HI, refs are fixed, should be OK now. Keep up the good work. This isn't Jack Merridew is it? SOmething about the page and name and DYK page makes it feel like Jack. Anyway I was wondering if you would be interested in writing an article on Drug abuse in jazz or something as it was a major issue and not widely known to everybody.♦ Dr. Blofeld10:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bali, I noticed that another reviewer had brought up additional questions/issues with this nomination and hadn't notified you, so I thought I'd give you a heads-up. 28bytes (talk) 03:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
God vs. G-d
Hi. Regarding your edit of the Mezuzah article, I don't think the replacement of "God" with "G-d" really counts as vandalism. Many — though, please note, not all — Jews consider it inappropriate to write "God", preferring "G-d" instead (see Names of God in Judaism#In English). I'm not sure if there is a Wikipedia style guideline on this or not. I brought up the question in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism#Writing "G-d" in Mezuzah article, and so far there has been one response saying it's unnecessary, but hopefully there will be more comments and a general consensus (one way or the other) will develop that can be turned into a guideline. Richwales (talk · contribs) 21:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's vandalism. Hardline orthodox jews don't get to determine what neutral word is appropriate for God, nor do adherents of any other faith. That particular construction is frankly childish, always laugh at it when i see it (Hashem is better).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not insulting you. I've told you twice (and this is the third time) that i wasn't even addressing you. What is it exactly you want? I'm sorry I put my butterknife down and you have repeatedly tried to stab yourself with it? Ok. I apologize for that cutlery malfunction. More seriously: You have demonstrated a thin skin here. That's not an insult. It's an observation, and a mild suggestion that you wander away and think about why you felt insulted in the first place (hint: when comments are made in a public place, they frequently won't be about you, as was manifestly the case in this instance). From memory i think i'm moderately well-disposed to you. The whole point of my comments there was a (vain, useless) attempt to get the chattel to focus on the incompetents whose pockets they help to line (not that I'm an innocent). Bali ultimate (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree, I found your tone both on AN, and here, rather rude and insulting. If you have issues with the fundraiser, you're welcome to address them through the appropriate channels (for instance, talking to the fundraising staff, or using the fundraising pages) but taking it out on another editor on an only loosely (at best) related topic is just plain incivility. Just saying.⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender22:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically, suggesting that other editors are "chattel", that the office staff are "incompetents", and suggesting that other users self-flagellating instead of assuming good faith, all of these things are basically incivility, in case you needed an "observation". ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender22:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Dan Rosenthal of the Wikimedia foundation fundraising arm, I promise a more thorough discussion with you when i finish work (in about an hour). For now, I think the WMF is manifestly incompetent, in both shaping an environment to allow for better content and (more importantly) in providing leadership on a host of moral issues that you all generally turn your eyes away from. A perusal of the budget indicates a lot of featherbedding. As to the "self-flagellating" bit in your comment above, i suggest you either read what i wrote multiple times or more slowly.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Mr. Rosenthal. First off, am i correct in assuming that you're a paid functionary of the wikimedia foundation? The legit sock page says that the account you've used here is for all "volunteer" activities, implying that your activities via the other account are paid. Correct me if this assumption is wrong. Running on it now. Since you've sought my feedback, I'll speak to your own incompetence. That fundraising banner with Mr. Wales mug on it describing him misleadingly as the "founder" (he's the cofounder, don't you know) is greeting everyone that comes to one of the most visited sites on the web, thanks to the google algorithm. If memory serves, it's north of 50 million visitors a day. Wales, who makes $50,000 to $75,000 per speaking appearance according to an agency that says it represents him [1], has just been given incredibly valuable advertising for the "Jimbo Wales brand" for free. You should have been charging him for that kind of advertising, and a fair amount. It also serves to burnish his false image as some kind of architect and prime mover in this phenomenon, when he's in fact not particularly competent in writing, evaluating, or safe-guarding content, which does a disservice to the public and is contrary (however ironically) to the stated purpose of the website. Finally, I understand what motivates you to defend your employer; unfortunately, this understanding leaves me less inclined to respect what you have to say. Thanks for dropping by.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you are well aware, Jimmy's speaking arrangements are his own deal; the foundation has nothing to do with them. However, I'd like to point out that the banners we run with Jimmy's face on them bring in significantly more donations than the others -- in fact, Jimmy's face has made the foundation more money then any amount he could possibly have benefited through publicity. As to my personal "incompetence", I suggest you strongly consider reviewing our policies on no personal attacks and civility if you wish to continue editing further. Thanks. ⇒SWATJesterSon of the Defender06:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bali, Swatjester isn't one of TheBadGuys(tm). I'd suggest you tone it down a bit with the rhetoric going on here. I'm not a huge fan of the foundation nor of their fundraising tactics, but lashing out at everyone that disagrees with you (calling them names and making insinuations about their character) will not aid your case and ultimately is a reflection upon your own character. Let's just take a breather and reflect about how to move forward. Killiondude (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of their paid factotums seeks me out to complain that i publically criticized Wales and their deceptive and innapropriate fund raising tactics (and Mr. Rosenthal failed to identify himself as such -- just another wikipedia volunteer with a bunch of civlity whinging) he will get my full and frank opinion. If he or you don't like my rhetoric on my talk page (in an exchange that Rosenthal instigated and that you're now fueling) you can shove off (and you can stuff your discussion about my character). Bye.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bali. If you don't like the language in the article than fix it. I'm doing the best I can and I'm still working on the article. You don't just delete a substantial part of an article just because the writing style is not good enough. I'll try to improve the language as much as I can, and I'm still writing the article, so you can help or be patient and wail untill I'm done writing. Nik Sage (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you have trouble writing clear prose on the first pass, try working on it offline. As it was, i did fix it. The good news is your writing on this page is reasonable. Get the language right and i'll take a look at the content later.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What editor do you think i'm confused with? User:Malcolm Schosha is a banned editor and multiple sockpuppet user. Here's his first ban discussion [3]. I find it fascinating that the account of a banned user who abused multiple editors in good standing here for years has been "vanished" especially since he's a serial sockpuppeteers. Thank's for bringning this further to my attention, i intend to pursue i to now.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of that discussion. I'm not terribly familiar with sockpuppetry rules, but note that he was never banned and one his "socks" Kwok2 was clearly not used to avoid detection. He is clearly not a "serial" sockpuppet, if one at all. No offense intended, but your zeal in ensuring that the user page of his RL name be besmirched appears vindictive.--brewcrewer(yada, yada)17:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Serially used socks to stalk me and others, seeking to tag us as anti-semites and so forth because he wasn't able to skew content to suit his political agenda anymore. Has socked through a variety of IPs. If the name had been dissapeared at the time I was targeted by that vile human being, i wouldn't have been able to uncover his past and have it dealt with. I'm seeking to protect others from the vicious attacks that unbalanced edit warrior has visited on me by keeping the info out there. That's not vindictive. It's protecting the innocent. What's your interest in all this then, if you didn't do any research into his past? Getting emails?I wonder why... you're not an ethno-nationalist POV pusher too? (Just a shot in the dark there).Bali ultimate (talk) 10:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of any "targeted harrassment" not do i see any evidence of it. but considering how you throw out baseless accusations against me, i know who to believe. I don't want to discuss this with you any longer. its quite clear that you are making this personal and are not dealing with it objectively at all. adios.--brewcrewer(yada, yada)15:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Making what personal? You've come to my talk page for no apparent reason (continue to refuse to explain why) to defend a banned editor who visited upon me and other vile, vile attacks. I love the accusation at others that they're not objective at all when you don't get your way. Very cute. Don't let the ass hit you on the way out the door sweetheart.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John Ging take two
