User talk:Alecmconroy/Archive2

Okay

I will self revert. However, I also ask that you rejoin discussion. I gave you time to respond, and allowed for the possibility that you were on an extended break. But you have shown that you are not. ~Rangeley (talk) 01:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

Since you made the Arbcom a personal issue not a content one, please do not fish for supporters by posting it in article tak space. Thank you. Bias notices are also against the rules of giving notice for ArbCom. --Nuclear~~Zer0~~ 18:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually-- I honestly and truly figured there would be more of YOUR supporters likely to see my post. Rangeley's solicited lots of opinions to the page in the last day or two. --Alecmconroy

Please note

This is not the first time Zer0Faults/NuclearUmpf has made these kinds of allegations/comments. Please note this thread where he makes similar comments, but includes a number of other editors in his 'cabal'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Barton

Thank you for helping with the page. Your contributions are appreciated. Wjhonson 06:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user seems to come back each day. I've just reverted again back to your version but I'm sure the ghost will be back tomorrow :) Wjhonson 07:35, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POTY 2006

Your vote was not considered because you did not provide a valid "diff" link. Please check the rules and try again. Alvesgaspar 17:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Muhammad

thank you for your sensible thoughts on this horrendously vicious debate. Proabivouac is requesting to move your comment to the mediation page. Would this be acceptable? --Hojimachong^talk _con 08:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Preces (Opus Dei)

Hi Alecmconroy,
from where did you get the english translation of the Preces (Opus Dei) resp. could you add that information into the article?-- Túrelio 10:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. As you may've seen, I've corrected a lot of typos, mostly accents, probably resulting from OCR. When finally at least the latin version will be in its "final" version, I would only ask you (as you put this text into wikipedia) to think about some effective measures against future falsification of the text by simple or less simple vandals/forgers. Even as eventually a Non-religious/catholic you will understand that the public presentation of an adulterated prayer - and additionally attached to a real group of people - would be quite more serious that just presenting wrong facts as happens now and then in article Opus Dei. Have a nice sunday. -- Túrelio 11:33, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your translation of that line[1] was based on the erroneous old latin line; it should have been: "Oremus pro Patre." as it is in the latin section since my proof-reading. Patre here means the current prelate of Opus Dei, who is called with the more familiar Father by members and friends. -- Túrelio 14:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alecmconroy,
I did some more OCR-cleaning today. You'll find two blank lines in each language section. I didn't delete anything there, I added them because one verse or invocation was/is still missing. -- Túrelio 09:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and Salutations Alecmconroy,
I am intrigued to know where you got the prayer initially, as i have been looking for it forever and a day! I have been fascinated by these Preces ever since i read about them a year ago. Drop me a line on my page if you can help me out. The only thing im sad about is the fact that the prayer has been taken down off the page. I love the way wikipedia keeps history! grins broadly Ithillion 10:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi-- thank you for point out the article had been gutted-- that had escaped my attention, but I've since rectified th situation.

I don't remember which of the sources was initially used, but you can find the text an almost any of the prominent Opus Dei websites-- although not, apparently, on the official site-- presumably the full text of the Preces is something the prelature has preferred to keep private. But, many of the other prominent sites about OD do include the text.

I've listed one such site as reference-- that site[2], appears to have taken the time to scan in official OD documents. --Alecmconroy 06:42, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible vandalism

Hello!-- I just stumbled upon your article (after I checked the Catholicism Project's to do list), and I found that the same lad who deleted the article before did it once again. Let's assume ey is not a vandal. I'll try to reach em to see what's in eir mind.--- Please check the article's talk page, for I have two comments on your very thoughtful remarks.--- Louie 23:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just found two seemingly reliable sources to verify the wild copyright claim posted by User:Cfflorendo to justify eir deletion. Who would contact them? Louie 23:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Muhammad at Kaba c.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Muhammad at Kaba c.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About your user page

I had placed one liner joke at your user page. I dont know if you noticed or in what way you felt about that. My apology for that if you are offended. VirtualEye 08:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Muhammad_at_Kaba-c_closeup.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Muhammad_at_Kaba-c_closeup.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on every little issue

Please sign if any of these things applies to your understanding of this issue. Please put you name under all of the options you think would be acceptable. You can sign all or none of these, I'm hoping this will give us a more-fine grained understanding of the issue. [3] futurebird 22:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The usefulness of different images

As a lurker on Talk:Muhammad/Mediation (I've been interested ever since in tracing the origins of medieval manuscript images I identified the source of the infamous Maôme.jpg) let me congratulate you for your extremely cogent post Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#The usefulness of different images. It really gets at the functions that images play in an encyclopedia. --SteveMcCluskey 01:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

beautifully worded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hojimachong (talk • contribs) 17:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

On the Jesus Seminar and its fans

On Lazarus and Dives, we're seeing one extremely insistent editor and four others. Let's let the dust settle a bit before concluding on including, please. I say this because I have some suspicions that the editor is on a campaign to promote JS everywhere in a ... well ... zealous manner. Geogre 21:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You type very long and it is difficult to read such a long views. Please be short. :) --- ALM 12:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea that how to tell other people that I am not censoring because of my religion. If that would have been true then I will not like to accept any picture at all in the article. Hence if there is a point where wikipedia rules and Islamic rule collide then I follow wikipedia rules it is because this is not an ideal/Islamic place and I understand it. Having said that it is against WP:NPOV#Undue_weight to have those picture on prominent places given that they represent a minority tradition. WP:NPOV#Undue_weight says Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. I am preparing an arbitration case see User:ALM_scientist/arbitration_Muhammad and will provide all the references. Please tell me what I supposed to do to tell that I am not censoring because of my religion only? --- ALM 13:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that it has nothing to do with religion because otherwise I will say who cares to spend so much time on one picture. But When my religion and wikipeida rules come in clash then I have to sacarify my religion. Because I have to follow the rule of this place and it is not Islamic. That is why I have no objection in having that picture near bottom even though it is against my religion. Why I should sacrify my religion when it is align with wikipedia policy. Undue weight apply hear very well because in case of Jesus, pictures are very common and in case of Muhammad, tradition of drawing NOT pictures are common (in Muslims as well as in non-Muslim). Giving picture on the top tell end users that it is common to have Muhammad pictures (which is wrong for encyclopedia). However, people here are not even willing to hear my argument and they cannot think anything other than my religion affilations. They stereotype me and it is pity.. --- ALM 14:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're just worried that people won't know Islamic cultures don't like images of Muhammad, then you don't have to worry. Trust me-- everybody knows. I know the west can be pretty clueless about other cultures in general, but we all know that much. And we mention it multiple times in the article, just in case. --Alecmconroy 14:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC) I have no idea what that mean? --- ALM 14:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. My son is now 1.5 year old. He and his generation will be surfing web in next two, three years. I am not sure that each ones parent will tell them that wikipedia has wrong information about tradition. I think it is better idea to represent the tradition the way it is. Hence satisfy WP:NPOV#Undue_weight properly by change it position to non-prominent, changing its caption and as well as writing in the article. Here it is for your reading (which is btw a policy): An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.. WHY CANNOT WE APPLY IT PLEASE... --- ALM 14:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well even non-Muslim do not depict him usually. We have to find reference but we know it using a survey. We have shown that from an amazon.com (a Western website) search 5/49 time he was depicted on book covers. These book are the very first 49 books appear in that search (result without any censorship). That is obviously unlike Jesus and other personalities where majority of books will have there picture (we can do a similar survey). Agreed? Once again I will search for reference too. Hence not having picture on the top even is align with western tradition about Muhammad. --- ALM 14:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey give these results

