Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 02:14:15 -0600 From: Fred Bauder Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Checkuser verification errors
Make a claim that there was an error and request a second opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser. Our competence varies.
Fred Bauder
On Apr 25, 2006, at 9:03 PM, Cheney Shill wrote:
How does one resolve errors in checkuser results?~~~Pro-Lick
I made the request along with a request for other suggestions if declined and was "Declined" 4 days later without any explanation or proposed alternatives by Mackensen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#Checkuser_erro... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mackensen
Suggestions? Arbitration?~~~~Pro-Lick
--------------------------------- New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big.
What's the point, really? You've already admitted you're a sock of Halliburton Shill. Your email address is halliburton_shill@yahoo.com. Exactly why are you protesting findings of that to which you've already admitted?
k
On 4/30/06, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 02:14:15 -0600 From: Fred Bauder Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Checkuser verification errors
Make a claim that there was an error and request a second opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser. Our competence varies.
Fred Bauder
On Apr 25, 2006, at 9:03 PM, Cheney Shill wrote:
How does one resolve errors in checkuser results?~~~Pro-Lick
I made the request along with a request for other suggestions if declined and was "Declined" 4 days later without any explanation or proposed alternatives by Mackensen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_CheckUser#Checkuser_erro... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mackensen
Suggestions? Arbitration?~~~~Pro-Lick
New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC and save big. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:57:21 -0400, you wrote:
What's the point, really? You've already admitted you're a sock of Halliburton Shill. Your email address is halliburton_shill@yahoo.com. Exactly why are you protesting findings of that to which you've already admitted?
Point of information: he acknowledges that he previously edited as Halliburton Shill, but that he no longer does - as I understand it because the username was deemed inappropriate. That is different. Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote: On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:57:21 -0400, Katefan0 wrote:
What's the point, really? You've already admitted you're a sock of Halliburton Shill. Your email address is halliburton_shill@yahoo.com. Exactly why are you protesting findings of that to which you've already admitted?
Point of information: he acknowledges that he previously edited as Halliburton Shill, but that he no longer does - as I understand it because the username was deemed inappropriate. That is different. Guy (JzG) Thank you, JzG. That's more or less accurate. I was actually told by admins to get a new username because Halliburton Shill would not be allowed. I was not blocked from using Wiki, nor did I use Pro-Lick to re-vote on Halliburton Shill issues. Everything can be more or less found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Halliburton_Shill But it really should be kept in mind that it has nothing to do with the checkuser errors I'm addressing here.~~~~Pro-Lick
--------------------------------- How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! MessengerÂ’s low PC-to-Phone call rates.
Uh, actually, you did get blocked for 3RR violations using your many socks on [[Abortion]]. -Swatjester
On 4/30/06, Cheney Shill halliburton_shill@yahoo.com wrote:
Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote: On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 13:57:21 -0400, Katefan0 wrote:
What's the point, really? You've already admitted you're a sock of Halliburton Shill. Your email address is halliburton_shill@yahoo.com. Exactly why are you protesting findings of that to which you've already admitted?
Point of information: he acknowledges that he previously edited as Halliburton Shill, but that he no longer does - as I understand it because the username was deemed inappropriate. That is different. Guy (JzG) Thank you, JzG. That's more or less accurate. I was actually told by admins to get a new username because Halliburton Shill would not be allowed. I was not blocked from using Wiki, nor did I use Pro-Lick to re-vote on Halliburton Shill issues. Everything can be more or less found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Halliburton_Shill But it really should be kept in mind that it has nothing to do with the checkuser errors I'm addressing here.~~~~Pro-Lick
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-Phone call rates. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Dan Rosenthal IWVO National Legislative Director
On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 20:34:59 -0400, you wrote:
Uh, actually, you did get blocked for 3RR violations using your many socks on [[Abortion]]. -Swatjester
This, too, accords with my reading of the situation. It was this tendentious editing, not sock confusions resulting from the username issues, which resulted in the block. Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:This, too, accords with my reading of the situation. It was this tendentious editing, not sock confusions resulting from the username issues, which resulted in the block. Guy (JzG)
This is getting away from my question of how to resolve checkuser errors. Nonetheless, here's a response.
Tendentious by definition is POV pushing. POV pushing on Wikipedia is pushing an opinion that is inconsistent with what verifiable sources provide. However, my edits were all based on the overwhelming majority of sources (i.e., reputable and reliable). The list the main contributors to the article (of which I remain one despite my now nearly 3 week block) compiled: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion/Archive_18#Medical.2C_Reliable.2C... Compare those with an example of my edit to the current, unsourced version: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion&diff=46469735&old...
I was also the first to put up an RFC regarding the abortion article's introductory paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_comment%2... As a result, I'm finding it difficult to see how my edits qualify as tendentious.
--------------------------------- Love cheap thrills? Enjoy PC-to-Phone calls to 30+ countries for just 2¢/min with Yahoo! Messenger with Voice.
On Mon, 1 May 2006 11:11:08 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
Tendentious by definition is POV pushing.
Really? I have seen edit wars over minor nuances of phrasing that do not represent one point of view or another, just stylistic differences.
POV pushing on Wikipedia is pushing an opinion that is inconsistent with what verifiable sources provide.
Really? I have seen verifiable content soundly rejected by the active editors of an article on the grounds that, while verifiable, it represented such a minority view as to be essentially irrelevant - merely mentioning it accorded it undue weight. Guy (JzG)
Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote: On Mon, 1 May 2006 11:11:08 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
Tendentious by definition is POV pushing.
Really? I have seen edit wars over minor nuances of phrasing that do not represent one point of view or another, just stylistic
So, when you use tendentious, you mean edit warring? How do you define tendentious?~~~~
--------------------------------- Get amazing travel prices for air and hotel in one click on Yahoo! FareChase
Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 1 May 2006 11:11:08 -0700 (PDT), you wrote:
POV pushing on Wikipedia is pushing an opinion that is inconsistent with what verifiable sources provide.
Really? I have seen verifiable content soundly rejected by the active editors of an article on the grounds that, while verifiable, it represented such a minority view as to be essentially irrelevant - merely mentioning it accorded it undue weight.
Evidently, for some any view other than theirs represents an irrelevant minority. :-)
Ec
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote: Guy Chapman aka JzG wrote:
On Mon, 1 May 2006 11:11:08 -0700 (PDT), Pro-Lick wrote:
POV pushing on Wikipedia is pushing an opinion that is inconsistent with what verifiable sources provide.
Really? I have seen verifiable content soundly rejected by the active editors of an article on the grounds that, while verifiable, it represented such a minority view as to be essentially irrelevant - merely mentioning it accorded it undue weight.
Evidently, for some any view other than theirs represents an irrelevant minority. :-) Ec
I don't have any problem with the example JzG provides. I was hoping when I wrote the POV line that there was already enough context. I should have provided more. So, for future consideration on the issue of what is and is not tendentious, my revised version:
POV pushing on Wikipedia is pushing an opinion that is inconsistent with what the majority of verifiable sources provide or disproportionate with how other verifiable minority views are presented.
That seems to summarize http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:POV_pushing well too. The article goes a bit further and states that it applies if "only one point of view" is shown. That article is not policy or guideline, however (which isn't a statement as to whether or not it should be).~~~~Pro-Lick
--------------------------------- Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great rates starting at 1¢/min.