| Revision as of 00:58, 20 April 2012 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,224 edits →RFC: How to solve← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:10, 20 April 2012 edit undoMeowy (talk | contribs)8,706 edits →RFCNext edit → | ||
| Line 204: | Line 204: | ||
| ::::I replied on talk pages in the article but overall I am not happy with how this article is being handled by sysops. First, the allegations on primary sources by Grandmaster is a bad faith mis-characterization of what is in the article; see my comments on talk pages http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh#Topics_for_the_RfC. The added material that Grandmaster removed is based on secondary sources which comment primary sources. Primary sources are used for reference to the original source as illustration so that the reader could learn from where the secondary sources derive their comments from. That is it. Second, Grandmaster's stance on sources is bad faith. I will bring Winter's example with ] which Grandmaster edited. This indeed is an absurd article completely based on Azerbaijani hate websites and state propaganda sources. Grandmaster never bothered to question the validity of those sources whereas here he kills himself posing as a super-expert in WP:NPOV and WP:PRIMARY. You need to create a level playing field for a true discussion to take place. I propose to unblock Winterblist and Dehr since their violations clearly donot merit a block. And you need to put Grandmaster under sanctions for essentially impersonating an administrator, and for his removal of text agreed upon by several editors. Instead you give him and his ruwiki meats a pat on the back. ] (]) 22:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC) | ::::I replied on talk pages in the article but overall I am not happy with how this article is being handled by sysops. First, the allegations on primary sources by Grandmaster is a bad faith mis-characterization of what is in the article; see my comments on talk pages http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh#Topics_for_the_RfC. The added material that Grandmaster removed is based on secondary sources which comment primary sources. Primary sources are used for reference to the original source as illustration so that the reader could learn from where the secondary sources derive their comments from. That is it. Second, Grandmaster's stance on sources is bad faith. I will bring Winter's example with ] which Grandmaster edited. This indeed is an absurd article completely based on Azerbaijani hate websites and state propaganda sources. Grandmaster never bothered to question the validity of those sources whereas here he kills himself posing as a super-expert in WP:NPOV and WP:PRIMARY. You need to create a level playing field for a true discussion to take place. I propose to unblock Winterblist and Dehr since their violations clearly donot merit a block. And you need to put Grandmaster under sanctions for essentially impersonating an administrator, and for his removal of text agreed upon by several editors. Instead you give him and his ruwiki meats a pat on the back. ] (]) 22:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::::It's reasonable to assume that some number of socks are still operating on both sides of this conflict. That poses difficulties for trying to resolve the issues at ] by simply counting the number of editors who vote for each side of a question. It may be appropriate to focus in on a small number of issues for review and try to put them before a broader community, among whose numbers there will be fewer socks. The question of usage of primary sources could be one such issue. From the article talk page I can't get much insight as to the degree that primary sources are currently being used. The quality of the discussion on the talk page doesn't seem very high. Somebody who doesn't work in this area would have a lot of trouble getting oriented as to the main issues. In your comment at the article talk you argue that "interpretation is allowed with the support of secondary sources." There are examples in the article of primary sources being used directly (with no filtering through a secondary source). For example the Ancient Greek author Strabo is cited as an authority for a matter of fact in reference 10, regarding the name Orkhistene. I agree that use of both Armenian and Azeri primary sources ought to be scrutinized. ] (]) 00:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC) | :::::It's reasonable to assume that some number of socks are still operating on both sides of this conflict. That poses difficulties for trying to resolve the issues at ] by simply counting the number of editors who vote for each side of a question. It may be appropriate to focus in on a small number of issues for review and try to put them before a broader community, among whose numbers there will be fewer socks. The question of usage of primary sources could be one such issue. From the article talk page I can't get much insight as to the degree that primary sources are currently being used. The quality of the discussion on the talk page doesn't seem very high. Somebody who doesn't work in this area would have a lot of trouble getting oriented as to the main issues. In your comment at the article talk you argue that "interpretation is allowed with the support of secondary sources." There are examples in the article of primary sources being used directly (with no filtering through a secondary source). For example the Ancient Greek author Strabo is cited as an authority for a matter of fact in reference 10, regarding the name Orkhistene. I agree that use of both Armenian and Azeri primary sources ought to be scrutinized. ] (]) 00:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::Yep, Grandmaster risks a bonfire of his own primary sources. The blocking of Winterblist and Dehr is extraordinary, but nobody invents a new weapon without having an overwhelming desire to try it out as soon as possible and those two were available targets. ] 01:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 01:10, 20 April 2012
User:NULL
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Request for removal of protection on Gold Standard article
It seems that page protection is being used for "content control" on the article. In the latest version I am supposed to have engaged in synthesis and OR. Several attempts to get the complainer to state exactly what I synthesized have been ignored for the plain and simple reason that I did not synthesize anything. Pretty mush all the material I added was in the Legal Tender Cases article. The complaint of synthesis was a fallback position to a complaint on the use of primary sources which I demolished.
