Some admins watch recent changes, and have vandalism in progress on their watchlists. Other don't. Rick is one of the former. In fact, he deals with vandalism a lot! His user page regularly gets vandalised, and his talk page regularly gets messages from vandals that he has blocked (Who are trying to troll him, or merely expressing an opinion about his sexuality, or his mothers sexuality etc ;-). He probably mistook you for one.
Theresa
-----Original Message----- From: R E Broadley [mailto:20041111@stardate.freeserve.co.uk] Sent: 26 November 2004 11:37 Cc: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: A user seems to have spent the day revertingarticles which appeared to be legitamite edits
And the fact that he deleted the contents of his talk page as soon as I'd started this discussion with him also seemed suspicious to me. Why would he delete our discussion unless he had something to hide?
R E Broadley wrote:
Tim,
One of us is interpreting the diff displays backwards. I thought it was RickK doing the deleting, (including the deletion of the
asterisk).
I shall double-check.
Apologies in advance if it was me reading it wrong, although from one of the comments RickK said to me, he did actually confirm that he was removing stuff, which reinforced my belief that I was interpreting the
diff logs correctly.
Regards, Edmund
Tim Starling wrote:
R E Broadley wrote:
When I went back to the users talk page, I noticed that they had deleted their talk page, along with the recent discussion on the reverts,
but
thanks to Wikipedia history, I managed to capture the URL of a
version
where the discussion was still there. It is here below:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:RickK&oldid=7859165 #Articles_reverted_but_no_reason_given
The reverts in question look fine to me. The edits were:
- Unexplained removal of text saying that the gospels were "compiled
from a much larger literature in 327AD under the orders of Constantine the Great", rolled back
- Sneaky removal of an asterisk, breaking a bulleted list, rolled
back
- Unexplained deletion of a paragraph, rolled back
This isn't a violation of policy. I think it's odd that Rebroad characterised these edits as follows:
"I appreciate there were spelling mistakes that were obvious to you, but I'm guessing they weren't obvious to the person who put some effort into adding the additional information. And if you felt it was
biased, couldn't you have let them know this also?"
RickK was not correcting spelling or removing biased information, he was reverting deletion. I think he was well within his rights to remove this complaint from his talk page. I wouldn't mind if the complainant was removed from this mailing list either.
-- Tim Starling
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It was no mistake. This person is a troll. This is the same person who came onto the mailing list as an anon, expressing amazement that his edits to the September 11 attacks page were reverted. His wide-eyed innocent act doesn't fool me. He's already filed an RfC on me even though I explained to him on his Talk page why I had acted in the manner I did on the edits he's questioning. I have no desire to continue discussion with him.
RickK
"KNOTT, T" tknott@qcl.org.uk wrote: Some admins watch recent changes, and have vandalism in progress on their watchlists. Other don't. Rick is one of the former. In fact, he deals with vandalism a lot! His user page regularly gets vandalised, and his talk page regularly gets messages from vandals that he has blocked (Who are trying to troll him, or merely expressing an opinion about his sexuality, or his mothers sexuality etc ;-). He probably mistook you for one.
Theresa
-----Original Message----- From: R E Broadley [mailto:20041111@stardate.freeserve.co.uk] Sent: 26 November 2004 11:37 Cc: English Wikipedia Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Re: A user seems to have spent the day revertingarticles which appeared to be legitamite edits
And the fact that he deleted the contents of his talk page as soon as I'd started this discussion with him also seemed suspicious to me. Why would he delete our discussion unless he had something to hide?
R E Broadley wrote:
Tim,
One of us is interpreting the diff displays backwards. I thought it was RickK doing the deleting, (including the deletion of the
asterisk).
I shall double-check.
Apologies in advance if it was me reading it wrong, although from one of the comments RickK said to me, he did actually confirm that he was removing stuff, which reinforced my belief that I was interpreting the
diff logs correctly.