Hi Bali, please give feedback about the first part I've wrote about the assassination attempts so I can move to the second part. You could do it here or at my talk page if you prefer. Nik Sage (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bali Ultimate, re your comment about Colonel Warden considering the deletion of articles to be the equivalent of "something akin to murder", I've just been through a few screens of his deleted contributions and seen examples where far from trying to save everything he does actually tag some articles for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crab collars is an example where he took an article to AFD. I appreciate that you feel strongly about this editor, but can I suggest you have a second look and rephrase your comments in a way that more reflects this editor's edits? ϢereSpielChequers 13:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
sure.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Not going to grab the tar-baby. I've seen him argue for keep on hoaxes almost as blatant. I'm glad to see an overwhelmingly blatant hoax he can recognize, but hardly the point.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure we've all been taken in by hoaxes occasionally. But the point of an RFC is to convince the community that there is a problem, I took your accusations sufficiently seriously to trawl through his contributions until I'd found examples where he had tagged articles for deletion via speedy, prod and AFD. If you want to convince the Colonel that he needs to change behaviour or the community that some sort of sanction is appropriate, then please stick to facts and support your criticism of him with diffs. I appreciate that hyperbole doesn't always signify a weak case - but at the moment I'm of the view that if there was a real problem then editors would not feel the need to exaggerate. ϢereSpielChequers14:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't view my comments as hyperbolic, and if you don't see what i'm seeing by trawling through his contributions, i can't help you. It's quite clear to me that warden is not going to be convinced of anything. He'll either take on board what the RFC says and change or, like A Nobody, he won't and he'll eventually be gone. I've no interest in discussing this further with you here. Life is short, and as i made very clear, i'm not going to get bogged down with the hair-splitting and misdirection that are all too common when addressing these kinds of problems. The arguments he uses are fundamentally dishonest, he uses tactics to confound process and open logical discussion, and he fills articles with trivia, poor sources and interpretations of sources that no reasonable reader (or at least one with a research background) would ever make. You don't appear to aggree with me. So be it. The facts are plain as day to me and many others.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was about your accusing him of "considering the deletion of articles to be the equivalent of murder". Please don't assume what my so far unstated views are on "trivia, poor sources and interpretations of sources that no reasonable reader (or at least one with a research background) would ever make". If that was your concern about him or any other editor, and you or someone else filed a diff supported case on those grounds, then if I found it convincing I might well endorse it. ϢereSpielChequers14:32, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Full quote from me (rather than your misquote) which i stand by in its entirety. I get it that you don't agree. Please don't belabor it further. Col. Warden has an extreme ideology that appears to view deleting articles (and poorly sourced content within articles) as something akin to murder. Bye. Bali ultimate (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you recreated User:Malcolm Schosha. This page was deleted because the account was renamed; there is no account under that name. Please use the Kwork or Kwork2 accounts if you have any further sockpuppet concerns. Shellbabelfish17:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I discovered him on old AN/I archives. Now, if someone else does, they will come to a complete dead end. For instance, if you go to the ban discussion on Malcolm and click "contributions" you get a blank. [4]. This has the effect of covering his tracks, and given his frequent socking through IPs, that enables a banned editor. How do you propose to deal with this? I'll probably bring the propriety of all this at AN/I shortly, but am interested to hear your response first.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What if we created a redirect to the other account; that's pretty typical with renames and would let someone check up on things if they need to. Is there any current socking? Shellbabelfish19:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not that i've noticed in about two months, but he's probably about. The problems arise when he starts harrassing people. A redirect i could live with.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
user Benjiboi blocked
Hi Bali, User:Benjiboi Blocked for massive socking, I have a few more I am watching, the whole field IMO is a likely to be just a couple of activists with multiple accounts along with paid promo editors, thanks for your contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any spidey sense tingles about POV pushers and promo contributors, let me know, I despise them and love to investigate their contributions. Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took a big step back from all that a while ago, and am engaged in fairly narrow ways at the moment, so no. But if i come across anything, will let you know.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not recreate the redirect. The facts are obvious enough to those who need to know, and continuing to make the link makes it harder for him to walk away and leave us alone, which is in the end what we want. Guy (Help!) 19:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have found him when he was harrasing me if this "courtesy obfuscation" had been done then. If you've deleted again, i'll bring it up for broader input.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I don't think deleting the RD again was very helpful, there is meaningful background to this of which you may not be aware, JzG. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He uses them fairly disposably, so "blocking" the old socks is neither here nor there. The IP range would be nice to block, but i don't know enough about the technicalities. Takes out a few houses/apartment buildings in the Castro? Go ahead and do it (odds of another wikipedia editor sllim). Take out half of San Francisco? Not feasible. In practice, i doubt little more will be done (unless you can convince a friendly check user to keep on eye on the IP range).Bali ultimate (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have noticed a few other likely socks and someone found one with wikistalk, who should I talk to about running another CU? Geographically, how big is the suspected range (71.139.0.000-71.139.40.000) we're looking at? - Schrandit (talk) 13:38, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should discuss this; there are several options. Teh auto-archive bot, which I don't like. The *move* your talk to an archive page technique, or the manual archive creation approach, which is traditional. Cheers, Jack Merridew00:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have packing and such prep todo; plane's tomorrow. I'll be near your pretty corner ;) The two big cities, though. I'm gonna be sending out some notes; we'll talk. Cheers, Jack Merridew00:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you need to first work out what you want to do with it. Another option I notice is - clear historic - and delete it, an option some users do monthly, SlimV is one. We are not obliged to archive but I read it is recommended. I also don't know if it is possible to add a bot when you have the fancy edging on your page. I did add one but it didn't appear...have a think what you want to do..no hurry - no worry. Off2riorob (talk) 00:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right so unless you have anything to say or ask any one of your ideologically aligned Wikipedia friends to rebuts the arguments I've made on the Counterpunch talk page, I'm going to put the criticisms back on. I won't have your feigned absence filibuster my attempts to get the (warranted) criticisms against that left-wing rag of a magazine put on its Wikipedia page. Fellytone (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In any discussion, if you see traction in a section, don't add a new one below it. Reply to something above if you must, but not below. People read discussions from the bottom, not the top.—Kww(talk) 16:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What would have happened, if a merge would have been done after DYK? Wikipedia readers would have gotten an extra information. What a horror! D= --Mbz1 (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even gatoclass never claimed anything about coatracks, but you right I did learn something, like how unpleasant some users, who hardly wrote a few articles themselves could be. Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 13:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have any good advice here Tenmei. Maybe you could be more concise, though i'm not sure it would make a difference, but you're being more than fair and making factual, policy based points. The problem is that wikipedia is very poor at dealing with nationalist/jingoist editors. I don't know much about the topic at hand, but certainly ancient and primary chinese sources are deprecated. In general, as you know, Imperial China told itself it ruled vast swathes of world that it in fact had only nominal control of, if that. It's an issue that requires nuance and complexity, not binary categorization. So what should you do differently? If you're at a standoff, craft an RFC of no more than 2 paragraphs asking for broader editorial input on the use of primary sources (appropriate or not?) and perhaps some of the other sources that don't, if i understand your argument, support the edits being made by the other fellow. The advantages here is that it deporsonalizes the dispute, and usually draws in fresh eyes. Sorry i don't have any better thoughts. Best.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:48, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Follow-up questions like this have no easy answers.
