seen a couple in the last seven years, but can't recall where. They were serious attempts, but were fallacious, and therefore haven't been a continued part of the repertoire of attacks. If they had been successful debunking efforts, they would be very prominent and noticeable, and he would have revised his viewpoints. -- Fyslee 11:16, 19 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 warned 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]

We already agree on one thing: you should take a back seat. We will come to an agreement on content, on which we already have similar views as you will see above. Guy 21:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I agree not to edit the article, but I shall remain active on the talkpage. The fact is we are not going to reach a consensus because the Lauder Frost camp are not prepared to budge. You and your fellow admin must also prepare for the very real prospect of Brad and myself recieving writs through our postboxes in the next few days and we will need to decide what to do with the article whilst a court case is pending--Edchilvers 21:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We will have to see. For everyone's sake it is best by far if we leave as much of the editing as possible to William, who is an editor of exemplary neutrality. Guy 21:52, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. When the case against us is outlined in the court documents (assuming the arrive at all) we will have a much better idea as to how to proceed--Edchilvers 21:57, 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]

William's suggestion of a customised neutrality warning has merit, I think. In the end nobody wants to pay for the legal bill; if I thought that there was any merit or substance whatosever to the legal threats I would unequivocally advocate stubbing until Brad has come back (which may indeed be the best thing anyway). Guy 22:07, 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]

Doesn't matter, I'm afraid. If other editors don't support an edit then you need to either accept it and move on, or go to dispute resolution. Edit warring is not the way to go forward. Guy 22:04, 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]

m:User:Jason Gastrich

While Mr Gastritch may not be a desirable editor, on Meta I am not aware of a policy which supports removing links the user has added to his page there (keeping in mind that nofollow is turned on there, as it is on all WMF sites except en.wp, and therefore provides no benefit to the user himself.) On Meta the user is also not banned. I have restored the page to its previous state at the request of the user via e-mail. - Amgine 20:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is a serial vanity merchant and spammer. If meta want to give him a storefront I guess that's up to meta, but the PhD bit is rather naughty since it is from a degree mill. Guy 21:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really important to have a link to his guitar lesson business? Is it acceptable to use sock puppets on metawiki[11]? On the plus side, its not like anyone who reads the title "Dr" every other word on a wiki user page will take the claims seriously. Arbusto 00:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Logo

I am somewhat uncomfortable about having reverted an edit of yours to Logo. I can see that your edits do seem extremely constructive, however the one I reverted seems quite out of character. The summary states "removing spam" and yet it actually put back in a link a number of other editors had previously removed as well as taking some logos out leaving some blank picture areas. Thanks --Nigel ^(Talk) 13:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, it's probably to do with some trouble I'm having with my internet connection andproxy server today. I did not add any links that I am aware of. I'll go along and remove the spammy one (a single purpose account has been linking his website - most unusual) Guy 13:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting change on the Logo article. I think it makes a good point about the recent rv war. I will have to contest with your claim of the SPA and ask for you to weigh in at Talk:Logo#Removed_link. ThanksCochese8 15:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different link, different account. www.crossguard.info/about-us.html added by User:Logomage. Guy 15:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted that one and thanks for the above answer - it did look quite a strange edit for any experienced wiki editor but I've not been around long enough to annoy admins. (At least I'd prefer not to!). However maybe the "war" on Logo needs some admin intervention too. While it is spam I do not wish to go 3RR on it. It does seem a pity that no one has seen fit to place spam warnings on the user page but the activity seems disruptive to say the least and the postings of the user above seem at best inflamatory and not in the spirit of Wiki - should I request Admin Intervention? Regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 16:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit heated, isn't it? Guy 16:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gastrich

[12] Arbusto 22:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. My favorite contrib was this [13] KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, linking wikipedia to personal attacks on other websites is always a good way to get unbanned. And at least, he had the guts to use his wikipedia username because if he didn't that would be something a weasel would do to hide his tracks. {Sarcasm} Arbusto 00:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, I wonder who this "maleboge...@yahoo.com" could possibly be? Let me think, now, where have I seen that kind of crap before? Guy 08:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's mad he's spam was removed[14]. Rick56505 (talk · contribs) Arbusto 00:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guess who Ccirulli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? This new user created an article for an unaccredited school president. Russell H. Dilday is not notable at all. Arbusto 01:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- What more serious punishment can be done? Today Gastrich just posted a user's, name, address, and phone number.[15] This must be taken to a higher level. Arbusto 20:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert the links wherever you see them. That hits Gastrich where it really hurts - his pride. Guy 21:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sprotection failure?

