|
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Mattun0211 (talk) 02:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I think the only reason that I put the quoted sentence in the lede was to forestall editors from quick scanning the lede and, seeing nothing about nationality or ethnicity, putting in their favorite, whichever one that might be. Logically and formally, your grouping is correct, but I think having that in the lede provides a kind of protection from that behavior. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. Would a hidden note do the job? --John (talk) 05:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it would, indeed. I already have one in there about his birthplce being the Azerbaijan SSR and not the Russian Empire. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for all the work you've done on it. --John (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- My pleasure. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind continuing to keep an eye on the article, as the other editor has continued to attempt to add in poorly sources or unsourced information. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course not, that's understood. --John (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John - I understand that you communicated extensively with Beyond My Ken before about the page Lotfi Zadeh. I appreciate the efforts of BMK, as well as yours, to keep it from being vandalized, or somehow worsened. Truly, I do appreciate that, and that's why I've been very much editing in good faith, as well as dealing in good faith, with BMK when he started to revert my good edits - removing verifiable and reliable information, engaging in a revert war, and calling on his friend William M. Connolley to help him out. However, this went on too far - he brushed all my pleas and appeals aside, and now in an attempt to overlook all his mistakes and violations that I pointed out on the admin noticeboard, he tries to use William Connolley as well as your name to show some consensus and deny my edits, as well as to threaten me indirectly, in the context of requesting a warning to me, by hinting that you are an admin.[1] My request - can you please see my edits on the article about Lotfi Zadeh, and then verify my sources, by reading where appropriate, and watch/listen where necessary? I think any neutral and fair person would see that BMK is plain unreasonable and in violation of multiple Wikipedia rules in his revert warring and making this into a big scandal for no reason whatsoever. Then perhaps you could help make sure that no one removes those verifiable sources, or if sources are removed, the information is not (I only cited those sources to comply with rules of verifiability and prevent any wrongful accusations and abuse). --Saygi1 (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe John and I have ever communicated before about Lotfi Zadeh, although I could certainy be wrong about that.
@John: I would like you to know that I mentioned your name in connection to this issue here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can confirm that BMK and I have never communicated on this topic prior to the post at the top of this section. Actually, I don't think we have ever spoken on any subject but I could be wrong; I've been here a long time. The content dispute is best discussed at the central noticeboard and the article talk page. --John (talk) 00:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, I've been doing that, too. --Saygi1 (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:FactController_reported_by_User:Cerejota_.28Result:_.29
I take no great pleasure, but it had to come to this. We tried, its all I can say. --Cerejota (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree both that this is very unfortunate and that it is necessary at this point. --John (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that I have over-reacted in some of my comments, but I have to say that I think this is someone we've seen before. The Denver page is on my watchlist (along with many articles about specific neighborhoods and suburbs) because of a long-ago pleas for help received from an editor who was at a loss on how to address persistent efforts (mostly by an ever-changing parade of IPs who had a pattern of making a lot of edits to the same article in quick succession, but also occasionally by registered users with that same editing pattern) to represent the city and specific neighborhoods/suburbs in a negative light, including insertion of crime statistics and demographic data that appeared to be sourced but that proved (through a sometimes complicated research effort) not to be valid. I haven't seen that particular behavior recently. However, there had been a lot of activity in the Denver article in the last 2 days -- when I looked into it I was saw the huge section on "radioactive contamination" and the large number of IP edits as another manifestation of the familiar pattern of presenting Denver in a bad light, and I saw that Plazak had been sparring with the IPs over it. I chose to remove the section and immediately semi-protect the article -- I saw (and still see) what I did as a single action to remove something that clearly didn't belong in that form and to prevent further warring, not as two separate actions.