This dispute is very low-key, undramatic. It remains an open-ended question -- even when the focus is narrowed to Cite does not verify asserted "facts". The content involves only two cardinal numbers and a single descriptive term; but Historiographer's editing is characteristic, tactical and familiar. Optimistically, this thread might be re-framed as a fulcrum for better understanding.
IMO, the core issue which justified the investment of time and thought at WP:Requests for comment/Teeninvestor was the prospect of metastasis. Although Teeninvestor has withdrawn from our project, the patterns of strategic editing are emblematic. IMO, it is constructive to search actively for options which may only become apparent after some time has passed. --Tenmei (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and appreciate your hope. But I don't expect a solution/governance answer to organically produce itself. What's needed is editorial boards of subject experts (which the true believers would respond to with dolchstoss levels of betrayal and outrage so forget it) that intervene, directly, in content. Until that unlikely day have to just keep muddling through (or, like me, avoid entirely the subject areas in which you have expertise).Bali ultimate (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Packer
Thanks for the work on LoS. Re Packer, I had looked into this, and later sources seemed to contradict those in 2008 speculating that he had dropped out. All of these are from 2009: [6][7][8][9][10]. If you look at the article that said he had dropped out, it does not actually quote him, but unnamed friends of his. Looking at it all, I got the feeling that he took a lot of courses for a while when he was in crisis, then stopped that once he felt better, but hasn't actually broken with the Church. There is no obligation on Scientologists to take courses all the time; it's up to the individual (and the status of their bank account). --JN46615:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think this is getting a little out of hand
first I want to apologize, I did not intend to tag you with the "attack page" template, I wanted to warn you about "personal attacks", obviously that was not what I tagged you with and I know how it feels to get tagged with something you don't deserve. So I am sorry I tagged you with that. Secondly I think it is getting a little heated and we should actually talk about it. We are accomplishing nothing going back and forth the way we are. I understand you have strong feelings about what should be included in the List of deaths associated with Scientology, but I do feel strongly that we need to include a background section that demonstrates that reliable sources have been using this theme across time. Those sources are contained in the section we have, but you are not satisfied that it should be included. What is a good compromise? Since they are reliable sources, would we be able to include those sources but tone down the content somehow which would satisfy your concerns?Coffeepusher (talk) 17:33, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
An/I
A fortnight ago, you reported me to to the Administrator Noticeboard/Incident. In reciprocation of your generosity, I've reported you here [11]. Fellytone (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've closed that report as obvious tit-for-tat shenanigans. However, I have redacted the insults that were made on that talk page - even generally insulting those who accuse CounterPunch and Cockburn of antisemitism is an attack on living people, and should be avoided, and it really isn't necessary. As you know, stating your opinion of those writers won't help us improve the article. </lecture> Fences&Windows22:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RFC on the user would be easiest. There is a broader cultural problem of the tolerance of creations of attack pieces and forks created to emphasize the "rightness" of a particular position that is currently rampant in that arena (and is fuelled by the host of teenagers and apple polishers involved with DYK), but i have no good advice on how to shift the broader culture. Any effort that i can imagine would be an unfocused mess. So probably best to start with this user -- which (who knows) may yield some broader ideas and awareness.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think I will just let it rest for a bit--it's possible the Mbz will take the hint and create her next articles on some of the better themes of her earlier work. betsythedevine (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I noticed that you tagged a whole lot of articles in Italian (XYZ Cabinet) for speedy deletion. As I was told by Acroterion (talk·contribs) they have especially been imported for translation on behalf of Dr. Blofeld (talk·contribs) including an extensive page history etc. I've already userfied some pages to Dr. Blofeld's user namespace but you might also want to reconsider your tagging. I for one don't like the way this has been handled, such mass imports should not sit in the article namespace at all while untranslated, but these pages were not created as a simple copy and paste. De728631 (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They've been there for a couple of months and are unreferenced duplicates for which there is a speedy category. I for one am not convinced that wikipedia needs an unreferenced article on the composition of the cabinet of an Italian govt that lasted for 120 days in 1975 (for instance) but at any rate shouldn't have one til it's in english. For the GFDL after translation, all he has to do is type "translated from the italian wiki article" and provide the link in the first edit summary when it goes live." At any rate, it's a mess that needs to be cleaned up.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So fix it and work on them. I removed a speedy tag, and you placed at least one back. You should know by now that this is not permitted. Try AfD if you like DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't speak italian with sufficient confidence to "sofixit," particularly since they're all unreferenced. The articles fulfill a speedy criteria -- get the criteria changed rather than subsituting your will for what's acceptable. You should know better by now. I won't stand in the way of any referenced article in english. Unreferenced articles that are in Italian? They just degrade the encyclopedia. By the way, out of curiosity, why do you spend so much time deprodding/despeedying and fixing nothing (while apparently remaining ignorant of basic site polices after all these years). What is it, 30% of your edits to article space? Try reading WP:Translation. If what you find there confuses you ping me and i'll try to explain it.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks man!
