User talk:Hipal/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Sorry could use your advice again-spam?

Hi, I hope this isn't getting old with you but you know and understand spam the best I know of so I am bringing this to you, I hope it's ok. On the Joseph Mercola article there are now two external links. The first one is what I am questioning, [1]. To me it looks like spam esp. now that I looked at the second EL. What's your thoughts please? I have not done anything, I want your advice/actions first so I understand this better. It is Mercola's site, but it seems to me to be his sales site, not information site, though there is some links to go to the informations (I didn't click them though so I do not know for sure. I hope the little bit that I have clicked on doesn't put me on the mailing list automatically.) Thank you in advance, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed it as inappropriate linkspam - a link to a highly promotional site that is off-topic. The links should be to articles or other material about Mercola. --Ronz (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix, the article is a mess and I totally agree with how you handled it. On a different note, I find this next set of stuff terribly scary and see a major forest fire ahead on this. I don't totally understand all the under currents going on as there is major history behind the scenes here but I think you might be interested in this if you haven't already, though you probably have. Anyways here's some of the links I have been following but it is spreading to so many places real fast. [2], [3] and [4]. I didn't know that this kind of secret actions took place, esp. something like this with the ARB and sanctions and all. I find it quite disturbing as does a lot of editors as you will see. I am just following the links to try to figure out what is going on but I do believe that editors should be aware of this kind of secrecy going on so that the project remains open to all and not to a minority. I think this kind of actions is a bad idea for an open project to succeed. Anyways, take a look when you have the time, it's a lot to read already and it's not been announced for a whole day yet. Thanks again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

[5] More, Jimbo Wales weighs in here. It is definitely getting interesting. :) I hope things work out to be open to the community since this is something I find most appealing about this site. I like the consensus and open atmosphere that wiki is about, and that all editors are considered equals and can respond to most everything going on and give an opinion. I hope you are well and enjoying the start of the weekend. Take care, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC) PS: I am horrible with run-on sentences!

I agree with your assessment of the Joseph Mercola article. I also agree that it's important to put Mercola's website in perspective (traffic). The problem: how to do this without resorting to OR? I have (very briefly) looked for news sources, and I'm sure a few reliable ones are out there, but so far what I find are websites allied with Mercola. His domain of natural/paleolithic/etc. diet/health products seems to reside in a parallel universe, a notable one, but parallel nonetheless....making it difficult to "encyclopedize" reliably. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes I did the same and don't know of anyway to make the article comply better. Other than a major rewrite or turning it into a stub and starting over again which I don't think many editors would be happy with. I am at a loss to be honest so all I do is try to keep the extra stuff not needed or over done out. Open to suggestions though, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to add, the only hits I got was from Quackwatch and that gets people riled up if used. I do understand that this is a very controversial site and a lot take what is said very personally but I also think that this is the kind of article where QW might be useful for balance. Of course just my opinion, thoughts? --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Newmatilda.com page

Hi Ronz

I work for newmatilda.com and assisted with editing the wiki page.

We have endeavored to address a number of the issues which were flagged as not meeting wiki standards.

This includes copyright notice for the image used, conflict of interest, neutrality and in-text citations.

Can I request that these be reveiwed and if, as we believe they have been adequately addressed, the notifications currently displayed on our page be updated or removed?

We appreciate the work you do in maintaining wiki pages and hope you are able to make these updates.

Regards Rod newmatilda Newmatilda (talk) 02:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into the problems. I'll look over what you've done. --Ronz (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It still needs lots of work. I suggest WP:RFF to get the attention of others to help. --Ronz (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Ronz, sorry if you thought that what I posted was spam or anything like that. It seriously wasn't my intention - just tried to add some content. I don't know why would you consider it to be linkspam or anything similar to that.

From now on I'll try to be more open on the changes I try to do.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce404 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Marburg72

Why do you keep posting on my page, saying "Please do not attack others". I never attacked other editors. Please stop. You also repeatedly removed my scholarly journal citations about the topic of Hourglass Symbolism and history which has been already moved from Walam Olum Birchbark scrolls to midwiwin to hourglass history and now to hourglass symbolism . Why are you doing this?Marburg72 (talk) 18:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Now you are posting unrealted conflict of interest information on my site and again reverting all constructive edits to the Monk's Mound site. The conflict of interest material that you posted has nothing to do with this topic. Why are you doing this?Marburg72 (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you take it to WP:COIN before someone else does. Read WP:COI before you do. --Ronz (talk) 16:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

There are wider issues than WP:COIN, so I've just (crudely) begun a page at: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Marburg72 David Trochos (talk) 17:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that he's well on his way to Arbcomm. I'd like to see an admin or some other uninvolved, experienced editor, take some time to explain proper behavior to him. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have added some more complaints for you - that are also unrelated. Marburg72 (talk) 02:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, I've just put in an "Evidence of trying to resolve the dispute" summary, and your name keeps cropping up. Would you like to sign in the "Users certifying the basis for this dispute" section? David Trochos (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

While I mean to do so, something has come up that might prevent me from getting to it in the next day. --Ronz (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are aware that Marburg72 has a 24 hour block for edit warring and disruption (deletion of text by other editors that he didn't approve of) on Talk:Monk's Mound -- look at the history of the talk page. Doug Weller (talk) 18:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Yep, and after I advised him to take some time to cool off. Thanks for the note. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Lego page 'Trademark'

This section has been discuss many times in the past. The information is correct from the Lego Group website and other media sources long before there was 'Google' or 'Wikipedia'. It shows and explains in simple terms the proper use of 'LEGO' name and logo if someone is researching about the LEGO trademark. There is no reason to delete or change the 'trademark' section when it provides information for the reader to understand the history. If the section is deleted, it will create some problems again in the past on 'Wikipedia' which is mention in the past 'Archives'. It is more common for American kids to say or write 'legos' but for the rest of world its different. It could cause a ripple affect to other company names or brands listed on the site. Not to forget the rest of the other Lego pages, such themes and products listed or mention on Wikipedia. The reason behind the trademark section is to explain why it is incorrect to use 'legos' or 'Lego's'. In fact, pretty much all companies, brands or products on Wikipedia should have a 'Trademark' section. So the reader can understand more about the person, company, product, and brand they are reading about. I hope you can understand. GoTLG (talk) 23:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)GoTLG

I don't agree. This is an encyclopedia, not a venue for businesses to inform people about their trademarks and how to use them properly. --Ronz (talk) 04:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

as an administrator here with an interest in WP:NPOV, I agree that Ronz correctly understands the way wikipedia handles these matters. The place to explain the way you want your trademark used is on your own website. DGG (talk) 04:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Help with speedy deletion request

Hi Ronz. I've actually interacted with you one or two times during my time here at Wikipedia. I'm a user that pretty much cleans up articles & helps keep the spam out.

I was hoping you could help me out. I've identified a user who is not using Wikipedia the way it is intended to be used. His Wiki User name is - User_talk:Wrrobinson. I did some tracking and noticed that he's putting up resources for Orange Legal Technologies (a company page that has already been deleted) as well as this article - Electronic_Discovery_Need_"Indicators". I noticed that his user name - Wrrobinson - is oddly similar to the Vice President of Marketing's name on the Orange Legal Technologies website - http://orangelt.us/about/mangement-team/. And that article I nominated for speedy deletion was directly lifted from a Orange Legal Technologies page here - http://orangelt.us/situations/litigation/.

