Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/John254 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Edit count for John254
User:John254
run at Sat Jan 19 20:18:34 2008 GMT
Category talk: 5
Category: 41
Help: 1
Image talk: 3
Image: 60
Mainspace 10656
Portal: 24
Talk: 880
Template talk: 24
Template: 2154
User talk: 9553
User: 380
Wikipedia talk: 464
Wikipedia: 3900
avg edits per page 1.36
earliest 18:34, 20 May 2006
number of unique pages 20728
total 28145
2006/5 224
2006/6 880
2006/7 1489
2006/8 1153
2006/9 2674
2006/10 1756
2006/11 1458
2006/12 1606
2007/1 1636
2007/2 1061
2007/3 1203
2007/4 1365
2007/5 1815
2007/6 432
2007/7 1004
2007/8 570
2007/9 736
2007/10 1294
2007/11 1170
2007/12 2143
2008/1 2476
(green denotes edits with an edit summary (even an automatic one), red denotes
edits without an edit summary)
Mainspace
31 Masturbation
17 Use of biotechnology in pharmaceutical manufacturing
16 Great Depression
16 Genetically modified food
15 Sex-positive
14 Angeles City
13 Pornography
13 Grover Norquist
13 Fraud
11 Southern Baptist Theological Seminary
10 Non-Euclidean geometry
9 Vince McMahon
9 David Pogue
9 Rainforest
8 Viacom
Talk:
20 Masturbation
10 Pornography/Archive 2
7 Vulva
5 Ejaculation
5 Snoop Dogg/Archive1
4 Scientific theories regarding acupuncture
4 Palms Elementary School
4 Human feces
4 Gay
4 Rachel Marsden
3 Turnover
3 Non-nude photography
3 Jeff Gerstmann
3 Grover Norquist
3 Emory Folmar
Category talk:
2 Articles with unsourced statements
2 Wikipedia Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense
Category:
2 1840 deaths
2 Articles with unsourced statements
Image:
2 X-33628.jpg
2 NHG Subscription.jpg
2 Fractional distillation lab apparatus.png
2 Ugavi.jpg
2 Kristen Alderson.jpg
Portal:
7 Society/Intro
4 Biography
Template:
18 Cent
15 Proposed
7 Unreferenced
6 Policyalteration
5 Ethics-stub
4 WikipediaVandalism
4 Notcensored2
4 TestTemplates
4 Vandalism information
4 Band-stub
3 Blp0-n
3 Sprotected
3 RuneScape
3 Notcensored
3 New England Patriots roster
Template talk:
11 Proposed
5 WikipediaVandalism
2 Sprotected
2 RuneScape
User:
57 John254/monobook.js
25 John254
12 AmiDaniel/Wr
6 Clem23
6 GamePlayer623
5 John254/Revert/monobook.js
4 BrOnXbOmBr21/Destructoid
4 Colipon
4 Agius
4 Propol
3 User At Work/Pols under investigation
3 LegitimateAndEvenCompelling
3 Truth in Comedy
3 Rimmers
3 Habbit
User talk:
311 John254
8 Centrx
8 Ultranet
7 203.131.181.122
7 John254/Archive 2
7 74.12.83.176
6 John254/Archive 1
6 82.27.201.221
5 87.228.165.252
5 210.15.254.36
5 68.14.16.252
5 Dmcdevit
5 Politician818
5 Jeffrey O. Gustafson
5 70.121.7.89
Wikipedia:
1070 Administrator intervention against vandalism
162 Requests for page protection
120 Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
65 Requests for arbitration
58 Administrators' noticeboard/3RR
43 Counter-Vandalism Unit
43 Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit
(third nomination)
41 Vandalism
41 Administrators' noticeboard
36 Deletion review/Log/2008 January 7
32 Deletion review/Log/2007 December 30
27 Deletion review/Log/2008 January 12
27 Requests for arbitration/John Buscema/Workshop
25 Removing warnings poll
20 Requests for arbitration/IRC/Workshop
Wikipedia talk:
103 Semi-protecting policy pages
73 Vandalism
60 Counter-Vandalism Unit
49 Polling is not a substitute for discussion
28 Biographies of living persons
25 Centralized discussion/Removing warnings
14 Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles
10 What Wikipedia is not
9 Criteria for speedy deletion
7 Removing warnings
6 Canvassing
6 Semi-protection policy
6 Protecting children's privacy
4 WikiProject Health
4 Edit war
If there were any problems, please email Interiot or post at User talk:Interiot
.
