Talk:Wikipedia Review/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Board statistics and participants

deleted content: Board statistics and participants

The site claims that their participants have made over 100,000 posts.

The highest posters include:

• Somey ( Staff) over 5,000 edits
• Jonny Cache (Member) over 5,000 edits (Wikipedia username: Jon_Awbrey)
• Moulton (Regular) over 5,000 edits (Wikipedia username: Moulton)
• guy (Moderator) over 3,000 edits
• GlassBeadGame (Moderator) over 3,000 edits
• Kato (Moderator) over 2,000 edits
• thekohser (Regular) over 2,000 edits

Comments

Conti deleted the Board statistics and participants section reproduced above. I think it is a useful section. What do others think? WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The total post count is useful but I don't see how the rest is. Are the users notable or the amount that they have posted or the fact that there exist people with that many posts or what? I doubt there is very much interest outside the company of the listed people themselves. Another indicator of note that the list wasn't exactly introduced with the deepest of thought is that it quotes numbers of "edits" when "posts" is clearly what is meant. It's probably no coincidence that none even of the more notable interactive websites on Wikipedia that I know of list their non-notable members. BigBlueFish (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Jonny Cache (logic expert), Moulton (Ph.D. and expert in electrical engineering; noted in a book I am reading (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moulton section "Chapter 13 of Kevin Kelly's Out of Control") for his work in learning and web sites), and thekohser (ran for election to be wikimedia board member) are "notable" in the sense that googling them gives their real names and a significant presence on the web (but not notable enough to have a wiipedia entry for their real name). I am uncertain whether to include their real names or not. Perhaps its just one big mess we should avoid. I don't know. But I think its interesting enough to include. I also thought the distinctions of staff, moderator, member, and regular was interesting. Looking at the numbers, one-fouth of the edits were made by these seven. Interesting. WAS 4.250 (talk) 05:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The university I attend enrols more people with comparable credentials to the above than you can count, but these are not named anywhere on Wikipedia. I appreciate that certain aspects of the information seem interesting, but what is the criterion to judge this? Should the 10 next highest posters also be in the list? Generally the criterion for this sort of thing is that it was interesting enough for a third-party source to mention this, but here there is no such source. I suggest that an external link to the list of members would provide equivalent access to the deleted list without the subjectivity of what conclusions are supposed to be drawn. We should certainly not reintroduce the list lightly, as it gives recognition to users at least some of whom engage in unreserved harrassement of Wikipedia users, though I appreciate this should stay separate from editorial considerations. BigBlueFish (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No - Firstly, it is totally inaccurate. We know that Blu Aardvark, Donny, Hushthis, Lir, Sgrayban and Blissyu2 all had high post counts, and yet their accounts were wiped. We also know that Selina altered her own post count to pretend that she hadn't posted as much. Also Nathan and The Fieryangel more recently had their post counts delisted. And this is not to forget the founder, Igor Alexander, who obviously had a large post count. These people, if accurate figures would be released, would be amongst the top posters (I am pretty confident that Sgrayban, Blissyu2 and Selina are the top 3 ever). Therefore, we know for absolute certainty that their own figures in this count are false. So why use them? Yes, they *SHOULD* be reliable when talking about themselves, but we know for sure that they aren't in this instance. However, as for the idea behind this - that notable people should be listed, I say Yes. The fact that Daniel Brandt is one of the leading posters, and unveiled both the Seigenthaler and Essjay scandals there (along with a number of other scandals that Wikipedia no longer has separate articles for), is significant, and should be mentioned. Perhaps of note is that Andrew Orlowski posted there, albeit briefly. Most of Wikipedia's most well known critics have at some point posted there. Larry Sanger and Ben Kovitz, 2 of the people involved with the founding of Wikipedia, have posted there. One of the guys who produced the Transformers movie posted there. Perhaps there should be a criteria - anyone who is either the subject of a Wikipedia article or else is largely mentioned in a Wikipedia article and has made over say 100 posts there should be mentioned. Then we can have a meaningful list. It isn't particularly interesting for people unfamiliar in the site that someone called Somey or Guy, neither of whom have real life information, have lots of posts - especially when it's not even true. Dyinghappy (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Is the board structure necessary?