I thought about posting the link to her page, and decided against it because her talk page is watched by at least 5 times more people than my archive is, but you did it for me and... to her. May I recommended you next time you are going to do something like that to turn your brain on I do hope you have one :-) and better use email in similar situations. lol.--Mbz1 (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er, I came here to ask you something, and seriously considered blocking you for that response (WP:CIVIL). Mbz1's smiley-faced aside is just enough to make me ask you to apologise instead. If you don't want anything further to do with an issue or even a user, it's perfectly possible to say so in a civil manner, so please reconsider your response. Thanks. Rd232talk16:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mbz1 comes to my talk page and calls me an idiot... why? Because i notified a third party that Mbz1 was trying to out them [12]. They also seem to be gloating that the intended outing might get more attention due to my notification. Look up ahead on this talk page for the "are you happy now" section (a bunch of whining that a merger i'd proposed was overwhelmingly supported). If people seek me out to hurl insults they'll get short shrift.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:06, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
CounterPunch Books
Question about this edit. Your edit summary was simply "that is excessive. has nothing to do with this magazine" for removing a smidgen of summary about a book (copied from the book's entry, BTW), and mention of a couple of other books. My view is that either the CounterPunch entry is about the magazine, in which case the Books section has no place there at all (and should be moved to CounterPunch Books or to AK Press), or it's about the publisher, which covers both magazine and books and includes all the content I added. Your edit leaves a middle ground that makes no sense to me. What do you think? Rd232talk16:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably favor doing away with the section in its entirety. If i remember, the bit i removed was about Cockburn's views (expressed in a book), not about Counterpunch the magazine, which is a different thing.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Um, are you sure you read my comment in its entirety, on the distinction between CounterPunch being about the magazine or the publisher? And the diff is linked there too - most of it is summary of that CounterPunch-published book, but not all. Rd232talk17:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've put back in the mention of the other books. This is the bit that bothered me: "In the book's preface the editors allege that "false accusations of antisemitism are used to silence Israel's critics".ref“Partisans of Israel often make false accusations of anti-Semitism to silence Israel’s critics. The ‘antisemite!’ libel is harmful not only because it censors debate about Israel’s racism and human rights abuses but because it trivializes the ugly history of Jew-hatred.” It's not about the magazine, it's about the views of cockburn and st. clair (which are dealt with at length in both of their bios and, I presume, on the wikipedia article about the book itself). That bit shed's no light on counterpunch. I fear I may still be misunderstanding you however.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Vandalism
Hey, sorry I didn't pay attention to my talk page until recently, when I archived a bunch of it, so I didn't notice this warning]. Well, I'm not sure how much "vandalism" would constitute mentioning gay porn, as he's made a year's salary off of it, but whatever floats your boat. Are you a proponent of Levi Johnston or gay porn? DarthBottotalk•cont01:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is whatever halfwit unblocked him in the first place. I've looked at some of the latest edits. As bad as ever. To double your fun some of his antagonists are also propagandists. All you can get with that setup is an endless push and pull of distortion. I will have nothing to do with any of it. No sane person with a background in this area would.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The least is that he stopped his socketpuppets from the last time. I know it's a waste of time, but I'm taking it as a way to stop discrediting me. He already wastes most of my time already. I just avoid reverts with him as he doesn't mind edit-warring. The DRN proposed me to open an RfC, but the system will automatically delete it if it doesn't have a second signature. I was mainly trying to confirm that his attitude hasn't changed since that block, which is against the promises he made. Having him doing the same edits just shows that he improved, heh. I guess I shouldn't have opened it without second support first. Thanks for the input, and see you around. ~ AdvertAdam talk23:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that the same issues apply to the admin and Wikimediahttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UserLogout&returnto=User+talk%3ABali+ultimate&returntoquery=action%3Dedit%26section%3D32-UK positions. Fae would have been elected to the latter largely on the basis of his work with GLAM-UK.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know anything about Wikimedia, beyond its connection to this website. But it would be an interesting data point if Wikimedia UK knew a potential board member both created and fought tooth and nail to keep List of Gay bathhouse regulars[13] and decided such a person would be a good overseer of their charitable educational mission.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did not attend the meeting nor have I looked at any of the material produced by the candidates. I don't even know how much competition there was to join the committee. What you link and similar stuff could be embarassining when campaigning about Wikimedia as an educational project but it does not affect assessments of Fae's competence. Given how some of Wikipedia's start-up money was made and who have been spokespersons in the past, I am not convinced that it is more embarassing than other stuff. It's the type of stuff you were commenting on in the RFC that is of more interest.--Peter cohen (talk) 21:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I think the decision to create a list, that can be edited by any anonymous person on the planet, that purports to determine which living person does (or does not) frequent "gay bathhouses," as an appropriate article for an encyclopedia, speaks directly to (in)competence.
Can you please consider removing your comment re. Fæ here? I am not saying it is wrong (or right); my only objection is that it isn't relevent to that thread, which is about the conduct of Wgfinley. Throwing in comments about other people is not going to help address that specific issue in any way. If you think there's a problem with Fæ - or anyone else - start a new thread.
Honestly honestly, I have no opinion about the specific matter. But I'm fed up of ANI threads drifting into all kinds of "meta discussion" about unrelated issues; I can see no connection with your comment and the discussion at hand - if I'm wrong, then sure, let me know. But otherwise, would you mind removing it or striking it, or whatever? Thanks. Chzz ► 07:23, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's relevant to the meta problem which is this: You have people who make up shit and lie about sources (or administrators who refuse to take that as a serious problem over playing wikipedia as a MUD) and it's not delt with. It's all of a piece, and the star chamber nonesence of "arbitrators" with names like "sir fozzie" promising to look into things behind closed doors is frankly absurd.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:51, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the record
User:Fae has had the public claims I made oversighted while seeing fit to discuss me on a project where he has arranged for me to be blocked (so that i can't respond) to his claims. I was never told under what valid criteria my earlier post was vanished.
Allegations which are not referenced by published information in a reliable source about any person, including a Wikipedia editor you are investigating, may be removed from Wikipedia under the policy in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Additionally, personal information that is not public may be oversighted under our privacy policies. That does not mean that the Wikimedia Foundation does not take your assertions seriously. However, please address your concerns here, privately, to the Arbitration Committee, and, with respect to other Wikimedia Foundation projects to the Wikimedia Foundation. I have suppressed your disclosures here. Further publishing of the information will result in a block. User:Fred BauderTalk00:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fae is Ashley Van Haeften, according to a public website of Wikimedia UK. He has had multiple past incarnations on this website. Why are you surpressing this information? (It's all great grist for the mill -- i'm writing a story about this stuff).Bali ultimate (talk) 00:36, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To Mr. Bauder -- I intend to express my questions (not "concerns") to as many people in as public a fashion as is reasonable until i get an answer. I find this concern for "privacy" in the case of an editor who created an article called "List of gay bathhouse regulars" somewhat dissonant. I will not be directing any correspondence to the so-called "arbitration committee." I have no business with them at the moment (if any of them would like to contact me as private individuals, finding a way to contact my work email won't be difficult, and I'd be delighted to chat). (Dan Murphy) Bali ultimate (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing to Mr. Bauder -- (starting to do some digging). Are you the same Bauder who ran in to some trouble in the late '90s with the Colorado bar? (If it's not clear what i'm talking about, can supply more details).Bali ultimate (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bali, I know what you're referring to. Let's not bring it up here please.