I don't believe this is the same user as the Denver crime-promoter, but the behavior of taking a complaint to dispute resolution before discussing it and remarks like "your unilateral actions to delete the article outright were heavy-handed, and not what I'm used to seeing from a Wikipedia administrator" and knowedgable references to "admin status" and "sockpuppetry," as well as the statement "I created this ID to help fix the Denver content" lead me to think that this is someone who has had other user names and is mostly interested in disruption. --Orlady (talk) 04:12, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did wonder at that myself. Still, I thought these additions were interesting, and, if they are well-sourced and conform to due weight, I think we can add something of them to the article. Unless we are into Voldemort territory, which I haven't seen any indication of? Thanks for the considered reply. --John (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually do know a fair amount of the history of Rocky Flats. There truly is some ugly history there. However, that doesn't change the fact that it didn't happen in Denver. If a chemical factory in Elizabeth, New Jersey, were to blow up, the explosion would not be discussed in an article about New York City. Same thing goes for Rocky Flats and Denver... The ugly history belongs in the article about Rocky Flats, not in the article about the nearest big city.
- As for the content that was put in the Denver article, I've starting looking into the information and the cited sources. Much of what was presented in the article as factual information turns out to be based on assertions made in materials from various activist groups (titles like "The Industry's Underside -- Bomb Production at Rocky Flats: Death Downwind") -- not reliable NPOV sources. Other neutral sources exist that document the history, although they might not be nearly as easy to locate as the activist material that is mirrored all over the internet. The state of Colorado reports from which the cancer risk graph was extracted are one set of sources that I would consider reliable and neutral. --Orlady (talk) 04:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried just asking them on their talk. It's interesting and quite compelling what you say about the sources; of course we do not automatically exclude sources that are not NPOV, it is more nuanced than that. I don't feel as strongly as you do about the necessity of excluding this material from the article, but I'm sure we can figure something out in talk. --John (talk) 07:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the recent reversion, I am an interested contributor. I like the way you assumed good faith, minimising conflict. Your home page is very helpful re the values of Wikipedia. Isn't it interesting to see how Wikipedia entries seem to top more and more of Google search results.
TonyClarke (talk) 07:57, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the nice comment Tony. Most of what we do here revolves around assuming good faith, although it is the hardest thing to do sometimes. Good to meet you, and let me know if I can ever be a help to you. --John (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good job on the recent edit of the page! :)
However, you made an error... Replacement of: "A second batch of 36 helicopters will start rolling off the production line in early 2012." with: "A second batch of 36 helicopters will start production in early 2012." significantly altered not only the content of the sentence, but also the implied result.
While the difference may seem only skin deep, analysis of the sentences leads to a different conclusion. "Rolling of the production line" implies a finished product, while "Start of production" implies the beginning of the product manufacturing. Considering the long lead-in times for complex products, such as Ka-50, the difference is only further amplified.
Furthermore, such a change is in direct violation of the quoted source and its content.
I hope you see my point. Do not hesitate to contact me in order to discuss it.
Regards,
Ltr,ftw (talk) 08:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, nice point. I didn't like "rolling off" as it didn't sound encyclopedic. I'll take this to article talk, I think. Cheers. --John (talk) 01:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Citing your lack of action, I took the liberty of changing the sentence to a more "appropriate" description. I settled on using "will be inducted to service in early 2012". I hope this is acceptable. Regards, Ltr,ftw (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine. Sorry I got distracted and didn't make it along to article talk after all. --John (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
|
Hi John, thanks for your note, and I see that Rjanag really doesn't get it, on his talk page. Here are two diffs: "stupid" and after I complained to him, "silly". Granted, he's done it indirectly by applying these words to my statements or ideas, or in the conditional, but offensive they still are, and I believe the WP:CIVIL policy covers these usages. Rjanag does a lot of work at DYK, and his investment in the status quo, which many editors want to reform, is getting mixed up with WP:OWNERSHIP a little, I think.
