User talk:Akhilleus/archive15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hello POV-pushing.

Please do not revert my edit, as "POV-Pushing" that was not my intention and you must have misunderstood. Category:Armenian Genocide Propagandists is not a POV category, it is the same as categories like Category:Armenian Genocide deniers. The administrator there said it was OK to use this political labeling, and so the category Category:Armenian Genocide Propagandists is perfectly within the rules. If you believe I am wrong, please create a CfD on both Category:Armenian Genocide deniers category and Category:Armenian Genocide Propagandists category. You should also include Category:Nazi propagandists and Category:Soviet propagandists. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_

As to your message... You cannot play one-sided in this issue, and pick what political categories for people is allowed and isn't and then threaten to block me, when Andranikpasha is allowed to make categories like this. This is just unfair and undemocratic. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 06:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry bout the link errors, fixed now. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 06:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Again I ask, why are you favoring Armenian edits that discredit or try to discredit Western or Turkish historians who don't support the Armenian Genocide claim, but find it unfavorable when I do the same. I'm not trying to "push" anything, I simply do not understand this unfairness. Why are Armenians able to put "criticism of work" type things on American historians they don't like, or "denier" labeling, but I'm not allowed to add "propagandist" labeling... If I'm wrong, please express that but it's silly to just pick one side all the time, it just isn't fair. And I'm sure as an honest man, you will understand. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 06:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

But it isn't a historical fact... Have you read any books on the issue? Just because Armenians made a page called Armenian Genocide doesn't automatically make it a fact. Furthermore, a fact is something tangible or verifiable, like saying "An Armenian was killed by a Turk", but you cannot say that "The Armenian was killed in the Armenian Holocaust" because that's not a fact, it is a point of view. There needs to be proof of intent for a genocide to hold true, and the United Nations has not declared the events of 1915 as the Armenian Genocide, hence it isn't a fact, just a historical interpretation supported by the majority of Wikipedians, that's it. There needs to be solid proof that the CUP government of 1915 was ordering massacres or killings. If you want I can give you quotations from Talat Pasha himself sending out telegram orders to stop massacres of Armenians, or orders exempting Armenians from deportation from certain areas. So how is it a fact, please explain this to me so that I can understand. I didn't push a POV like "The Armenians are responsible for an Azeri Genocide" this would be POV, or "The Armenians are responsible for a Turkish Genocide" this would be POV, I'm holding a NPOV argument that you cannot declare a historical interpretation as a fact. I am not saying anything like "Armenians did not suffer" or "Armenians did not die", these would be examples of POV, and it is WRONG. I am simply saying that certain people that I put in that category push an Armenian Genocide POV usually with bad intentions with disregard for the Armenian sufferings. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 06:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand friend, what is with the hostility? I am simply making an argument, and you are simply claiming I have a denialist agenda, I did not deny anything. Why are you trying to have me blocked, please explain this to me in a nice way, without threats/warnings. — ^talk § _Arsenic99_ 06:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fork articles

Wikipedia is being flooded with POV fork articles. I think a new policy is needed in this issue. Discussion is going on in this issue regarding Islam and anti-Christian persecution and Historical persecution by Christians.Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please see this

[1]what is going on?Megistias (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Addition of new articles

You should be placing those new articles in the "Definitions" page, which has a numbering system. Badagnani (talk) 03:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it's important to keep the sources together, numbered. However that's done. Badagnani (talk) 03:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suspected throwaway account

The monomania of this editor seems indicative of a single-purpose, throwaway account. What do you think? JFD (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] thanks for participating in My RfA

Oh snap, the DEA is an admin

I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which I'm very glad to say was successful at 81/7/0. Some of the very best that Wikipedia has to offer came out to support or oppose me and the kind words from all the editors has really given me confidence to be an admin and I can't wait to start. I will take the advice of the opposes and not jump into any content disputes immediately. As well, I will try to add more content myself. Anyways, in thanks for participating in my RfA, here's your very own personal humanoid robot. Enjoy! --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 14:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: 2RR

I've replied on dab's talk page, if you're interested. Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 16:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be uncivil, but to be honest, I don't really care at all if he's experienced or not. In fact, his experience would be a reason to block; seasoned editors like himself are not exempt from the rules everyone else follows, and should know better. I respect dab, and he's a very valuable contributor; however, edit warring, no matter the reason, is unacceptable. If my viewpoint is clueless then I'll retire from Wikipedia. Also, I don't see why he gains any special rights; if he's edit warring, he's edit warring. Unless I'm not allowed to call an edit war when I see one anymore, I don't see why I'd have to seek consensus at ANI prior to blocking. Anyway, the entire point of this whole exercise was to try to get them to develop consensus without having to page protect/block anyone. I'm sorry if this has offended you. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 21:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Uninvolvedness