So you're not willing to reverse an suppression of material you acknowledge is public information? That's not a rhetorical question, by the way; I'm curious if I am missing something obvious. NW(Talk)03:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. All the edits made by User:Bali ultimate have been restored to full visibility. I suppose the elephant in the room; this is a nasty personal attack regardless of its factual basis or the availability of the information being used. User:Fred BauderTalk04:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have no possible way of knowing that Andrea James recruited me to Wikipedia to edit her biography. If you had real evidence, you would (or at least should) have provided it already. Please take back your false accusation, admit that it was a lie, and apologize, both to me and to Andrea. Luwat (talk) 00:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just going off of your light editing history (about 50 edits in a year or so) and direct leap into this. You can speak for yourself at AN/I. But a pro-tip? You might want to dial back the rhetoric (I don't much care myself but, well, they don't like this form of discourse around these parts). Won't engage with this further here.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Andrea James
I have read The New York Times article. Some of your edits with respect to Andrea James go well beyond the information contained in that source. Such assertions must be clearly supported by citations to reliable sources. I have suppressed several edits you have made which are Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons violations. Please consider this a final warning by an uninvolved administrator. We are prepared to deal with negative information, even outrage, but you must cite a reliable source with respect to every detail every time you post scandalous information. User:Fred BauderTalk21:43, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
ec[reply]
You're a little out of your depth it seems. The peer-reviewed academic paper by Alice Dreger, a professor of medical ethics at Northwestern University's medical school and published in the premeir journal of sex research, is the one with the greater detail (and is in turn cited to James own website). You can read it here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170124/?tool=pmcentrez . I quoted with a great deal of care. Happy reading.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And I reverted again, and will likely suppress them too. Whatever of your opinion on Andrea James and this whole mud-slinging affair, it's not okay to tag someone's children with those slurs (nor, IMO, was it originally) - Alison❤21:46, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So she was so vile that her vile behavior can't be pointed out on a no-indexed talk page, while a fellow activist lobbies for her record to be suppressed entirely? So, so silly.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:48, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone considers it to be vile and inexcusable, or they certainly should. The point is, though, that it's a massive BLP violation. And you suggest adding this to Bailey's biography? Please don't do that here - it's just propagating an already inexcusable slur against a third party - Alison❤21:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. I was told that the current language in the article, directly quoting from the NYT to the effect that James placed sexually explicit captions with pictures of Bailey's children was too vague and open to interpretation to be included in the article. So I'm pointing out there are much more specific options in higher quality sources if that is preferred. Of course, I know this is all a big game that's being played (OR! SYNTH! UNDUE! The parade of capitalized abbreviations has not even begun) to exclude a reasonable summary of the behavior (as stands in the article at present), but AGF requires me to take on these tactics as if they were serious.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:55, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeurgh :/ While I see your point, we need to balance your summarizing the situation (which I know you're trying to do as best as possible under the circumstances) against the risk of further propagating what was clearly an egregious slur against that man's kids. We clearly have different thresholds as to what's okay and what's not. Complaints had been made, which was why two oversighers got involved here - Alison❤23:11, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Was Bauder the former lawyer the other "oversighter"? He got involved because I'm the sort of person who, if I had a wikipedia article, he would have redirected it to a picture of a clown (that is, not of the "in-group.")Bali ultimate (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've read the journal article at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170124/?tool=pmcentrez A dramatic formulation of that material is unsuitable for publication here due to its degrading nature. As you are a professional writer I believe you can craft a formulation that is informative without falling within WP:RD2, "Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material that has little/no encyclopedic or project value and/or violates our Biographies of living people policy. This includes slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material of little or no encyclopedic value,". I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you will be blocked if you persist. User:Fred BauderTalk00:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fred, what won't work? The peer-reviewed article that recounts James' actions (involving her choice of captions to go along with pictures of the children of an intellectual opponent) is quite specific, and there is no source asserting that Dreger's recounting is false or inaccurate. I'll be blocked for, what, exactly? Repeating information in a peer-reviewed article? Since I'm a professional writer (unlike you) I do back my ability to summarize this material in a reasonable fashion. But your fellow wikipedians tell me that my summary choices are unacceptable "OR." So I respond to that by simply quoting the good sources without any alteration at all, if forced. What say you, sir? (can I assume that you, Fred, are the other "oversighter?" You haven't said).Bali ultimate (talk) 03:27, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dan Murphy. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.
Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.
I have removed your current statement. Phrases like "I particularly like the last bit", "having a man with Mr. Bauder's background questioning [me] was very funny indeed", and the overall tone of the post were not appropriate. Please rethink how you are approaching your evidence before re-posting. This serves as your one and only warning. -- Lord Roem (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The "tone" of my post. And who are you exactly "Lord Roem?" I'm being attacked with fabricated claims, by people in no position to judge me. My comments are factual and to the point.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bali, the word slander itself is a very hefty charge. If you are going to make it, you need to substantiate it, and substantiate in a way that clearly articulates your feelings without going overboard. Additionally, please note that it is extraordinarily inappropriate to revert actions by the Clerks. I am willing to give you some advice on how to express your thoughts appropriate, in this very big case, but you need to abide by the guidelines laid out. -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When you start moderating Priorymans/ChrisO's slanders of me and others, get back to me. Accusing me of harassment is slander (i'm not going to court over it, but that's what he's doing). I work with words for a living. Trust me on this "Lord Roem."Bali ultimate (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You ignore the instructions of the Committee's clerks at your own risk. You were banned from the case by a clerk, and chose to not only launch a personal attack, by telling him to "go play in traffic", you defied the ban and reverted him. You are blocked for ten days. This block may not be lifted without the express approval of the Arbitration Committee, and your ban from this case will continue, should it still be ongoing, when this block expires. Courcelles03:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles, when someone is upset about being unfairly besmirched and feeling like they haven't been given a chance to give their side, they are going to react like this. Usually, the editor in question just needs a night's sleep to cool down. Ten days probably is a little too much. Cla68 (talk) 04:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Courcelles, you can go play in the street too, but first go to some seminar to learn to write in something other than wikipedia bureaucrateese and enroll "Lord Roem" in a "how to write like a grownup course." I mean,I am willing to give you some advice on how to express your thoughts appropriate, in this very big case, but you need to abide by the guidelines laid out is just dire, as well as completely silly. There is nothing "big" about this "case." It's an absurd dysfunctional sideshow. Mr. Keyes' coaching and Roem's natural talent for this particular game will take him far.Bali ultimate (talk) 11:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your recent edits to Zoophilia and the law. It is sad to see people reading an article on Wikipedia and getting wrong and biased information because no one would remove such unencyclopedic content.
This section ([14]) is an example of extreme POV pushing with original research and no sourced content. Is it alright if I went ahead and remove? Someone963852 (talk)
Point #2 in the section linked above used the source [15] to make it seem like sodomy laws are "used as a justification to harass and discriminate against people"[91] and have a "stigmatizing effect" against zoophiles, but the source mentions nothing about zoophilia and/ or the law.
I rewrote it, although I don't doubt that it could be further trimmed. Looking in Google scholar, I see usable quotations declaring it a non-accepted theory (1948, 1970 ... ) although they seem to be all from the body of articles I can only see in summary. I suspect if I dig deep in Google Books I can at least hint at how restricted his prescriptions are from a modern point of view. (The article should have at least a few non-Reichian references added, if only to demonstrate notability.) But this is so not my field, I suspect someone who knows something or has a reference book could achieve the necessary balance far faster. Also I may have hacked and slashed in the wrong places or used outmoded terminology myself. And Drmies is chomping at the bit to either close the DYK or review it '-) and we need a new hook. So could I twist your arm to take a look at it and either give me some guidance or further edit it yourself? Yngvadottir (talk) 19:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could you weigh in either at the article talk page or at the DYK nomination page, please? Gulpen wants to reinstate some of the material I tossed out, and has a probably valid issue about my changing the citation format, but if they change it back I can't add extra sources, and I've been holding off on doing so because that would be better done by someone more familiar with the field (and very much preferably someone with JSTOR or good library access!) and because I'm not sure the article is going to survive. The intent of my shortening rewrite was largely to demonstrate by taking it down to the bones that the topic merits inclusion and provide a starting point for addition of more broad-based references (and ideally of coverage outside the Reichian community). It's wasn't to impose "the Yngvadottir version". Your view would be welcome, since you spoke up about it before. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just a friendly reminder that the article is under IP sanctions including 1RR. I'm a bit rusty on the minutiae of what is acceptable and what is not under 1rr, but this[16] might be viewed as a breach - it may be less hassle just to self revert and redo the edit latter than getting dragged into a pointless and long winded AE case.