Anyway, I was hoping you could take a look and make sure I did all of the correct steps (nominate the page for speedy delete, add the tag to his talk page, etc.). Thanks Ronz--Christian B (talk) 16:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I do know you're not an admin, but you definitely know a whole heck of a lot more than I do when it comes to Wikipedia procedures, Wikicode, etc; That's why I'm asking for your help.--Christian B (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the words of confidence. I'll look into it. --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to tell what he's been doing given that most of his edits were to articles now deleted. Issues like this can be brought to WP:COIN to get the attention of other editors familiar with how to address potential conflict of interest problems. If he's not the same Robinson, he certainly likes to promote Robinson's interests. I've notified him of WP:COI and tagged the one remaining article he's worked on. --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for this - appreciate it--Christian B (talk) 18:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Folks - Rob Robinson is me - wrrobinson - and the article was provided as an informative tool as no other similiar onces were available. If I rememeber correctly - I posted the article and it was quickly deleted. I didnt really pursue - but the posting appeared to be congruent with Wikipedia content - as it was no different than much of the content posted on the InfoGovernance Blog - which was listed as a resource link on the Electronic Discovery page for several years. Now I am with OrangeLT - and as most of our content is very objective/informative - I did provide a link to our site. As far as promoting my interests - really dont have any other than educating folks on EDD and using that education to share benefits of systems available to help meet those needs - of which OrangeLT has some good ones. I am certainly comfortable with its inclusion - or non inclusion - but do - as a follower of the electronic discovery arena - see the benefit of such education in the market. If you have any questions - please let me know - as certainly happy to answer them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.82.9.15 (talk) 13:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI explains such situations pretty clearly. Let me know if you have questions, or you could ask at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Enterprise architecture etc

Not sure which of my edits your advice refers to. However, I believe the section I added at the front of the Enterprise Architecture definition does indeed merit being placed ahead of the remainder of the definition. The problem with "Architecture" in the IS/IT space is that people need to distinguish enterprise architecture, solution architecture, software architecture, enterprise application architecture, technical architecture, etc etc. If one doesn't start out with something the differentiates them, they all read like synonyms. But I'll have another look at it. Graham Berrisford (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you're going into details that are too complex and need more discussion than what should be in the introduction. --Ronz (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Levine2112

Just e-mail him with the explanation, okay? He's entitled to remove whatever he wants from his User talk. That's policy, I'm afraid. Both of you edit warring on a user talk page is just silly (I got word of this from WP:3RRN), most of the time it's on articles about real things. If you e-mail him then it's out of the way. Take care, friend! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 04:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I will not email him. I do not give my email to people who harass me. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

In reply, I would ask this: Please remove or refactor anything where you have referred to Levine2112 as a troll (anywhere), or said anything else at an article talkpage that might be construed as a personal attack on him. If you have concerns about harassment, you can bring them up at your talkpage, his talkpage, or an administrator's talkpage. But at article talkpages, limit your discussions to the article only. Thanks, --Elonka 18:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI

WP:ANI#Suggest a topic ban for Levine2112. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC/U for Levine2112

Discuss here only if you're able to follow the instructions at the top of this page (follow WP:TALK, WP:AGF, etc). --Ronz (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I think what would be great is if Levine2112 acknowledged the problems he has caused in the discussion/editing of of alt. medicine articles and began working more from the model of User:Dematt or User:Nealparr. I also think that Levine2112 branching out to topics outside of the area of alt. medicine would be appropriate. Other than reverting petty vandalism and welcoming users he sees with redlinks, I haven't seen anything in his contributions that make him anything more than a WP:SPA. Those would be some good outcomes for RfC/U. What do you think? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. --Ronz (talk) 23:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Levine2112 (talk · contribs) seems to have done a lot more than that.[6] He has been around for nearly three years, has many thousands of edits, and has worked on a variety of articles. This is not the profile of a WP:SPA. --Elonka 01:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, spoken like an uninvolved and uninformed admin, with some investigation you will find (as almost all who have to deal with his edits have found) he mostly edits altmed articles where he pushes the altmed POV. Hallmarks of a SPA per WP:SPA. Shot info (talk) 01:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as I look through the contribs of all involved here (including Levine2112) I see very similar patterns, as well as a great deal of attention to certain controversial articles. Which isn't necessarily a problem as long as discussions stay civil, and article edits stay in compliance with Wikipedia policies. See also WP:BALANCE. --Elonka 13:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Look again. Levine edits a very narrow range of articles - all altmed. He uses editing tools for petty vandalism and welcome messages that make it look like he's editing a far larger number of articles, which is hard to see in his editing history if you don't know what you're looking for. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

So? You edit a lot of altmed articles too, but that doesn't mean you should be blocked for it. As for "reverting petty vandalism" and "welcoming new users", those are extremely helpful to the project. We have plenty of editors who do nothing but scan recent changes for that kind of thing. See also WP:GNOME. It is behavior that we encourage. If such an editor wants to get involved in discussions on altmed articles, that's totally fine. Where it would get into the realm of disruption, would be if they were edit-warring, being uncivil, repeatedly adding unsourced information or unreliable sources, removing reliable sources, misinterpreting reliable sources, or editing an article in defiance of talkpage consensus. Has he done any of those recently? If so, show me diffs. --Elonka 17:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm simply pointing out the facts. Yes, the vandalism work is indeed useful editing. No one is suggesting he be blocked because he's a SPA that also does some vandalism work. Thanks for the list of items to concentrate on for listing his inappropriate edits. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Goal

• To document the editing behaviors so it's easier to review.
• To centralize discussions on proper response to those editing behaviors.

--Ronz (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You thought it is spam when it isn't....

Hi Ronz,

I just saw that you delete a few of the links from pages and tagging them as spam. While I am quite new, I was just curious what I can do to prevent that you or someone else deletes it as spam.

Let's look at the pages:

Customer Experience: I made an external link to my non-commercial blog that provides an overview of academic and non-academic articles on customer experience management. A lot of them are for free, so I think this is quite valuable for people who read this entry on Wikipedia.

User-Centered Design: The link features an overview together with a short introduction of the 13 most popular methods of user-centered design. These 13 methods are the result of a survey of around 150 practitioners of user centered design. So I think this is also highly valuable

Location Based Services: There is a discussion in the field of ubiquitous computing whether humans really need location-based services. I have provided a link to a non-commercial site that discusses this issue and you have marked it as spam. I think this contributes significantly to the discussion in the field of location-based services.

So, I just want to understand your rules for spam. How do you judge between valueable contributions (which as you can see above, the posts definitely represent) and in-valuable spam? How can a website that doesn't follow any commerical interests (no advertising) be flagged as spam?

Thanks for your answers (and helping me understand the "unwritten" rules of Wikipedia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ExperientalMarketer (talk • contribs) 10:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Chiming in here. Your site looks good at first glance. I think the 'spam' thing isn't the issue (although take a look at your username and think what the response is going to be when someone sees you adding links), it's the fact it is a blog. Please read [[WP:Verify}}. Then even if you got past being self-published, adding it your self could be seen as WP:COI. You could post to the reliable sources noticeboard WP:RSN to ask if your blog could be used as a source. If you do that, start off by identifying yourself in some fashion to give yourself creditibility, then describe your blog and how you'd like to use it. Doug Weller (talk) 13:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

First, it's a blog, so fails WP:EL. Second, you appear to have a relationship with it, so there is likely a WP:COI conflict as well. Third, your behavior of adding links from this same domain to multiple articles is considered spamming. Even if this wasn't a blog and you didn't have a relationship with it, it would still be considered spamming. My concern is how the link is being added, not the content of the pages. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, thanks for your feedback! so what do you suggest me to do when I think this is valuable content and want it to add to these entries? Should I try the reliable sources noticeboard WP:RSN? I don't want to be cumbersome, just trying to understand these details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ExperientalMarketer (talk • contribs) 18:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that you're continuing the conversation. While you can try WP:RSN, I suggest starting at Wikipedia_talk:External_links. Also, if you haven't already done so, I suggest you read through WP:COI and decide if you want to make a declaration about any relationship you might have with the site. Additionally, WP:COI gives some excellent advise no matter what the situation is: discuss the additions you want to make on article talk pages to see if someone else thinks the information is valuable enough that they'll add it for you. --Ronz (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As he thought I'd misinterpreted the wording at WP:EL, and I could see that it was confusing, I've already brought it up on the talk page, see [7]. No point in trying the RS noticeboard. Doug Weller (talk) 18:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not following. What's being misinterpreted? --Ronz (talk) 18:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, take a look at my talk page (and the link above). He read 'except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article' as allowing anything that talked about the subject of the article. But what it means is that an article on Yahoo forums could have a link to a Yahoo forum. Doug Weller (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd seen the discussion earlier there, but I'm not sure what you're trying to clarify. Maybe that's why I'm not sure how it applies to this situation. --Ronz (talk) 18:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Say what?