http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Gold_standard#wiki_policy_on_primary_sources
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:ArtifexMayhem#Gold_standard71.174.135.204 (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing prevents you from opening a WP:Request for comment on the article talk page. If editors agree with you there, then it is expected that the change will be made in the article. Before semiprotection was applied, your own changes to the Gold standard article seem to have been routinely reverted. This suggests you do not have consensus for the reforms you desire. EdJohnston (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- It seems that the general run of wiki editors LOVE to shove wiki policy down ones throat without having read those exact same policies. This current tempest is one in a long line of that kind of conduct. For instance one editor deleted material because it was based on a book review and he thought it was against wiki policies to include references to book reviews. Wiki policies do in fact allow references to book reviews. One editor even deleted material which stated that higher interest rates reward savers and punish debtors because he disagreed with it. He must never have had a bank account or taken out a loan. From that experience I firmly believe that wiki should cull the terminally stupid from its ranks of editors. While not as severe, this current dispute involves material on the US gold standard which is already included in the wiki article on the Legal Tender Cases. If it is included in that wiki article, with acceptable references, why is it OR or synthesis or some other made up excuse, when included in another wiki article, with pretty much those exact same references?71.174.135.204 (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Feel free to persuade the other editors at Talk:Gold standard that you are right about this. Your own record does not suggest that you understand or respect consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- It seems that the general run of wiki editors LOVE to shove wiki policy down ones throat without having read those exact same policies. This current tempest is one in a long line of that kind of conduct. For instance one editor deleted material because it was based on a book review and he thought it was against wiki policies to include references to book reviews. Wiki policies do in fact allow references to book reviews. One editor even deleted material which stated that higher interest rates reward savers and punish debtors because he disagreed with it. He must never have had a bank account or taken out a loan. From that experience I firmly believe that wiki should cull the terminally stupid from its ranks of editors. While not as severe, this current dispute involves material on the US gold standard which is already included in the wiki article on the Legal Tender Cases. If it is included in that wiki article, with acceptable references, why is it OR or synthesis or some other made up excuse, when included in another wiki article, with pretty much those exact same references?71.174.135.204 (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
- Consensus does not mean that I have to accept a looney's opinion that savers get PUNISHED and debtors REWARDED by higher interest rates. See wiki policy on fringe opinion.71.174.135.204 (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Prostitution in South Korea
'Chinese Prostitute in korea' Is a pre-existing data. but User Azload(Smiling Demon Lord) again and again Blindly deletes it. and 'Chinese Prostitute in korea' is far from Human Trafficking . therefore, 'Chinese Prostitute in korea' Preserve this section plz, — Preceding unsigned comment added by OOggii (talk • contribs) 04:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:RS.