Per title - is it necessary to name all the forums and subforums? Seems very directoryish to me. Viridae^Talk 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I was coming to ask the same thing. This seems unnecessary. LaraLove|Talk 05:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

All the sub-forums are not included. There are sub-forums under "notable editors" that name specific editors. What is included are the major links and their labels available on the main page as a neutral attempt to characterize the contents of the site. Do you have a better way to neutrally characterize the contents of the site with the same degree of specificity? Perhaps, rewrite it in sentence form? Go for it, if you want to put the same data in sentence form. The point is to neutrally characterize the contents of the site. WAS 4.250 (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

"The forums are broken up ïnto four general topic areas: Forum information; Wikimedia orientated discussion, which contains subforums focusing on editors, the wikipedia bureaucracy, meta discussion, articles and general wikimedia focussed topics not fitting elsewhere; Media forums containing a news feed and discussion about news and blogs featuring wikipedia/wikimedia; and off topic, non-wikimedia related discussions. Several forums are hidden from guest users." Try that on for size - and can someone copy edit, written very quickly. Viridae^Talk 05:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. I prefer what is there now for myself; but I have no doubt that the average reader would prefer something like what you just wrote. WAS 4.250 (talk) 06:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes - this is informative and useful and is quite normal for an encyclopaedic article. People who are unfamiliar with the site, or are perhaps scared to go there (perhaps because of horror stories they might have been told about it) might be interested in learning this. I would also add in their blog and wiki. I tried to but couldn't find the right address. They might have been wiped; if not I think that they should be added too. Dyinghappy (talk) 08:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I note that Neil changed it to be prose. I am not sure that I like this. What do others think? It looked better and easier to read in its previous form. Dyinghappy (talk) 11:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If we can rewrite lists as prose, we generally try to. What would be good to illustrate structure is a screenshot of the main page, if anyone can do so. Neıl 龱 11:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Are we allowed to do a screen shot of the main page? I am sure that most anyone could do that if it is acceptable. Furthermore, should there be mention of its private forums? Tar Pit and Feather Barrel, Moderators Forum and of course the legendary Anti-Cabal Forum (the "secret forum"). I know of where you can find a screenshot showing the secret forums. Dyinghappy (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If you are willing to take one and upload it, by all means. Screenshot of a website is fine providing the non-free rationale is filled in. Neıl 龱 12:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Criticisms of Wikipedia Review

Most articles have pro and con sections. Should Wikipedia Review? We have the David Shankbone source, but that is far from the only one that says how bad Wikipedia Review is. I know that we can't (or shouldn't) use Wikipedia, but there are quite a lot of other ones out there. Should we include them? Or is one enough? Dyinghappy (talk) 11:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find any reliable sources other than the Shankbone source from the Brooklyn Rail. If you know of any, please post them here and we can discuss how best to weave them in. Neıl 龱 11:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Gary Weiss one that you added was good. I am sure that there have been others. Didn't User:Durova write something (that was not just for Wikipedia)? Or at least she was interviewed. And the whole business of User:Snowspinner's story was written up in quite a lot of places criticising Wikipedia Review (I think it is on Wikitruth too). Indeed, you can probably find them if you look through Wikipedia Review's archives. They tend to highlight such things and then make fun of them. Dyinghappy (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing reliable that mentions WR by name, only blog pieces. The Weiss one is only just about okay because it's the blog of a notable person. Neıl 龱 12:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of what we will be able to find will be like what is available for political parties in that the most knowledgeable claims will be from one side or another and we should use such claims but very clearly indicate in the text what their axe to grind consists of without getting gossipy about it. Maybe just identify one group as pro and another as con? WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

mainpage huh? - congrat.s!