I have no idea what you are talking about. If you are referring to my comment that DBachmann employs hyperbole, he does, i've called him on this before, and tough shit for him that I keep noticing. It's not incivil to call a liar a liar. It's blunt speech, fully protected under our Wikipedia policies. ThuranX (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm concerned that you're escalating the problems, especially with your edit summary. --Ronz (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Look. DBachmann likes to point out the hypocrisy in others. He likes to point out the hyperbole used by others in discussion and debate. I'm simply calling him on it. And don't worry, it's not escalatign anything, he's aware that I find such duplicities distasteful. ThuranX (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the argument is getting a bit too personal. I think it best to keep the edit summary free from name-calling, where it cannot be refactored. --Ronz (talk) 23:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Conditions for editing Quackwatch

Doesn't contain a single mention of WP:NPOV. This is beyond naive. --Ronz (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Editors are required to add information that is based on reliable sources. If they add something that another editor feels isn't neutral, then other editors can change the text to something that they feel is better. --Elonka 21:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe you understand WP:NPOV. Given that NPOV is at the crux of the problems at Quackwatch and related articles, a solution that doesn't address it is no solution at all, rather a distraction. --Ronz (talk) 21:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF still applies. The assumption is that whichever editor is adding something, that they are doing their best to comply with NPOV, and that they are genuinely trying to improve the article. However, different editors may have different perceptions of what "neutral" is, in which case they are allowed to go in and try to change the added text to something that they think is more neutral. Then the first editor can either accept that, or make further tweaks, etc. Ideally they can go back and forth, each offering their own compromises, until they can circle in towards consensus. If any editor is obviously adding information in bad faith, the administrators will spot it, and can deal with that editor directly. But to start, an assumption of good faith is being made towards all editors, in a "wipe the slate clean" technique, to try and get past the logjam. --Elonka 22:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

"WP:AGF still applies." I don't believe anyone said it didn't, nor do I see how it applies to NPOV or the NPOV problems that these articles have.

"The assumption is that whichever editor is adding something, that they are doing their best to comply with NPOV, and that they are genuinely trying to improve the article." See my previous comments. AGF says nothing like this. --Ronz (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no evidence that the Conditions for editing at Quackwatch are valid or in accordance with any policy. QuackGuru 18:21, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I prefer identifying exactly what the problems are, rather than blanket statements. The histories of the Barrett-related articles show again and again that the problems are almost all related to NPOV.

The solution that I've repeatedly offered to to only use the highest quality references (per NPOV, V, and RS), and remove contentious material not supported by the references agreed upon. This will result in all the articles being reduced in size. --Ronz (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to condense the articles, and using high quality sources is an excellent practice. I can't speak for other articles, but at Quackwatch, please be mindful of the Talk:Quackwatch#Conditions for editing, and do not remove sources. If you think a source is unreliable, please tag it, such as with {{vc}} or {{vs}}. The {{fact}} tag is also useful. Then if concerns are not addressed in a reasonable amount of time, no one is going to fault you for deleting the tagged information, and/or questionable sources. --Elonka 18:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Given that this is a POV dispute, {{Lopsided}} and {{POV-statement}} are much more relevant. --Ronz (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, WP:NPOV is usually enforced by the editors editing a page. Administrators and the Arbitration Committee enforce policies such as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA so that editors will be free to interact in a productive way and to go about their business of trying to enforce NPOV. NPOV is very important, but it wouldn't work very well to expect admins to enforce it, because every individual has their own biasses. It works best if many editors are involved in enforcing NPOV together, through their interactions. That's my understanding. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"WP:NPOV is usually enforced by the editors editing a page." Perhaps, perhaps not. I stand by my earlier comment, "NPOV is at the crux of the problems at Quackwatch and related articles, a solution that doesn't address it is no solution at all, rather a distraction." Help enforcing WP:TALK and WP:CON would be helpful as well.

No offense, but it just looks like such admins that behave as you describe are unable to address the real problems and unable to admit it. --Ronz (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not enforce NPOV. Wikipedia needs better ways to enforce NPOV. Attempting to get consensus with fringe editors will not make a NPOV article. Some admins ignore NPOV violations. QuackGuru 18:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Alternatives

(working from initial conditions)

• In my authority as an uninvolved administrator, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy, I am placing some restrictions on the editing of this article. These restrictions are in effect at least until August 30, 2008:

Probably wasn't a good idea in hindsight to start with "In my authority"

Why 30 Aug? Who decides and on what criteria? --Ronz (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• 0RR, meaning No reverts, except for obvious vandalism.

Impractical and naive at best. Might be worthwhile to get editors to volunteer for 0RR and 1RR, and consider imposing 1RR on especially problematic editors. --Ronz (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• A "revert" is defined as something that might be done with the "undo" or "rollback" buttons, or any manual edit which effectively does a clean revert to a previous version of the article. However, changes to the work of other editors are allowed, and even encouraged, as long as an attempt is made to try different compromise wording than what has been tried in the past.
• Keep comments and edit summaries very neutral and civil.

I don't think anyone disagrees, it just seems that no one is actually willing to enforce it in a fair and consistent manner. --Ronz (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Ensure that any new material that is added, has a reliable source.

Unnecessary and overly restrictive. --Ronz (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• If you see someone add something that you disagree with, don't revert it, change it. Specifically: Try to change it to a compromise wording, or add some (sourced) alternate view wording nearby.

Naive and contradicts multiple policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 21:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• If you see something added with a source, that you do not think is a reliable source, add a {{verify credibility}} tag next to it. Discussions can also be started at the talkpage, and/or at the reliable sources noticeboard.
• If you see a sentence that you don't think properly reflects what is in a source, change it so that it does. Or, add a {{verify source}} tag to it
• If you see something that's added that is unsourced, but it's plausible, don't just remove it. Instead, add a {{fact}} tag to it. Then, if no source is provided in a reasonable amount of time, the statement can be removed.

Good suggestion, but overly restrictive. --Ronz (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• If something is added that is unsourced, that is obviously troublesome (such as very biased or potentially untrue), it can be deleted on the spot. Please use a clear edit summary such as "removing unsourced information, see talkpage"). If there is a source though, then use one of the other above steps instead.
• Do not remove reliable sources.

Naive. There are many reasons to remove reliable sources. Good suggestion though. Should also suggest tagging rather and discussing on talk page. --Ronz (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• Long sections of the article can be condensed. Do not remove their sources, but information can definitely be moved around and re-worded.
• Bottom line: Stay civil. Don't revert other editors. If you disagree with an addition, don't delete it, change it.

