Sceptre calls for ban of Kurt Weber, cites "Off-wiki harassment, and continuation of disruption to mak Options

[everyking]

I reverted him, as he is not welcome on my talk page and is perfectly free to post his rebuttal on WR if he so chooses. I am impressed by Sarcasticidealist's level of awareness and response time, however. Since it may be presumed that he doesn't have my talk page watchlisted, I would hazard a guess that Raul has been discussing this in IRC--perhaps even asking someone to publicize the rebuttal for him?

Not quite right - I'm afraid that I can't even spell IRC, let alone act as Raul's proxy as a result of my participation there. I have Shalom's talk page watchlisted, and Raul posted a link there.

My apologies, then. Anyway, Raul has now proceeded to make a fascinating suggestion on the AN thread about his sockpuppet account.

[Crestatus]

The scariest thing is that Raul's the guy that chooses TFAs.

[theseoldshades]

Sceptre has now gone on a deletion tagging/AFD-ing rampage got into a fight with SchmuckytheCat, landed him on AN and generally thrown a hissy fit! And all while on a 'break' which is very JzG-esque of him. And this choice quote from #wikipedia-en:

<Sceptre> Majorly: attack page
<Sceptre> by virtue of its title

in reference to [[Criticism of Hugo Chavez]] seems very Slimmy-esque in equating criticism with attack. Such wonderful role models he draws upon!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sceptre
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...#SchmuckyTheCat

Edit: And now MBisanz removed Sceptre's rollback for abusing it in removing CSD tags. Smackdown! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=230201484

This post has been edited by theseoldshades: Wed 6th August 2008, 3:01pm

[Neil]

Sceptre has gone (temporarily?) mental and will be blocked if he carries on.

[Sceptre]

<Sceptre> Majorly: attack page
<Sceptre> by virtue of its title

in reference to [[Criticism of Hugo Chavez]] seems very Slimmy-esque in equating criticism with attack. Such wonderful role models he draws upon!

On Wikipedia, the two most incorrectly used words are "controversy" and "criticism". For example, did Isaiah Washington's dismissal from Grey's Anatomy create "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views" (M-W)? No - even Washington himself said he used a poor choice of words - but as recently as the 28th, Wikipedia said so. Critici(s|z)e, as well as meaning "to find fault with" also means "to evaluate merits and demerits" (M-W), but its use on Wikipedia is nearly solely the former (and actually does present POV problems).

[Crestatus]

The rampage is probably due to Sceptre's case against Kurt being thrown out in less than two days.

[JoseClutch]

The rampage is probably due to Sceptre's case against Kurt being thrown out in less than two days.

Probably, but maybe Sceptre just wants to see how far she can go before anything actually happens to her.

[Random832]

<Sceptre> Majorly: attack page
<Sceptre> by virtue of its title

in reference to [[Criticism of Hugo Chavez]] seems very Slimmy-esque in equating criticism with attack. Such wonderful role models he draws upon!

On Wikipedia, the two most incorrectly used words are "controversy" and "criticism". For example, did Isaiah Washington's dismissal from Grey's Anatomy create "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views" (M-W)? No - even Washington himself said he used a poor choice of words - but as recently as the 28th, Wikipedia said so. Critici(s|z)e, as well as meaning "to find fault with" also means "to evaluate merits and demerits" (M-W), but its use on Wikipedia is nearly solely the former (and actually does present POV problems).

I remember some opposing views at the time, though none are presented in the article. I actually personally think it's quite unfortunate that he ended up in more trouble for mentioning the word in attempting to address the original accusation. What people were really offended by, I suspect, was the fact that he denied it rather than apologizing for it - problem is, with that attitude, it sucks to be falsely accused (whether he was or not, people didn't even CONSIDER that he might not have actually said what he was accused of saying. He still claims he was not referring to Knight, though it's unclear in what context he actually used the word.)

This post has been edited by Random832: Wed 6th August 2008, 4:13pm

[LaraLove]

The rampage is probably due to Sceptre's case against Kurt being thrown out in less than two days.

Probably, but maybe Sceptre just wants to see how far she can go before anything actually happens to her.

Sceptre is a male.

[ColScott]

I'm not using any "WR is evil" hyperbole; Kurt has engaged in behaviour that, when viewed by any outsider, would be seen as harassment, if only by Wikipedia's policy.

when viewed by an outsider you are an idiot, unloved and a ponce
just sayin'

[Random832]

Critici(s|z)e, as well as meaning "to find fault with" also means "to evaluate merits and demerits" (M-W), but its use on Wikipedia is nearly solely the former (and actually does present POV problems).

So what exactly is the POV problem with having an article about instances in which people have found fault with a public figure?

[Milton Roe]

On Wikipedia, the two most incorrectly used words are "controversy" and "criticism". For example, did Isaiah Washington's dismissal from Grey's Anatomy create "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views" (M-W)? No - even Washington himself said he used a poor choice of words - but as recently as the 28th, Wikipedia said so. Critici(s|z)e, as well as meaning "to find fault with" also means "to evaluate merits and demerits" (M-W), but its use on Wikipedia is nearly solely the former (and actually does present POV problems).