Regards, Edmund
Tim Starling wrote:
R E Broadley wrote:
When I went back to the users talk page, I noticed that they had deleted their talk page, along with the recent discussion on the reverts,
but
thanks to Wikipedia history, I managed to capture the URL of a
version
where the discussion was still there. It is here below:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:RickK&oldid=7859165 #Articles_reverted_but_no_reason_given
The reverts in question look fine to me. The edits were:
- Unexplained removal of text saying that the gospels were "compiled
from a much larger literature in 327AD under the orders of Constantine the Great", rolled back
- Sneaky removal of an asterisk, breaking a bulleted list, rolled
back
- Unexplained deletion of a paragraph, rolled back
This isn't a violation of policy. I think it's odd that Rebroad characterised these edits as follows:
"I appreciate there were spelling mistakes that were obvious to you, but I'm guessing they weren't obvious to the person who put some effort into adding the additional information. And if you felt it was
biased, couldn't you have let them know this also?"
RickK was not correcting spelling or removing biased information, he was reverting deletion. I think he was well within his rights to remove this complaint from his talk page. I wouldn't mind if the complainant was removed from this mailing list either.
-- Tim Starling
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? All your favorites on one personal page � Try My Yahoo!
I'm seriously concerned about a recent arbcom enforcement. A ban was ordered against [[User:C Colden]] as per the ruling in the case of Lyndon LaRouche.
C Colden was not a Wikipedia user when the LaRouche ruling was made. He was not a party to that case. However, the ruling of the case, apparently, was a ruling against the insertion of "original research originating with the LaRouche movement" (Which seems to be an interchangable phrase with "the LaRouche point of view") into any article by any user.
This seems to me to reflect a hard arbcom ruling that the LaRouche POV is not something that need be included under the Wikipedia NPOV policy. As loathesome as I find the LaRouche movement to be, I am seriously troubled by the notion that the arbcom can and will make blanket rulings that certain perspectives are not part of NPOV.
-Snowspinner
It is not that Lyndon LaRouche is not important or significant or that an article which concerns him or his political activities are not subject to the NPOV policy. The decision is based on experience with his supporters which involve insistance that the LaRouche perspective be included articles which relate to him only in peripheral ways. However, it is quite possible that [[User:C Colden]]'s edit warring on behalf of that perspective was engaged in without knowledge of the ruling and perhaps a warning would have been appropriate first.
"The three users are inserting claims into [[Lyndon LaRouche]] and [[Frederick Wills]], without third-party attribution, which are designed to enhance the image of Lyndon LaRouche, and have reverted deletion of the claims three times in the last 16 hours.
Frederick Wills was a former Guyana government official who later in life became a member of the [[Schiller Institute]], which is part of the LaRouche movement. In 1976, before there is evidence of his involvement with LaRouche, he apparently gave a speech to the U.N. advocating a third world debt moratorium. The above users are inserting that he gave this speech only after coming into contact with LaRouche, and that the speech was designed to promote LaRouche's proposal. They've provided no evidence to support this claim. Wills has died and therefore can't be asked what's true. This is an attempt to claim ownership on behalf of LaRouche of Wills' proposal on debt relief."
See [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Admin_enforcement_requested#Enough _is_enough]]
The problem is that LaRouche has over a long career taken a number of positions, a very great many of which have been noted by no one outside his movement or those who oppose him, but arguably could be included in a great many Wikipedia articles. His endorsement of third world debt relief is typical. He didn't propose it first, no one of significance noted his endorsement of it, but according to him, he is a noted statesman with respect to this issue. This particular article is somewhat ambiguous as Frederick Wills did eventually affiliate with LaRouche activities.
That said, the proper course of action for Caroline Colden is to appeal to Jimbo.
Fred
From: Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 20:57:58 -0600 To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: [WikiEN-l] Arbcom Overstepping
I'm seriously concerned about a recent arbcom enforcement. A ban was ordered against [[User:C Colden]] as per the ruling in the case of Lyndon LaRouche.