Hey. I'm wandering how a user with 15 edits was able to edit an sprotected article. ^[16] Any ideas? What am I missing here? Regards, El_C 23:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's partly that you have to have made edits and partly that a certain time must have elapsed. This account was created in early August. Guy 08:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you tell me what a deleted article said?

I am curious to know what the "NEDM" article said. If you can get it, please leave all versions of the article on my talk page. Thanks a bunch! --BLuToRsE 00:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the article on the YTMND wiki (wiki.ytmnd.com/NEDM) is based on it, and already much expanded. That's the place to go, I think. Guy 08:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move request of NASA Shuttle Landing Facility

Hi, I was just wondering why you closed the poll, which resulted in no objection to a move, but did not actually perform the move that was requested. As I understand it, if there are no objections the move should be carried out, even if nobody has voiced support. Please could you clarify this matter for me. Thanks --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is nothing wrong with the existing title, basically. Agreement of the editors on NASA shuttle landing faciclity that this is the only or primary meaning of shuttle landing facility does not amount to an actual consensus within the project for a move. Not that I can think of any others, but shuttle is ambiguous in a way that NASA shuttle (or space shuttle) would not be. Guy 19:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

67.77.215.178...BenH sock?

Hello. I noticed that you have already blocked one of BenH's IP sockpuppets. The style and contributions of this particular IP in the headline look just like the contribs of BenH and the other sock. Could you please check if my hunch is a correct one, because I have never reported anyone like this and have no idea how else to do it except asking a familiar admin like you. Thanks. Thistheman 22:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, characteristic. Blocked, deploying rollback. Guy 22:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

FYI, I've sent you an email. JoshuaZ 01:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lion's cage

Well you seem happy to put your head in them from time to time <g>. If you are bored and can't find anything to do (I know ok) there are some rumblings (ramblings?) similar to logo in Talk:Old-time radio. It does seem that there are some people that think Wiki should work their way whatever happens. If you'd rather I hadn't put this here sorry & ignore it and me. Cheers --Nigel ^(Talk) 07:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi; thank you for your kind comments. I did try, as instructed on the block page, to cut and paste the message, but I think that the software is corrupted. When I clicked the link, I found a pink page superficially as I expected, but it said I was blocked by "someone" (quote) and the reason given was "being cool". This did not seem right to me.--Anthony.bradbury 11:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Let me have a look. Londheart has been using sockpuppets, incidentaly, which is not going to help here. Guy 11:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page abuse

Please have a look at this:

Talk:Orkney_Islands#Independent_Orkney_and_Shetland_wiki_site

I believe that this is a crystal clear abuse of WP:TPG, WP:SPAM and, indirectly WP:NPA. The fact that it is being made by a blatant and exposed sockpuppet just makes the situation even worse. It is my belief that that sockpuppet account should have been banned after exposure, under Wikipedia policies. Why wasn't it?

Please look at the contributions of Orkadian (talk · contribs). Mallimak (talk · contribs) has used that account to post the identical spam at Talk:Shetland Islands and Category talk:Orcadian Wikipedians.

I raised this at WP:ANI#Talk_page_abuse, but was just subjected to totally unfounded snidey remarks. I demand that Administrators take a far more adult, and informed, approach to this situation. Please look into this case, because I feel that this idiot is making a fool out of the whole project. I am very angry and upset with how numerous Admins have just let this situation run away. It ought to have been nipped in the bud some time ago. --Mais oui! 08:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't demand stuff, ask nicely. We are all volunteers and frankly there is blatant POV pushing on both sides here. Guy 10:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GLF (again)

Guy. It has been brought to my attention that Gregory Lauder-Frost is currently suffering from a very serious illness. Not wanting to cause undo distress to himself and his family at this difficult time I wonder if we could consider reducing the article to a stub on compassionate grounds, at least until such time as he has made a full recovery. Sorry to bring this matter up so soon after it was seemingly sorted but I thought you should be informed. Clearly this article has caused a great deal of upset to GLF and seeing as many of us don't see the need for an article on him in the first place I really don't see the point of kicking a man whilst he's down.--Edchilvers 18:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind deleting it altogether. The one thing that is not an option is telling half the story. Guy 18:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ed. Do you have more information on this?