Poor bottom line that ignores multiple policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Goals

• Encourage editors to discuss their concerns, rather than reverting. Reverts without proper discussion should be strongly discouraged.
• If information is in dispute, encourage editors to tag the information and discuss it, rather than reverting.
• WP:V: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."
• WP:NPOV: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."
• Wikipedia:Npov#Undue_weight: "Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all."
• WP:NOR: "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position."
• WP:NOR: "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."

Ban followup

Your one-week ban will expire in a few hours, at 18:23,[8] after which you are welcome to resume editing of homeopathy-related articles, and participating on talkpages. It is my strong recommendation that you endeavor to be extremely civil in all communications, both in messages and edit summaries. I also recommend that you assume good faith wherever possible. Specifically, start from the assumption that other editors are genuinely interested in improving the encyclopedia, not in causing damage to it. At article talkpages, please try to keep your comments focused strictly on the content of the articles, and not on the contributors. For example, avoid naming specific editors in your comments and edit summaries, and avoid use of the words "you" and "your", and conversations may proceed much more smoothly. Thanks, and let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 14:34, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely do not agree with these terms, as you've refused to answer my questions or otherwise pursue WP:DR concerning the reasons for the ban. Further, your terms appear to ignore consensus on numerous policies and guidelines, as well as multipe relevant comments made by other editors and admins. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ronz, I think you're misunderstanding a lot of things here and I'd hate to see you headed for more issues. As part of the Homeopathy Arbitration case, the Arb Committee gave a lot of latitude to administrators who are trying to help sort out the long standing issues surrounding it. This includes the ability to ban editors from articles, talk pages, subjects and even blocks if it comes down to it. Elonka (and other uninvolved admins) don't need to go through dispute resolution with you - dispute resolution is something you need to explore with the other editors you are in a dispute with. So long as you follow Wikipedia's editing and behavioral policies, you should have no reason to fall afoul of the sanctions, but if the personal attacks continue, its likely that further restrictions will be placed on your editing. Shell ^babelfish 20:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. I believe I was and am following the relevant policies and guidelines. Elonka disagrees, but refuses to discuss the issue. As long as Elonka refuses to give rationale for her actions, no one can be expected to respect her decisions, let alone follow her interpretations of policies and guidelines which she cannot or will not explain. --Ronz (talk) 21:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've taken a look at the discussions between you and Elonka and honestly, I'm not sure why you think she hasn't given a rationale. It looks like she's explained it several times and tried explaining it in several ways, so could you maybe help clarify what about those explanations you don't feel was sufficient? You were asked to clean up your personal attacks and stop making them; you didn't. If you believed that changing "your are a troll" to "you are acting like a troll" was sufficient, this should be your clue that you were incorrect and to avoid these words in the future. Seems pretty cut and dry. Shell ^babelfish 22:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Saying that someone's behavior is in violation of policies or guidelines, which is what I did, is perfectly acceptable. Even Elonka thinks so, judging by her behavior. --Ronz (talk) 22:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't just repeat yourself

• Communicate: If in doubt, make the extra effort so that other people understand you, and you get a proper understanding of others. Being friendly is a great help. It is always a good idea to explain your views; it is less helpful for you to voice an opinion on something and not explain why. Giving an opinion helps in convincing others and reaching consensus.

Simply repeating yourself, especially when others have clarified themselves, is a waste of time at best. --Ronz (talk) 21:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith

Assuming good faith also does not mean that no action by editors should be criticized, but instead that criticism should not be attributed to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice.

So, according to WP:AGF, pointing out an editor's violation of policies or guidelines is specifically not a violation of WP:AGF. However, accusing someone of malice, such as accusing someone of trying to intimidate another, is most definitely a violation of WP:AGF. --Ronz (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks

However, when there are disagreements about content, referring to other editors is not always a personal attack. A posting that says "Your statement about X is wrong because of information at Y", or "The paragraph you inserted into the article looks like original research", is not a personal attack. Or sometimes you could say instead—"The paragraph inserted here [DIFF] into the article looks like original research", which also is not a personal attack, and avoids Second Person (grammar), and the DIFF cuts down confusion.

So, does following WP:AGF while criticizing another editor's actions violate WP:NPA. Some editors say so. --Ronz (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Editors are expected to remain civil, refrain from making personal attacks, operate within the scope of policies, and are urged to be responsive to good-faith questions.

Sadly, it appears some editors assume bad faith of others to avoid answering their questions.

• Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that's the stupidest thing I've ever seen").
• Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors.
• Quoting another editor out-of-context in order to give the impression that he or she hold views they do not hold, or in order to malign them.

--Ronz (talk) 04:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Requests and questions

• Please detail exactly what you feel is uncivil. I'd also like to know your opinion on if he misrepresented me, and what the proper response to misrepresentation should be (regardless of your opinion on if he did so). --Ronz (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• We're clearly talking around each other now. I'd like to get these issues worked out. How should I proceed? --Ronz (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Question #1: Do you feel I acted in good faith in refactoring Talk:Quackwatch (editing on 5 and 6 July)? --Ronz (talk) 18:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Question #1.1 Do you feel I acted in good faith, refactoring my comments in Talk:Quackwatch (editing on 5 and 6 July), to focus on content and actions rather than the editor? (Please note that I'm not asking about how you think I felt. I'm asking you to give some detail of your rationale.) --Ronz (talk) 18:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Hi Ronz, feel free to move my comment if it's messing things up... Just wanted to offer that if you're collecting statements from history, it'll be more effective (and easier) if you supply a diff of the specific comment. Not that I'm sure that I understand entirely what you're doing here, but I did want to mention that as a suggestion.  :) --Elonka 16:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I was definitely going to provide diffs. You had asked what questions I had asked that you didn't answer, so I'm making a list. --Ronz (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me know when you're done and I'll take another look. Also, if you'd like to contact me off-wiki in IMs, that might help too. Sometimes the rapid back and forth communication in instant messaging, can be more effective than the slow on-wiki communication. Do you have AIM, Yahoo, MSN, GoogleTalk? If not, I could talk you through setting one of them up. --Elonka 16:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm proceeding with a mediated discussion, as I've already indicated. --Ronz (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Ronz. I happened to be reading User talk:Elonka and saw your discussion there. I thought I would try to help a bit. Elonka had mentioned this diff: [9]. Let me explain why I think this diff can be considered uncivil. I hope this explanation of mine won't come across as uncivil; I'm only trying to help you by trying to answer your question. _{(14:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC))} You said, " Now please follow it rather than making an exemplary case of grossly violating meta:What is a troll?." The word "exemplary" here is unnecessary and a more diplomatic wording would leave it out. The word "grossly" is unnecessary and I think it's uncivil when applied to an editor or what an editor is doing. Stating that someone is violating meta:What is a troll? is, in effect, calling the person a troll. That page is not a policy nor is it a guideline; it's merely an essay. The existence of an essay doesn't create the right to apply an unpleasant noun or adjective to a person. In order to be civil, it's a good idea to avoid using any nouns (other than their username), adjectives or adverbs to describe another editor (unless it's a compliment). Calling someone a "troll" seems uncivil to me. I didn't look at the previous history before that diff, but I think the wording seems uncivil to me regardless of the previous history.

One way to decide whether a comment is uncivil is to wait before posting it, and then when you're in a fresh frame of mind, read it and try to imagine how you would feel if you were the person receiving the comment. It can be hard to imagine this when you're in the middle of a heated debate, though. You could also have a friend or family member read the comment and tell you honestly how civil it is.