Are you saying that every source could be used even if WP:RSN says its unreliable?There are only one editor suggested that biased sources(and I agree with him actually) should be used with attribution he did't even speak about IRMEP specifically most of the editors said that its unreliable and shouldn't be used in Wikipeida because its not "an institute", not everyone that setup webpage and call him "institute" is really is.--Shrike (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Even if I mistaken about the policy my AE report was in good faith so I don't think should be sanctioned just because my misunderstanding--Shrike (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- You're still not getting this. Facts and opinions are different. I don't personally see IRMEP's opinion in this case as being terribly interesting, but they are a reliable source for what their own *opinion* is. That is not in doubt. EdJohnston (talk) 13:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Its not just their opinion its factual statement about their donors.In case of ADL it was attributed too nevertheless you thought than sanction is on the order. But what I don't understand how can your overlook the comments of uninvolved editors in WP:RSN.--Shrike (talk) 06:22, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Haller's Blue Army
I'd like to ask for assistance in resolving a neutrality issue on Haller's Blue Army page. As a anno IP, I understand that I'm at a disadvantage here. But, I do believe that I have a legitimate case against users Faustian and Malik Shabazz. Both of them are re-adding text that was deemed as inaccurate through discussion on the "Talk" page, and when I tried to remove the disputed phrases, they both went on the offensive, accused me of war editing, and threatened to block me. Yet, they totally disregarded any fault in their own actions. I also bought up a legitimate issue that the entire "Controversies" section is written in a language that holds a "POV" and the linguistic style used is sensational in nature. To illustrate my case, take the US military in Iraq, you could fill an entire Wiki page full of individual cases of war time brutality against civilians, and call the US military "anti-Islamic crusaders". But, you don't find that kind of language used on such a page. Same standard should be applied in the Blue Army articel. Some soldiers did commit brutality against local Jewish and Ukrainian civilians. But, as user Faustian himself noted on the "Talk" page, they viewed them as Bolshevik collaborators, and to further prove my case, Polish-Jews who were loyal to Poland, served with-in the army's ranks, so you can't just call this a case of anti-semitism, and you can't frame this narrative in such a blunt way, only seeing things in black and white. So, in the end I ask for assistance in this matter, and ask that we bring in neutral parties to look at this issue. --91.150.222.225 (talk) 21:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- This false claim about "re-adding text that was deemed inaccurate" is debunked, with links, here: . Blaming the Jewish victims by claiming they were all Bolsheviks is not nice, either.Faustian (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, no... Faustian, here is what you are intentionaly leaving out. You continue to insert this statement in the introductory paragraph: "Some soldiers from the Blue army were involved in antisemitic actions during the struggle in the east".
- Yet, back in January you yourself agreed that such a statement is out of place in the introductory paragraph. Please see what you wrote below:
- Discussed on the "Talk" page: I will look over this again in more detail later. Taking a quick glance for now, it does seem like the sentence in the lede "While fighting in the East, soldiers from the Blue Army also engaged in antisemitic violence." implies that this characterized the entire formation and all the soldiers of the army. Given that Haller and others condemned whatever excesses happened and made efforts to stop them this does not appear to be an accurate implication.VolunteerMarek 05:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Changed!Faustian (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, I changed it by adding "some", and VM accepted that change. You were edit-warring to remove the version with "some." Please stop wasting others' time.Faustian (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- No further comments. --91.150.222.225 (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hello 91.150.222.225. Per the 3RR report here you have violated WP:SOCK by carrying on a dispute at Blue Army (Poland) with multiple IPs. Come back and ask your question here again when you have acquired good standing, for example by registering an account. EdJohnston (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- No further comments. --91.150.222.225 (talk) 21:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- With all due respect... I'm using a commercial net-service, if they have an alternating IP address, than I can't do anything about that, and ask that we focus on the dispute itself, not trying to label me a sock puppet. --91.150.222.225 (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- You've already violated WP:SOCK and are eligible for a block right now. Editing any disputed article with an IP is frowned upon. A fluctuating IP has no usable talk page on which people can leave messages. EdJohnston (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- With all due respect... I'm using a commercial net-service, if they have an alternating IP address, than I can't do anything about that, and ask that we focus on the dispute itself, not trying to label me a sock puppet. --91.150.222.225 (talk) 22:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, going forward I will set up a profile. But, just to prove my case, user Faustian just added that disputed sentence back into the article, right after you restricted the page. Why is he not blocked for edit warring? Please excuse my direct tone, but that is why many people out there see Misplaced Pages as losing its credibility. I think that my case is legitimage, and if user Faustian was truly committed to creating a neutral, and informative article he would have requested help form a un-bias third party as I requested, instead of engaging in edit waring, and then blaming it on me.--91.150.222.225 (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- I re-added something that had already been accepted by a neutral third party, Volunteer Marek (who can hardly be accused of anti-Polish bias!), as described here: and which is well-sourced.Faustian (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- No, you changed it by removing the entire statement back in January, please see your own edits... then when everyone agreed and left the discussion you went back in and added the sentence with the word "some"... But, that's just disingenuous, to say the least, and that's how you are discrediting yourself. --91.150.222.225 (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- The nice thing about wikipedia is that lies are easily disproven: . Please stop being disruptive.Faustian (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