Incidentally I support the edit - the source is clearly an opinion piece, not suitable for verifying facts in the wiki voice without attribution. Dlv999 (talk) 11:43, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page is under WP:ARBPIA sanctions. I consider your conduct in making posts of this kind to come under the heading of seriously failing to adhere to expected standards of behaviour. Consider yourself lucky that the longer block under that sanction was not imposed on this occasion. Please find a way to conduct your disagreements in a less aggressive and provocative manner. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're enabling a group of editors whose entire purpose here is to propagandize for their ethnonationalist cause and spread derision on the enemy. The serious failure is to allow the warping of wikipedia articles over a period of years, not my refusal to adopt a warped and frankly childish internal Wikipedia values system. I know this is beyond your understanding. Those fellows will be delighted -- maybe they'll return the article to the state it started in when the lede said the article was evidence of the "debasement of the Arab mind." [18]. I pity you. I really do. So it goes, so it goes.Dan Murphy (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not enabling someone by stopping you posting abusive rants at them - the two are actually unconnected. If they are editing against the sanction, and the evidence is presented in a quiet and reasonable manner, they can be sanctioned for that. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not ranting. And your tautology about "if they're editing against the sanction they will be sanctioned" is both laughable and irrelevant. I'm interested in editorial behavior and effect. And the odds are vanishingly slim you are even remotely as qualified as I am to have an opinion in these kinds of matters. Keep mashing buttons and your eye off the big picture.Dan Murphy (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad little essay. It's not that I suck at the game. Rather, I may suck but we will never know because I absolutely refuse to play. Integrity and honesty mean far more to me than the values-free "civility" of grade-school gossips, snitches and hall monitors. This is just another minor piece of evidence that bizarro world remains bizarro world.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:12, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting piece. It is a little light on the what is, in my opinion, the most important aspect of the Wikipedia propagandist playbook. Content is only half the story, the other part is gaming the "rulz" level of Wikipedeia to inhibit and preferably remove any good faith editors or opposing propagandists from any article in which they might get in the way of promulgation of the propagandist's agenda. Dlv999 (talk) 07:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not interested. The whole system is dysfunctional since it doesn't start from the perspective of "how best to neutrally present information." Instead it's rules, and sub-rules, and layers of rules upon rules - about conduct and behavior and never about content. That's because the content isn't really the point at the meta-level. At the article level, one must do constant war with propagandists without ethics and certainly without any interest in traditional scholarship or research. Adding another layer of "rulz" is like adding another, harder level to one of those shoot-em-up video games.Dan Murphy (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sometimes surprised by the rulz myself. Apparently calling someone a dick is okay, but calling someone (including myself) Spiderman is a personal attack! And I was just trying to explain the universal concept of "fareness" that Wikipedia is striving for. [20] Go figure! Tijfo098 (talk) 21:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is a pretty pithy paragraph, pal. (though you have a spurious apostrophe here and there—and yes I am aware that me pointing that out emphasises your point. Lots of sub-editors and "management", few people actually creating) pablo22:07, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Chanced upon this thread. Not speaking in any official capacity.) Somebody needs to bring to AE the editors who reverted Bali ultimate's edits about the Shark attacks section. While I do not condone BU's comments on the article talk page, his edits neutralised some glaring problems with the POV in the Shark attacks section. The POV of that section was totally skewed, whereas Bali's re-write restored some balance and reason—and made it clear how laughable the "sharks" theory really is. This is a classic case of POV-pushers baiting somebody like BU into verbally lashing out. (As an arbitrator, I'm unable to be involved in the enforcement process, or I would hand out AE blocks myself.) AGK[•]22:05, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
AGK, you have just illustrated the dysfunction of the website's approach, and why it fails so badly in these areas. Someone like me, a named professional, will be easily blocked for being a "meanie" on talk pages. People who skew content in service of a cause (frequently one, as in this case, that seeks to advance its agenda by dehumanizing a whole culture) are left to merrily go about their business on the articles (the stuff the general public sees) so long as they are "civil." Please also note that this is going on in a great many more articles, most of them of far more importance and general interest, than the one I tried to make a point of fixing.Dan Murphy (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Q. Schmidtmy talk page is wishing you Season's Greetings! This message celebrates the holiday season, promotes WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings.
Hello Dan. You are aware of WP:AE#Bali ultimate, which has yet to be closed. There is a proposal on the floor to topic ban you. So far as I can tell, there is not much (if any) problem with your substantive edits in the I/P area. The current difficulty is your 'lying or ignorant' assessment of some other editors. As an admin I've so far made no comment on the AE. If you will consider revising the wording you use to refer to other editors, in my opinion a different outcome might be considered. If your real desire is to raise the 'level of intellectual honesty' you've chosen an unusual way of going about it, which could wind up disqualifying you from any further comment on the topic. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ed -- what is one to do? If someone (or some people) continually insist that something that is manifestly untrue is in fact true, and are allowed to continue on doing so clearly in the service of a broader agenda (so long as they remain "civil") that's the problem to be dealt with. The claim made was manifestly untrue, and I came after the conversation had run for days. That is the behavior that is "actually" uncivil. Can I promise I'll never make a comment that won't be seized on to stir up a ruckus? Sadly, I cannot. What would you suggest one say in the face of patent falsehoods, when the truth has reasonable been explained by others?Dan Murphy (talk) 17:01, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your position is reminiscent of others that I see in the I/P area. You are shooting a hole in your own boat, with the impression that this is a glorious gesture that will impress others. EdJohnston (talk) 17:35, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, poo. Take a look at the reality of the comment Ed: All wire services and newspapers move opinion pieces (that are inevitably offensive to someone). That does not invalidate (nor validate) the quality of their news reporting. Think on what's to be done with people who seek to remove use of an entire news outlet that they don't like on that "evidence" that an editorial there is "clearly" disqualifying. As for your snarky and uncivil comment that I'm seeking to "impress others" you clearly have no idea what you're talking about. Failure to be interested in the thoughts of others has been a consistent failing of mine.Dan Murphy (talk) 17:48, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sticking to your 'lying or ignorant' assessment must be adhering to a personal value of yours. By doing so, you're probably aware that you are ruling out any compromise with admins on Wikipedia. Do you really want admins to rule that 'lying or ignorant' is a correct verdict? EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm asking you to suggest a forthright, reasonable alternative. Why is "ignorant" a bad word? I am ignorant (as I'm sure you are) of a great many things. Recognizing ones own ignorance is a useful thing. In this instance, the point being dealt with has no grey area. Reuters really does[21] run opinion pieces. What to do when someone asserts they do not?Dan Murphy (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have opinions about the I/P area that are perceptive in some ways. Even your observations on Wikipediocracy are interesting. Yet your response here is to draw a line in the sand that is guaranteed to exclude your views from consideration. You must be aware that calling other editors 'lying or ignorant' is not going to become a generally permitted behavior in the I/P area. When you disagree with others, there are trivial rewordings of your statement that would be fine. Instead of 'X is lying' you can say 'I believe that X's statement is incorrect'. Surely this has not escaped your notice. If I seemed to be analyzing your motives above in a possibly incorrect way, I was just noticing that you were scorning an obvious compromise, and wondering why there could be any reason to do so. EdJohnston (talk) 18:39, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the modifier I believe in x is ignorant/or lying. This is not a matter of belief. In a professional environment, this would be termination stuff. It is not a question of "belief." There