Well this was a bit of a surprise! - I missed the deletion discussions, but probably would have guessed that wiki-consensus would be to delete this article (I'dve gone keep myself) - this one definitely raised an eyebrow when it popped up on the mainpage! - I think it's a sure sign of a healthy wiki community - and thanks to all editors who've worked on this - I shall check the stat.s tool tomorrow (well, I will when 'July' becomes available!) - cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the WR crowd managed to bring further "notability" to their drivel by getting this article noted on the mainpage as a DYK entry...how special.--MONGO 07:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Though it was taken down after only two hours (instead of the usual six), and led to this proposal on the DYK talk page. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPA! WP:CIVIL! WP:AGF! Or in your case, a fundamental misinterpretation of WP:IAR, MONGO. Why is no-one surprised, though? Achromatic (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, since you have, judging by your "contributions" history, provided us with zero as far as furthering the sum of knowledge...I am not surprised that you aren't surprised.--MONGO 00:45, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Gary Weiss*2

WR is not a reliable source for discussing Gary Weiss, including whether or not WR discussions are relevant to his columns. Whether or not WR discusses him is irrelevant. --DHeyward (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The source is used to assert the fact that WR has a forum on Weiss. I think it does that quite well by pointing to said forum on Weiss. —Giggy 09:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

WR as a source is as much of a reliable source - about itself - as Weiss's blog is - about himself (or in this case his likes and dislikes). Having the criticism of a small specialised forum without the context as to why it might be being criticised is pointless. For NPOV it needs to be presented in a balanced manner, as it was. Viridae^Talk 10:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. WR is a reliable source about itself. Gary Weiss' blog is a reliable source for Gary Weiss. But WR is not a reliable source for Gary Weiss and WR is not to be used as criticism of Gary Weiss under any guise. Gary Weiss' blog may be a reliable source for WR as blogs associated with notable news outlets are, by consensus, generally acceptable. Here's the relevant policy for WR on Gary Weiss.

Material about living persons must be sourced very carefully. Without reliable third-party sources, it will violate the No original research and Verifiability policies, and could lead to libel claims. Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link (see above).

The external link to WR is of dubious value as WR is not a reliable source about Gary Weiss. We would not put "WR criticized Gary Weiss <link>" in Gary Weiss' bio page precisely because it is a BLP violation because WR does not satisfy the criteria for sourcing. Certainly, the location of the material is not relevant so if it's not acceptable in his Bio, it's not acceptable here. --DHeyward (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"But WR is not a reliable source for Gary Weiss and WR is not to be used as criticism of Gary Weiss under any guise." is where your argument fails, since it's only being used as a reliable source about itself in presenting its forum on Weiss. —Giggy 10:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No, the context of the link was criticism of Weiss in a dubious attempt at "balance" of Weiss' viewpoint. It was not presented about WR, it was presented as Weiss' motivation. Specifically, it was said to "balance" Weiss' criticism. WR is not an acceptable source for such criticism about Weiss. I would also argue that any links to WR that highlight a forum or post that is derogatory or defamatory will not meet the WP:BLP policy regardless of the value it may have in illustrating WR. That would be a classic WP:COATRACK. --DHeyward (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Reliable source?

Why is Gary Weiss a reliable source and authority on Wikipedia Review? Its just a blog on financial matters.[1] rootology (T) 14:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion on that. Didn't even know who he was until I read it last night. I think it was discussed in previous section? Broadly, he appears to be a notable reporter. Not sure how that fits in with his opinions on WR. --DHeyward (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Review has an entire forum on him and was instrumental in getting what appears to be his activity of socking and POV pushing on Wikipedia stopped. He is upset about that. I think he has a very good idea of what goes on at the Review. But he is hopelessly biased and unreliable. WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Name

Shouldn't the name of this article really be The Wikipedia Review? This is what they call themselves in the logo, although the url is of course wikipediareview.com. Thoughts on this would be appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times WAS 4.250 (talk) 18:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles like A, An and The are normally avoided in article titles *, with some exceptions. As I recall, The New York Times's own Manual of Style is to state their name at all times as "The..." where as most newspapers/press treat "the" as a normal article (e.g. "Associated Press" instead of "The Associated Press"). In the case of WR, they don't seem to have established a stance one way or the other. The sources quoted in the article tend to treat them as "Wikipedia Review" so I'd suggest it's in the right spot as-is. --InkSplotch (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. A relevant comparison might be the Biographicon. Skomorokh 19:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"accusations of plagiarism"

I'm going to go ahead and change this to "examples of plagiarism". I believe that the argument isn't whether plagiarism exists on Wikipedia, because pretty much everyone believes it does, but whether it is as extensive as some critics assert.

Examples:

• Wisent thread on Wikipedia Review and Encyc.org.
• Sicarii thread on Encyc.org.