- Faustian, I understand that you have contributed to Misplaced Pages in the past, so excuse my blunt language, but you are lying to cover yourself. Look at your last edit dated 15:24, 9 January 2012 Faustian (talk | contribs) that is also the last edit for January that ended the discussion, you removed the disputed phrase, and the neutrality tag. --91.150.222.225 (talk) 06:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
ConfirmAccount extension
Hey :). You're being contacted because you are involved in the ACC process, or participated in the original discussion in '08 about the ConfirmAccount extension. This is a note to let you know that we are seeking opinions on switching this extension on, effectively making the ACC process via the Toolserver redundant. You can read all the details here; I would be very grateful if people would indicate how they feel about the idea :). Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 13:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
User:EdJohnston/GKOS keyboard
Hi Ed, I've moved all the edits that you userfied on this page back to the main namespace, because I thought there was no reason not to restore the old history. I came across this page while importing old edits by Css. Graham87 14:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- You put the deleted revisions under the redirect. Seems harmless. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:16, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
More problems with gold standard
A bias tag has been removed with NO, ZIP, ZERO discussion of the issues that caused it to be placed there. This removal is in violation of wiki policy, which requires discussion of the issues raised.
Please restore the tag or unprotect the article so that I can restore it.71.174.135.204 (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- Come back after you've gained consensus for your changes at Talk:Gold standard. You don't seem to be getting any traction there. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
- I would appreciate an answer to the question I asked and you deleted. Does or does not wiki policy state that a bias tag stays on until the issues causing it to be placed are resolved? When were those issues resolved?
- And I would really really like to know WHY I was banned for a reporting a 3rr violation? which was in fact a 3rr violation. A violation on which the only action you took was to ban the person that reported that 3rr violation. Seems a bit biased to me. What do you think?71.174.135.204 (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- An article tag is like any other piece of content in the article, and the decision on whether it stays or goes depends on editor consensus. It is fairly common for submitters of 3RR reports to be sanctioned, if it turns out that the problem is more with them than with the other party. EdJohnston (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- And I would really really like to know WHY I was banned for a reporting a 3rr violation? which was in fact a 3rr violation. A violation on which the only action you took was to ban the person that reported that 3rr violation. Seems a bit biased to me. What do you think?71.174.135.204 (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- So the guy who actually did engage in a 3RR violation is not guilty of a 3RR violation and doesn't get punished, while the guy NOT having a 3RR violation and reporting said violation is guilty and has to be punished. Sounds like brainwashing straight out of Orwell's 1984. Congratulations on your contribution to the world's insanity.
- and I believe the guy who did engage in that 3RR was the same guy who removed the bias tag, contrary to wiki policy. Let someone get away with one violation and he figures he can get away with another. Isn't that the way the world works? Again thank you for your support of the jackasses of this world.71.174.135.204 (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Yup! same guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Gold_standard&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Somedifferentstuff&diff=487088816&oldid=471897587
Again thank you for your support for the jackasses of this world!71.174.135.204 (talk) 02:56, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Probable block evasion
Further to this AN3 report where Darklordabc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and an Australian IP were blocked, since then Australian IPs 58.173.129.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 203.45.124.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) have carried on edit warring on the article. Don't know if you want to extend Darklordabc's block or not? Thanks. 2 lines of K303 13:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Another admin has semiprotected English Defence League for three months. If Darklordabc resumes at English Defence League with the identical POV that would strengthen the case, and a longer block might be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for locking my page! Tboii99 ✉ 16:21, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, and if you are going to reply, please reply on my talk page, because I'll get it immediately. Thanks again! Tboii99 ✉ 16:52, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Ok
Hello EdJohnston, yes, you understood correctly, will accept your suggestion as a good faith effort as the topic area is so full of content disputes. I do however not appreciate that the closure does not reflect that it was no violation. If you think it was a violation you should tell me why exactly you think so, as to know what to expect in the future and to fully understand the ruling in this case. This would be appreciated. Further, I have a dislike for threats (as I understand your last sentence) especially when they are based on the outlandish accusations and suggestions by someone who - as I told him personally countless times - should be as far away from anything involving me as possible, writing stuff like
- "we live on the other side of the globe and don't give the tiniest of shits about their stupid border and ethnic rivalries" (What is my ethnicity? Where am I from? What is my border? And what the heck is my rivalry?)