If you think someone misrepresented what you had said, you could say something like "Actually, what I had said was ..." This straightens out the facts without attacking anyone. You could perhaps say "Actually, what editor X said about me was not true. What I actually said was ..." but you have to be careful: I would advise not to go a step further and state that someone was lying. If you need to correct a false statement, I suppose it has to be done on the page where the statement occurred; but if you want to complain about the behaviour of another editor, I think it's usually best to do it on the other editor's talk page, rather than more publicly on an article talk page.

Different admins will have different interpretations of precisely what is or is not civil. One can never be completely sure what things one has said might be considered uncivil. It's good to err on the side of caution in following policies. Once someone has been blocked or banned recently, they tend to be held to a higher standard and more likely to be blocked or banned again. This tends to happen even if the person has not been given additional advice or warnings. Also, you continued pressing Elonka for answers after Elonka asked you to stop. I understand your frustration, but nevertheless that could be considered disruptive or harassment. Sometimes on Wikipedia we need to keep quiet and make do without full answers to our questions. Asking questions has a cost: it takes up the time of other editors, and editors' time is a valuable resource. I hope this comment helps you to understand the situation. Feel free to discuss further with me; if you reply here I'll probably see it, or on my talk page. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"Stating that someone is violating meta:What is a troll? is, in effect, calling the person a troll." Nonsense. I think it's misrepresentation of what I said and assumes bad faith on my part.

"I think it's usually best to do it on the other editor's talk page, rather than more publicly on an article talk page" Yep. Exactly what I did.

Also, you continued pressing Elonka for answers after Elonka asked you to stop." Nonsense. I repeatedly asked to take other approaches to resolving the situation. My suggestions were ignored at best.

I appreciate your stepping in here to help, responding in a way that I expect of someone following WP:TALK and WP:DR. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Ronz. Thanks for your welcoming message. I hope I can be of assistance.

Ah, so you didn't mean to imply that the person was a troll. However, I think most people looking at your words would jump to that conclusion. It would be a good idea, I think, to re-word it or post a clarification. When citing that essay, I think it's a good idea to quote the particular part you're referring to: that might help to reduce the perception of calling the person a troll. It may also be a good idea, whenever citing that essay, to say something like "I don't mean to imply you're a troll, but..." or maybe it's better just to not cite that essay. For example, I've learned to avoid citing WP:NPA except maybe in the most egregious cases, even when I would like to mention something that happens to be stated on that page, because merely mentioning that page is taken in an inflammatory way; and I have trouble imagining myself citing the troll essay at all. I apologize for jumping to conclusions. Coppertwig (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I was specifically trying to avoid any name-calling. In hindsight, I should have just mentioned that the RfC/U was long overdue and that I'd be starting one, given that the recent behavior was a compelling reason to start one despite some recent improvement. However, I find that essay more descriptive than citing WP:DE and WP:NPA. It also goes back to the only solution we've yet found for dealing with such disruption: pointing out the problematic behavior then ignoring the editor until the problematic behavior stops. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Where you said re using other editors' talk page: "Yep. Exactly what I did." The diff I posted above was at Talk:Quackwatch, not a user talk page. I meant using user talk instead of, not in addition to, an article talk page for such discussions. Coppertwig (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

My point was that I did use the editor's talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re Elonka: Elonka here seems to me to be giving a clear message of not wanting to talk about it any more. She said, "so it is disruptive for you to keep repeating that I "haven't answered your questions" or that I have "refused to explain"." After she said this, you said "I had hoped to get you to clarify your viewpoints, but was unable to get you to do so". In my opinion, here you are doing just what she asked you not to continue doing. Coppertwig (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not everyone gets what they want. We're working on an encyclopedia here. I felt I was following WP:DR to resolve a problem. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Saying "nonsense" didn't convince me of anything and doesn't give me the feeling that my opinions are respected. Coppertwig (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you feel that way. I explained myself. It wasn't meant to offend, rather to express my offense. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Re hindsight: May I suggest that an even better way would be to wait until you'd started the RfC, then simply state that an RfC has been started about the user. (Or if you were looking for help in starting the RfC, then to simply state that you are about to start an RfC about the user.) That way, you avoid making any critical comments about the user on the article talk page.☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Re not everyone getting what they want: I'm not sure if I understand correctly, but it seems to me that you're admitting that, as I said, you were doing something Elonka had asked you not to do. Sometimes, indeed, one finds that there is good reason to refuse to comply with a request. May I suggest that when doing so, it's a good idea to include an apology, which might sound like, "I'm really sorry to continue talking about this when you're tired of hearing about it, but I really need to get more information." However, even when there are reasons not to comply, in my opinion it's often better to comply with requests anyway. I talk about this in my essay section on responding to requests. By the way, note how I just cited part of a page without explicitly mentioning here the title of the page itself: you could have done something like that with the troll page – though some people will be offended anyway. I had happened to include that section on that page and I'm sorry if linking to a page whose overall theme is irrelevant here causes you any offense.☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. This discussion appears to be well on it's way to becoming a witch hunt. Please follow the instructions at the top of this page. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Re "nonsense" and offense: I'm sorry if my initial comment here offended you. I think it's hard to explain to someone what's uncivil about their behaviour without sounding a little uncivil oneself. That might be one reason Elonka didn't go into detail about it. In hindsight, that means I should have taken my own advice in the previous paragraph and included an apology in my initial message. I've edited my message to do so. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

"I think it's hard to explain to someone what's uncivil about their behaviour without sounding a little uncivil oneself." Depends upon how you interpret and apply WP:CIVIL and related policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I got a little off-topic. I was trying to answer your questions. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. --Ronz (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Here, for example, you had said "It's been now a week, and you have refused to answer my questions regarding your rationale on your decision to ban me." In this discussion, my primary purpose has been to help you and Elonka by attempting to answer the questions you're referring to. I may not have seen all of the previous discussion; I think I got a general idea of what the questions were from the posts I saw on Elonka's talk page. If there are some other questions I didn't see that you would like me to try to answer, feel free to give me links to them or restate them (or state new questions). If you'd prefer to just stop discussing this with me, that's fine too. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

It's probably best to let Elonka deal with the situation(s) rather than helping her out here Copper. Shot info (talk) 01:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(<<outdent)Thanks for the advice, Shot info, but I think this discussion has been productive, and that both Elonka and Ronz wanted help from a third party here. I may have neglected to make it clear enough to Ronz at the outset what I was trying to accomplish here, though, or to ask Ronz whether Ronz wanted this type of help from me specifically. Sorry about that, Ronz. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Actually, I appreciate Coppertwig's help and hope he'll continue the discussion. Many of the problems that I see Elonka having, Coppertwig is having as well: they have a very hard time following their own intrepretation of WP:CIVIL. Additionally, they seem to prioritize WP:CIVIL above WP:TALK, WP:CON, and WP:DR.

Currently, I'm lost as to what "I got a little off-topic" refers to.

Overall, I'm getting a lot out of this. I think future discussions about the absolute necessity of WP:CON might go somewhere. Problems with CON go hand-in-hand with the NPOV problems that I've already mentioned. Maybe if we point out the active and purposeful attempts to disrupt and thwart consensus-building, someone might get a clue? Judging from past difficulties, it won't be easy. --Ronz (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL says, "Our Wikipedia community has a number of core principles, developed through experience. The most important states that articles should be written from a neutral point of view. After that, we request a reasonable degree of civility towards others." I interpret this to mean that WP:CIVIL is one of the most important policies, more important than almost all others (though not more important than NPOV). However, it should be possible to follow all policies, so it shouldn't matter which is most important. Also, simply pointing out that someone is being uncivil is not in itself an incvility; however, pointing out that someone is being uncvil and using terms more uncivil than necessary in order to point this out is being uncivil. In other words, "simply" pointing out that someone is uncivil is not uncivil, but pointing out that someone is uncivil can (easily) be uncivil depending on how it's done.