Potrait of Muhammad: 5
Calligrpahy of Muhammad, Sahadat, BismillAllah: 17
Mosques or old city of Mecca etc : 9
Text or Muslims or some design etc: 18

We can have them in right proportion. That is what WP:NPOV#Undue_weight says to have things in right proportion (should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject). That is if we have calligraphy and potrait ratio should be 17/5 etc. However, I agree that we need to find a reference because it is just survey. In that I know you will also help me? Right? --- ALM 14:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said that we will find the reference that saying it represent minority tradition. The survey from a BOOK WEBSITE is only for us to see that what we are saying is right and unlike Jesus, Muhammad do have less picture on book covers. However, I do not like your previous post and I never like when someone thinking my intension bad. Bye. --- ALM 15:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your change. I think now the position and number of images are not perfact but I can live with this solution. Please help in achieve this solution. Thanks once again. --- ALM 17:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your final warning

Even if you disagree with me and I with you we can still be nice with each other. At least I try to be nice with everyone I disagree with. Because it is not personal and please do not make it personal. Who know on personal level we go fine with each other. Right? For example: my boss is atheist but we are still good friends and I have lots of Christian friends too. Unlike them that they know very few Muslims. Now getting back to your warning. I am not able to contribute in wikipedia since last few months due to this dispute. Hence in case the dispute does not end with some compromise then I might leave myself anyway. However, if you will file an arbitration case then it will be great help. It is because (1) it will help me in leaving this filthy place and (2) it will help me in taking few people with me. That means I will lose nothing and will take few with me as bonus. For example User:Proabivouac will be easy to drag and his edit warring is also easy to find. Hence please remember your promise and help me in achieving my goal. Regards and take it easy man, --- ALM 15:26, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not aniconistic, but it can be?

Does this edit even make sense given the title of that page? (→Netscott) 20:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't have put it better

"Strictly speaking, I suppose we're "misrepresenting" Islamic tradition by even writing from a NPOV. Most people who talk about Muhammad regard him as a prophet-- but we don't obey that tradition in writing the text of the article."

Yup.Proabivouac 09:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

It was either this or the lightbulb...

		The Barnstar of Liberty
		Your inspirational and convincing defense of Wikipedia policy against religiously-motivated censorship on Muhammad has earned you this barnstar.Proabivouac 08:00, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objectivist movement

On the talk page of the Objectivist movement you mentioned how much help the article needs. I've re-written the article and am currently working on getting it up to standards. You can see what I have so far here. If you have the time any suggestions or criticism would be appreciated. Endlessmike 888 01:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are still interested, just go to the Objectivist movement page. Endlessmike 888 02:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Purgatory

Lostcaesar keeps removing the POV tag even though he hasn't instituted the changes you asked for and keeps deleting material that I try to add. If you could be so kind as to make your thoughts known, I'd appreciate it. You can check recent history on the page to see an example of information that LC won't permit on the page. Jonathan Tweet 19:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In case you haven't noticed, LC has once again removed the POV tag from the article. It still looks POV to me. For example, the history section doesn't mention the Bible's connection to purgatory, a topic that doesn't do purgatory any favors. Historical analysis has not been added to the text as you had suggested. Could you please take a look? Jonathan Tweet 05:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, I added, based on Alec's comments, a section called "interpretations", where I included, from the book which he asked for information to be drawn, opinions (as well as from other sources). I guess the fact that I bothered to go to the source he requested, do research, and then read two reviews on the book, just doesn't even show up on JT's radar screen, who cannot be bothered to do any research outside of an internet search (all his edits, if referenced, have only been to internet articles). Lostcaesar 06:08, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alec, LC and I aren't going to be able to work this out on talk:Purgatory just the two of us. Could you please swing by and comment? Jonathan Tweet 04:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ebionites nominated for FA

The Ebionites article has been nominated for Featured Article. You are invited to show your support or suggest further improvements to the article. Ovadyah 08:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BSA membership controversies

Hello. I'm trying to expand/clarify this section some.[4] Basically, about local councils adopting nondiscrimination policies and signing nondiscrimination statements to keep receiving funding, and whether they actually comply with these policies/statements. Not sure if you have any knowledge of it or not. --Jagz 16:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purgatory

Alec, there are a couple things I would like to point out about your edits upfront. First, Eastern Catholic Churches are "Roman Catholic", and should not be listed as another "denomination". They are in full communion with Rome just like the Latin Rite. "Roman Catholic" is not equivalent with "Latin Rite" — its a larger term that encompasses many rites, etc., and may be used in reference to the Eastern Catholic Churches. The adj. "Roman" is foreign to these groups, for the most part, and is in the least ackward, but if it is used then it cannot exclude Eastern Catholics. Second, the word "denomination" should not be used since it is an ecclesiology rejected by the Eastern Catholics, the Latin Rite Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox groups, alike. Best to use another word. Cheers. Lostcaesar 03:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alec, please see Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-05-28_Purgatory. Jonathan Tweet 14:59, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alec, an anonymous editor keeps deleting substantial material that you added to purgatory as part of the request for comment. Any chance you could swing back through and help out? BTW, congrats on being mistaken for all manner of biased people that you're not. I've been called a fundamentalist Christian, but you really seem to be winning at this game. Jonathan Tweet 13:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aniconistic WP:ANIC

You may be interested in this edit:[5] --ProtectWomen 05:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Informal mediation

A request for informal mediation has been filed at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-05-28 Purgatory. I have reviewed the general history of the article and talk page. Please indicate on the case page if you will accept my assistance as an informal mediator. If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact me. Vassyana 21:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We will begin trying to resolve the issues at hand in the informal mediation. If you are interested and available to participate, please drop a message on my talk page and I'll bring you up to speed. Cheers! Vassyana 17:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Ginger screenshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Ginger screenshot.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG 10:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Images lacking 'fair use rationale'

As of July 2007

Please remove or strike entries from this list as rationales are added.