- "get him the hell off the back of the community ... If we go to ANI with diffs about his disruptive behavior, then we're in for a party" ("Party"?)
- "he does basically nothing on Misplaced Pages other than complain and stir the pot of controversy; even when he does make edits, they are so blatantly bad" (Really? Wow.)
I know you have friendly relations to him, but maybe you can still understand that this person - over whom I went to arbitration remaining respectful saying I consider him a good, hard-working administrator who just slightly lost his way in this one dispute - should not deal with anything related to me but leave it to everyone (anyone) else. Yet, he keeps bringing up my name everywhere even when I am not involved in a dispute the slightest like in the ANI case between DS and TG. Yes, I do not consider the blocks issued by Magog against me valid, and I have presented my arguments. The same goes for some other editors. If you ask Bwilkins and others, I never did that when he issued a well-balanced block. I have never been involved in any disrupting dispute with any other editor but TopGun and sockpuppet master User:Lagoo sab in the past. So, I'd appreciate you taking what I say more seriously. Privilege (everywhere, not only on this online encyclopedia) means responsibility, also the responsibility to listen to another person may he be titled editor or administrator. Still respectful regards, JCAla (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. Your 30-day restriction at Pakistan is now in effect. All restrictions can be enforced by blocks. You and I are not in agreement on the other things you have mentioned above, but I am content to leave the matter where it stands now. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Range block removed?
With regard to this discussion, somehow this person is editing again, with the same disruptive pattern as before. Radiopathy •talk• 01:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Can you provide some diffs of edits that are clearly incorrect or against consensus? EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
- Never mind. He's on a campaign of some kind, he makes many unsourced changes and hardly ever uses the same IP twice. Violates WP:SOCK in my opinion. Reblocked for two months. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
| Thanks for protecting my page! MONGO 05:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hey
You probably meant malik not magog.--Shrike (talk) 06:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 06:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
You're invited to Wiki-Gangs of New York @ NYPL on April 21!
| Wiki-Gangs of New York: April 21 at the New York Public Library | |
|---|---|
|
Join us for an an civic edit-a-thon, Misplaced Pages meet-up and instructional workshop that will be held this weekend on Saturday, April 21, at the New York Public Library Main Branch.
The event's goal will be to improve Misplaced Pages articles and content related to the neighborhoods and history of New York City - No special wiki knowledge is required! Also, please RSVP!--Pharos (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC) |
Talkback
Message added 19:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Shrike (talk) 09:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Your advice
Hey
The user:Iloveandrea have left very problematic message on my talk page(that is also a blp violation).How should I proceed with it if at all?I have left message on his talk page but he deleted it.Thank you.--Shrike (talk) 20:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- I note that he previously wrote this on your talk page.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 20:18, 18 April 2012 (UTC)- I have logged a warning of Iloveandrea in WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- The following ANI mentions don't exactly paint Iloveandrea in a good light:
- Still, he has over 3,000 edits and he must occasionally do something useful. He seems to have done serious work at Mau Mau Uprising. You can see him participating a few times on the talk page in a normal tone of voice. But then you also get this comment (to VolunteerMarek): ''"Blah blah blah. I couldn't care less what you think, you arrogant fool." This led VM to open the 'Need a clue' post at ANI on 8 March 2012. EdJohnston (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- I have logged a warning of Iloveandrea in WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 20:44, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh, come along
The only reason people like Strike complain is to get people like me banned, so s/he and his hasbara slime can run amok with their hasbara. The description 'slime', aside from being ridiculously mild, that I applied to Regev was in a private comment made on Strike's talk, not in an article. The guy just overreacting for the reason I explained at the outset. I am perfectly entitled to hold my low opinion of Israel's hasbara chief. I made one silly edit to one article, and this is the hysterical reaction I get? Maybe a bit of perspective is required at your end, as well as some maturity at mine?