Duck of Luke (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The Independent

As it currently reads, the article overstates what The Independent said about WR, and is used incorrectly in support of the lead.

Here is the totality of what the Independent says about WR:[2]

But rather than be commended, they're suffering more and more accusations of heavy-handedness. Last week, allegations against certain administrators came to a head on a site called Wikipedia Review, where people debate the administrators' actions.

Here is the paragraph that follows:

A former member of Wikipedia's arbitration committee has claimed that up to 90 per cent of people who are banned from editing entries are excluded for no good reason. One Wikipedia user living in Utah recently discovered. . .[and then it goes on to discuss Overstock]

All it says about Wikipedia Review is in the first paragraph quoted above. The "has claimed" sentence is not a reference to WR. The reference to Overstock is two sentences removed from the brief sentence describing WR, and is unrelated.

The Independent is also footnoted in support of this sentence in the lead:

"InformationWeek described Wikipedia Review, along with Wikitruth, as being a 'watchdog' site, 'dedicated to scrutinizing Wikipedia and reporting on its flaws'".

The Independent says nothing of the kind.--Janeyryan (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The first paragraph you quote mentions WR, and the fact that allegations against administrators have appeared on WR. The second (which you quote partially) explains one of those allegations (the blocking of the entirety of Utah). The two paragraphs are concurrent. However, I don't have the energy or the inclination to squabble. Neıl ☄ 08:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh My News International as a source

It is self-published 'citizen journalism' and I have removed. WP:V--Janeyryan (talk) 20:05, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's not self-published. There is an editorial staff which reviews all articles. See the site's FAQ page [3]. --Terrawatt (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite. It has an editorial staff that claims to review the works of its undeniably self-published content. That is not unique, and is quite typical. The leading self-publishing book publisher, Vantage Books, makes similar claims. Beside this we have the issue of the article itself, which makes outlandish claims about a Wikipedia administrator and mentions Wikipedia Review tangentially. This link seems to have been introduced as a 'coatrack' to include that scurilous claim, and it has no business being used here. Please don't edit war to include a link absolutely not permitted by WP:SELFPUB.--Janeyryan (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Content is reviewed by an editorial staff; unless you can prove the sourcing is actually wrong (I don't believe it is), then your view the editorial staff only "claims" to review the content is tantamount to original research. Please do not edit war to remove a source and insert a {{fact}} tag. Neıl ☄ 16:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked for a review at WP:RSN, which confirmed my view that this is in no way, shape or form a reliable source, 'content review' notwithstanding.--Janeyryan (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

misleading statement/reliable source question

The phrase "It provides an independent forum, whose frequenters include users banned from Wikipedia,[7]" is cited to a single source, which is basically someone asserting that a single person on Wikipedia Review is someone banned from Wikipedia. The phrase in question states multiple users, which the source doesn't even say (unless I missed it), but also implies that it's a significant number (if it isn't significant, why even mention it?).

I think either that the sentence needs to be rewritten or an actual reliable source for that information needs to be found. DreamGuy (talk) 18:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is a shaky foundation for that statement. However, the statement itself is noncontroversial.--Janeyryan (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it? I say that the statement is worded ambiguously and seems to imply a high rate of banned editors posting there, which I certainly don't know is the case and nobody provided any evidence of. Thus the idea that it's noncontroversial is false. If it's clearly proven somewhere surely you could find a reliable source. If there's some other wording that can fix the slant of the sentence so that it is more neutral and in accordance with the cite provided, then try that. Ignoring it won't do. DreamGuy (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you add a fact tag to it, and let it sit for a little while. If no one offers a superior referencewhich i personally don't feel is all that shaky to begin with), then we can consider our due diligence served. Until then, let's not make alterations to articles with the misleading presumption that they have been agreed upon. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

DreamGuy has a valid point. In reading the article I must admit that the reference to banned editors is tangential. --Janeyryan (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

