User talk:Zafio

Welcome!

Hello, Zafio, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Terraxos (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply notice

Long, friendly response now at Talk:Norman Mailer#Marilyn: "not good journalism" quote.
--Jerzy•t 15:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Hari - other unproven controversies

I think that cutting down the length of the page on Hari is a worthwhile goal, and I note (and I agree with) that in previous discussions on the Talk page, other editors have mentioned that the page should be less hagiographic. He's not, after all, a particularly major journalist, and the length of the page had become really excessive. I'm glad we're in agreement that the section on Plagiarism should be left as-is till the two months are up, and I hope then it can be edited down to a length more suitable to the new structure of the page.

One unproven controversy which is said to be part of the subject of the inquiry at the Independent is the issue of whether Johann Hari has been using sockpuppets to edit his Wikipedia page and to add attacks to the pages of rival journalists. This too I hope will be resolved over the next two months, as (presuming that David R is just a very enthusiastic fan of Johann hari's) that's really very not-good for Hari's reputation or Wikipedia's.

I am absolutely not suggesting that you are a sockpuppet for David R. Please don't think that.

But I looked at your account, and aside from a few edits mostly at Norman Mailer's page, you seemed to have started this account primarily to edit Johann Hari's page and to engage in discussion on the Talk page. You haven't started your own User page, and you haven't engaged on your own Talk page. There's no reason you should - I think I started editing Wikipedia because I wanted to add a page for a judge in South Africa, who'd made an important ruling in their same-sex marriage legislation. People can edit Wikipedia as much or as little as they please, and on whatever topics they like. But to a neutral eye, I'm afraid I have to say that with the other rumours running around, your edit history and your Wikipedia history generally does not look good.

What I'm hoping will happen with the David R stories is that the David R wikieditor himself will step up and tell someone (he can talk to Hari's employers at the Independent, and his real name needn't come forward in that way) that he exists and these very embarrassing charges against Hari are not founded. Until then, don't you think that you should hold off editing Johann Hari's page? I'm guessing nothing much is going to change over the next two months - I assume Hari won't be publishing any new journalism. All that's left right now is the current interpretation of his articles and columns. Which can wait two months. Yonmei (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read the archive Yonmei. I and another editor successfully argued against *dave r*'s version of this page quite a while back. There can be no ambiguity to anyone with a neutral eye that I am David R. A paranoid eye might imagine that David R created another alias to argue against himself perhaps. And do you think it is acceptable to "suggest" to another Wikipedia editor that they stop editing - one with whom you disagree? I have no obligation to tell you why I edit this page, but Hari is a journalist I find interesting, and with whom I often disagree. For example, I don't take the secular-anti-theist line that he does, but that doesn't mean that I think he's anti-Islam either.

You say "I'm guessing nothing much is going to change over the next two months". My guess is that that some historically anti-Hari editors are going to return to smear Hari in any way they can. David R is an overenthusiastic fan (probably). I am an honest editor, that occasionally tinkers and got involved in this page because I was so disgusted by the dishonesty of anti-Hari editors. Who, you may be interested to know given your own encycopledic interests, can barely disguise their homophobia. Read the archives. Zafio (talk) 21:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that I came back to this page when the recent David R story broke, because I kind of knew there'd be a lot of contentious interest in this page. I should admit when I suggested cutting down the plagiarism section, I was testing the waters to see what response I'd get. I had no intention of editing that section in any way (aside from the 2003 link, which was tendentiously tied to the current allegations in the article, and which I removed for the good reason that they have been serially problematic on this page). I think you know it needs editing for size, but are just a bit cautious in the circumstances. And it turns out you had suspicions...Zafio (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My message to you was friendly advice, believe it or not. Take it or not, as you please. Yonmei (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you completely convinced I am not David R? Because if not, your advice isn't friendly. Zafio (talk) 21:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment, Johann Hari is being accused of using one sockpuppet account, David R. This can only be definitively resolved in two ways - either stringent and lengthy IP-crunching will establish that David R is Johann Hari, or else David R will step up and identify himself as an individual, thus putting an end to these particularly unpleasant rumours.