~ Iloveandrea (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm happy to take a break from I/P, if it is so upsetting for you. It's not what I usually edit on anyway.
~ Iloveandrea (talk) 21:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)- I've issued a 48-hour block and explained the details at User talk:Iloveandrea#Personal attack. EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Slightly confused and seeking advice
Hi Ed,
I'm a little confused COI issues, and was wondering if I may ask for your advice on something, as I am worrying myself into a state of frenzy about it. I'm currently a Games Maker (aka volunteer) for the London 2012 games, and have also been contributing in small doses on the London 2012 articles, wherever necessary. After reading WP:COI I have now got myself in a state of panic that some of my minuscule contributions may be encroaching onto conflict of interest, due to my volunteer status for the games themselves. Would it be possible to shed some light onto this, and inform me whether or not my volunteer status would be classified as COI or not. Many thanks in advance - Wesley☀Mouse 02:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Please give examples of some articles where you think you could have a conflict. Are you likely to get into any editing disputes on any of those? EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- There are only 2 articles really in regards to London 2012. They are; 2012 Summer Olympics and 2012 Summer Paralympics. I'm only a volunteer at the games themselves, but being a volunteer does mean I am privy to some inside knowledge about preparations etc. As a volunteer I have access to some London 2012 sites that aren't available for public viewing; but as I signed a privacy protocol, I wouldn't be able to use these sites as a ref source. The likelihood of getting into editing disputes would be very slim, as any edits that I have made thus far, have only been correcting errors that I notice on the articles, and using sources that are A) reliable and B) accessible to the general public. If there are edits that I think may be questionable, then I do tend to post my concerns on the article talk pages first. Wesley☀Mouse 03:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't sound like you have much of a problem. If you encounter a dispute and anyone questions your status, you could open a thread at WP:COIN to get advice. In the meantime, consider explaining your status regarding the Olympics on your user page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Phew, on reading that, I can relax a little and not panic too much. I do have on my main user page a userbox showing that I'm a volunteer at the games, and my talk page has wikibreak-type notices to show when I'm away for volunteer training sessions - hopefully they cover all angels. I have noticed though on both articles, the host location is listed as "London, United Kingdom"; when the International Olympic Committee actually have it listed as "London, Great Britain". I questioned this on the talk page, but only one person said it should really reflect the official IOC listing (Great Britain), and not the official geographical terminology (United Kingdom). I didn't correct the articles yet, as I noticed COI, and thought it best to seek advice first, before stumbling myself into COI troubles. Wesley☀Mouse 03:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's not up to the Olympic Committee to decide whether we should use GB or UK in the article. That is a matter for WP's style rules. The issue should be avoided unless you want to open a stressful debate. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- I fully understand that rule in respect of WP's styling. Although British Olympic Association uses GB and not UK; as does Great Britain at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Information at WP:UKPLACE isn't exactly explanatory enough to clear the confusion up, although Misplaced Pages:Official names#Where there is an official name that is not the article title tends to imply that GB would be used first in this scenario, and UK afterwards. Ahh well, I'll leave it up to the project community to decide, after all there is a discussion on there about it for people to mull over. Thank you anyhow, for helping me with my initial query. Much appreciated. Wesley☀Mouse 04:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's not up to the Olympic Committee to decide whether we should use GB or UK in the article. That is a matter for WP's style rules. The issue should be avoided unless you want to open a stressful debate. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Phew, on reading that, I can relax a little and not panic too much. I do have on my main user page a userbox showing that I'm a volunteer at the games, and my talk page has wikibreak-type notices to show when I'm away for volunteer training sessions - hopefully they cover all angels. I have noticed though on both articles, the host location is listed as "London, United Kingdom"; when the International Olympic Committee actually have it listed as "London, Great Britain". I questioned this on the talk page, but only one person said it should really reflect the official IOC listing (Great Britain), and not the official geographical terminology (United Kingdom). I didn't correct the articles yet, as I noticed COI, and thought it best to seek advice first, before stumbling myself into COI troubles. Wesley☀Mouse 03:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- It doesn't sound like you have much of a problem. If you encounter a dispute and anyone questions your status, you could open a thread at WP:COIN to get advice. In the meantime, consider explaining your status regarding the Olympics on your user page. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- There are only 2 articles really in regards to London 2012. They are; 2012 Summer Olympics and 2012 Summer Paralympics. I'm only a volunteer at the games themselves, but being a volunteer does mean I am privy to some inside knowledge about preparations etc. As a volunteer I have access to some London 2012 sites that aren't available for public viewing; but as I signed a privacy protocol, I wouldn't be able to use these sites as a ref source. The likelihood of getting into editing disputes would be very slim, as any edits that I have made thus far, have only been correcting errors that I notice on the articles, and using sources that are A) reliable and B) accessible to the general public. If there are edits that I think may be questionable, then I do tend to post my concerns on the article talk pages first. Wesley☀Mouse 03:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
RFC
Hi Ed. I responded to your comment at my talk, and also started an RFC, as you advised. Regards, Grandmaster 12:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
With regard to your request at NK talk, should I start a separate RFC on every source or paragraph that is in dispute, or I can create new sections on the same talk page? The problem is that the dispute is not related to just one source or one paragraph. The rewrite was very large, and included a lot of questionable interpretations of the primary sources, and dubious secondary sources. Any attempts to make any corrections were reverted, which led to further escalation of the dispute. Therefore I think in addition to RFC, it makes sense to request a peer review of the proposed rewrite. Grandmaster 14:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could make a subpage in your user space that lists all the questions you want to cover. Then just start out with one or two of them in the RfC, to get the discussion going. I have mentioned on the NK talk that one could propose removal of all the primary sources. See if you agree with that. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- I can do that, but it is going to take some time because of the volume of the text added. And I would agree to removal of all primary sources that require interpretation, as per WP:PRIMARY: A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, if we have a text of a legal document, we can use it saying that it states this and that, but any interpretation of the meaning would require a secondary source. For instance, we can quote the resolution by EU parliament as saying certain things, but without any interpretations. Historical chronicles are a bit more difficult, like in the case with Schiltberger, we can say that he said this or that, but that would not add anything to the quality of the article, because it would require a specialist source to explain what is true in what he wrote and how trustworthy as a source he was. So legal documents probably need to be treated slightly differently than historical chronicles, even though they are both primary. Grandmaster 15:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Can you think of any primary documents that have reason to stay in the article? If not, consider asking for their removal. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- I replied on talk pages in the article but overall I am not happy with how this article is being handled by sysops. First, the allegations on primary sources by Grandmaster is a bad faith mis-characterization of what is in the article; see my comments on talk pages http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh#Topics_for_the_RfC. The added material that Grandmaster removed is based on secondary sources which comment primary sources. Primary sources are used for reference to the original source as illustration so that the reader could learn from where the secondary sources derive their comments from. That is it. Second, Grandmaster's stance on sources is bad faith. I will bring Winter's example with Guba mass grave which Grandmaster edited. This indeed is an absurd article completely based on Azerbaijani hate websites and state propaganda sources. Grandmaster never bothered to question the validity of those sources whereas here he kills himself posing as a super-expert in WP:NPOV and WP:PRIMARY. You need to create a level playing field for a true discussion to take place. I propose to unblock Winterblist and Dehr since their violations clearly donot merit a block. And you need to put Grandmaster under sanctions for essentially impersonating an administrator, and for his removal of text agreed upon by several editors. Instead you give him and his ruwiki meats a pat on the back. Zimmarod (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's reasonable to assume that some number of socks are still operating on both sides of this conflict. That poses difficulties for trying to resolve the issues at Nagorno-Karabakh by simply counting the number of editors who vote for each side of a question. It may be appropriate to focus in on a small number of issues for review and try to put them before a