Just to be clear, here's a few diffs I don't consider vandalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Little_Green_Footballs&diff=pr... - Adds a link to event in question, and more information on term coined by the site.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Church_of_Scientology&diff=pre... - Information on the "free personality test" that the Church of Scientology uses. The same sources are used on the [[Oxford Capacity Analysis]] article we have, and the sources have not been challenged. I cannot in good conscience term this "vandalism" or "POV Pushing."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rehabilitation_Project_Force&d... - Expands the list of accusations which have been leveled at the Scientology Rehabilitation Project Force, but it includes a source. Without challenging the source, I can't consider this vandalism either.
There are other edits I would consider POV pushing, but here's the thing: that is NOT an excuse to institute an indefinite block. That's a reason to teach the user about our policies and try to get them working as a productive editor.
And yes, I know full well we've had problems on Scientology articles in the past. Our controversial articles attract new users all the time, because controversy attracts eyes, and there's no doubt Scientology is highly controversial as well as being stirred up by the South Park controversy.
But as I see this case, it's a classic example of violating BITE. There was no welcome message or anything posted to either user, and the same hair-trigger admin was involved in both cases.
To post such a dismissive analysis? I won't question your good faith or motivation, but I have to question the validity of your claim.
Parker
On 10/8/06, Parker Peters onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
And I disagree with your assessment. Non-righteous block, fraudulent claim of "vandalism only" account, edits had sources including sources brought from other articles on wikipedia that have not been challenged.
Parker
On 10/8/06, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
On Sat, 7 Oct 2006 18:50:40 -0500, "Parker Peters" onmywayoutster@gmail.com wrote:
The "original" account was claimed to be NoLongerScieno (blocked for "name..") and the second account was ScienoSitter. Possible sockpuppet? Certainly. Worthy of blocking under name block? Maybe. Wrongful to tag as a "vandalism only" account and wrongful to block for
being a sockpuppet of a username block? Definitely.
I reviewed the edits of both accounts, 100% vandalism (POV-pushing). Righteous block. Next case, please.
Guy (JzG)
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l