User talk:BemusedObserver

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, BemusedObserver, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Sock puppetry[edit]

But I do hope that you are not user:wikidea under another name. Wikipedia takes a very poor view of what is known as wp:sock puppetry. I notice that this is a new account that has (with one minor exception) only been used to commenent on the TTIP article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:17, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

That's a fairly un-called for accusation. It is possible that more than one person holds a view different from your own, and equally possible that two people hold similar views. I happen to be new to Wikipedia as a user, and noted the general bullying/arguing which Wikidea was undergoing, since I looked at the edits on the TTIP article when I felt like it was missing a fair amount of information. I don't know what the protocol is for replying to things, so I will also paste this onto your talk. BemusedObserver (talk) 14:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
No, it wasn't an accusation. Read it again. I said that 'I hope that you are not'. It is unusual for a new user to dive into a controversy, displaying competent editing skills. You are certainly welcome to improve the TTIP article, but subject to the same demands made of every editor: add only material for which you have an external source, and that you fairly and evenly report that source. It is not about 'winning', it is about producing a reliable and trustworthy article. --John Maynard Friedman ([[User talk:John Maynard Friedman) 18:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't patronise me. One can accuse without saying "I accuse you of..." I'm flattered by "competent editing skills", though, thank you! I've actually edited things before; mostly mathematics tweaks and grammar fixes, but simply not made a user account. I suppose it is 'suspicious', if you will, that one of the earliest uses of this account is to discuss a political issue. I'm not a puppet, though. BemusedObserver (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
  1. Wikipedia:PRESERVE#Try_to_fix_problems
  2. Wikipedia:DNB -- BemusedObserver (talk) 11:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
So it doesn't seem to matter that I began first by welcoming you to the project - see wp:assume good faith. Then I said that 'but I hope you are not', which I felt was not an unreasonable concern in the circumstances: I hope that you continue editing and in time you will come to appreciate why a small doubt might enter my mind. Regrettably, it is not rare for a very few editors to magic up support for a particular point of view. That is one important reason the project has a cast iron rule: produce a citation by a reliable source that evenly and accurately supports what you feel should be included in the article for completeness.
I am content to accept your word and consider the matter closed. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks - I never considered the matter open. I'm not sure why it's relevant anyway, who I am; you said yourself (although I'd tend to disagree) that I had "competent editing skills", and I reject any suggestion from you or CFredkin that the things I suggested were remotely biased, so it's nothing but an ad hominem attack. I feel 'bitten', and deeply patronised by your manner towards me, which is why I've responded in the way I have. Still no one has addressed the constructive comments I made on the talk page for that article. Talk of editors who "magic up support" is VERY large talk from you, in my (very limited) experience, as you defend CFredkin who displays exactly that behaviour. The very rule you so assiduously quote at me is precisely what I was trying to defend when I saw what appeared to me to be deletion of information with reliable sources. Based on what you say, we want the same things, so as I see it, either it isn't true, or you've been taken in by CFredkin's claims. You're accusing the wrong user of underhand tactics. - BemusedObserver (talk) 14:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
As I see it, CFredkin is simply asking that all material in the article is (a) supported by citation (and not be just an editor's opinion) and that (b) where a citation does exist (i) it is from a notable, reliable, and neutral source and (ii) it is reported/summarised even-handedly and accurately. He/She asked Wikidea to show where in the source the statements challenged could be found and since they could not be found, correctly deleted them. In an effort to defuse the edit war, he opened a 'Request for Comment' on the talk page, which is one of the more important ways to try to fix problems. Rather than respond to the request for clarification, Wikidea merely reverted the challenged material, which is not acceptable behaviour in any article anywhere on Wikipedia. My support (as you call it) for CFredkin was to assert these important principles of Wikipedia - which I would do whether the topic was the TTIP, Life on Mars, or Michael Jackson. It follows therefore that I would question the motives of anyone who would support that addition of unsourced material.
I have no expertise on the subject of the TTIP. I came to the article as an end user hoping to learn about it. What I found, for a topic of such importance, was an article that was incoherent and loaded with conjecture. If you look back at the talk page, you'll see where I came in to express my concern - and then found that someone else, CFredkin, was already trying to do something about it. I am proud to support him/her in doing so. The topic raises important issues between those who believe globalisation is a Good Thing and those who think it is a Bad Thing. The article should reflect both views. BUT they must be reported accurately as the views of notable external actors, not be the opinion of Wikipedia editors.
I repeat what I said earlier: if you have material you believe should be included and you have the NPOV sources to support it, then go right ahead and edit it in. Provided it complies with the principles I stated above, I will argue equally fiercely that it should stand. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thank you for trying to be so rigorous, then; I'm willing to take your word for it. And I should apologise for responding so defensively, although I still feel unfairly accused. In that case, though, please read my comments on the talk page (as well as the numerous others pointing out transgressions from CFredkin) because I truly don't believe you could be having this argument if you'd read them, as well as, specifically, the source CFredkin seemed most keen to reduce the visibility of. Since this discussion has been going on, more things have come to light over TTIP, and others have edited the article, which I've not yet read, so I'm not up to date on how the bits I felt were unreasonably deleted stand. But please read the discussion on the page. -- BemusedObserver (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

CFredkin merely said 'I can't see anything in the citation that supports what Wikidea wants to put in the article. Show us where it is.' Answer came there none, just another revert. That is not acceptable. The same standard applies to every article on wp, but especially to those on controversial subjects. That is why I supported him then and would do so again. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)