broader community, among whose numbers there will be fewer socks. The question of usage of primary sources could be one such issue. From the article talk page I can't get much insight as to the degree that primary sources are currently being used. The quality of the discussion on the talk page doesn't seem very high. Somebody who doesn't work in this area would have a lot of trouble getting oriented as to the main issues. In your comment at the article talk you argue that "interpretation is allowed with the support of secondary sources." There are examples in the article of primary sources being used directly (with no filtering through a secondary source). For example the Ancient Greek author Strabo is cited as an authority for a matter of fact in reference 10, regarding the name Orkhistene. I agree that use of both Armenian and Azeri primary sources ought to be scrutinized. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- Yep, Grandmaster risks a bonfire of his own primary sources. The blocking of Winterblist and Dehr is extraordinary, but nobody invents a new weapon without having an overwhelming desire to try it out as soon as possible and those two were available targets. Meowy 01:10, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's reasonable to assume that some number of socks are still operating on both sides of this conflict. That poses difficulties for trying to resolve the issues at Nagorno-Karabakh by simply counting the number of editors who vote for each side of a question. It may be appropriate to focus in on a small number of issues for review and try to put them before a broader community, among whose numbers there will be fewer socks. The question of usage of primary sources could be one such issue. From the article talk page I can't get much insight as to the degree that primary sources are currently being used. The quality of the discussion on the talk page doesn't seem very high. Somebody who doesn't work in this area would have a lot of trouble getting oriented as to the main issues. In your comment at the article talk you argue that "interpretation is allowed with the support of secondary sources." There are examples in the article of primary sources being used directly (with no filtering through a secondary source). For example the Ancient Greek author Strabo is cited as an authority for a matter of fact in reference 10, regarding the name Orkhistene. I agree that use of both Armenian and Azeri primary sources ought to be scrutinized. EdJohnston (talk) 00:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
- I replied on talk pages in the article but overall I am not happy with how this article is being handled by sysops. First, the allegations on primary sources by Grandmaster is a bad faith mis-characterization of what is in the article; see my comments on talk pages http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh#Topics_for_the_RfC. The added material that Grandmaster removed is based on secondary sources which comment primary sources. Primary sources are used for reference to the original source as illustration so that the reader could learn from where the secondary sources derive their comments from. That is it. Second, Grandmaster's stance on sources is bad faith. I will bring Winter's example with Guba mass grave which Grandmaster edited. This indeed is an absurd article completely based on Azerbaijani hate websites and state propaganda sources. Grandmaster never bothered to question the validity of those sources whereas here he kills himself posing as a super-expert in WP:NPOV and WP:PRIMARY. You need to create a level playing field for a true discussion to take place. I propose to unblock Winterblist and Dehr since their violations clearly donot merit a block. And you need to put Grandmaster under sanctions for essentially impersonating an administrator, and for his removal of text agreed upon by several editors. Instead you give him and his ruwiki meats a pat on the back. Zimmarod (talk) 22:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- Can you think of any primary documents that have reason to stay in the article? If not, consider asking for their removal. EdJohnston (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
- I can do that, but it is going to take some time because of the volume of the text added. And I would agree to removal of all primary sources that require interpretation, as per WP:PRIMARY: A primary source may only be used on Misplaced Pages to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that any educated person, with access to the source but without specialist knowledge, will be able to verify are supported by the source. For example, if we have a text of a legal document, we can use it saying that it states this and that, but any interpretation of the meaning would require a secondary source. For instance, we can quote the resolution by EU parliament as saying certain things, but without any interpretations. Historical chronicles are a bit more difficult, like in the case with Schiltberger, we can say that he said this or that, but that would not add anything to the quality of the article, because it would require a specialist source to explain what is true in what he wrote and how trustworthy as a source he was. So legal documents probably need to be treated slightly differently than historical chronicles, even though they are both primary. Grandmaster 15:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)