Why would it be so urgent to edit Hari's page right now when doing so will, I fear, simply add your identity into the muddle of "Who's David Rose"? That's not good for you, it's not good for Wikipedia, and it's not good for Hari.

So yes. Friendly advice. Up to you. Yonmei (talk) 22:09, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yonmei, I've given good circumstantial evidence that I'm not David R. Its in the archives.Zafio (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall from where it's been discussed, David R provided good circumstancial evidence in the archives that he's not Johann Hari: It didn't kill the rumour. I don't think anything will, by now, except, as I've said, David R himself coming forward. Yonmei (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also explained why I'm editing *now*, and not :in 2 months. Zafio (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could direct me to where you feel you've explained this. Because, to my estimation, you haven't explained why it matters so much to you to edit the Secularism section of the article now instead of in two months. Yonmei (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are challenging my edits on the grounds that *you* have suspicions, rather than on any Wikipedia-relevant grounds, then thats bad for Wikipedia. Now, its possible that by challenging some tendentious edits, some people might muddle me up in the "Who's David Rose" saga. You have, for example. But why shouldn't I edit, rather than for example, you or anyone else? Zafio (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you choose to, it's up to you. As I said, it was friendly advice. You haven't been very much involved with Wikipedia (as we can both see looking at your list of contribs compared to mine, I have a lot more experience editing it than you do) - so you may not yet be aware that a basic rule of editor interaction is "assume good faith". I think you need to practice that. Yonmei (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Show me one example where I've tried to remove a non-contentious source. I have no intention of doing so. Just because Johann Hari has involved himself in some pretty shoddy journalistic practice, doesn't mean there should be a free-for-all. Zafio (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're trying to add material to an article that has been removed now by two other editors. As I know you're aware, from looking at your list of edits, the onus is on you as the editor adding material to justify why it needs to be added. I don't see that you have done so. Yonmei (talk) 22:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first of all, thank you for leaving your new message at my Talk page. It does make it easier to see I have a message and to respond to it. Second - my friendly advice - well, you choose not to take it: fair enough. For the rest - well, I think your second edit, the one that's still I think on the page, was very much better than your first, but I think discussion of specific edits should take place on the Hari:Talk page, just as personal issues should be discussed here and on my Talk page.

In general, however, I'd noticed that there were two serious problems with the Hari page: - one was that it was packed full of rather laudatory descriptions of articles, which made it very long and made it sound like Hari is a bigger-name journalist than he is:

- and second, that it was full of clashes Hari had had with people, that were neither notable nor properly sourced. Instead of linking to an independent source about the clash, which should have existed if it had been at all notable as an event, the article tended to link to Hari's articles and sometimes the person he'd clashed with, too, with a framing description strongly suggesting that in each clash Hari was in the right and the other person was in the wrong.

This was the case even with the Nick Cohen clash in Dissent, where there was quite a bit of framing material that could have been linked to, including an article in Slate about Hari threatening to sue a blogger (on a notable left-wing blog) for libel. Now I came to edit this article because the plagiarism issue blew up and fascinated me - I have no background in the years of edit wars before this, but any Talk page that has had to be Archived four times has clearly had edit wars.

So I've made that assessment, as an editor new to this page but not to Wikipedia, and I proposed (and then carried out) an extensive restructuring which was intended to greatly shorten the page. And I think that in a couple of months, the plagiarism section should be edited down too.

But from what the page had ballooned into, I'm extremely wary of editors starting the process again, of adding little descriptions and framing non-NPOV comments about Hari's articles, especially when they (as you have) have been involved in these edit wars before, and when (as is the case with you) don't have much experience of editing any page but Johann Hari's: indeed, the majority of your edits have been on Talk pages. Yonmei (talk) 00:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say I read your message: and let's discuss specific edits to the Hari page (or any other) on that Talk page. Yonmei (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been pointed out to you by two editors that your pattern of edits and your Wikipedia history gives the strong appearance of your being another of the David R sockpuppets. I pointed this out to you as a friendly advisory. You appear to take this as an accusation that Zafio is a sockpuppet account, which is a grave misreading of what I actually said. I see, however, that you have decided to recuse yourself from editing the Johann Hari page and I think that's a very sensible decision. Yonmei (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Responding at Talk page