But it is citable, right? Far as I know, the Rail meets our criteria as a RS, and there are not sources that contravert the statements. Shankbone was pointing to some of the flaws of the arguments offered by a banned editor. We include controversial reviews of articles, films, books, etc. What is the difference here? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Shankbone was pointing to some of the flaws of the arguments offered by a banned editor. Yes, and this was used to source a statement that WR is used by banned editors. That was not what he said. It was a passing reference to 'banned.' Obviously WR is used by banned editors, which is why I said it was 'uncontroversial.' However, DreamGuy is right that this is not adequare sourcing. On balance, a 'fact' tag seems reasonable.--Janeyryan (talk) 12:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Okey-doke. If nothing turns up, source-wise, we can delete it, as per DG's "suggestion." - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about removing the tag just now guys, I hadn't checked the history or the talk page before editing. After checking the history just now, I realised it was a contentious issue, so I was going to revert myself, but figured replacing the {{fact}} with a {{notinsource}} would fit better. Hope I haven't caused any inconvenience. 88.104.206.69 (talk) 15:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

How does WP:SELFPUB not apply here? And how is it controversial? I mean, seriously, it is not a huge secret that WR has several users who are banned from Wikipedia. Looking over the participation on the site clearly reveals that. And I disagree that the previous wording suggested "a high rate of banned editors posting there". It suggested many, which is accurate. Jennavecia ^(Talk) 13:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not at all controversial, and your points are correct in all respects. Although DreamGuyraises a valid point on the sourcing, since it is not controversial I don't believe it needs to be removed.--Janeyryan (talk) 13:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I added a second reference, using a WR thread (now let's wait to see why this isn't suitable, either). I believe "two" is sufficient for us to say "userS". I think this was a very nitpicky reason to remove content, so view having to trawl for this a wasdte of time, but through my trawling I also found a piece by Kathryn Cramer in which she describes WR threads as "interesting reading", and have added this to the article, so on the whole it was just about worth it. Neıl ☄ 14:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the self published blog of a science fiction writer can't be used as a source for promotional fluff, even if the promotional fluff was otherwise proper to place in the lead. She is an expert on science fiction, not a critic of blogs. Per WP:V I have removed.--Janeyryan (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Apparently she's a "literary critic". Would you say that qualifies her to comment on whether the Board of Outer Darkness Where there is Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth is an "interesting read"? --Relata refero (disp.) 21:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

She edits a science fiction review, and WR is not a science fiction website.--Janeyryan (talk) 11:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear, does that mean that you have to establish credentials within each sub-genre of literature in order to comment on the interestingness of an internet forum? Dear me. How remarkably restrictive, and what a unique standard. I think perhaps you're over-reaching. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

An established and notable writer has given their view on the site. As the content clearly states "... Cramer stated", using a self-published source to evidence their view is entirely acceptable. Janey, as a new user perhaps you are not fully au fait with WP:V? Neıl ☄ 11:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The established and notable writer will have to be quoted from something other than her own blog. WP:SELFPUB states: 'Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves, and then only if:' And then, inter alia, not if 'unduly self serving'. So if this person were Ms. Wikipedia Review, embodiment of same, speaking about herself, this bit of fluff could not be used.--Janeyryan (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course it could. The source is by Cramer, and is appropriate for sourcing a quote from Cramer. WP:SELFPUB - not actually policy - does not mandate the self-published source can only be used in the article about the self-publisher. Neıl ☄ 12:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, WP:SELFPUB is policy (since it's a redirect to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published and questionable sources about themselves). And it seems that your addition violates #4 ("it does not involve claims about third parties") and, arguably, #5 ("it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject"). --Conti|✉ 12:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

That is a questionable reading of the policy, and in fact one that is untenable unless attributed opinions are never to be published on Wikipedia, ever. The source is not being used to verify a factual claim about a third party. The only factual claim being verified by the source is the accuracy of the opinions and self-described actions of the self-publisher herself. In other words there is no "claim about a third party" only a claim about the self-publisher -- and the claim is that she thinks whatever it is she thinks about WR. If said notable writer were to offer the opinion on her own blog that "monotheism is totally awesome" this opinion is not excluded from monotheism because it is self-published but because it isn't in any way notable. As far as I can tell, and baring some policy that excludes all attributed opinion from Wikipedia entries, the issue here is not with sourcing.PelleSmith (talk) 19:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