If it's necessary to talk about someone's incivility in order to do dispute resolution, then it has to be talked about, but it should be done in the most diplomatic way possible.

When you said this was turning into a witch hunt, my response was that maybe I had been getting a bit off-topic. It was not my intention to do anything witch-hunt-like. The topic was supposed to be answering your questions. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"However, it should be possible to follow all policies, so it shouldn't matter which is most important." I don't see how this is consistent with your previous comments on NPOV.

Regarding "witch hunts." My concern is that you appear to be looking for bad faith motivations. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Re bad faith motivations: Ah, I think that's a misunderstanding of my motives. I don't think I'm looking for bad faith motivations. My concern is with the effect that various words have on the recipient, not on the reasons the words were written. In emotionally charged situations, the writer and reader tend to perceive things differently. Re not seeing how something is consistent: I think the only time I had mentioned NPOV was in the previous sentence. If you explain what you think is inconsistent and how it's inconsistent, I might be able to clarify my comment, if you're interested. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

The NPOV discussion in the previous major section [10]. --Ronz (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You had said, "Additionally, they seem to prioritize WP:CIVIL above WP:TALK, WP:CON, and WP:DR. " I suppose this means that for some of the things Elonka or I did, you would have done it differently. I think it's OK for different people to do things differently. If anything we did caused a significant problem for you, feel free to discuss it. I'm having difficulty imagining a situation where it would be necessary to violate WP:TALK, WP:CON or WP:DR in order to follow WP:CIVIL. I have sometimes posted material on article talk pages for the purpose of discussing WP:CIVIL (i.e. to encourage others to be civil), which could be considered to violate WP:TALK since it was not directly related to article content. However, I think it didn't violate the spirit of WP:TALK; I think it was likely the most appropriate place for such comments in the particular situations where I did it, and could therefore perhaps be justified under WP:IAR; and I don't think I received any complaints about where I was posting the material. I either started a new section, or posted a very short comment in small font, so I don't think it got in the way of article content discussion significantly. In most cases, I think it's best to discuss such things on the user talk pages of the users who had violated WP:CIVIL. And yes, I suppose I do prioritize WP:CIVIL about WP:TALK, which is appropriate to do since WP:CIVIL is a policy, while WP:TALK is merely a guideline. I still say it's possible to follow both WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK; possible even if I didn't always choose to do so.

I think it's not only possible to follow both WP:DR and WP:CIVIL, but that it's essential to be civil while attempting to resolve disputes: otherwise it usually won't work. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

We're talking around each other. Funny how that happens, especially when discussing WP:NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I got that impression too. Funny. (Now I'm agreeing with you, though?) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to get some elaboration on your comments concerning NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 17:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. Here's an elaboration of my comments on NPOV. I hope this is what you're looking for. Well, as I see it, Elonka is trying to prevent editwarring and incivility, and not to get involved in content disputes. While acting as uninvolved admin, Elonka is not enforcing NPOV directly. She's not making decisions about what content should or should not be in the article. If she made judgements about that, then she would be an involved editor, and in that case it would be a conflict of interest for her to also use admin tools at that article. However, by preventing editwarring and incivility, she is trying to effectively free up other editors to do productive discussion and wiki-editing, so that they can improve the article and presumably make it more NPOV. At least, that's how I see the situation. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

NPOV etc, cont

(arbitrary unindent) I don't think discussions about what Elonka may or may not be doing or trying to do are appropriate here, especially given the recent drama.

My concerns are that if editors act as you suggest, leaving NPOV to others and only trying to enforce CIVIL, that those editors are then in effect undermining NPOV. The fact that some of these editors are admins is irrelevant from my perspective. --Ronz (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Fine: we disagree about that. I think there's often an important role for an "uninvolved editor" or "uninvolved admin". It's OK to disagree. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Editors should not be allowed to undermine NPOV. As you pointed out, it is the most important core principle of Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig, Elonka is clearly not an uninvolved admin, as her edits advance a POV against our policies. If she were uninvolved she would have left the articles once others disputed that she was acting inappropriately. Her insistence (removed - requested refactoring) that civility is more important than content (at least when it comes to being civil to her and her friends, she is frequently highly uncivil to others) shows the opposite of being uninvolved. DreamGuy (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose no one should undermine NPOV, but there is no consensus that Elonka's actions undermine NPOV. In my opinion and as far as I know, Elonka's actions tend to facilitate the upholding of NPOV by editors of the articles. I don't understand why you say she's undermining NPOV. She's merely refraining from making comments about content. I'm not making comments about content of those articles either, and there are thousands or millions of other Wikipedians who also are not making such comments. I suppose you see some reason why enforcing civility at an article brings along a responsibility to comment on content of the article. I don't understand what your reasoning is there; I don't see where that responsibility comes from. I assume anyone is free to comment on the content of an article, or not to comment on it. In fact, if someone were commenting on the content, then I think they should not also be using admin tools or enforcing editing conditions at that article; only an uninvolved person should do that, in my opinion, because a person with a neutral position is required to do that without conflict of interest. In your opinion it should be the other way around; I'm not sure why, and I don't think you've explained a reason. To me, that's like saying that if someone acts as a referee at a soccer game and declares whether a ball is in or out, then they should also choose one goal and kick the ball in that direction whenever they get a chance.

When someone enforces something like editing conditions (or 3RR, or anything else), it's expected that there will be some complaints. That doesn't necessarily mean they should stop such enforcing. Usually the complaints are from people on one side of the issue, the side adversely affected by some particular sanction.

If you think the editing conditions are not good for Wikipedia and need to be changed, the thing to do is to get a rough consensus in an appropriate forum (unless it's already been discussed sufficiently). Possibly a new thread of the article talk page, or perhaps AN/I or RFAR. However, I'm not sure we need more wikidrama over this. Coppertwig (talk) 16:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"I suppose no one should undermine NPOV, but there is no consensus that Elonka's actions undermine NPOV." I'm not talking about Elonka, but rather editors that behave in the way you're suggesting they might and should. Again, it seems that by enforcing CIVIL and ignoring NPOV, editors are in effect undermining NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how; and I'm wondering what the purpose of this discussion is. Originally, I think, it was for me to try to answer your questions about Elonka's actions. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

We slowly moved the discussion from Elonka specifically, which was the way I preferred it.

I pointed out that I don't think your comments, ""However, it should be possible to follow all policies, so it shouldn't matter which is most important." and "As I understand it, WP:NPOV is usually enforced by the editors editing a page. Administrators and the Arbitration Committee enforce policies such as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA so that editors will be free to interact in a productive way and to go about their business of trying to enforce NPOV." are consistent. Further, I said, "My concerns are that if editors act as you suggest, leaving NPOV to others and only trying to enforce CIVIL, that those editors are then in effect undermining NPOV." --Ronz (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said that such editors may undermine others' attempts to enforce NPOV. I certainly don't think they'll always undermine it, but that such a strategy is inappropriate if NPOV is indeed the most important core principle. --Ronz (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you mean "inconsistent", not "consistent". They look consistent to me. Oh, I think I'm starting to understand what you're saying. When someone enforces the civility policy, for example by blocking someone, then generally the blocked person is on one side or the other of a dispute. If the person blocked was on the side of NPOV in the dispute, then blocking them goes against NPOV. I think that's why you're saying that NPOV has to be considered when enforcing WP:CIVIL. If so, that now makes sense to me, though I still don't agree with it, since whether something is NPOV or not is a subjective judgement and I think it's best if that's determined by a consensus of many editors, not by imposition by a few admins. Another reason I don't agree is that I believe usually, enforcing WP:CIVIL leads to a large amount of more civil communication while preventing a relatively small amount of editing: for example, a 1-day block might convince someone to edit civilly for a month, or an indef-block of one user for repeated incivility might convince a large number of other editors to edit civilly. Enforcing WP:CIVIL with a warning, by far the most frequent case I believe, doesn't prevent any editing. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's one possibile situation, but not that I think matters. "If the person blocked was on the side of NPOV in the dispute, then blocking them goes against NPOV." I don't think that is a problem.