C Colden was not a Wikipedia user when the LaRouche ruling was made. He was not a party to that case. However, the ruling of the case, apparently, was a ruling against the insertion of "original research originating with the LaRouche movement" (Which seems to be an interchangable phrase with "the LaRouche point of view") into any article by any user.
This seems to me to reflect a hard arbcom ruling that the LaRouche POV is not something that need be included under the Wikipedia NPOV policy. As loathesome as I find the LaRouche movement to be, I am seriously troubled by the notion that the arbcom can and will make blanket rulings that certain perspectives are not part of NPOV.
-Snowspinner
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
That said, the proper course of action for Caroline Colden is to appeal to Jimbo.
Caroline Colden was not directly subject to an arbcom ruling, and therefore an appeal to me is unnecessary. Any sysop can unban the user, as the blocking appears to have been made based on a misinterpretation of the arbcom ruling.
The arbcom's remit does not extend to the content any more than mine did. That is to say, sweeping rulings about future users with respect to any particular point of view are misplaced. This is not an open invitation for LaRouche supporters to misbehave, of course. But the point is that it is misbehavior (including persistent POV editing) that has to be dealth with.
--Jimbo
This does not appear to the be only case of POV censoring by ArbCom see the WP:RFAR vs Lance6Wins.
The Daniel Pipes POV is also censored.
Lance6Wins
--- Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
I'm seriously concerned about a recent arbcom enforcement. A ban was ordered against [[User:C Colden]] as per the ruling in the case of Lyndon LaRouche.
C Colden was not a Wikipedia user when the LaRouche ruling was made. He was not a party to that case. However, the ruling of the case, apparently, was a ruling against the insertion of "original research originating with the LaRouche movement" (Which seems to be an interchangable phrase with "the LaRouche point of view") into any article by any user.
This seems to me to reflect a hard arbcom ruling that the LaRouche POV is not something that need be included under the Wikipedia NPOV policy. As loathesome as I find the LaRouche movement to be, I am seriously troubled by the notion that the arbcom can and will make blanket rulings that certain perspectives are not part of NPOV.
-Snowspinner
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
No, your right to insert the Daniel Pipes POV is removed. That ruling makes no attempt to affect the right of other users to address Pipes's viewpoints. Just you.
-Snowspinner
On Nov 28, 2004, at 11:41 AM, Harry Smith wrote:
This does not appear to the be only case of POV censoring by ArbCom see the WP:RFAR vs Lance6Wins.
The Daniel Pipes POV is also censored.
Lance6Wins
--- Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
I'm seriously concerned about a recent arbcom enforcement. A ban was ordered against [[User:C Colden]] as per the ruling in the case of Lyndon LaRouche.
C Colden was not a Wikipedia user when the LaRouche ruling was made. He was not a party to that case. However, the ruling of the case, apparently, was a ruling against the insertion of "original research originating with the LaRouche movement" (Which seems to be an interchangable phrase with "the LaRouche point of view") into any article by any user.
This seems to me to reflect a hard arbcom ruling that the LaRouche POV is not something that need be included under the Wikipedia NPOV policy. As loathesome as I find the LaRouche movement to be, I am seriously troubled by the notion that the arbcom can and will make blanket rulings that certain perspectives are not part of NPOV.
-Snowspinner
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
And if that ruling is applied to each person who inserts "Daniel Pipes POV" ? Then is it not censorship ?
Why should the restiction on "Daniel Pipes POV" be applied to only one person ?
--- Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
No, your right to insert the Daniel Pipes POV is removed. That ruling makes no attempt to affect the right of other users to address Pipes's viewpoints. Just you.
-Snowspinner
On Nov 28, 2004, at 11:41 AM, Harry Smith wrote:
This does not appear to the be only case of POV censoring by ArbCom see the WP:RFAR vs Lance6Wins.
The Daniel Pipes POV is also censored.