Undue Weight RFC

Greetings Alec. We have requested an RFC on the Ebionites article on the subject of undue weight. Can you give us some words of wisdom on how to properly apply the criterion of undue weight to what some editors regard as fringe sources. See particularly Religious vegetarianism redux and the related Essenism section. Ovadyah 23:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could use a neutral eye on something

Hi -- we've corresponded in the past. I'm having trouble with a user who I think is trying to use Wikipedia (again) as his soapbox and is continually trying to re-add a link to a page he is often trying to slant towards his own POV in my opinion. Accordingly, I'd like a second opinion. The user is User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling and the page in question is Young_Adult_Library_Services_Association. The user has a long history of trying to inject library-oriented pages with "balance" which usually means adding negative information about the American Library Association and their approach towards youth oriented materials. If you could look at the talk page for me and see if I'm being oversensitive (or if he's violated the 3RR) I'd appreciate it. I've been trying to presume good faith and I'm finding it impossible. Thanks for your time Jessamyn (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. Let me know what I can do to get the ball rolling re: "start the wheels turning for blocks and bans." or if it's something you can start and get feedback from me, that would work too. I'm getting a little tired of continually defending these articles against near continuous soapbox behavior from one or two users. Jessamyn (talk) 21:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Teresa Nielsen Hayden and BADSITES

You might also want to note that yet another separate case erupted in which somebody (a different person this time) attempted to get TNH's blog link removed as an "attack site" after a single comment deep within a message thread (not posted by TNH herself, and in fact "disenvoweled" by her) made an attack on that editor (in a thread discussing Wikipedia). A diff from this is in my evidence section above yours, but you might want to take it and expand on it in your TNH-specific recounting. *Dan T.* 21:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you also should note Wikitruth, another site that can be said to be an "attack site" that has its own article, link and all (though the BADSITES warriors have sometimes tried unsuccessfully to remove it). *Dan T.* 04:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you mention Wikiscanner, you might also note WikiDashboard, a tool mentioned and linked to in Signpost recently... just as Wikiscanner helps in tracking and monitoring edits by "anon" IPs, Wikidashboard helps you track (and stalk and "out"?) the activities of logged-in users. *Dan T.* 14:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah-- cool link, but we don't have an article on Wikidashboard, it's probably not our "best foot forward", evidence-wise. --Alecmconroy 14:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sites

You question my objectivity and then ask me to make a pronouncement? Are you looking for a non-objective judgment? Maybe the simplest thing would be for you to ask Making Light to remove their outing link, and then report back to us what their response is. That way you can be sure that the determination is correct. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to see what the ArbCom decides. I will follow their decision. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask, are you a contributor to Making Light, or any of the other sites we're discussing? ·:· Will Beback ·:·

Responding to your latest: Thanks for the offer, it'd be very nice if you could request the link to be removed. As I said in my initial statement,[6] my personal opinion is that we can judge websites in part on their intent, and their intent may be gauged by their responses to requests to remove harmful material. If a site promptly removes the material when requested then they obviously are not intending to harass. If they are not seeking to harass, then they aren't an "attack site", in my opinion. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray

		The Original Barnstar
		For saying "disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point" instead of "WP:POINT", "POINT", or even worse, "point". MessedRocker (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe-- thanks. :) --Alecmconroy 22:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good show

I found this very eloquent and well-reasoned, and sadly probably true. My compliments. Natalie 20:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: MALICIOUSSITES

I view the matter of linking versus not linking as a bit of a red herring here. External links are essentially a mere convenience rather than a vital aspect of an encyclopedia; if, say, MediaWiki were to break tomorrow and no longer render any URLs as links, the impact on our ability to produce and distribute the encyclopedia would be insignificant. Plenty of perfectly good encyclopedias function with no external links at all.

(Beyond even that, the only real need for full URLs at all is in the context of citing an external site; and a raw URL works as well as a link there. Indeed, given that a large number of such citations wind up pointing to the Internet Archive, raw URLs may actually be the neater approach. And the impact here would be minimal regardless, as the sites in question aren't exactly being cited all that much.)

My concern has primarily been the attempts to eliminate references to sites, which does impact encyclopedic content; that, I'm quite firmly against. But I have no fundamental objections to not having links to these sites; there's certainly no great need to direct readers to them. Kirill 01:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's still rather silly and spiteful to withhold a link to a site somebody here doesn't like, while making a normal practice of linking everywhere else. Even the New York Times linked to the "attack site" that's at issue in the latest controversy here. *Dan T.* 18:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a really good find that will definitely help out. --Alecmconroy 18:38, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hi Alec, Just so you know, FloNight, whom you've referred to as "he", is actually a woman. Cheers, Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 06:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links

Look at Islam#External links - that's not Citizendium or Britannica, but us now. As you might imagine, there is an endless supply of links we could add which address this subject from a wide variety of perspectives, verging from the opinionated to the downright batty (perhaps that makes our job easier, because quality control can be sold as a practical consideration of space?) and be assured that some have tried. While I have quibbles with some of the material to which we've linked (particularly the BBC link which despite its reputation is neither particularly scholarly nor neutral,) it's generally highbrow, respectable stuff. There's nothing here which reflects poorly upon this project. Where there aren't any links of that caliber, it's completely orthodox for an encyclopedia article, and I think it completely okay, not to have an external link.Proabivouac 07:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh definitely, in many cases we CAN achieve that level of quality. On academic topics, for example, it's usually easy for us to write an article using only other high-quality references and links. But for other subjects, we can't. The simplest example is that right now, whenever we cover an organization, policies require we link to their main page. So having an article on Westboro Baptist Church means a link to godhatesfags. Perverted-Justice means a link to that site. ANd so on, for nazis, and politicians and advocacy groups, and etc. We have hundreds of thousands of pages that , as a matter of course, link to partisan, non-scholarly sites. --Alecmconroy 08:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the practice, as reflected in the guideline WP:External links#What should be linked. I think it should be changed.Proabivouac 08:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should also note that by the solution I propose, no reference to Wikipedia editors is necessary: if the New Yorker states that one of editors used fraudulent credentials, or Le Monde claims one of us is a spy, those are respectable sources which should be included wherever they're relevant. The real problem with "attack sites" is that they're flame wars - in fact, they're generally continuations or components of our own flame wars, which we should never have hosted to begin with.Proabivouac 08:43, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Involvement

I happened to review your contributions list.[7] If I read it correctly, you've made just 50 edits to mainspace articles since 4/30/07. In other words, you don't seem particularly involved in Wikipedia. Yet you are passionate about this linking policy and have made hundreds of postings about it. Why does it matter so much to you, more than actually contributing to Wikipedia? People who don't want to get harassed have an obvious interest in the outcome, but I don't understand your interest. Am I missing something? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You phrased it nicely, so I'll assume you're genuinely curious, and not gearing up for Ad Hominem attacks. :)

People have lots of different editing styles-- the most valuable are Wikignomes, who make prodigious amounts of minor edits to thousands of articles. I tend to focus on one article or issue at a time-- right now, my focus is towards the BADSITES issue. Look deeper into the history and you'll see I have substantial contributions a substantial number of articles.