Erm, have you actually read the list of names participating in that AE thread? I have some trouble seeing you as an "uninvolved" admin on that particular discussion. --Elonka 20:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

:Thanks for weighing in. I think you are completely wrong, and am going to absolutely insist that - since you've decided to reward his bad behavior - you make yourself available to deal with any subsequent uncivil behavior and comments in the article. Since the diffs you pointed out were a concerted effort to not goad DreamGuy (as well as attempt to retain a user who was at the point fo leaving the project due to DG's behavior), I am going to come to you when he refuses to listen to anyone, using your closing of the complaint as validation for his behavior. If it sounds like I am disappointed in your judgment, its because I am. The argument was clear - a person under behavioral restriction is under a stiffer yardstick for compliance than someone who is not, and your Diffs did not point to any incivility on the part of others. In point of fact, no AN/I complaint has ever been filed on anyone else in the discussion. Please feel free to check on that.

As I said, thank you for volunteering to be the go-to guy in the future when it comes to DreamGuy. I have a feeling you are in for a fairly rude awakening regarding his behavior. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I have stricken my previous post. It was said in haste and in the heat of disappointment. I considered the complaint to be offered genuinely and in good faith, and was frustrated that everyone - someone whom I respect - interpreted my actions with less than Good Faith. I saw a user under rather specific restrictions violate them, and then blame everyone but himself, I and others counseled him that he needed to interact civilly with us. He blew off every attempt to work together and insisted that we were not only wrong, but out to get him. Were I (or most people for that matter) under similar restrictions, and felt like people were trying to get me blocked by being rude, I would go to an admin for help (or even the restricting parties); I think it was missed that DreamGuy never bothered to make any effort to work or even get along with others. It was more frustrating when those noting DG's bad behavior were painted as the villains. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) it's tempting, but AN/I is a lousy forum for dealing with incivility. Below is what I wrote, and the above comment by Arcayne seems to me to confirm it. Akhilleus, if you need any assistance monitoring any user, as Arcayne suggests, I'd be happy to be of service. I'm totally uninvolved in the immediate dispute, the only connection being that when I intervened on behalf of PHG when it seemed he was being harassed, with ArbComm's quite precise decision being misrepresented as part of it, I saw similar counter-intervention from Elonka. If we dare to do something that appears to be coming to the defense of such an obviously disruptive editor, the thinking might be, we must be biased or ignorant or simply not get what such a bad person he or she is. I'd highly recommend that Elonka take a vacation from considering herself personally responsible to ensure that PHG or other individuals don't damage the project; or, since she may have special knowledge, that she pass that information on, as needed, to someone who can review it and act without having been personally involved. And then this is what I originally wrote, after only the comment from Elonka:

I'm cheering you, a little, for closing that AN/AE report as you did. I came to the conclusion that DreamGuy was indeed being uncivil, but also that he was experiencing an atmosphere of incivility from others; as one user put it, it was perhaps worse than that of DreamGuy. I hope that you take the time, I haven't checked, to warn DreamGuy that he should not consider this a pass, you could have blocked him and it may have been deserved. But I also think that we must take a stand against rampant incivility, and I see your action as one step toward that. Provoke a user into incivility, or make an uncivil complaint, you might be unable to get him or her sanctioned. (This is *not* a judgment that DreamGuy was provoked in the reported offenses.) However, I'd actually prefer to see formal warnings and sometimes blocks for incivility in, say, an AN/AE report and the related flap. We really have to stop the practice of identifying the bad guy and beating him with sticks. The bad guy is us, excepting only those who are perfect, and if you can find any of those, I'd like to meet them. If they would permit it.--Abd (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Akhilleus, well, I was trying to be discreet, but yes, I feel that since you're actively involved in the discussions involving me, PHG, and Abd, especially at Talk:Viam agnoscere veritatis (1248), and since editors in that dispute, have overflowed it into the middle of the DreamGuy AE enforcement thread, that it was not appropriate for you to have closed it. I don't see you as an "uninvolved" admin. I do agree it's a bit of a judgment call though. --Elonka 21:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I had nothing to do with anything on the Talk page mentioned, nor was I aware of Akhilleus until now. The assertion of COI for Akhilleus seems fairly thin, but, of course, I don't see everything.--Abd (talk) 03:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a mess.  :/ That's the thing about AE threads, is that they are generally powderkegs, such that no matter what action is taken, there's going to be an explosion. That's why it's so essential that any decision be made by a completely uninvolved admin, since any possibility of bias, is generally going to be seized upon by either side. I'm not saying that you closed the thread in bad faith, I'm just saying that it was probably not wise for you to be the one that closed it, since you're one of the editors in another active dispute involving some of the participants. At this point, it might be best for you to simply reverse yourself and re-open the thread, maybe with an edit summary like, "Rethinking my status as uninvolved, re-opening thread for someone else to make the call." Other options are possible too, but that's the first one to come to mind, and maybe the quickest way of calming the situation. Then, once the thread is open, you could participate in the thread, and make a recommendation (as I did) and continue with the discussion. But let someone completely uninvolved, make the final decision. That make sense? --Elonka 21:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I kind of take exception to being painted as the uncivil one when I did nothing uncivil, made no personal attacks. In fact, I encouraged people to not attack DG, and to follow proper procedures if (and, as it turned out, when) his behavior didn't abate. I will cop to not continuing to offer AGF, but I think it unreasonable to do that when precedence has shown it to be ineffective. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dream Guy and mediation