Lance6Wins
--- Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
I'm seriously concerned about a recent arbcom enforcement. A ban was ordered against [[User:C Colden]] as per the
ruling
in the case of Lyndon LaRouche.
C Colden was not a Wikipedia user when the
LaRouche
ruling was made. He was not a party to that case. However, the ruling
of
the case, apparently, was a ruling against the insertion of "original research originating with the LaRouche movement" (Which
seems
to be an interchangable phrase with "the LaRouche point of view") into any article by any user.
This seems to me to reflect a hard arbcom ruling that the LaRouche POV is not something that need be included under the Wikipedia NPOV policy. As loathesome as I find the LaRouche movement to
be,
I am seriously troubled by the notion that the arbcom can and
will
make blanket rulings that certain perspectives are not part of NPOV.
-Snowspinner
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Because of tenditious point of view editing and edit warring.
Fred
From: Harry Smith lance6wins@yahoo.com Reply-To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 09:56:56 -0800 (PST) To: English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Arbcom Overstepping
And if that ruling is applied to each person who inserts "Daniel Pipes POV" ? Then is it not censorship ?
Why should the restiction on "Daniel Pipes POV" be applied to only one person ?
That's what I wondered, although I'm sure it will be made clear soon.
Harry Smith wrote:
And if that ruling is applied to each person who inserts "Daniel Pipes POV" ? Then is it not censorship ?
Why should the restiction on "Daniel Pipes POV" be applied to only one person ?
--- Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
No, your right to insert the Daniel Pipes POV is removed. That ruling makes no attempt to affect the right of other users to address Pipes's viewpoints. Just you.
On Sunday, November 28, 2004 5:48 PM, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
On Nov 28, 2004, at 11:41 AM, Harry Smith wrote:
This does not appear to the be only case of POV censoring by ArbCom see the WP:RFAR vs Lance6Wins.
The Daniel Pipes POV is also censored.
Lance6Wins
No, your right to insert the Daniel Pipes POV is removed. That ruling makes no attempt to affect the right of other users to address Pipes's viewpoints. Just you.
-Snowspinner
IIRC, the wording of that was slightly unclear; it was not what seemed be Lance6Wins's personal POV, which we noted was very similar to that Daniel Pipes's, that was the problem, but that he was apparently unable to prevent himself from inserting it in a non-NPOV manner in said articles.
[Snip]
Yours,
Could you provide an/couple example(s) please ?
--- "James D. Forrester" james@jdforrester.org wrote:
On Sunday, November 28, 2004 5:48 PM, Phil Sandifer sandifer@sbcglobal.net wrote:
On Nov 28, 2004, at 11:41 AM, Harry Smith wrote:
This does not appear to the be only case of POV
censoring by ArbCom
see the WP:RFAR vs Lance6Wins.
The Daniel Pipes POV is also censored.
Lance6Wins
No, your right to insert the Daniel Pipes POV is
removed.
That ruling makes no attempt to affect the right
of other
users to address Pipes's viewpoints. Just you.
-Snowspinner
IIRC, the wording of that was slightly unclear; it was not what seemed be Lance6Wins's personal POV, which we noted was very similar to that Daniel Pipes's, that was the problem, but that he was apparently unable to prevent himself from inserting it in a non-NPOV manner in said articles.
[Snip]
Yours,
James D. Forrester -- Wikimedia: [[W:en:User:Jdforrester|James F.]]
Mail: james@jdforrester.org | jon@eh.org | csvla@dcs.warwick.ac.uk IM : (MSN) jamesdforrester@hotmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
James D. Forrester wrote:
IIRC, the wording of that was slightly unclear; it was not what seemed be Lance6Wins's personal POV, which we noted was very similar to that Daniel Pipes's, that was the problem, but that he was apparently unable to prevent himself from inserting it in a non-NPOV manner in said articles.
Very very well said.
It is appropriate in these cases for the ArbCom to consider a "soft" solution like this rather than a complete ban on all participation. It is important to recognize the following general principles:
1. The ArbCom deals with behavioral issues, and not directly with content issues. When the behavioral issue is persistent bad POV editing, then of course there is an interface to the content issue. But it is the behavior which is the problem.