My first reaction: I'm torn. On the one hand, I want to be compassionate. On the other hand, request of the subject is not normally cause to delete an article. I think I'm going to run this by some journalist pals to see how the pros handle this sort of thing. Were we to go for deletion, I think we'd have to do it through a full AfD process; if we're going to make precedent here, we'll have to do it right. I also confess to a little suspicion at the timing; after pro-GLF partisans have abused all and sundry for months, it makes me wonder if this is something heartfelt, or just a change in tactics. Thanks, William Pietri 22:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lets do the AFD process. I do not wish to betray the confidence I have recieved but suffice it to say that I trust 100% that what I hear is the truth. It explains alot, not least the aggresive behaviour by certain anons towards this article. We are talking about a very minor politician, one who has never even stood for Parliament or even a County Council seat. I dont think Wikipedia would be worse off if this article were to go altogether--Edchilvers 22:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A degree of scepticism is not entirely surprising under the circumstances but I'm content to trust what you say, Ed. I will start the AfD now, if you wouldn't mind including a statement to that effect it would probably help. Guy 22:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I may stay out of the AfD, as I'm still chewing through the implications. But I'll follow it with interest. William Pietri 02:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock

Hi there; your last posting appears to indicate that I got autoblocked yet again, and that you cleared it. Thank you. I was at work and did in fact not notice this one. I see that in my distress I posted a comment just below another editor's article without creating a fresh heading. If you want to tidy your talk page please do not hesitate to move or delete my earlier comment.--Anthony.bradbury 18:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Guy 18:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A message from the Paris Caped Crusader

Hello, I just noticed your message on the Administrator's notice board. I'll try not to take too much of your time.

I am most certainly not alone. john k, Captain scarlet, Bob, all knowledgeable on the subject, have all made it very clear that the present title is wrong - and this wasn't a "hmmphyes" agreement, all have taken the time to lengthily lay out precisely why. Knowledgeable contributors on Paris things are all too rare on English Wiki, but all the same, the jury's in on this one.

I can understand your exasperation with my insistence on this, but publishing fiction is wrong. Perhaps to the limited knowledge of some the present title is acceptable, but this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia based on existing fact. The two wikipedians opposing the move, especially one, has done his best to paint any opposition to their "reasoning" - shared by no reference at all - as a bad-faithed fool. This is not at all the case, and this is one of the very reasons for my resolve. I can show you concrete proof of this person's antics that have been going on for over a year now. Wiki, thanks to this person, has unverifiable information seen nowhere else in the world. You can see a concrete example of case-in-point Original Research - here. The "Tallest structures" super-spat is just more of the same. This is what happens if anything "fiction" is corrected that turns out to be a certain editor - revert, oppose, oppose oppose, even without fact, and it all becomes a big wear 'em down campaign. So after a year of this I've decided not to give in for once, and thankfully it seems that I am not alone.

In light of the above, I'm sure you can imagine what I think when I see a) Hardouin making completely false and unfounded allegations on administrator talk pages and the same on the administrator's notice board and b) you indicating that I will be the one "in trouble".

I may be a pain in the a*s on this, but you're targeting the wrong party. THEPROMENADER 18:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no reason to disagree, but it still seems top me to be a very heated argument over a trivial and pedantic issue. Guy 20:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite know what to say to this.

Hmm, so in my RfA I'm described as part of the "scientistic cabal" but that I'm one of the more reasonable members so I get a support vote from that, then you think I'm Christian, and now this. I don't understand. I know I'm not this NPOV. JoshuaZ 03:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well prove him wrong and help out on that wonderful page he is writing. Explaining WP:OR would help. Otherwise we'll have to assume you are an undercover employee of DI. Just because you make a plethora of logically improbable edits leading others to complex assumptions which could not logically occur over a long period of time because the processes would require multiple concurrent subprocesses (sockpuppets?), and the transitional stages would be disadvantageous to your success in the natural selection of wikipedial editors.....pause for breathe.... does not let you off the hook. What was my point again? David D. (Talk) 03:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Bed now. Will try that in the morning. JoshuaZ 04:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Parody. David D. (Talk) 04:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua is obviuously either very neutral or the holder of more conflicting biases than all other editors combined :-) Guy 11:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hammond

I've reverted at least five cases of vandalism to the Richard Hammond article today and thats just me. Mostly they are 'get well soon' messages or links to charities. I think we need a 'semi-protect.'--Edchilvers 13:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sprotected. Guy 14:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fuck salt!

WTF? why are you so against tourettes guy? I mean, even if you don't think it's funny, everyone i know has heard of him. It's more notable than most articles on this website.