What is my personal interest? Wikipedia is heading towards being THE most important content site on the entire internet. And the thing that makes the internet (and Wikipedia) so magical is that it's the first communications medium in human history that is truly completely uncensored. The internet has every point of view imaginable, and Wikipedia discusses every notable subject imaginable.

This kind of communication really is changing the world. A year or two ago, I was playing Warcraft and got to know talking with one of the people I was playing with. She was a Jewish teenager, living in Israel. She has a boyfriend, she told me, someone she met online, but she had never met him. "Did you two live too far away from each other to be able meet?", I asked.

"No," she replied. The boyfriend lived within 50 miles of her. But you see, he was Palestinian. She was Israeli. Even though they were close together geographically, their families would never have allowed them to date, or even to meet. But they secretly were very very close, using the internet, the uncensored medium.

The internet is going to change the world. Wars are going to become infinitely harder to fight. Historically, it was conceivable for Americans to bomb Russians-- who did we known in Russia? Thanks to the Internet, all peoples are going to start to come together more and more. You don't want to bomb a country when you're scared you're friend there might die. You don't want to declare war on a country if it means half your Quake Clan might be killed.

In Myanmar, where there's a massive human rights crisis, the first thing the government did was shut off the internet, because they knew it would bring world attention to the people of Myanmar, and tend to make the rest of the world reach out and want to help. Whereas, without TV or internet or phone service-- Myanmar is just a place on a map-- not faces of people we want to help.

In all this, I've spoken in terms of the Internet, but I could just as easily talk about Wikipedia, since we're on the cutting edge of the internet. It's a wonderful beautiful thing. An encyclopedia that covers _Everything_, that's free to anyone who we can possibly get it to. Christian children can learn about the Islamic view of Jesus and Muslim children can learn about the Christian view of Muhammad. Creationists can learn about Evolution even if their communities don't want them to, and Evolutionists can learn about Creationism even if their communities don't want them to.

But we have to resist the temptation to start censoring. It has to be the encyclopedia of EVERYTHING notable-- not just an encyclopedia of the popular or the approved. And censoring always starts so small-- surely THIS speaker is sufficiently evil that we can censor discussion of THAT person/group. No one would ever defend this person/group-- they're without redeeming value. We can get rid of them. Oh, and what about this one too? And what about this one? And soon-- amazingly soon-- we're not censoring coverage of ED trolls anymore, we're censoring coverage of Michael Moore.

So, that's my story. Wikipedia is a powerful force, and it's tempting to use that power to try to stop specific cases of harassment. But not only is such power easily misused, ultimately, the value of having a totally uncensored encyclopedia of every notable subject is so great that it far outweighs whatever small help censoring the encyclopedia would. Not linking to harassment will not cause that harassment to no longer exist. The simple fact is-- if someone is harassing you, stalking you, or threatening you-- you have to take it to the real courts, not to Wikipedia. We don't have the power to do anything about it.

And censoring those accused of harassment from our encyclopedia (if they are notable to merit mention) will sell out our reputation. We don't HAVE to be the uncensored encyclopedia of everything, after all. We could be the encyclopedia of only "acceptable" point of view, rather than NPOV, and if we're not careful, that's where we might wind up.

I don't mean to get melodramatic, but since you asked. BADSITES isn't about ED or ASM or even Michael Moore. It's about Wikipedia. No one here has the ability to delete Michael Moore's speech. The BADSITES proponent arent' trying to delete things from Michael Moore's site-- they're trying to delete things from Wikipedia. From our site.

If a vandal came here and started randomly deleting external links, we would immediate recognize that they're deleting valuable content and we should defend the encyclopedia from them. But when those very same deletions are done out of a compassion to protect the harassed, suddenly it's very hard to see that a valuable part of our encyclopedia just got deleted. But we _NEED_ the link to Michael Moore-- and just as surely as we should defend it from a vandal deletion, we should defend it from a compassionate deletion. (although, of course, we have far more respect for the deleters in the latter case).

BADSITES is a test of Wikipedia, the Uncensored, Free Encyclopedia dedicated to covering everything notable. It is a test of whether this project, or any project so conceived and dedicated, can long endure. If we given in to the temptation to censor, and if we don't change our minds later and turn back, then in the end, Wikipedia will just be little more than a fancy blog host.

I want Wikipedia to work. I want the world to have a Wikipedia. I want the Wiki process to work. And if I can take a few minutes out of my day to try to help the Wikipedia stay free, and work.

I don't know how to help the world. What action can I do that will give a citizen of China the right to vote in a democratic election? What can I do, today, to help make a woman in Saudi Arabia be allowed drive a car? I don't know. But one think I can do to make the world a little better is try to protect Wikipedia. And silly as it is, I think in the end, that will help the world. --Alecmconroy 11:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your full reply. I'm not sure what it has to do with citizens of China. It's certainly true that we should protect Wikipedia and its contents. Protecting Wikipedia means protecting its editors, because without editors Wikipedia is an ampty ballooon. We don't allow personal attacks and we shouldn't allow harassment either. If you're truly interested in the well-being of this project I don't see why you'd oppose policies that prohibit linking to marginally-reliable source engaging in active harassment of WP editors. Don't you want to encourage editors to contribute to the project? Do you think they will if they face being targeted for harassment? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 11:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I want people to feel safe and free to contribute. But I can't protect them. All I can do is deface articles-- which is no protection at all, since the harassment will remain. It's just trading our credibility, objectivity, and NPOV for a handful of magic beans that won't really do anything at all to stop the true external harassment. --Alecmconroy 12:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

If I made three reverts then it was inadvertent. I believe I only made one revert. Edits that change text to new text aren't reverts. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show me the four reverts I'd be eager to undo my error. However the only revert I know of making was this one: [8]. Also, I'm not sure why you reverted the example I added, which is a logical consquence of even the language you prefer. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been around long enough to know about complex reverts. --Alecmconroy 04:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: you've made three reverts to Wikipedia:Dissent is not disloyalty, and further reverts may cause a violation. Please discuss issues on the talk page rather than reverting. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

G'night

you might try editing an article occasionally. ;). Wink notwithstanding, that feels a tad like a personal attack, given the context, but no matter.

I'm off for the night. I hope when I return, I find that you've seen the error of your ways, or that others have convinced you of them, than you have self-reverted, and that the policy page is again unprotected so PM, BenB4, and its other principal authors can continue their work of improving the proposal they want to present to the community.

I'm _truly_ and sincerely hoping for that. If I get back, and you still are hammering away, editing without regard to the opinions of others, the page still protected with your disputed changes un-self-reverted, then I have to accept we can't make any progress on this issue until your behavior is in line, and that means and I have to go through the work to dig up every on-wiki behavior problem you had in the past however many years, and then I have to file some sort of form or case or something, and then one half of the project will be yelling at the other half, while I try to argue through the noise that whatever people think of BADSITES-like policies, your behavior still need to change, and you ought to be warned or blocked or banned or de-adminned or god knows what.