Based directly on these URLs: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]
- The edit count was retrieved from this link at 20:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC).
[edit] Lengthy discussion mainly re WP:BLP moved from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/John254 2
-
- I know this is going to be jolly bad form, and for that I apologise in advance, but as the issue I wish to raise is important and this RfA might well have closed before I would normally be able to raise the concerns, I feel I have no option but to raise the issues now. John, as a relatively uninvolved party, made several comments on a pending Request for Arbitration relating to the conduct of myself and another administrator, JoshuaZ over edits and page protection relating to Rachel Marsden. I would normally wait for such a case to either be accepted by the Committee or rejected before raising comment, but I feel the concerns I have are important and should be raised here. Firstly, and most importantly, these concerns were raised firstly (and only) with the Arbitration Committee, neither myself (nor Joshua, it would seem) has received any messages on our talk pages from John relating to his concerns. This single issue shows a complete lack of the necessary communication skills vital for this position. Secondly, the statements made by John to the committee are woefully inaccurate and portray events in a matter which is completely contrary to the actual history of the article. There are vast omissions of vitally important information relating to edits made to the article. I have no reason to believe this is in bad faith however but it is a significant worry and suggests that John may inadvertently be unfair and biased when dealing with any similar situations in future. Finally, I'm rather concerned by John's understanding of the BLP policy, his concerns relating to a protection I performed on the Marsden article and content contributed by Joshua would tend to suggest he would remove unflattering material even if such material is presented in a neutral, balanced, fair, and unbiased manner. There's always going to be a little bit of give and take with BLP, one person might think something is a little too negative and vice versa, so discussion to find a compromise is essential. Again, John has entered into no discussions with me over the content of the article other than a response to my comments on the Arbitration Case. Again, I find both his lack of understanding over the policy and complete lack of discussion prior to commenting before the Arbitration Committee to be undesirable traits in a potential administrator. Nick (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- As I listed Rachel Marsden at deletion review and expanded the article, I am an involved party in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Rachel_Marsden_2, which was filed by another user, and it was proper for me to comment on the request. Now, let's consider Nick's claim that
I never claimed that Wikipedia articles could not contain any negative information concerning their subjects, but rather that our coverage of negative information must not be so disproportionately extensive in comparison to the remainder of an article as to constitute undue weight with respect to the events, in violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP[2]. Nick claims that I misrepresented his comments by stating that "I respectfully disagree with Nick's contention that the WP:BLP does not require biographies of living persons to be written in a fair and balanced manner."[3]. Here's the statement by Nick to which I referred:I'm rather concerned by John's understanding of the BLP policy, his concerns relating to a protection I performed on the Marsden article and content contributed by Joshua would tend to suggest he would remove unflattering material even if such material is presented in a neutral, balanced, fair, and unbiased manner.[1]
Both the claim that the requirements of the biographies of living persons policy extend little beyond the prevention of legally actionable defamation, and the assertion that we cannot ever remove well-sourced negative information concerning a living person from an article when such information constitutes undue weight, stand in stark contrast to the understanding of WP:BLP articulated in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff, and effectively amount to a rejection of the requirement that biographies of living persons be written in a fair and balanced manner. Furthermore, even Jimbo Wales himself shares my concerns that the version in which Nick protected the article gives undue weight to negative information concerning Rachel Marsden:The BLP policy is primarily designed to ensure that no unsourced and problematic material is introducted into articles, creating legal problems for the Foundation, it is not some magic policy that can be used to prevent Wikipedia from covering negative issues on a subject. If we have too much fully sourced content from reliable sources, then we should be expanding the article to make the negative material less of an issue, not removing it completely, anything less than that and we're censoring perfectly acceptable material.[4]
John254 13:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)I have concerns about WP:UNDUE in this article, regarding the "stalking" stuff, particularly as it relates to the most recent news stories, which seem to me to be nothing more than tabloid trash. (He said, she said, the authorities looked into it and nothing happened, it isn't even a story but at most a lover's quarrel that the tabloid media pounced on because they love trash.)[5]
- As I listed Rachel Marsden at deletion review and expanded the article, I am an involved party in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Rachel_Marsden_2, which was filed by another user, and it was proper for me to comment on the request. Now, let's consider Nick's claim that
- Firstly, you could have quoted Jimbo's entire statement which, when presented in it's entirety supports my understanding of the BLP. For those of you who haven't read the diff, Jimbo then goes on to say.