Deleted, deletion reviewed, end of story. Guy 21:41, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I recently created the article London Street Commune, but it was deleted. I looked at the Deletion review page, and I would like to recreate the article. Would you mind giving me the original text, and maybe some guidance on what I could do to it please. It wasn't very long but I would like to see what I orginally put. Trevor Saline 21:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userfied to User:Trevor Saline/London Street Commune, please work it up with reference to reliable sources, so we can verify the content and the neutrality of its coverage. Holding copies of deleted content in your userspace can be problematric and if it's not being actively edited it may well be deleted again. At a glance this appears to have merit as a subject, so good luck. Guy 21:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, but why did you delete the other articles without any discussion? Were they so bad that they warranted a "speedy" deletion. I have recorded them on the deletion review page. Trevor Saline 00:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of them were essentially empty, one was a restatement of one sentence already in another article and posted under the wrong title, etc. Guy 08:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have looked at the criteria for deletion without debate and none of these seem to match. I have added more comments at the deletion review. Do you think the correct process was followed here? If not, why did you decide not to follow the relevant process? Also what do that fact that I have a list of "all the articles that I have created" on my user page have any relevance? Trevor Saline 10:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Process is irrelevant. What matters is policy. Guy 15:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the process irrelevant? Doesn't the policy require that the process is followed? Which policy did you follow when deleting these, an established one or your own? I have responded to your comment on the deletion review. Trevor Saline 18:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, process requires that policy is followed, but not vice-versa. And ignore all rules is policy. If you had created articles of more than one sentence we would probably not be having this conversation. Guy 21:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Results of Wikia Vandalism Poll

The following are the conclusions and recommendations reached by the Wikia Project for Avoiding Critical Mass:

During the month of September 2006, seven project team members have interviewed over two hundred members and administrators of Wikipedia by email and occasionally on personal discussion pages. The discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JzG#Avoiding_critical_mass typifies the responses.
Our conclusion is that a Critical Mass of Vandalism is present at Wikipedia. In a critical mass situation, enough vandalism occurs that administrators no longer have time to assume good faith. This lack of good faith turns otherwise positive contributors into disgruntled editors. Some of these disgruntled editors will vandalize, troll or otherwise attempt to destroy a system that they consider to be corrupt. Due to this increase in vandalism and misdirection, administrators will have even less time to give editors the benefit of the doubt. The cycle continues.
Our recommendation for avoiding a similar downward spiral at Wikia is to make administrators ultimately accountable to the editors. We believe that this would give disgruntled editors a more positive and constructive outlet for expressing their frustrations. It would also remove the unrealistic responsibility of administrators to police their own. In addition, it would provide a method for removing biased editors from the administration staff without fear of reprisal. While several methods of accomplishing this aim exist, we recommend a system of secret ballot weighted by surviving word count of the editor (number of words added by the editor that currently exist in articles).
Several members have asked us to also provide recommendations for Wikipedia. We do not have recommendations for Wikipedia. We find corruption and bias to be so entrenched in the Wikipedia administration staff that no such proposal could have any chance of being adopted. To support this claim, we reference four similar proposals that were squelched by blatantly corrupt Wikipedia administrators (none of which are listed in the Wikipedia version of this report for obvious reasons). --Virgina 24.106.36.98 16:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt that Resid and his friends will be very happy with this. In the mean time, please link the Wiki version so I can see which names are named. Corruption is a big word. Bias, too, in Wikipedia - bias is in the eye of the beholder. One man's rigid adherence to verifiability policy is another man's bias against emerging theories, after all. Guy 21:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sig

Sorry. But thanks! Drahcir^{my talk} 19:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC) (well, I removed the image)[reply]

Sure. I've toned mine down over time, it gets duller by the month :-) Guy 21:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Nandini_Rajendran

With reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Nandini_Rajendran I gind that your ONLY contention seems to be verifiability. Since I have given citations from leading news papers, I expect you to revise the vote as the article is verifiable at present Doctor Bruno Talk 02:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 634: / Line 634: @@
 Sorry. But thanks! '''''<font style="background-color: gold; color: red">[[User:Drahcir|Drahcir]]</font><sup><font style="background-color: gold; color: blue">[[User Talk:Drahcir|my talk]]</font></sup>''''' 19:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC) (well, I removed the image)
 :Sure.  I've toned mine down over time, it gets duller by the month :-) <b>[[User Talk:JzG|Guy]]</b> 21:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
+==http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Nandini_Rajendran==
+With reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Nandini_Rajendran I gind that your ONLY contention seems to be verifiability. Since I have given citations from leading news papers, I expect you to revise the vote as the article is verifiable at present <span style="border:1px solid #000;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#ffd700;background:#000;">[[User:Doctorbruno|'''&nbsp;Doctor Bruno&nbsp;''']]</font><font style="color:#000;background:#ffd700;">[[User talk:Doctorbruno|Talk]]</font></span> 02:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)