Just one note on the whole DG saga. DG has multiple times rejected mediation. I can remember 3 or 4 attempts, at least, to try to get him to enter mediation on one issue or another. All were either expressly rejected, or ignored. I really doubt that any further attempts to get him into mediation will be any mmore productive. So this one suggestion towards a peaceful resolution, at least, is IMHO destined to fail even before it is (once again) attempted. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, one question I would ask: is there some user whom DreamGuy respects? Before mediation should come more informal process, in fact. Classic mediation often involves third parties. We flattened WP:AMA, but real advocates often do far more work negotiating settlements and helping their own clients function better than they do in court conflicts. DreamGuy should be clearly informed that he is on a short leash, but he cannot be, so to speak, sent out into the world on a short leash held by someone who is paying no attention to the conditions DreamGuy faces. --Abd (talk) 21:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you want to volunteer as a mediator, Abd? It seems like it might be up your alley. I'd try, but I don't have the time, and I'm not sure that I have the right personality for it. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me just nip this in the bud, and say that I do not think that Abd would be an appropriate choice as mediator. --Elonka 21:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I am all in favor of anything that convinces DG to be more civil. However, as Texas Android pointed out, it hasn't really been shown to be effective. Perhaps DreamGuy sees it as bargaining, when there isn't a bargain to be struck; good behavior is required for continued participation within our community. I applaud the optimistic spirit; I am just concerned that it - like previous attempts - won't end up being the lull before the next complaint has to be filed. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If the mediation is between Elonka and DG, she would be correct that I would not be a good single mediator. I tried to negotiate with Elonka when she complained to me about my intervention in an MfD for PHG's working files, and I did not come to the conclusion that she was seeking consensus. However, what I had in mind was someone whom DreamGuy respects, who he might listen to, and who could help him out. He doesn't know me, so whether or not I'd be appropriate for that is a matter for him to decide; he really should find someone and ask that person to help. What that user would do is to "edit" him, i.e., work with him so that he does not fall into incivility due to all the various temptations that arise. At the same time, if people unjustly attack DG, this user would help deal with it. For DG to defend himself, under current conditions, is not a good idea, it is too easy for him to fall into incivility himself. So there would be a tradeoff for DG. He would have to give up some of his freedom to write whatever he pleases whenever he pleases, but he would get someone who would help defend him from incivility, using proper process (which starts with simple negotiation and discussion.) I don't know the circumstances with DG, but suppose that Elonka is having a conflict with him, and suppose that DG has agreed to work with me. I could try to negotiate with Elonka myself, but, given some history between us, that might not work. But does she have someone she trusts? This is classic arbitration, actually: each party chooses an arbiter and then the two, if they can't work out the matter directly, appoint a third that they agree on. That is with formal, binding arbitration, but doing something similar informally, at least to the point of having two not-so-involved users trying to negotiate voluntary agreements, might work here.