. That's exactly what I said above, which broadly speaking was "instead of censoring unflattering material, include further content to further balance the article". I'm still awaiting you raising these concerns regarding the protection on my talk page though. It seems it's Arbcom and Jimbo you've raised the concerns with, not the actual administrator involved. Secondly, you plucked thisBut in any event, one thing that can help with undue weight issues is the adding of actually interesting and verifiable information like this, so I encourage further efforts in this area.
from thin air. I never suggested that the policy doesn't require biographies to be written in a fair and balanced manner, I suggested the main reason for the policy is to prevent unsourced and problematic material being introduced into the article and creating legal problems for the foundation, that comment, by it's very nature would cover material which even if fully sourced and referenced correctly, could constitute a legal problem due to the nature of how it is written, who contributed it and so on. So in my response, I note, once again, that you are continually omitting important material and characterizing actions and edits made by others in such a way as to support your interpretation of policy and content. I do care about your lack of understanding when it comes to the BLP policies, but I'm more concerned with the way you, apparently deliberately omit material you present to others and twist what others say. That's the main reason I expanded my Oppose above and it's still the main reason I think you should not be an administrator at this time. Nick (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)I respectfully disagree with Nick's contention that the WP:BLP does not require biographies of living persons to be written in a fair and balanced manner.
- Nick claims that I "apparently deliberately omit material you present to others and twist what others say"[6] This is a rather inappropriate statement to make, while simutaneously misrepresenting comments by Jimbo Wales. Nick asserts that Jimbo Wales' statement
actually meansBut in any event, one thing that can help with undue weight issues is the adding of actually interesting and verifiable information like this, so I encourage further efforts in this area.
However, it's fairly clear from the prepositional phrase "But in any event" that Jimbo Wales means to imply that addition of favorable material (whether or not possible in a particular case) is an additional remedy for issues of undue weight, not the exclusive remedy. Indeed, it's fairly obvious that to maintain a fair and balanced article on Rachel Marsden, we must be able to remove excessive quantities of unfavorable material, since the sheer volume of well-referenced criticism of Rachel Marsden greatly exceeds the amount of well-sourced favorable information that is avaliable for inclusion. The finding of the Arbitration Committee in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rachel_Marsden#Better_nothing_than_a_hatchet_job supports the contention that it may sometimes be necessary to remove well-sourced negative information concerning living persons to achieve balance:instead of censoring unflattering material, include further content to further balance the article[7]
Nick's statement that heAny user may convert a grossly unbalanced biography of a living person to a stub. Any administrator may delete the article and its talk page. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Writing_style provides that biographies of living people should be written responsibly, conservatively, and in a neutral, encyclopedic tone. While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted.