While we're at it, there's a troublesome editor who writes well and is clearly gifted, but who is a bit over the top in pushing the idea of certain formatting practices (I see Art Lapella is copping it mildly at WT:MOSLINK right now)—but that's not the point here. I felt threatened by his posts on my page (I felt stalked, and note that two other editors complained to me of the same), and unwisely edit-summaried "removing vomit". OK, I later apologised to him at his talk page, but it's what he did to that thread that I suspect is way way in breach of policy. First, I was ridiculed for apologising, and then he returned to change the title of the thread so that I appear to self-announce as "an utter arse". I note that he states "there's no end to this man's cunty idiocy", and refers to my "more genuinely crappy edits". I wonder whether this user could be warned to tone down his angry statements, and that it's almost certainly a breach of the talk-page guidelines to change someone else's title to falsify or ridicule them? Tony (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's shocking. I have a lot of respect for this editor but I will have a word, all right. Once again, I am deeply sorry that you have been subjected to this abuse. --John (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- John, I see Tony has already dug up the diff for you, but as you can see I never called him stupid, I said "it would be stupid of him to say X in the future". That is clearly not the same thing. I also don't see why I'm being accused of being "invested in the status quo" when I'm the only editor there actually working to implement all the changes that Tony and others are asking for. I have nothing further to say on the topic. rʨanaɢ (talk) 03:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't want to get involved in the content disagreement you have had, but I strongly recommend you don't use the word "stupid" about editors or their actions. --John (talk) 06:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If you don't want to get involved, then don't get involved. Finding one message that you can jump on and say "ooh, a mean word!", taking it out of context, and coming to slap my wrist about it is maybe a way of staying uninvolved, but it's also not constructive. Especially when you deliberately overlook equally rude behavior from your Wikipedia friends who are involved in the dispute, like the one above. rʨanaɢ (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't consider John to be uninvolved, as I understand he has an existing undertaking never to block one of the participants in this little argument about DYK. Repeatedly waving around threats of blocks for civility at one party, while apparently being self-limited from doing the same on another, is not uninvolved. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And what has Malleus done in "this little argument" that's at all blockworthy? Truthkeeper (talk) 16:36, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- History teaches us that if I'd done anything worth of a block then I'd already be blocked, but the ineluctable fact remains that I've been blocked repeatedly for far less that Rjanag's unacceptable "you're too stupid for your own good" and similar recent comments. But there's one difference between us. Can you guess what that is? Malleus Fatuorum 17:42, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your opinion Demiurge. If you think Malleus has done something actionable, please present a diff. Otherwise please let Rjanag take his warning in peace. --John (talk) 17:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given your previous undertaking, there would be no purpose in presenting such a diff to you. But I'll leave you to continue your discussion, and hope it's beneficial in some way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So in other words you can't find one, but want to create the idea that one exists? Malleus Fatuorum 17:50, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, my purpose was to correct Rjanag's apparent misapprehension that John is uninvolved here. I didn't see your latest barrage of comments at WT:DYK as any ruder than your normal behaviour (oh, and even just now, there's more of it; describing another editor's work as "a bit like a painting by a chimpanzee", lovely), and you don't get blocked for that.
- But I do find that an editor commenting that someone "would be stupid" to continue with a certain viewpoint, is no more glaringly deserving of a block than accusing another editor of dishonesty; "You have simply displayed your own dishonesty".
- I guess this is why some people refer to it as the "holy civility policy"; a lot of interpretation by high priests going on, and the favoured few benefit from that. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am definitely uninvolved here as I have no previous involvement in the DYK argument. Your opinions on what is worse than what and what is as bad as what, are noted. I think my own stance is that I would not block for a breach of WP:CIVIL, but I would block for a clear cut breach of WP:NPA. I would then post at AN/I for review of my actions by other admins and that would be your chance to complain if you felt I was behaving in a non-neutral way. I really and sincerely hope that none of this will be necessary and that people will back off and disengage. --John (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, although I recuse from personally blocking Malleus, I would be happy to forward any abuse he may have perpetrated, with diffs, either to another admin or to a noticeboard if I agree with you that it is blockworthy. Do yo have such a diff to present? --John (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I do understand Demiurge that honesty is unwelcome here, and I endeavour to offer as little of it as possible, so as not to upset the administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