And let me tell you, that is a world I _really_ don't wanna wake up to. Ugh. But, if we can't convince you to change your ways, it's better to get it over with sooner rather than later.. But let's all hope some wise admin comes along in the night, looks at the 3RR, explains to you where the error in your thinking is (or explains to me where the error in mine is), and we can all go back to arguing over things that matter instead of arguing over behavior. :)

G'night. For what it's worth-- I want you to know I really don't have any harsh feelings toward you. I think you're wrong, and I think this whole BADSITES/NPA/Link2ExtHarass issue won't be resolved until we can get some behavior changed. But-- never think that means I think you're somehow a bad person. We're just two nerds who like to write having a philosophical disagreement. Its my job to change your behavior, or to stop your behavior-- but never think it's my job to dislike you. --Alecmconroy 06:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, you tell me that your new purpose on Wikipedia is to change my behavior, ("the best use of my time is to get you to comply with those policies") and threaten me with being banned, yet you take offense at my little joke? Maybe it hit too close to home. If I've actually violated any policies or norms on Wikipedia then you're welcome to address that in appropriate places (AN/I, RfC, RfAr). However it's a bit impudent for you to assert that you would be doing Wikipedia a favor by getting me banned, and for you to make it your mission here. I thought you said you were opposed to harassing editors. Maybe I was wrong. As for the policy proposal itself, it doesn't belong to its "principal authors", it belongs to all Wikiepdia editors, and I have just as much right to edit it as anyone else. If folks want to write material without being disturbed by others then they should write it on their word processors, not on a Wiki. I suggest we continue to work together on improving the proposal, remaining open to the contributions of all editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fancy words, but none that justifies coming to a proposal, disrupting it, and violating 3rr. But don't worry-- I do not think I would be doing Wikipedia a favor by getting you banned-- that'd be a big loss, and I can't realistically even fathom that'd be necessary. --Alecmconroy 07:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

I tend to agree with MONGO on the EL section in WP:NPA. I have expressed the opinion before that the section should remain, and remain as it has been for some time. - Crockspot 16:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I won't, by nature, revert it into existence. I'm just not going to let MONGO edit-war his point of view into being policy. I think a LOT of very reasonable people agree with you. Unfortunately, a lot of reasonable people also disagree with you. Until we can find a policy that has consensus, we should have NO policy-- not the policy of whoever willing to edit war the hardest. --Alecmconroy 17:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alec...I am at 3RR, but so are you...saying I am edit warring and you aren't is rather ridiculous. I guess we are both sidelined now since you decided to make unilateral decisions and remove entire sections.--MONGO 17:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looking over the past history of the page since april, was inevitable that you were gonna try to edit this back into being policy as soon as it was unprotected, despite lacking any evidence of a consensus for NPA#EL. Better we both just get out of the way and let the rest of the community handle it. :) --Alecmconroy 17:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on [[:WP:NPA]]. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Crockspot 17:00, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Queston about JzG

JzG is once again attempting to enforce badsites, despite his unsuccessful forum shopping. I'm going to revert his edits because I feel they are disruptive and POINTy, and since I saw you had reverted him as well, I was wondering if there was some centralized discussion about this that I could take a look at. Milto LOL pia 17:38, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My god that was pointless.

You reinserted a link to an offsite post BY A BANNED USER which was removed because IT WAS A BANNED USER, as stated in the edit summary, and BANNED USERS are not entitled to influence content, and you did it on an archive page, and you did it on the grounds that a policy that has nothing to do with BANNED USERS was defeated due to the determination of users of a certain attack site. That was probably the single most fatuous piece of point scoring I've seen on Wikipedia in recent times, and it also completely missed the point. Congratulations. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's fair. I apologize for that. I didn't see that Farmer Kiss was banned. I've self-reverted on that one.

You made 20+ of these purges-- in the process of cleaning them all up, I shouldn't have undone that one. Your edit summary implied your objection was that the link pointed TO a banned user, not that the edit was added BY a banned user. Big different.

I almost made the a similar mistake when you purged a link from your own talk-page-- I reckon it's your prerogative to delete stuff from your own page achives.

This is the why your mass purges are so bad. Like the boy who cried wolf, it's easy for people to think ALL your deletions were POINT, when in reality, only 18 out of 20 (or so) were. --Alecmconroy 20:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. And you'll find that I was in fact being very selective in what I removed and redacted - "mass purge" is simply false, the time between edits and the small numbers compared with the number of links to Wikipedia Review, to name one of the sites that has been identified to me, should show you that considerable thought has gone into every single one. ED links were removed by automated means. I am not using automated means, nothing like it. Contrary to Dan Tobias' assertion, this has absolutely nothing to do with badsites, and everything to do with removing offsite grandstanding by banned editors, and generally trying to avoid egregiously inflammatory links and comments in contentious topics. Naturally I look very carefully indeed at any WR link on an article talk page, because WR has pretty close to zero chance of ever being useful as a source in any article, especially on a living individual. My concern is WP:BLP and harassment, experienced by a surprisingly large number of editors, as is becoming apparent to me in various communications. We have a significant buried problem with harassment, and with the conscious or unwitting enablement of harassment by editors. This is one of the small number of things I am working on. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay-- well, in that case, you might wanna take the time to go into a little more detail in the talk pages-- the brevity requirements of edit summaries make it hard communicate unambiguously. I heard you were going around deleting everything on sheer principle that it linked to WR, and your edit history tended to support that. I apologize again for not looking more closely at that FK one. If there are more substantial objections aside from it just being a link to a BADSITE, ya might have to dive into the actual talk page to explain what the scoop is.

Rememember-- links TO a banned user are okay, provided they're done in good faith. Links BY a banned user, on the other hand-- not so much. hehe.

One last thing you might consider-- you're probably bringing FAR more attention to these links by deleting them than they would ever get by being left alone. --Alecmconroy 20:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Essay

I read your draft essay, in part because of seeing the your apology recently posted. I invite you to give the essay legs by spelling out, or linking to the topics discussed, which I or other editors may be ignorant of. NPA. Neutral Policial Association? You know what I mean. Is there a discussion about "badsites" some where? Link to it, because I and other readers are not going to hunt for it (and I don't know what it's all about either. Ignorantly yours, -- Yellowdesk 14:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other news...

Please don't restore that link to village pump again. There is a very specific reaosn for removing it. Village pump is high traffic, with a lot of new users, and we have a recurrent problem with people visiting that specific site, picking up a certain set of allegations, and then starting to go round demanding answers. It is getting a bit old, this business of repeatedly explaining that the accusations are without merit, and you've seen for yourself how much crap there is in the backstory. Thank you. Guy (Help!) 20:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since it from such an old conversation, whose participants have long forgotten it-- I won't add it back on the ground that my adding it back might be disrupting, and since the discussion is abandoned, it would mostly just be to prove the point that such links should no longer be removed.