Also, I'd very much appreciate it if you could follow usual Wikipedia practice of responding to messages at your Talk page with messages left at mine. Yonmei (talk) 22:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use my Talk page to attack others

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Yonmei (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A personal attack was made on *me* on your user page by another editor. I responded in kind, and I concede that wasn't the right thing to do. But have you posted a similar statement on the other editors web page, and if not, why not? Zafio (talk) 01:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other editor was making reference to a situation which is being publicly discussed both off Wikipedia and in Wikipedia. I warned you, in a friendly way, your behaviour would lead to your being linked into the situation. You chose to disregard this advice, and now you are linked into it and therefore will inevitably be discussed as part of it. The solution I think is what you've already decided to do: stop editing the Johann Hari article, and ideally also stop engaging in discussion about it on Talk pages. Move on. Edit other articles. Also, the other editor did not use abusive language or engage in personal insults.Yonmei (talk) 10:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Johann Hari page - I am not a sockpuppet for David Rose

For the record, I'd like to state here that two editors have raised suspicions, and in one case baldly asserted, that I am a sockpuppet for David Rose, about whom there is considerable chatter online and in the press. I want to state that these suspicions have no foundation in fact. I am also withdrawing from editing Johann Hari's page for the time being. I'd concede that the discussion hasn't always been temperate on my part, and I apologize for this, but I haven't been treated with anything like a decent standard of good faith either. I stand by my contribution history, and I have every right to edit that page. I'm just finding it exhausting.Zafio (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your decision to stop editing the Johann Hari page - I think that's very sensible. Your contribution record is fairly scanty: you've spent two-thirds of your time on Wikipedia on either Talk or User Talk pages. You could gain Wikipedia experience (and cool down) by editing other pages where you have no emotional involvement with the subject and no back history. Yonmei (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yonmei, please don't patronise me in this way. On the Talk Page I have accepted that some of my responses were not temperate, and have apologised. But then, you were implicating me in a much bigger controversy, not just on Wikipedia but elsewhere. Please don't talk about you having my best interests at heart, since you have repeatedly refused to engage the counter-arguments I have made to your suspicions. I have every right to defend myself from suspicions of sockpuppetry. For you, every other consideration is trumped by the fact that my contribution history is scanty. The quality of my contributions is neither here nor there to you, which tells me everything I need to know about your position. And you keep telling me to get "Wikipedia experience". In fact, I think our discussion on the Hari talk page shows that my understanding of the Wiki rules is robust. Thats all that should be important. I have given you chapter and verse, and its still not good enough for you. Zafio (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See guidelines on editing comments on the Talk page

Let me point you at WP:TALK. 1 Central points o 1.5 Editing comments + 1.5.2 Own comments

I respect your preference for editing your own comments on my Talk page for privacy, and though I have restored the mass deletion, I have left your privacy-edits in place.

It is not generally acceptable behaviour to delete comments entirely, even your own comments, on someone else's Talk page. "In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask. If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests." See Editing of other editors' user and user talk pages Yonmei (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC) 21:59, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I'm open to editing my Talk page on request, especially where a user feels their privacy is at stake. I don't follow which specific paragraphs you want me to delete from your request: please indicate them with a *. Yonmei (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the paragraphs you identified and, though you did not request it, I have also edited out the IP address you left when you commented on my User:Talk page without logging in. I hope this ends the matter. I don't like deleting comments from my Talk page, but I support a preference for personal privacy about location details. Yonmei (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Becoming a better Wikipedia editor

WP:INBRIEF Editing Wikipedia should be about improving its encyclopedic content. The Talk pages are a means to that end. You appear from your edit record and from the interactions I have had with you to date, to see this as a kind of social media. It is not.

I have no interest in social interaction with you. Your repeated invitations to meet in person are unwelcome. WP:NICE

I have refrained from asking an admin to intervene because, despite the length of time since your first edits, your edits of actual Wikipedia articles have been so few that I think you should consider yourself a newbie and ask for a more experienced Wikipedia editor to mentor you. Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user Yonmei (talk) 23:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]