John...this line of questioning appears to be headed in an ugly direction....I think it is extremely unbecoming of an administrator of this website and hope you take the proper course which is to retract the question.--MONGO 04:07, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I won't be doing that. I am increasingly uneasy with the way you and your "side" (we shouldn't even have to think in "sides"!) have that article cordoned off. Rereading that talk archive from 2009 where good faith attempts to improve the article were met with stonewalling and threats made me feel physically sick. I made some suggestions at talk, with sources, towards improving the article and you made a comment about CTers. Fine, I am done there. Meantime the article does not in my opinion meet GA requirements and I am inquiring in a civil manner to the person who promoted it to give a rationale. I saw he mentioned IAR in the discussion, and it is my view that this is not an appropriate use of IAR, though I will wait and see what he says before deciding what to do next. I see you have mischaracterized my points at User talk:Joe Gazz84, which is no great surprise but confirms for me that we have nothing to say to each other. As you have requested of me in the past, I now ask you to stay off my talk page. Thanks. --John (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're an administrator on this website and your questioning of the GA promoter and by insinuation the fine work by Tom Harrison and A Quest for Knowledge who brought the article to GA level constitute personal attacks. You repeatedly question mine and others integrities and refer to me condescendingly as a "cohort" and "buddy"...your actions and words are unbecoming for an administrator of this website and you should immediately retract your comments or formally apologize for them.MONGO 11:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For goodness sake MONGO, it's not a "personal attack" to question such a highly dubious promotion of an article to GA. Just about anyone outside the US looking at that article would be aghast at the resolute POV and suppression of core issues, some of which John has already outlined in a measured and moderate way. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps people outside the U.S. have been influenced by too many biased anti-American treatises on the subject matter. Repeatedly, the vast majority of those that keep saying the article is POV are not Americans...they are also the same people who, percentage wise, believe in the conspiracy theories regarding the events. Might I suggest that this perception is partly due to an anti-American bias...as well as a media that is even less reliable for its facts than those found in the U.S. News oftentimes exists to reinforce preconceived notions...it sells. If sensationalizing the trivia that is associated with 9/11 and thereby departing from the focus and scope of the article is the manner in which non Americans think the article needs to go to be an FA, then that is a pity.MONGO 14:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee MONGO. As it stands this article doesn't even meet the GA criteria on prose quality alone. If you continue on this trajectory the likely result is that far from becoming an FA this article will lose its GA status in the not too distant future. Malleus Fatuorum 14:38, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The article needs streamlining, has to have the MOS issues fully addressed and some touchups before the prose itself can be hammered out. But the complexity of the subject issues and the major improvements made by others (not myself) leading up to the GA were such that it was worthy of GA status. You apear to be prepared to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point...likewise, if you and your ilk are going to persist in your egotistical dogmatism regarding what is and what isn't an article of merit, then there will be serious problems between us...ones I bet others will join in to finally put an end to your shenanigans.MONGO 16:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're heading towards a bad place MONGO, best back off before it's too late. Malleus Fatuorum 16:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh my, what place is that pray tell! If you're going to be a deliberate obstructionist regarding this article...and you've contributed nothing to it except your pretty much unhelpful critique. If indeed you had honorable intentions here regarding this article, you'd assist the writers by providing more than just to say the article is "crap"...MONGO 16:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Little hard of reading, are we? Go back to your ludicrous POV-pushing in your little walled garden, and take your ridiculous threats, racial stereotyping, posturing and bluffing with you. I am not afraid of you, but I have nothing to say to you and do not wish to read your ignorant garbage here. You are not welcome here, as I already pointed out. As you have requested of me in the past, I now ask you to stay off my talk page. Thanks. --John (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When I first saw this thread, I was going to say that I think the way you questioned the GA reviewer was unseemly and condescending. I still think you could have taken a more professional tone with him, but I'm increasingly inclined to agree with you and Malleus, and this comment sent what sympathy I had for MONGO out of the window. I think the article would be better off without people who hold opinions like that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Editors obviously can't be forced to accept help they don't want for whatever reason, but the consequence in this case will very likely be that far from being promoted to FA this article will lose its GA listing. Who does that help exactly? Malleus Fatuorum 19:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, both. I went to that article with the good faith intention of trying to help resolve the issues, but I see from the response I received there (and here) from MONGO that nothing has changed since 2009. You should both read that archive if you haven't already; rereading that in conjunction with the current atmosphere at the talkpage convinced me that no improvement is currently possible there. It's probably better if I bow out of this meantime. I think I will leave it to others to challenge the GA status if they feel that is appropriate; it certainly doesn't merit FA or