is no subjectivity about it. The meta issue is that people are allowed to assert factually untrue things again, and again, and again, with no sanction, part of a process designed to wear down the opposition that is frequently successful. This is enabled by the insistence on indirect, qualified speech when it is not needed for the case at hand. I do scorn the compromise, but not for the reasons you imagine. But because the compromise is in fact corrosive to a forthright dealing with a problem that is skewing the content on this website. This is the issue. Allow me to expand. I deal with young journalists and editors who are flat wrong about stuff that I know far more about than they. They are wrong for a variety of reasons, but none of them malicious. Never-the-less, I tell them they're wrong and explain why they're wrong and they learn from it -- or they don't go very far. No one in an office is worried that telling someone that they're wrong is uncivil. This is an instance where the recipients are completely impervious to the corrective information because they're not interested in it -- getting it right is not why they are here. Far from it. Dan Murphy (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What you are telling is obvious. Yes, the content is enormously skewed in many "political" subject areas. Yes, there are many recipients who are completely impervious to the corrective information because they're not interested in it (this can be for a number of reasons I am not going to speculate about). So what? Are you going to fix the problem by calling them names? No one can fix it. This is not a professional environment. WP is not a "reliable source", and it will never be. If you want to play this game, the "winners" will always be people who behave superficially civil, spend 24/7 on this site, and twist the sources. Do not you know this? My very best wishes (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dan. To adopt your analogy, Ed Johnston is the systems manager guy in the wikioffice, with seniority, wide knowledge of the way it best functions, and a demonstrated capacity for making judgements all sides accept as neutral, and he's telling a less experienced wikipedian how this peculiar society works. Most serious, professional writers, scholars and thinkers find this place exasperating and refuse to help out. Some just learn to bite the bullet, wear the bullshit, adapt to suppressing the 'Ah, you fucken dopey arsehole' sort of thought that passes one's article-parsing mind from hour to hour, and write instead, 'you're mistaken' or even 'you screwed up'. Of course there are lots of ignoramuses and liars here, like everywhere in the world and in every sphere of activity. Here, the rule is, if you want to lie or push a POV against the evidence, as long as you stick to the AGF rules, you can enjoy longevity while enjoying exhibitions of suicide by people who call you out. That looks outrageous, at first glance, but without it, tens of thousands of quite good quality articles on difficult and controversial topics would never have been written. Anthropologists, when studying a tribe in field research, understand that they must adapt, provisorily, to the rules of the tribe: back in their professorial armchair, a different discourse obtains which, were it thrown the tribe's way would (a) only be offensive (b) obstruct the acquisition of a tribe's ethnography and (c) ultimately, be detrimental to the tribe itself, which down the line may well need that expert's return to assist it in adapting in turn to a larger world outside of its own mental confines. Best Nishidani (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand how this sick "society" works. I am not interested in studying it, it is not an ancient culture. It is a mediocrisy of soft-headed middle managers and the people they enable. I always have some slim hope, in an abundance of "agf," people like Ed aren't beyond education. I know that's a fools hope. As you may have noted, I do not write much anymore, for the reasons you outline above. Mostly lately, I have tried to clean up some of the nastiest examples of hate propaganda in the IP area -- one must only look at the pushback (succesfull) and the helpless bleating of a wikipedia arbitrator up above on this page (who recognized how much better my efforts made an article but was just powerless -- just powerless! -- to stop the propaganda effort).Dan Murphy (talk) 09:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the analogy with tribe was great. Wikipedia community works very much as a primitive society, a tribe, rather than an editorial house. All community discussions are exactly like veche. Arbcom/AE serves like a Council of Elders. Just do whatever Elders tell, unless you would like to end up as Lonely Bison who refused to honor tribal hunting laws in the story by James Willard Schultz. Elders ask you to accept some other members of the tribe, even though you do not like them. My very best wishes (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
← Jesus. Moar madness. If someone states something which is factually inaccurate they are either ignorant of the truth ("mistaken if you wish), or lying. Logical, captain. Trouble seems to be that some people (alarmingly, it seems this includes at least one administrator) are ignorant of the meaning of the word "ignorant". pablo12:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Well, I work in several areas, and I'm not convinced that this place is "sick", but then again you have no brief to convince me. Ed was polite, and the conciliatory rope he gave some slack to was not meant to entice you to hang yourself. Of course, everyone knows some areas of it are "sick" - like the I/P zone, and quite a lot of editors there enjoy the way its inertial motion can be gamed to make it seize up in a sluggish morass, or a slugfest, in which the victims are either socks (dispensable) or more dangerously, for anyone who has a propagandistic agenda, of "do-gooders". In fact a sense of ethics, if brought to editing leaves some rubbing their hands with glee, it's like an open (eye-)sore that with consistent AGF poking will stir the hornet's nest of outrage, and leave the do-gooder stung. If you've decided to bail out with your ultimatum, though, do it with grace - perhaps we all need six months in porridge, as a kind of idyllic payoff of rest from what is unpaid, and unhappily frustrating work. I've served a longer term. I stick round because (a) the right to revert egregiously vile edits is one I'm unwilling to renounce, and janitorial work is important (b) basically I don't edit that area out of any self-interest (therefore expect anything from it), but as a time tithe, considering that somewhere out there, at Susya, for example, people are likely to be misrepresented, or worse still, consigned into the gurgler of historical silence, because what happens to them day by day, is never covered by mainstream sources with their love of the "big picture" and "large-arsed interests". To retain a right that enables one to see that their hardships - the extortion, expropriation, violence and inhumanity - are registered comprehensively somewhere, on what is effectively the default global source for encyclopedic coverage, is crucial. That consideration trumps any personal frustration - their frustration is infinitely greater than mine as a well-heeled editor here having to deal with malicious abuse of our rules, - I owe it to them to bottle my ethical outrage, so that, a couple of times a week, I can jot down a line, impeccably sourced, that is defensible and cannot be easily reverted, so that, cumulatively, traces of these sunken facts can thicken into a picture - and, when incidentally googled by someone out there, perhaps a reporter, - make life uncomfortable for the reader, and, who knows, nudge people out of their manufactured complacencies and ignorance. Don't think of the time you waste, think of the wasted lives a resilient attention to quality and detail, in the face of hostile editors, can, in the most round-about way, redeem from the parlous silence in which they are cast as they undergo harassments beyond anything we, in the commentariat, can imagine. And, get some perspective on admins, esp. good ones (no brownnosing intended). It's a rotten job, having to read and evaluate a motherlode of blathering whinges every day over innumerable topics, and corral the garrilous herd out of its shambles, back onto the track of neutral article composition. Whatever, enjoy the enforced respite, if you are convinced. But don't throw away your entitlement to revisit pages, in a few months, and make life difficult for propagandists.Nishidani (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see some people in that thread have sense. "Artikel sempurna" in this case was defined as at least 5 references, all content cited, and more than so many words (I think 250, but that was a couple years back). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sexology arbitration case opened
The arbitration case Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology has been opened. You have been mentioned as a potential party by one or more of the current parties to the case. If you would like to become a party to the case, please add yourself to the main case page linked in the same format as the other parties. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)03:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So since he makes "good edits and perfectly formatted edit summaries" it must be Gregory Kohs? This bit is particularly troubling: "Hak asasi manusia untuk semua." A chill went down my spine.Dan Murphy (talk) 01:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Jokestress and User:James Cantor are banned from interacting with each other, commenting on and/or commenting about each other including their professional lives, works and on-wiki activities. This applies to all namespaces, but excludes dispute resolution that explicitly relates to both parties.