For clarity's sake perhaps someone is willing to explain exactly how the text Neil added makes any claims about a third party or events in the first place. It looks entirely like a description of her own actions and opinions. Are they notable? No clue. Are they reliably sourced. Without a doubt.PelleSmith (talk) 19:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not going to venture an opinion on the inclusion of the quote from me in this entry, but indeed I am a literary critic. (My WP entry has plenty of documentation on that, though more could be provided.) And indeed, my specialties are science fiction, fantasy and horror, though literary criticism is not specialized in the way fields like medicine are; and I have reviewed non-fiction for The Washington Post and elsewhere. And indeed, the wiki phenomenon is too young to have its own body of literary criticism. And my blog is indeed self-published, and I did indeed write that and did indeed find Wikipedia Review very useful as a source of explanations of what all those WP admins spouting acronyms were trying to say: Over there, they were very knowledgeable and helpful about explaining the finer points of various Wikipedia policies in plain English in a way that WP admins as of January 2007 seemed unable to do. Hope this helps. --Pleasantville (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC) aka Kathryn Cramer

(Forgot something: Regarding my relative knowledge of WP and authority to speak about it, though at the time I wrote that I was new to Wikipedia, as of today, I have accumulated over 5,300 edits to over 1,800 pages. ) --Pleasantville (talk) 13:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

As said above, the statement is uncontroversial. Or should we let Gregory Kohs and Peter Damian know that their bans have been lifted? With all the work that needs to be done, devoting time to finding an independent source for this seems foolish. To put it another way, if Wikipedia cannot verify that it has banned someone, does that mean they're not banned?KD Tries Again (talk) 19:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Yes but Wikipedia is not a reliable source. 86.164.215.95 (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

In common sense terms, of course it isn't, but - funnily enough - it does qualify as a WP:RS for this purpose: "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves,* especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

  1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."

• In this case, as a source of information that it states certain users are banned. I assume we're okay on Wikipedia's authenticity.KD Tries Again (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Are we to hide all mention of who administrates the site?

Why don't you go to Something Awful and remove all mention of the owner,there? Jesus people! Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 03:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe we know who administers the sight; we know the internet handles they use, which is hardly encyclopaedic (though the real name of a former staff member of theirs recently became public knowledge). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Something Awful used the name Lowtax long before it mentioned the person's real name. 4chan mentioned its owners name for years and the name he gave to the press is a fake name, yet it is mentioned. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 04:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that Somey isn't the owner (is he? I dunno anymore), whereas (to take the 4chan example) moot definitely is. If we're going to list an owner I think "Selina" is the correct person to list (unless you want a barnstar). Giggy (talk) 06:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Blissyu2 repeatedly claims to be, and has a reputation for expounding that view at great length whenever he can. I've no opinion either way, but adding it to the pot here - Alison ^❤ 07:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

The comment by Sarcasticidealist by "This, in contrast, *is* a revert." in the contrast of what happened before to me is an obvious case of cyberbullying by Sarcasticidealist. Usually when the people who have the power to cyberbully do cyberbully they aren't so obvious about it (e.g. removing one part they know won't be removed and then leaving up another part they know will be removed), but Sarcasticidealist really was obvious about it. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to complain about editorial conduct. WP:WQA is the usual venue for allegations of bullying, if you'd care to take it there. For what it's worth, I neither believe that you are right in the content dispute nor that that was "cyberbullying". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Registration from France

I tried to register from France using paid accounts with the ISP Free.fr. The administrators have blocked all registrations associated with this internet provider. I did succeed in registering by sending an email to the moderator Somey divulging (a) my real life identity and (b) university computer accounts in France, Berkeley and Cambridge. Without consulting me, they chose the unverified Berkeley email address (now a redirect) a week later to register me. I have recorded this information in the article. Anybody can check this anomaly using a random address user@free.fr. Mathsci (talk) 21:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think you understand how WP:NOR works. Find me a reliable source that has reported on this, and you can put it back in. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please try to register with luminaix@free.fr, one of my paid alternative accounts, or any random username followed by free.fr. It will produce the same result: registration is refused immediately. (I recognized you immediately as Sarcastic Idealist, one of the rudest contributors on WR review.) Many thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that the information you're trying to add is true, I'm disputing that it is in any way permitted by core Wikipedia content policies, WP:NOR in particular. I do congratulate you for cleverly recognizing me through my fiendish disguise, though. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

LoL, pwnd. Tijfo098 (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)