anything like it. I'd still be interested in opinions about how valid it is to allow a local consensus to override the NPOV section of Wikipedia:Good article criteria; Joe Gazz84 seems to have invoked WP:IAR which I don't think is appropriate. HJM, Malleus, what do you think? --John (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I like Joe Gazz, and I hope he won't take offence at my saying so, but he might lack some of the experience and clout required to take a review like that on, and to say no to somebody like MONGO, who can be very subtly intimidating, and his "consensus is against this". But 'POV by omission', so to speak, is very difficult to assess when what is included seems to be a neutral description of events unless you know the subject extremely well. A GAR may be in order, but it's not really the fault of the original reviewer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's obviously too controversial for an individual GAR, but I'm quite happy to initiate a community reassessment. I have no clout either, but Joe Gazz was clearly wrong to invoke IAR in the context of a GA review. Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine, let's do it. For all sorts of reasons I think leaving this sub-standard article labeled as "Good" would be highly unfortunate. --John (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jumping in here because I've been watching this with interest. I am American, I looked at the article when it was listed at FAC, and my immediate reaction was that it's very slanted. It doesn't read at all as a neutral account of the events; even the organization and the TOC, in my view, are presented in such a manner that neutrality is lost. I tried to read the page a few times and it's very overwritten - needs to go to summary style. In many ways it reminds me of Catholic Church that required a drastic cut, was delisted as GA and now is barely start class. It's unfortunate to see this happen so close to the 9/11 anniversary, but without serious pruning in the next few days I can't see how this page can be helped. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:31, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Truthkeeper. MONGO's outrageous nationalistic slurs (I've seen people blocked for less) should not go unchallenged. --John (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just wanted you to know that I've been watching this unfold and am not terribly impressed with the talkpage comments, which is a shame. This article, above many others, should attract some our best editors and show a collaborative spirit to bring it at least to GA standards, but it seems to have fallen in quicksand. I commend you for trying. I don't want to be involved, but will support if it gets really ugly. Obviously you, Malleus, Karanacs and HJMitchell aren't the only ones who have concerns - you're the ones to say something is all. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly don't blame you for not wanting to get involved, the article is a hot potato (or potatoe according to that guy who claimed to have invented the internet). It's a shame that it's guarded so fiercely by a bunch of editors who have no idea what they're doing, but there's nothing can be done about that except to try and make it clear to them that they're wrong, and it is not a GA, or even close to being one. Malleus Fatuorum 02:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (Interjecting humor) We should keep the imbecilic actions of Vice Presidents correctly aligned:
- Perhaps the latter had the best idea.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the humor, that was appreciated. Have you seen this? It's hard to get a smile out of such a grim situation, but the Onion manages. I love these guys. --John (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh. You would think that the guy that got shot would like to have seen where Cheney at least had regret about that. :) I'll bet that Cheney doesn't get invited to go hunting much anymore.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, both. Truly, this article didn't get the way it is without years of ownership by some of our poorest editors. On the other hand, MONGO surprised me today with quite a good edit. I may need to step away from the article though as I find the atmosphere on the talk page highly toxic. See how it goes. Very clear it is not even close to being a GA at present. --John (talk) 03:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's hope that's equally clear to the brave soul who has to close this GAR. I'm glad it's not me. Malleus Fatuorum 03:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad it's not me either. Recent article talk page experience reminds me of something Ronald Reagan said according to a recent biography of him I read. You know he was a life-guard before he went into films, then politics? He said that of all the people whose lives he saved, only about 10% thanked him. Most of them told him he was an asshole for making fools of them in front of their friends and partners. Do a favor, and make an enemy for life, eh? --John (talk) 04:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What I find most difficult here is having to deal with people who are clearly insane. Malleus Fatuorum 04:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you ever seen Dr. Strangelove? --John (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Did I ever tell you that I was once blocked for using the word "sycophantic"? I'll start the GAR tomorrow. Malleus Fatuorum 02:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I don't think I knew that. Cheers, --John (talk) 02:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have many similar scars, which like a good Norman I will avenge. Maybe. Malleus Fatuorum 02:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh, I didn't know you were a Norman. My background is likely mostly Gaelic, for whatever that's worth. To me it isn't about vengeance (even though MONGO has excelled himself in this episode in nastiness and missing the point), but about normalization; it is possible for a group of zealots to limit the scope of growth of a fiefdom of articles on Wikipedia, but it shouldn't simultaneously