The problem I see is that the editors enforcing CIVIL don't know what is being done to enforce NPOV, don't care, and assume that their enforcement of CIVIL will not disrupt the current strategies for dealing with NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 18:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Incivility should not be used as a method of enforcing NPOV. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Enforcing one policy over another should not be a strategy used by anyone on Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(<<outdent) As Abd said, "Individual opinion about NPOV is unreliable, ultimately." If a person believes that their action is consistent with NPOV, it may be OK for them to do it even if some observers disagree. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

So instead we ignore it?!! The most important principle? How convienient! ;^)

Notice I said "strategy." I'm concerned with how to properly deal with NPOV and NPOV disputes, and pointing out that ignoring such strategies is inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Justing jumping in here - Copper, it should also be noted that comment by Abd can be applied to CIVIL, especially as to person X, statement Y is not uncivil - yet to person Z, statement Y is the absolute worst thing you can say, blah, blah, blah. You can see this all over AN/I and throughout pretty much any talk page people taking offense at minor "infractions". So, as I mention over at Elonka's RfC, a real problem is a lack of admin's fundamental understanding of policy (which given their selection process, ie/ RFA, is understandible enough as it's just a popularity context rather than meeting a proper selection criteria). But anyway, feel free to indent this and put to one side as it's slightly tangential to your discussion above. Ta Shot info (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point, clearly demonstrated in the very same article that Coppertwig referenced, especially its talk page. --Ronz (talk) 01:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, excellent point, Shot info. There's a lot of subjectivity in recognizing incivility as such. In my opinion, the person against whom a comment is directed tends to be far more likely to perceive it as uncivil, in comparison to an objective observer, while the one writing it is far more likely to see no problem with it. The main solution is for everyone to be very careful when writing their own messages, trying to word them carefully to avoid any chance they will be perceived as uncivil, and considering the feelings of the other person even if (especially if) that person is on the other side of a dispute, but trying to usually ignore what appear to be incivilities directed at themself. By far the most important method of enforcement of WP:CIVIL is individual self-discipline. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 13:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Following on from that - NPOV = NPOV. While opinion about NPOV is unreliable, ultimately (I would say may be unreliable personally) enforcing a purely subjective interpretation of a policy like CIVIL over something with a few more facts about it (like NPOV) is not the answer. But it is appears to be an answer that more and more admins are relying on to solve problems, rather than unstanding more fundamental policies -- like what we are actually trying to do there (credit: write an encyclopedia, fail: engage in a social site). Shot info (talk) 03:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

A nice discussion on these very points: User_talk:Antelan#MastCell.27s_comment --Ronz (talk) 18:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Can of worms

• [11] This is about your personal interpretations and extrapolations of policies and guidelines that I disagree with and refuse to be held to, especially when I cannot get them explained. Either we get someone to mediate, or I continue on, expecting you to excuse yourself from further involvement in my editing. That of course creates a problem for you, because any other editor should be able ask the same from you for the same reasons. --Ronz (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

• [12] I don't think your interpretations of Wiki policies and guidelines are accurate. You don't appear to follow some of them yourself. My attempts to get you to clarify these interpretations have failed. I don't believe that I, nor anyone else for that matter, should be held to your interpretations when they do not appear to follow consensus, you are unable or unwilling to explain your interpretations, and you don't appear to follow some of them yourself. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please explain why these informative links are SPAM.

Greetings Ronz!

"Djembe" edit history
(cur) (last) 16:09, 29 September 2007 Ronz (Talk | contribs) (14,241 bytes) (→External links: spam) (undo)
(cur) (last) 16:09, 29 September 2007 Ronz (Talk | contribs) (14,336 bytes) (→Further reading: spam) (undo)

10:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)onelover

Because you spammed them. See the multiple warnings by multiple editors on your talk page. --Ronz (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Barrett v. Rosenthal

[13] Hi Ronz, I responded under your comments and would appreciate it if you would take a peek. I think the new info should be removed immediately primarily for WP:BLP. I stated this on the talk page but would really appreciate your response before I do anything, though maybe someone else already has. Also, could you explain to me my questions about the hidden external links that are in the belly of the article and the usefulness of hiding anything in the article like this? I only know of one way to look for hidden items in an article which is hitting the edit this page button. Is there an easier way to do this? It feels like I am doing it the hard way. As always thanks for your help. --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Will take a look.

"could you explain to me my questions about the hidden external links that are in the belly of the article and the usefulness of hiding anything in the article like this" I don't understand. --Ronz (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I see what you're talking about. QuackGuru commented out all the external links, without discussion. Not good. --Ronz (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for disappearing after making a comment here. I got called off my computer to watch a movie, hubby said I was online long enough, "time to take a break"  :). I have read a bit of what has gone on since I signed off yesterday but I am still playing catch up. I'll be back! Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines‎

Thanks for your attention and edits to the new article on Multivariate Adaptive Regression Splines Stephen Milborrow (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. It looks like it's already getting some attention from other editors. --Ronz (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

not going to do tildes to sign b/c it weirds me out that you want an official signature, sorry.

Cookie Magazine is a nationally published print magazine. They themselves have posted this article and everything that I have added to her page is FACT, with documentation as required. I added citations where you asked for them, and re-wrote to remove anything that could possibly be construed as opinion.

Attempts to censor me on this are being documented. Please do not block my IP from using and/or contributing to this site. I should have a right to add factual information whether it is in line with what another user/reader likes or not. I add comments regarding deletion because censorship is evil. That's a fact, too.

Thanks for your help and continued attention. Hundreds of thousands of people are mad about this and are seeing and hearing about it on national news outlets that are recognized as such. This is a current event, the following outlets have reported on it:

E! Online Salon Discover Magazine Salon E! Online Perez Hilton (i know, i know, but he gets over a million hits a day, hundred of uproarious comments (find another word if that makes you happier. i tried to tone it down. sorry, but the pure number of visitors to his site justifies my comments. I write my fiction elsewhere. :)

Even AAP representatives have been mentioned in stories that concern this event. http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/07/15/amanda_peet/

I'm a new user, so I'm still learning how to use your site but am trying to be mindful of your rules and regs. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucccode1readaboutit (talk • contribs) 20:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Please use the talk page to discuss this and I'm sure we can put together something that's acceptable. If you have the reference information for the news outlets you mention, those would be extremely helpful. Please add them to the article talk page here: Talk:Amanda_Peet#References.

Thanks for the link. I've added it to the discussion. --Ronz (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Yorick Wilks Page

I've tagged the article so that other editors might help, after doing some very superficial and straight-forward cleanup there. --Ronz (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Spamming?

Apologies if my work is viewed as spamming, that was never my intention. Please look at my website and the information that is within it. There is a great deal of original work here, not the simple "hack" of mimicing Goldratt. I thought that it was easier to provide this external link than to enter into endless editing. Clearly all of the TOC pages are quite a mess and quite full of mis-understanding. I don't want to enter into a debate over this, I know that effort that went into one entry in the TOCICO dictionary.