In general though, we, as a project, going to have to learn to break the habit of deleting links that are added as part of good-faith editors in the course of civil discussion. By all means, encourage people not to link, but if they choose to, it would be rude to delete portions of good-faith comments. --Alecmconroy 19:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wiktionary links

For future reference, you can interwiki (WP:IW) link to wiktionary as follows: I delight in all manifestations of the Terpsichorean muse. -- 146.115.58.152 04:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad acts by your supports reflect poorly on you.

Per agreement on Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia, a link to WR were removed from the article, due to unsuitable per WP:EL. You applauded this decision. User:ILike2BeAnonymous has reinserted the link without discussion. This is why I believe a hard ban of links to that site are required - because the bad actions of removes sometimes mean that a questionable link is off an article while people are convinced, but bad acts by adders causes substantially more damage. MOASPN 18:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relax. Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Content disputes happen, but it's okay. --Alecmconroy 22:24, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Odd edit

What was the purpose of this edit? [9] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. I don't recall making any such edit, and if you visually inspect the two versions, (before and after the odd edit) they appear to identical. None the less, I've self-undone for good measure (producing an edit that doesn't seem to do anything) and reported the problem to the help desk. [10]. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Alecmconroy 06:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation

I would ask you to stop speculating about my motives and take my actions at face value, accepting the explanation I have given for them several times. I have stated more than once that good faith engagement in a contentious policy debate or arbitration case is, in my opinion, an acceptable use of an alternate account (though several people disagree). What is not acceptable is to then step outside of that and begin edit warring over links to sites which are known to be both controversial and particularly sensitive. That is not an acceptable use of an alternate account, it is engaging in controversial actions at arm's length from your main account in order to avoid scrutiny, and it's not acceptable. The number of admins who agree it's unacceptable in the ANI debate would support my interpretation. I have shared the identity of the real account with a very small number of trusted individuals, mainly arbitrators and Jimbo, in order to sanity check my opinion. None of these individuals disagreed, some agreed, the rest did not comment.

If the account was not a self-confessed alternate account, it is likely we'd have blocked it as a disruptive influence. As it stands there is no reason why the main account should not be the one to advocate the content changes, since it has previously expressed an interest in this area. There is no credible reason in policy that I can see, why this user should be allowed to operate a separate account solely for things that are likely to attract kickback and court sanctions. Remember, expressing a good-faith opinion on project debate pages is a very different matter from making controversial changes to actual content.

I have no doubt that if you reflect on this in those terms you will at least understand my position, even if you don't necessarily agree. Your assertions on ANI have been intemperate and I think out of keeping with your previous gracious climbdown in another case. Be assured that the issue of privacy and harassment is considered probably the biggest challenge the project currently faces. Guy (Help!) 13:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your kind words. Please know, and I say this sincerely, To the extent that I've questioned your behavior here, it's merely a question of your judgment and your objectivity-- not at all a comment on your worth or value as a human being. At the end of the day, we're all a bunch of pro-info nerds.

But, it seems very obvious to me you're under the influence of mastodons on this one. The content dispute at Prof Black is essentially over-- we have reached consensus that the links are valid, and the version seems stable. Indeed-- it was stable for months and months until a banned troll came to remove it. There's no hurry. If you discovered something about PM's past that caused you worry, you should 1) discuss it with him privately, and 2) submit the matter to the entire arbcom and let them handle it. The very worse thing you could do is exactly what you did-- personally indefblock him without warning.

And when you handled that badly, you'll understand why I don't trust you when you promise me you have secret evidence showing he should be blocked.

In the end, he seems extremely willing to cooperate-- you should just ask him to stop doing whatever you think he shouldn't do, or you should file an arbcom case. When you personally block him, you put the rest of us in a position of trying to figure out whether you're half-crazy (making a block that should be made but not by you) or all crazy (making a block that shouldn't be made at all). --Alecmconroy 13:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, no mastodons at all. There is a significant underlying cultural problem, that the culture of Wikipedia is presently making it much too easy for harassers to perpetuate their behaviour by exploiting the good faith of other users. This is a form of manipulation to which we are all prey sometimes, I have been led astray by plausibly worded appeals just as much as anyone else has. Actually what has crystallised my opinion here is a review of the case of AMorrow, a user who was banned and eventually imprisoned as a stalker. I am looking at patterns of behaviour and seeing ways in which a commitment to openness is undermining the actual encyclopaedia. People have a genuine desire for free speech, but do not understand that the right of free speech on Wikipedia is formally non-existent, and in as much as it does exist it is heavily proscribed by policies designed to maintain a safe editing environment. Individuals whose sole or principal contribution to Wikipedia centres on advocacy for the ability to link to external harassment sites, are entirely missing the point. Wikipedia is not about free speech in meta-debate, it's about the encyclopaedia. For that reason, we reserve (as we have always reserved) the right to ban people whose approach is incompatible with a collegiate approach to documenting contentious subjects. With the increasing profile of Wikipedia, the agitation of these banned users to get their problematic views included has escalated to levels we never really considered when policies were originally drawn up. BADSITES is a red herring in one way - existing policy is sufficient to cover links to offsite harassment, and obvious sockpuppets and meatpuppets who perpetuate it - but relevant in another, in that the obsessive focus on that one issue to the exclusion of active consideration of content has led to an unacceptable drama to contribution ratio in a number of individuals. Simply being a regular on Wikipedia Review is not grounds for banning, but bringing the campaigns of banned users to Wikipedia absolutely is. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh.. oh.. oh. I think I'm starting to see what you're saying here.. I have to confess, I haven't really read through Black blog completely. I didn't really realize it was harassy, so much as I thought it was just kooky-- but like I said, I haven't read it through really really closely.

So, to say back what I'm hearing from you-- it seems like you're saying that your ban of PM was because when he reverted User:MOASPN, he was (intentionally or unintentionally) contributing to a campaign of harassment, and THAT is the reason his actions were block-worthy? Whereas, had PM reverted four different instances of vandalism that were completely unrelated to any campaigns of harassment, that wouldn't have been a problem? In short-- it wasn't that he had a separate account that was a problem, and it wasn't that he made edits that was a problem-- it was that he (intentionally or unintentionally) contributed to a campaign of harassment that was the problem?

Am I right in all that-- is that a good summary of your view of the case? --Alecmconroy 14:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm replying here to keep it all in one place, you can post to my talk, I don't mind, but I'll bring it back here to reply.

Yes, the problem is with the repetition of a specific allegation in respect of a specific individual. Two banned users - Daniel Brandt and WordBomb - have been trying to build that particular meme, and get it linked here. Many socks and single purpose accounts have been used, and a key part of the MO is to exploit people like Dan Tobias who have some objection to banning links to attack sites, to pretend that it is a point of principle when actually it's a pragmatic issue of harassment to be dealt with on a one by one basis. The few people who are arguing for the ability to link to certain sites are actively impeding debate over specific instances. That's the background.