be possible to be granted GA or FA status, unless these auditing processes are even more broken than I had suspected. No offense whatsoever should attach to JoeGazz who seems to have been trying to reward some incremental improvements to the article and better stability. Ironically the latter probably only arose because the last few editors willing to challenge the slanted version were finally driven off the article. Never mistake dissent for disruption; all true progress comes from successfully-managed conflict. Instead the article has become a frozen conflict, mirroring perhaps the uncertain status of America as a superpower entrapped in crises of its own making. An article about 9/11 which only gives the US government view is like an article on the Pearl Harbor attacks which neglects to mention both the poor preparedness of the defenders and the fact that the attack catapulted America into a World War. --John (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you, I have commented there. --John (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Malleus your temperament is celtic through and through. I know I'm person non grata on wiki these days, but I was recently blocked for loosing my temper with one of these guys on a complealy unrelated matter. I might well be the first person to get blocked for arguing that painting developed between the 11th and 15th centuries. But the MO was I came across was same; fustrating stonewalling, specious argument, mind already made up and refusal to listen; "you might well be right but I dont care". Wiki has come a long way since these relics ruled the roost in, uh 2006/7. Ceoil (talk) 10:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I saw that. These are people who would argue with a straight face that only American editors should be able to edit the 9/11 article, and there is no point in debating with them. More fool them for putting it up for community assessment if they didn't really want community input. Luckily Wikipedia is a big place, and there are plenty of areas to edit away from nationalistic bullies. --John (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah well, aside from that concidence, I think yourself and Malleus are making convincing arguments, but there is an inability to hear on the other side. In fairness to thoes guys they have put up with a lot of rubbish on thoes pages over the years, and I'm not excusing recent behaviour here but can see how it might lead to being reflexively defensive. MONGO is a one of the better FA writers when concentrating on geography, and understands the process whatever he says now, and has a lot of other fine articles under his belt. My guess is that if yourself, MF and MONGO could lay down arms and work together, ye'd have a fine page in weeks. All three of ye are very capable indeed, but lacking common ground. Big ask, but the only way forward without getting swampted in mire for years. Ceoil (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Or in other words the wiki process of consensus is never going to work here, the page is too emotive and too prone to lobbying that !voting at RFC's is a joke. A break through will only ever be achived with the prinicpals talking informally, outside of process, and agreeing to give and take. I know Im preaching to the converted, but ye guys need to start formualing a way forward. Ceoil (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's inconceivable that I'd agree to work on anything with MONGO. Malleus Fatuorum 19:49, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On this subject area, unfortunately, it is impossible to work with him. Without his behavior changing (highly unlikely), or a topic ban, this article will be forever stuck in 2005. I don't see any other way around it. --John (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think at the moment the plan is for the article to remain a toilet patrolled by nationalists; whether or not it gets to retain its GA blob, it won't ever be a FA because of the user conduct issues which we have been discussing. I am out of there. I've done a lot of work in special needs education, specifically in the area of social emotional and behavioral problems, and half the battle is knowing when to pass things on to someone else. That time is now for me. I will make one more statement at the GAR then I am done. Thanks for caring. --John (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think your voice is needed but unfortunately talkpage filibustering is effective and you're not getting anywhere. It's sad because I strongly believe if we could get together a group of committed editors, put up an under construction tag, and just hack at for a few hours, it would be better than what Wikipedia is now showing to the world. Truthkeeper (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with TK on this, with regert; my interest in recent discussions is peaked by the idea of a move forward. I think you and MF have a lot of credibility, but I suppose we are all experienced enough in wiki ways to relaise that the only way to negotiate with people waving their hands over their ears is months long arbcom. Shame, but I hear where you are coming from. Ceoil (talk) 20:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, thank you both. It means a lot to me to have your support. One possibility some way down the line would be for us (by which I mean the non-partisan editors with an interest in improving the article) to put together a sandbox version then build a consensus to switch to a more neutral and GA-compliant version. The idea of reactivating the 2008 Arbcom case to have MONGO removed from play is also not a ridiculous one, Ceoil. I think just that step would maybe make enough of a difference. We can think about that. However, for now, I will work on my closing statement for the GAR which will be a stonker. Meantime, any other suggestions on how to decontaminate the toxic atmosphere surrounding this area of Wikipedia will continue to be gratefully received. --John (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, if you want to please check out the AfDs for Peter Gruenwald and for Carmine Avellino. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
|