The relationship I'm describing is like mentoring, and I've seen it done with problematic editors. It often does not work, but, I'm fairly sure, if the one being mentored chooses well, it might. If DG does not realize he has a problem, if he thinks that all of this is simple persecution, and he's not done anything wrong, it is not going to work. I'm just pointing out the insanity of expecting a user who has had difficulty being civil already, who is then being attacked, to deal with it without incivility. He really should not have to deal with it. The flip side of being on a short leash is that one should be defended by the one holding the leash. Quite simply, though, I do not know DG at all, I have no idea if this would be specifically appropriate for him.--Abd (talk) 04:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what you're describing is more encompassing than what I had in mind. DG seems to be having a recurrent problem with Jack the Ripper and related articles, and I think the situation needs some outside input. I'm not going to do it; I don't have time, and my interest in crime/serial killers/etc. is less than nil. But since the situation has deteriorated to the point where there's no genuine communication between DG and the other editors, and no one seems interested in pursuing a constructive situation, the matter is going to come up at AE/ANI, and I imagine DG will get blocked eventually. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If I might, I would point out that the problem is not just between Dreamguy and Elonka (who I believe commented but once to the nature of the complaint), but rather DreamGuy and (apparently) most of the editors he comes in contact with. Now, that may sound harsh, until one looks at the sheer volume of established (not IP vandal) editors who spoke out against his civility over the past two years. I would not hazard a guess as to why he is still active, but I think I can speak from authority that mentoring would not be an effective measure, and there are likely a handful of admins and lots of editors who feel it would be the waste of a perfectly good mentor's time and energy.

I was the person who submitted the AE complaint against DreamGuy. Having at first encouraged DreamGuy to become more aware of how his editing style was being perceived, I became disenchanted with the possibility of his rehabilitation after the sockpuppetry nonsense. While some of the folk who argued in DreamGuy's defense have since awarded each other barnstars for their defense of the underdog, the fact remains that this particular AE complaint was not a conspiracy to gang up on DreamGuy. True, he's made plenty of enemies in the past, but few of them actually commented on the complaint submitted - all of the people responding to agree with the complaint were speaking of current civility, etc. violations. DreamGuy is not the underdog here; I cannot state that in clear enough terms. While he has much to offer, the cost/benefit ratio of his inclusion tends to be too high; what is the sense in retaining one editor with personality challenges if it results in others leaving - not just the article - but the Project altogether? A block for DreamGuy should elicit a collective sigh of relief for every principle important to Wikipedians, as well as protection for articles where discussions become mired in pissing contests between DG and practically everyone else..

Again, I apologize for my earlier frustrated reply. I felt like, once again, DreamGuy's usual tactic of 'I'm being chased by this wicked cabal of article OWNers - he'p me, he'p me, please' was again being fallen for. Maybe you saw it that way, maybe you didn't. One of the downsides of being a fresh pair of eyes in an AE complaint is that sometimes the wool can be pulled over them. Perhaps there ws something I could have done to be more clear in submitting my complaint. If there was, I apologize to you. I know that coming into the situation was difficult at best, and that one is likely to be hated by either polarity. I also know that sometimes the canniest writer is often not the correct one. When weighing the sheer volume of evidence brought against DreamGuy - not just in this complaint but in at least three others (two of ArbCom level of seriousness) - I thought my complaint was self-evident. For apparently not providing you with that clarity, I guess I failed you a little bit, Akhilleus. However,i do hope that you will consider re-opening the complaint and seek more eyes on the matter. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I have no problem with the concept of mediation per se, but I do have a problem with mediation in which some person declares him/herself a mediator and shows up and acts like his or her single voice will be able to undo all other considerations, such as consensus and fair application of Wikipedia policies. In fact, in the past there have been more than one case where someone who was a friend of an individual with a history of conflict with me stepped in calling themselves a mediator and then proceeded to go around badmouthing me and insisting that I must agree to be bound by his mediation or else I was acting in bad faith. I have also seen other cases of mediation in which the mediator simply did not look into the case in any depth at all and jumped to a conclusion, often in ways completely at odds with policy. I certainly have no reason to assume that standard mediation methods will be any different, and especially not when certain specific individuals have demonstrated a willingness to spend many, many hours inventing up false complaints and baiting me with insults and extremely uncivil actions hoping to use my less than enthusiastic response to their abuse a if it were somehow proof of my being a bad editor. In any mediation process, including previous arbitration attempts, Elonka and others group together to try to throw every accusation they can think up. I am here to edit, not to waste hours and hours defending myself against people whose own actions fall far short of the standards expected of editors here. As I have said before, if there were a way of doing mediation that could guarantee neutral parties doing the mediation, and also that the mediators had a history of being here to enforce policies and good faith editing instead of petty personal conflicts, then I would be in favor of such a thing. Of course all my attempts at ignoring previous conflicts and moving forward are ignored when I have editors who blind revert my changes on sight and who spend their times basically stalking my every action hoping to find anything they can to exaggerate into some problem they can complain to someone in authority about. Hell, the fact that Elonka and Arcayne have been trying unsuccessfully for years to get me banned and contact anyone I've ever had any conflict with to try to work together to do so and still have not gotten away with it shows that they have no good faith basis to complain. My edits are good ones, and anyone who looks at my edit history as a whole will see that. DreamGuy (talk) 19:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chaos

See to this chaos please diffs,diffsMegistias (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)