is incorrect. The law does not require biographies of living persons to be fair and balanced, but only stipulates that they must not include any false and defamatory information. A biography of a living person comprised entirely of well-referenced negative information is not libelous -- but it is a serious violation of our biographies of living persons policy, except in the case of persons notable only for negative events, such as major criminals. Nick should not be misrepresenting the law so as to claim that his statement regarding the purpose of WP:BLP doesn't mean what it says. John254 16:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)never suggested that the policy doesn't require biographies to be written in a fair and balanced manner, I suggested the main reason for the policy is to prevent unsourced and problematic material being introduced into the article and creating legal problems for the foundation, that comment, by it's very nature would cover material which even if fully sourced and referenced correctly, could constitute a legal problem due to the nature of how it is written, who contributed it and so on.[8]
- The Foundation receives complaints regarding biographies where the legal action being discussed or threatened is not due to the presence of libelous content or for defamation, but harassment from the user who added the content or civil proceedings over loss of earnings relating to the content of an article, or for any one of a number of other reasons. That's one of the reason why our policies in this are so extensive, we're trying to balance writing a good quality encyclopedic article with an article which leaves the Foundation free from concerns over legal action of any sort for all possible reasons, however far fetched. I never said what sort of legal action we try to avoid, I was trying to use the term "legal action" in the widest possible sense. I would ask that in future you ask that I clarify my comments rather than assuming I am discussing something specific, as you did above. It might also be sensible to move some of this discussion to the talk page as it's getting quite long now. Nick (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
- While the Wikimedia Foundation may receive all sorts of legal complaints, this does not imply that the complaints have merit -- after all, anyone can complain. "The content of this article is perfectly true, but it isn't fair and balanced" does not constitute a valid legal complaint. More fundamentally, however, the assertion that the biographies of living persons policy is primarily designed to avoid legal liability of any nature is inconsistent with the purpose of the policy as articulated in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Biographies_of_living_persons:
In other words, the policy relates to the ethical issues raised by our articles, not just preventing the Foundation from being sued. John254 17:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Wikipedia articles that present material about living people can affect their subjects' lives. Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so.
- While the Wikimedia Foundation may receive all sorts of legal complaints, this does not imply that the complaints have merit -- after all, anyone can complain. "The content of this article is perfectly true, but it isn't fair and balanced" does not constitute a valid legal complaint. More fundamentally, however, the assertion that the biographies of living persons policy is primarily designed to avoid legal liability of any nature is inconsistent with the purpose of the policy as articulated in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff#Biographies_of_living_persons:
- Nick claims that I "apparently deliberately omit material you present to others and twist what others say"[6] This is a rather inappropriate statement to make, while simutaneously misrepresenting comments by Jimbo Wales. Nick asserts that Jimbo Wales' statement
- I know this is going to be jolly bad form, and for that I apologise in advance, but as the issue I wish to raise is important and this RfA might well have closed before I would normally be able to raise the concerns, I feel I have no option but to raise the issues now. John, as a relatively uninvolved party, made several comments on a pending Request for Arbitration relating to the conduct of myself and another administrator, JoshuaZ over edits and page protection relating to Rachel Marsden. I would normally wait for such a case to either be accepted by the Committee or rejected before raising comment, but I feel the concerns I have are important and should be raised here. Firstly, and most importantly, these concerns were raised firstly (and only) with the Arbitration Committee, neither myself (nor Joshua, it would seem) has received any messages on our talk pages from John relating to his concerns. This single issue shows a complete lack of the necessary communication skills vital for this position. Secondly, the statements made by John to the committee are woefully inaccurate and portray events in a matter which is completely contrary to the actual history of the article. There are vast omissions of vitally important information relating to edits made to the article. I have no reason to believe this is in bad faith however but it is a significant worry and suggests that John may inadvertently be unfair and biased when dealing with any similar situations in future. Finally, I'm rather concerned by John's understanding of the BLP policy, his concerns relating to a protection I performed on the Marsden article and content contributed by Joshua would tend to suggest he would remove unflattering material even if such material is presented in a neutral, balanced, fair, and unbiased manner. There's always going to be a little bit of give and take with BLP, one person might think something is a little too negative and vice versa, so discussion to find a compromise is essential. Again, John has entered into no discussions with me over the content of the article other than a response to my comments on the Arbitration Case. Again, I find both his lack of understanding over the policy and complete lack of discussion prior to commenting before the Arbitration Committee to be undesirable traits in a potential administrator. Nick (talk) 11:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