In this particular case, Privatemusings is acting as a good hand / bad hand account with their main account, the main one steering clear of controversy in which they previously engaged with the alt account now starting to make controversial content actions. This is an unacceptable use of an alt account. The debate over BADSITES is in any case effectively over, people should be focusing on the real issue (harassment) not the symptom. Guy (Help!) 15:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What can I say-- if you have specific evidence of clearcut wrongdoing, you should file an arbcom case. I try hard to assume good faith, but it's very just to take it on faith that PM is abusing sockpuppets. My suspicion is that you (and the other BADSITES peeps) were pissed that there's consensus that the link to Black's blog is staying, and so you decided to block PM for having added it back.

When you talk about it, the "why" seems awfully fuzzy. Edit warring-- except it wasn't because it was reverting a banned vandal. Inserting a link to harassment-- except it wasn't, since there's consensus for including the link. Sock Puppet abuse-- except he was always upfront about being a sock, and he never seemed to edit the same page at the same time under two different links.

The only thing that's constant in these explainations is that you guys really, really, really don't like anyone who is mean to SV, or anyone who links to anyone who is mean to SV, or anyone who supports anyone who links to anyone who his mean to SV.

Anyway, I'd love to be wrong on this. I'd love it if PM turned out to be SmuckyTheCat, voting twice in the same RFC. But I afraid the truth of the matter is that PM probably made a one-time off-hand comment about BADSITES one day eight months ago, and you guys were looking for any excuse to block him. --Alecmconroy 15:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alec, there is normally no need to raise an arbcom case unless we want to ban someone - I was happy for PM's main account to remain undisclosed and active. PM didn't make some passing comment, the account has been active in pretty much nothing but pressing for the ability to link to certain classes of site (the only examples discussed have been wikipedia review, encyclopedia dramatica and antisocialmedia). This is not about anninating someone, it's about the fact that they are operating two accounts, and doing so in a way which has strayed beyond the limited uses we routinely permit. I don't think further debate will be productive, since I've now mailed the arbitrators about this. Time to walk away, I think. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay-- before you depart, could you answer the question i've posed here. I'm assuming by your silence that you HAVE told some people beyond Arbcom who PM really is. Could we get an idea for how large a group this is? If he knows the genie is out of the bottle and everyone who might hate his already does hate him, then at least he can reveal his main account, so that we can all look over his contributions and see if we agree or disagree with the block. --Alecmconroy 16:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PM told two or three people, I think, and the very small number of individuals I've told can be trusted to keep quiet about it. I'm not going to name names, but it is a *very* small group. I specifically did *not* mention the account identities on IRC or anywhere else where they might get leaked, and I discussed it solely for the purpose of asking people I know and trust to sanity check my judgment. I don't see there is any need to press further on this, suffice it to say that I did not want to go simply on gut feel. Guy (Help!) 16:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alecmconroy/evidence

Please see #What may I not have on my user page?. That list of content that should not be included says:

Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. An exception is made for evidence compiled within a reasonable time frame to prepare for a dispute resolution process.

The page has been active since November 2. If you are preparing to engage in dispute resolution then it may be kept for a short while longer. I suggest another week should be sufficient time to finish preparations and begin whatever dispute resolution you are preparing for. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff against Guy probably doesn't belong-- There's been very good dialogue on the subject I think there's been real progress made on that front, I think I understand him a lot better and hopefully he understands me a lot better. I'll take it down now.

The stuff against Mongo is going live as soon as I'm done with it. --Alecmconroy 05:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are making a terrible mistake. My suggestion is you try and work things out amicably. You haven't even tried to do so as I can see.--MONGO 06:28, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've had discussion non-stop for 6+ months over at WP:NPA. I doubt there has been a single debate in all of wikipedia history which has had more words spent trying to work it out.

That said-- I don't mean for my current efforts to be at all unamicable-- it's just another way for the Wikipedia community to give you feedback about how your behavior is affecting the project-- it's not an indictment of you as a person. OR even you as an editor in total. We just need to find a way to communicate to you that your behavior is problematic. --Alecmconroy 06:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to do a little pre-picking-apart of your evidence, but you might want to re-check that long list of diffs at the end that you characterize as being "roughly equivalent text". They aren't. - Crockspot 06:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible-- it's still preliminary. I'll make a double check before submitting signing the RFC. Thanks for the heads up. --Alecmconroy 06:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alecmconroy...With that said, do you think I find your comments to be trouble free? How many times have you called me a liar? How many times did you repeatedly ask me about my link removals to the ED website...and what was the response you got then when that was discussed off my own talkpage? I won't be participating in an Rfc...I think you have not done a think except accuse me of all sorts of "problems" and it seems to go back more than a year ago from our discussion about ED links. Lets say YOU were harassed by a website and I came to your page to badger you repeatedly about removing some links to it, even though it was supported by an arbcom decision...what response would you have had after repeatedly being badgered?--MONGO 06:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, I can only reiterate what basically was said by others at your Arbcom case. We all feel sympathy for you for pain that was caused by your harassment, and I'm very very sorry any of that happened to you. But that can't translate into a blank check to disregard our rules and regulations-- you really are going to have to comply with them or move on. --Alecmconroy 06:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see, well, surely not enough sympathy to keep you from badgering me about my delinking to ED. As I said...I won't be party to your Rfc...I see it as blatant harassment and won't tolerate it. I ask you once again to resume encyclopedia writing and/or working collaboratively with others in developing a rational policy that ensures our contributors have their backs covered when someone harasses them via external link postings or badgers them when they try and remove such links.--MONGO 07:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your WP:CANVASS violation...don't do that again.[11]--MONGO 08:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a canvass violation at all-- WP:NPA is the locus of dispute, it only make sense to include a link there-- it's not as if I'm personally only notifying people who I suspect will agree with me. --Alecmconroy 08:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are going to push me a bit too far, Alec. I again recommend you cease and desist from this current path you are on.--MONGO 08:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, don't be silly. of COURSE we tell the people at NPA about the RFC. People who support you will be able to see it just as easily as people who oppose you, and I specifically encourage both groups to participate. --Alecmconroy 08:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha..thanks...I almost laughed...I took it down again...it is harassment and you should know that. You didn't phrase it anything akin to a neutral request and as far as I am concerned, you're not helping your case this way.--MONGO 08:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alec, I don't think it's worth fighting over. People at NPA know about the RfC, and there's nothing to be gained by forcing the issue of one particular talk-page section. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:53, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I won't re-add it myself, but I would support it's inclusion-- how else do people find out about these things? I know I don't sit around watchlisting user conduct RFCs.