2. The ArbCom can not and should not (and in my opinion has not ever) attempted to subject certain points of view to extra restrictions. There was some confusion about this in the case of LaRouche, but I think this was an unfortunate wording and misinterpretation.
----
In the LaRouche case, the problem is that publications produced by LaRouche and affiliated organizations are not suitable for routine citation as ordinary documents in the same way as other documents. This is not unique to LaRouche, of course, but is true of a wide variety of pov publications. The decision of how to handle this is complex and not easily (nor properly) subject to a hard and fast rule, but is rather a job for serious editors to undertake thoughtfully.
--Jimbo
Dear Rick,
You misunderstand me, but it's ok, most people do, so I won't take it personally. I'm not sure what you mean by me being on the mailing list anonymously, is my name or email address hidden?
I would say this. Power corrupts, and without adequate self-analysis, one can become arrogant, throw their weight around, and revert any edits on the spot just because they didn't understand what the person had written. Your Chicago edit today for instance, if you'd merely clicked on the "world city" article, you would have been able to find out what an "alpha world city" is, but instead you just removed the word "alpha" from the article, because you weren't familiar with the term. At least you gave a reason in your edit comments though, which is an improvement, so thanks, I was then able to reword the article with the knowledge of why it had been changed.
Regards, Ed
Rick wrote:
It was no mistake. This person is a troll. This is the same person who came onto the mailing list as an anon, expressing amazement that his edits to the September 11 attacks page were reverted. His wide-eyed innocent act doesn't fool me. He's already filed an RfC on me even though I explained to him on his Talk page why I had acted in the manner I did on the edits he's questioning. I have no desire to continue discussion with him.
RickK
"KNOTT, T" tknott@qcl.org.uk wrote: Some admins watch recent changes, and have vandalism in progress on their watchlists. Other don't. Rick is one of the former. In fact, he deals with vandalism a lot! His user page regularly gets vandalised, and his talk page regularly gets messages from vandals that he has blocked (Who are trying to troll him, or merely expressing an opinion about his sexuality, or his mothers sexuality etc ;-). He probably mistook you for one.
Theresa
You seem to be stalking me. I'd request that you go off and work on your own subjects and stop trying to redo everything I do.
RickK
R E Broadley 20041111@stardate.freeserve.co.uk wrote: Dear Rick,
You misunderstand me, but it's ok, most people do, so I won't take it personally. I'm not sure what you mean by me being on the mailing list anonymously, is my name or email address hidden?
I would say this. Power corrupts, and without adequate self-analysis, one can become arrogant, throw their weight around, and revert any edits on the spot just because they didn't understand what the person had written. Your Chicago edit today for instance, if you'd merely clicked on the "world city" article, you would have been able to find out what an "alpha world city" is, but instead you just removed the word "alpha" from the article, because you weren't familiar with the term. At least you gave a reason in your edit comments though, which is an improvement, so thanks, I was then able to reword the article with the knowledge of why it had been changed.
Regards, Ed
Rick wrote:
It was no mistake. This person is a troll. This is the same person who came onto the mailing list as an anon, expressing amazement that his edits to the September 11 attacks page were reverted. His wide-eyed innocent act doesn't fool me. He's already filed an RfC on me even though I explained to him on his Talk page why I had acted in the manner I did on the edits he's questioning. I have no desire to continue discussion with him.
RickK
"KNOTT, T" wrote: Some admins watch recent changes, and have vandalism in progress on their watchlists. Other don't. Rick is one of the former. In fact, he deals with vandalism a lot! His user page regularly gets vandalised, and his talk page regularly gets messages from vandals that he has blocked (Who are trying to troll him, or merely expressing an opinion about his sexuality, or his mothers sexuality etc ;-). He probably mistook you for one.
Theresa
_______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
--------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.