Feel free to e-mail me at youngman@dbrmfg.co.nz if you like. I would like people to be able to understand TOC.

Regards

Dr Kelvyn Youngman Systemica (talk) 05:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

My concern is primarily with how the link has been added to the articles, rather than the content of the site. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#spam.dbrmfg.co.nz --Ronz (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I understand your perspective now. On the pages concerned I would like to do some editing. The link business can wait, I will probably in due course suggest some links for others to decide upon. However, in the Theory of Constraints page there is some opinion that I find negative that I would like to see remove - it is closer to a personal attack. I know the person who is making the claims (but it might not be he who has made the entry). It would be good to tidy this up, and I will do it on the talk page in the next couple of days. I'll paste this back to the talk page as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Systemica (talk • contribs) 07:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

In response to a "spamming" message

Hi Ronz,

I hope you are well. I wanted to contact you regarding a message I received from you, and tell you a bit about findingDulcinea as I believe your current perception is incorrect. It is not a blog nor do they utilize amateur writers. They are a highly editorialized Website that employees 30 full-time, experience writers and Web researchers. Every piece of content goes through a strict 5-step QA process. While they do link off the page to outside sources, the bulk of their articles are original content.

This is not a spamming operation and I am not just trying to get traffic for the site. Myself and about two other people at findingDulcinea post the occasional findingDulcinea link but only because we are avid Wikipedia users outside of our worklife and often find pages that could use a well-rounded view of the topic at hand. Internally we do NOT employ any type of spamming scheme on Wikipedia and tend to deter employees from doing so because we want Wikipedia links to happen organically for us. In light of your message to me, I took a look at our traffic reports, and saw that we do get some traffic from Wikipedia and that users are spending a lot of time (like 5:00+ minutes) on the site when they come from Wikipedia, which means that they ARE finding it useful, otherwise they wouldn't stay there. All I ask is that you check out the site and see for yourself --- you may even find it useful as a personal resource. If users are posting links to it on pages than they must be finding us useful.

I encourage feedback from you and hope that in the future if you see links to us that you consider this new information before simply removing them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hermie2007 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:SPAM and consider contributing to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fwww.findingdulcinea.com. --Ronz (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

FindingDulcinea email

Hi Ronz. Did you happen to email me with a forward of a message this company sent you (looks similar or same to the above)? I can't tell if you sent it or if they sent it to me with an accidental "Hi Ronz" at the top. DreamGuy (talk) 19:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I didn't forward you any email. --Ronz (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify why you believe my link added to SOA page was Spam as defined in WP:SPAM?

Hi Ronz,

You are correct that I am somewhat new to editing Wikipedia pages. I did read the various policies before contributing, and was surprised to see that you removed a link I added to the Service-Oriented Architecture page, apparently because you believe it violated WP:Spam. (???) I'm confused.

I am basically retired and have nothing to promote or commercialize. Having spent my entire career working on SOA, I wanted to contribute the story of the history of SOA's evolution since the '80s. I'm quite certain there are lots of people interested in the subject, and it's not spam or self-promotion. I have absolutely nothing to sell.

Perhaps I don't understand the Wikipedia protocol regarding large contributions of text. I would have been delighted to "actually contribute to the article rather than just posting a link", but I know that entire sections about the history of SOA have already been removed because the SOA article on whole is already out of hand in terms of size and scope.

I felt that the most "respectful" way to add information about the historical development of SOA was to put it in a separate white paper, and add a link to the Wikipedia page. That appears to have been where my mistake occurred, but I'm not sure what the "preferred alternative" should have been. Perhaps I should have written an entirely new Wikipedia page titled "History of SOA", and written my article there rather than in a separate (linked-in) white paper? I didn't take that approach because I was thinking "Who am I to change the whole structure of the Wikipedia site around SOA?" It (seemed to me to be) more respectful and polite to simply add a one-line link at an appropriate place in the external links list.

Please tell me what the correct course of action is so that I may follow it. I am quite certain that the content I am trying to contribute is topical, relevant, and of interest to Wikipedia users. I am also quite certain that I have no marketing or self-promotion agenda. I therefore conclude that it *IS* entirely appropriate for me to contribute this content, but the way I went about it seems to have offended you. Since you took it upon yourself to remove my link, I'd really appreciate your mentorship in telling me the right way to go about this.

Thanks,

ErikTownsend (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ErikTownsend (talk • contribs) 13:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Another question came to mind after I signed and posted the above. I'll add it below:

The paper I added a link to was intentionally written to disclose my direct personal experience with SOA. My intent was only to bring credibility to what I wrote by citing names, places and dates of significant events in my own experience with the early history of SOA. I think this is an entirely appropriate way to write a white paper, but I would also be the first to recognize that a "my personal journey" writing style is completely inappropriate to an encyclopedia article. I would never have felt comfortable putting my own personal story directly into the wikipedia SOA article main text because I recognize that it doesn't fit.

So what is the correct way to contribute personal experience like this to the Wikipedia community? I really do believe that many of them want to read what I have to say, and I know it's not promotional or commercial in any way. I have nothing to sell or promote, and there is no commercial conflict of interest. I thought the appropriate thing was to tell my story in an outside white paper on my personal website, then add an unobrtusive link to the external links area on the wiki page.

Anyway, I mean well and seek your guidance on how to contribute effectively. I read all the guidelines and thought I had followed them.

ErikTownsend (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation.

I'm sorry about the confusion about "spam." The problems are your conflict of interest, and linking to a blog/personal website (See WP:EL). The best thing to do here is to discuss your article on Talk:Service-oriented_architecture. I'm guessing that most of the information from your article could be included in Service-oriented architecture with proper references.

Does this answer your questions and concerns? --Ronz (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Ronz,

I think so. I must say this is more confusing than I expected. I read the spam rules carefully before adding the link in the first place, but somehow didn't come across the specific interpretation of conflict of interest and linking to personal web sites. If there is a single-source checklist for new contributors showing all the no-nos, I couldn't find it.

It sounds like I should post a question on the SOA Talk Page, asking the community there what I should do with this article. I would be happy to write it all into the main article, but that seems presumptuous without community buy-in. Are there guidelines for how and when to interface with the wikipedia community before making sweeping changes to the article? I have to believe it would be inappropriate to do a major re-write on a popular article without such prior discussion, but I didn't see any guideline on community standards and norms regarding such behavior.

Thanks again for your guidance.

ErikTownsend (talk) 17:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for persevering with this. Yes, these issues are complex. I'm not aware of any good introductions to Wikipedia. In general, I think the assumption is that editors will learn as they go.

While the article could probably use a rewrite, it will take some time to do. I look forward to your contributions to the talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Depression and natural therapies revisited

On the subject of the POV tag on the above article, this is getting a little tedious. I indicated to you a while back that if you would care to tell me exactly where the POV is expressed in the article, I will be happy to remove it. I redid the article a while back, as you know, and removed POVs that I could see. The reason they were there was simply that the article was my first and it takes a while to get into the swing of things around here.

I think I removed any POV that was present, but you seem to disagree. If you still think there is a POV, you should be able to tell me exactly what passages they are in. If you do so, I'll remove them immediately. If you can't show me where they are, then it would be reasonable to remove the tag.

In other words, Ronzie baby, it's time to deliver the goods. (By the way, I wasn't the one who deleted the tag last time.)

Sardaka (talk) 10:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The entire article, as discussed in talk, is a pov fork. --Ronz (talk) 14:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)