I've been reading that. All good stuff. My only disagreement would be regarding Young as a minor symptom. I think he is himself a major disease, even is he's not the only cancer here. Some of his edits are just vile: listing Barry Hannah's cause of death as "alcoholism." Hannah is a major literary figure (and it's just pathetic that Robert Clark Young's own peacock entry is STILL longer and more glorious than Hannah's). Before it was merged with Young's main autobiography, his failed (and only) novel still had its own entry on Wikipedia, and none of Hannah's do. NaymanNoland (talk) 23:23, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is nice. But there are hundreds of people doing stuff like that right now. We just don't know who/where. It is the structure of the place that enables this. An individual getting caught here or there doesn't address the underlying, and truly damaging, premise.Dan Murphy (talk) 23:31, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For your statement at the Wikipediocracy RFAR. I would be most entertained to see an ArbCom-mandated purge of all links within Wikipedia to the Daily Mail website. AGK[•]01:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thank you I guess. I would be less entertained and more simply inclined to give the management of the website credit for doing something positive and useful that effects the contents of articles here for a change. Go on, I know you want to.Dan Murphy (talk) 01:10, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Recent reading
I just wanted to mention that I enjoyed reading your piece here, and I thought it was well-done and informative. I think you'd be a real asset to this website if you started contributing here again, but I completely understand (or at least I think I understand) your reasons for not doing so. Cheers. MastCellTalk17:45, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words. Short of being paid and/or given meaningful editorial control over my contributions, I'd rather gouge my eye out with a fork.Dan Murphy (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your post re paid editing. I see from your user page that you are a professional journalist. It would be helpful if you could weigh in on standard practices in publications concerning article subjects influencing articles, and the extent to which that is acceptable or not. Coretheapple (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since Wikipedia refuses to accept any of the rules that apply in writing environments in which accuracy is the highest priority, I wouldn't waste time in explaining reality on this issue here.Dan Murphy (talk) 20:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List link: Dan, the outing police might come after you for posting a link to the list of editors (or "crap" as one user, who seems to have got the hump, so charmingly puts it). How about simply unlinking those six words? The post would still make the point, and people can find their own way around. Anyway, just a thought. BTW, props for your connection with CSM. Writegeist (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notifying you about an ArbCom case concerning you
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Dan Murphy and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
The arbitration request involving you has been declined by the Committee. The comments made by arbitrators may be helpful in proceeding further. For the Arbitration Committee, Rschen775421:33, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that I have found our pilgrim's progress amusing and sad, nights. Things are afoot in Iraq, and bite-sized "expertise" is in demand. So will not be much here. (It is stunning how much of that poem can be worked into a Wikipedia allegory, no?) Go well.Dan Murphy (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to invite everyone to join the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. We are currently on demand for new members, the project was dying, but with your help we can revive it and make it one of the best WikiProjects. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Dfrr (talk) 10:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CSM piece
I just wanted to say that I thought your piece in the CSM about the Shapps case was quite well-done. I'm sure that the average reader's eyes glaze over when s/he gets to the part about checkusers and admins, but it's an admirable effort and I think you hit the nail on the head. MastCellTalk23:13, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I hope my comments on the AfD don't sound too harsh. Non-admins are permitted to close discussions following the conclusion of a 7-day waiting period, so long as they aren't making a deletion decision. Unless reverted by an administrator, this decision should be respected as the closing of the discussion. It is perfectly acceptable for you to reopen this issue at the deletion review forum or by seeking an administrator's review. The WP:Administrators' noticeboard might be helpful if you wish to do this. Thanks, North of Eden (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that WP:NACD says: "Participants, including participating administrators, should not reopen non-admin closures." The correct proceeding would be posting a notice at WP:AN to ask an admin to undo the NAC closure. Kraxler (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case opened
I've restored the article. You need to do a new AfD as there is more coverage since the last AfD, particularly the articles in the Sydney Morning Herald etc. —МандичкаYO 😜 10:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Dan for pitching in with such extensive assistance. I'm off to the fartsack with the thought that, collaboratively, working a page with your help from o to 30,000kb in a half-day, gives me, for one, the right to sleep with a good conscience. Best Nishidani (talk) 21:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pipe's meanderings don't belong anywhere round here (however, it's as of 2013 - the last time he "updated" that thing; never a retraction until then.)Dan Murphy (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted
Dan, I think you have tipped over the 1R tripwire at Jewish Israeli stone throwing, since your first edit today was a revert, and restoring what Debresser removed is another. This will get ironed out, but I'd suggest you just restore it to the earlier disemboweled version, which, in any case, if I understand the rules, it is Debresser's job to restore.Nishidani (talk) 14:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Dan--I saw a note you placed on a website that will not be mentioned, way back in January 2015, where a certain editor was discussed who is currently the subject of some conversation. You called it a "wonderful 'encyclopedic' creation", and that made me have a look at it. A search in Google Books suggests that it most likely is notable by our standards, which are admittedly low. A JSTOR search proves it a slang term for cigarette (or thin cigar), but that's another matter. Anyway, I pruned the article some since it suffered from excessive detail, and that detail undoubtedly originates in the advocacy you mentioned in that post. Happy days, Drmies (talk) 19:17, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others. The scope of this case is Gamaliel's recent actions (both administrative and otherwise), especially related to the Signpost April Fools Joke. The case will also examine the conduct of other editors who are directly involved in disputes with Gamaliel. The case is strictly intended to examine user conduct and alleged policy violations and will not examine broader topic areas. The clerks have been instructed to remove evidence which does not meet these requirements. The drafters will add additional parties as required during the case. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gamaliel and others/Evidence.
This [22] is what that article looked like when you made that comment.
I'd be interested in whether your view as to the success of the "anonymous crowsourcing mode" has changed since then, given the five and a half years of progress on the Jerusalem article. I ask as a passionate advocate for the WP:IPCOLL project.
It is structurally all wrong, filled with the wrong kind of information for an introduction, and the very definition of deathless prose. I suppose it is an improvement over the previous version. But that is faint praise indeed. Sorry I wasn't more encouraging. This is clearly the kind of subject matter that can not be taken on by enthusiastic amateurs without any professional oversight. In that scenario the best you can hope for is a strange, misleading, and meandering hodgepodge.Dan Murphy (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An arbitration case regarding Gamaliel and others has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
DHeyward (talk·contribs) is admonished for engaging in incivility and personal attacks on other editors. He is reminded that all editors are expected to engage respectfully and civilly with each other and to avoid making personal attacks.
For conduct which was below the standard expected of an administrator — namely making an incivil and inflammatory close summary on ANI, in which he perpetuated the perceived BLP violation and failed to adequately summarise the discussion — JzG is admonished.
Arkon is reminded that edit warring, even if exempt, is rarely an alternative to discussing the dispute with involved editors, as suggested at WP:CLOSECHALLENGE.
The community is encouraged to hold an RfC to supplement the existing WP:BLPTALK policy by developing further guidance on managing disputes about material involving living persons when that material appears outside of article space and is not directly related to article-content decisions.
Hello, Dan Murphy. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Dan Murphy. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I deleted your contribution because you misused WP:AE as a forum to express your views on actors in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That is not the purpose of AE. Rather, its purpose is to help admins decide whether certain user conduct violates Wikipedia community norms. I have deleted your contribution again. If you continue to make such contributions, you may be made subject to sanctions. Sandstein 08:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Dan Murphy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Dan Murphy. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Dan, would you please post the following in reply to [23]?
Dear fellow critics, thank you for your kind words. If one of you make a "Wikiproject Right Great Wrongs" I would join that. Please do not dox or out me. Thank you. EllenCT (talk) 03:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note to anyone from Wikipediocracy scrutin'n my contrib.'s: Please feel free to post that message to that thread too. EllenCT (talk) 04:39, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!
The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.
Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.
The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
When striking socks can you please place the <s> after the indents or it messes the conversation up and makes it really hard to see who was responding to what. TarnishedPathtalk14:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