Plus, there seems to me to be something fundamentally wrong with somebody removing a link to an RFC against themselves. I mean-- come on! lol. --Alecmconroy 08:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I wouldn't do it, but I'm not going to judge MONGO over it. It's not a bad thing to make a few sacrifices in the name of peace. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Your RfC announcement would be more neutral if it simply reported that there's an RfC, and didn't promote a view of it. I think it would be good if you'd edit your announcement to the bare facts as suggested by WP:CANVASS. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I can do that no problem. Thanks for the advice-- I'll add one so bare, it's practically a skeleton. :) --Alecmconroy 09:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's totally neutral. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:01, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

I should have researched further but I was assuming good faith in MONGO. My new policy is courtesy of Ronald Regan: "Trust, but verify". Again, my sincere apologies for any appearance that I was agreeing that you are or ever have been a ED contributor. spryde | talk 16:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah-- I understand it's not your or hypno's fault. I know it's only human nature to make such assumptions. The fault lies not with you, but with the people who repeat such implications despite knowing better. ---- Alecmconroy (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I have a what?

Aw, gee, Alec, the whole of Purgatory? The old version and the new version? And you have the ... the brass to ask me to reply to the RFC if I have a second? I have to admire that... and it's an interesting comparison for sure. But you're going to have to tell me some particular extracts, seriously. (I'll do the lead sections in any case. The old version is fascinating, not in a good way.) Bishonen | talk 23:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Awww-- I'm sorry. I don't mean to be particularly brassy.

The thing I would tell you focus on would just be the "writing style". There may well still be plenty of specific issues that still need fixing, polishing, and balancing in the new version, but my main concern was that the old version was probably too filled with unexplained jargon to be comprehensible to a general audience. My rewrite basically tried to present roughly the same information as the old version and have roughly the same POV as the old version, but in a way that everyone could understand. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

transforming purgatory

You talked about transforming the page. I'm not sure what that means.

Lima put the old version back up. How do we restore the page to your version? Just revert? Leadwind (talk) 16:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say we're probably better off waiting until it's clearer on the talk page that the changes were good ones. I've advertised as both RFC _and_ peer review, so hopefully somebody will show up eventually to help us out. --Alecmconroy (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're possibly moving forward on a new front: challenging weak sources. Please don't forget us in purgatory. Lima's tactic has long been to outlast his detractors. Leadwind (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO/NPA RfAR

A request for arbitration involving you has been filed. Viridae ^Talk 03:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Privatemusings indef blocked

Given your prior defense of this editor, do you have any comment here? -- Kendrick7^talk 01:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Presumably you meant to write "I genuinely don't believe the sockpuppet usage was any kind of ~~good~~ bad faith." -- Kendrick7^talk 03:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep-- I fixed it. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Markan priority

I appreciate your effort to revamp the images related to various synoptic problem, source criticism issues. However, Image:Synoptic problem Markan priority.png is misleading if not inaccurate. The hypothesis of Markan priority only states that Mark was written first. It does not necessarily negate the idea that Luke used Matthew (or vice versa). For example, the Farrer hypothesis supports Markan priority, but your image would not account for the Farrer hypothesis (and while we are on that topic, will you please note that Image:Synoptic problem - Farrer hypothesis .png has a major error). Also, the image is a bit misleading because it seems to imply that there are no other sources for Matthew and Luke than Mark (when the most popular solution is the two source hypothesis). I think because of the complexities with Markan priority, it may be best to simply not have an image for that article. Also, another brief note, if you are going to be uploading text and line graphics, they are generally better rendered in vector format, so if possible, could you make these new image files into SVGs? I'd be glad to try an explain how in more detail if you are not familiar with the process. -Andrew c ^[talk] 05:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it, I do see how the image of Markan priority is misleading? I could put questions marked arrows in between Matt and Luke, but actually we probably are best off without any image. "Mark Was First" is sufficiently simple that we probably don't need an image to convey it, at least not on the Markan Priority page. And thank you SO much for the catching the Farrer hypothesis error. How embarassing-- thank goodness for the many eyes of Wikipedia. I've corrected it.

About SVG-- I spent way too long trying to con my stupid M$ Visio 2003 into saving the images a SVG. it works... sort of, but it produces very strange results-- for example, see: [:Image:Synoptic problem markan priority.svg]

Say, if you're have a second or three-- would you look over Purgatory and tell us what you think? I felt like it had major stylistic problems, to the point that a general lay audience would have basically no chance of understanding it. I did a rewrite, but it's proving to be more controversial than I'd expected, and I can't get it to stick. I'm running an RFC, but as usual nobody shows up :)-- if you find the time to lend us your view on whether the rewrite is a step in the right direction, I'd be most grateful. :) --10:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Moved Q document

Just to let you know, I've moved Q document/rewrite from the main namespace to User:Alecmconroy/Q document, since it appears to be your sandbox page for a rewrite of the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 18:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That revert

Alec, had you bothered to look you'd have seen that (a) there is discussion and (b) what you were doing was the reverting, what David Gerard and I (two people on opposite sides for much of the BADSITES debate, you'll note) was taking this guideline written by sockpuppets and turning it into something usable. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Alec, I'm no fan of anything that smells even faintly like BADSITES. This doesn't IMO. There's a talk page attached, please use it - David Gerard (talk) 21:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Less requested the issue get further discussion, basically Guy ignored that request and made personal attacks in his edit summary, so it gets reverted. I'll discuss the substance of the edit in just as second. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From "The thing that disturbs me most..."

There are several bits of good advice floating around in the mess on WP:AN right now:

Filing the RfC. Tiresome, probably uselss, prone to creating more poison then it lets out, but it is "the way tings are done."
Focusing on growing longer terms solutions. You've identified what you perceive as a systemic issue. Most people are too busy to sharpen the saw, so try to actually solve those underlying problems.
There is no adult. One issue that just won't die is community removal of adminship. Get to work on that.

Wikipedia (as a culture) has grown far faster than it has ability to evolve. To stretch the metaphor, the immune system just can't cope with the viral load. Err, except that makes JzG a pathogen, which I didn't intend... Anyway, your concern in valid, but the road is long and there are miles to go before you sleep.

Oh, and have you tried talking nicely to JzG about the whole "protected edit" thing? even if it never worked before (in your opinion) it's always good form to try again.

CygnetSaIad (talk) 07:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purgatory and Virgin Birth

Thanks for your offer to have a look at Virgin Birth. Re Purgatory it is a long and complex page. If you've simplified it then prima facie I think that's a good idea. But I tend to hang around on pages for a long time making minor changes before I can form an opinion on the whole. I'll do that with Purgatory for a bit. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova and Jehochman/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 18:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Just a note to let you know that I've responded on my talk page. Phyesalis (talk) 05:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

User:Lawrence Cohen/Gianoboxnoflu a non flu version. • Lawrence Cohen 05:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danke!

Your user talk page is over 64Kb

Hello!--- Just to let you know that you may have to archive some materials, as the system told me this page is over 64Kb.--- Louie 00:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't...

I don't understand what your getting at. Regards, Nathan 06:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on my page. Nathan 16:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]