Once upon a time, the WP articles on civility and personal attack had (very much needed) notes that criticism of an editor's improper behavior did not itself automatically constitute incivility or an attack. Most of that language is now missing, leaving an editor (particulary a savvy admin) perfectly free to respond to any criticism about their poor performance as though it was a personal insult. About all I can find now in the CIVIL article now, is that saying that somebody has been incivil is not itself incivil. Which is a start, but doesn't go very far toward being helpful to a very bad situation. Is it incivil to say that somebody is being disruptive? Or a troll (an inherrently rude term)? The WP:CIVIL article says that incivility is not tolerated in any circumstances, toward anybody. Clearly a rule not followed most of the time, by those in power.

What we've evolved to is this: that there really isn't any way to draw attention to an administrator's bad conduct without taking it to ArbCom, where the rule that it's ipso facto incivil to discuss people's bad actions, seem to be suspended. Of course, administrators are still allowed to mostly make any incivil comment they want in an edit diff summary comment, when applying some sanction. Strangely, there's no note in WP:CIVIL which gives them this pass. But the JzG and others cases shows that they are able to act as though they had it, anyway.

This post has been edited by Milton Roe: Wed 6th August 2008, 6:46pm

[JoseClutch]

The rampage is probably due to Sceptre's case against Kurt being thrown out in less than two days.

Probably, but maybe Sceptre just wants to see how far she can go before anything actually happens to her.

Sceptre is a male.

Oh, my mistake. I think the essential point still stands.

Although I have no doubt Sceptre's rampage is motivated by the failure to get Kurt in trouble, I suspect there is some "If Kurt can misbehave and not get sanctioned, I should be able to as well." in there as well.

[Kelly Martin]

On Wikipedia, the two most incorrectly used words are "controversy" and "criticism". For example, did Isaiah Washington's dismissal from Grey's Anatomy create "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views" (M-W)? No - even Washington himself said he used a poor choice of words - but as recently as the 28th, Wikipedia said so. Critici(s|z)e, as well as meaning "to find fault with" also means "to evaluate merits and demerits" (M-W), but its use on Wikipedia is nearly solely the former (and actually does present POV problems).

The purpose of "Criticism of ____" sections and articles on Wikipedia is to remove unwanted negative content from an article one is maintaining. The usual trajectory is to create a "Criticism of ____" section in the article, move all negative commentary there, then split it off to a "subarticle" on "length" grounds, then subsequently have the criticism subarticle deleted as a "coatrack" or as "non-neutral" or for any of a thousand other reasons that can be readily found in the Playbook for Using Wikipedia as a Vehicle for Issue Advocacy that I'm sure is out there somewhere.

The reason they are required is that most such articles are edited almost exclusively by advocates instead of by disinterested authors, and as such they are not willing or able to actually take a dispassionate view of the subject at hand and write a balanced, neutral synopsis that integrates the positive and negative aspects of the subject into an integrated whole. Wikipedia's microsourcing policies and idiotic attitudes on synthesis also do not help in this regard.

[Sceptre]

Critici(s|z)e, as well as meaning "to find fault with" also means "to evaluate merits and demerits" (M-W), but its use on Wikipedia is nearly solely the former (and actually does present POV problems).

So what exactly is the POV problem with having an article about instances in which people have found fault with a public figure?

The latter definition is negative. Wikipedia shouldn't have negative or positive elements on its own; they should be discussed with each other in a neutral environment (Windows Vista critcism should be in a "critique" or "review" section in the Windows Vista article). Even the article for Adolf Hitler discusses the bad (the Holocaust) along with the good (pioneering the Volkswagen).

[Random832]

Critici(s|z)e, as well as meaning "to find fault with" also means "to evaluate merits and demerits" (M-W), but its use on Wikipedia is nearly solely the former (and actually does present POV problems).

So what exactly is the POV problem with having an article about instances in which people have found fault with a public figure?

The latter definition is negative. Wikipedia shouldn't have negative or positive elements on its own; they should be discussed with each other in a neutral environment (Windows Vista critcism should be in a "critique" or "review" section in the Windows Vista article). Even the article for Adolf Hitler discusses the bad (the Holocaust) along with the good (pioneering the Volkswagen).

And if the article gets too large, what lines do you suppose it should be split along?

[JoseClutch]

Critici(s|z)e, as well as meaning "to find fault with" also means "to evaluate merits and demerits" (M-W), but its use on Wikipedia is nearly solely the former (and actually does present POV problems).

So what exactly is the POV problem with having an article about instances in which people have found fault with a public figure?

The latter definition is negative. Wikipedia shouldn't have negative or positive elements on its own; they should be discussed with each other in a neutral environment (Windows Vista critcism should be in a "critique" or "review" section in the Windows Vista article). Even the article for Adolf Hitler discusses the bad (the Holocaust) along with the good (pioneering the Volkswagen).

And if the article gets too large, what lines do you suppose it should be split along?

Depends on the article. But usually one subarticle per top level heading. Windows Vista (the named example) has:
Development of Windows Vista
Features new to Windows Vista
Technical features new to Windows Vista
Security and safety features new to Windows Vista
Management features new to Windows Vista
Features removed from Windows Vista
Windows Vista editions
Windows Vista 64-bit editions
Criticism of Windows Vista

Why the "new features" and several specific "new features" articles exist is beyond me, seems like bad layout. Ditto for the two "editions". Kelly's right that "Criticism" should be mixed with "Praise" and "Neutral" receptions into "Reception", which also has a section but no subs.

[Kelly Martin]

And if the article gets too large, what lines do you suppose it should be split along?

When an article gets too large, the proper remedy is usually to delete the "in popular culture" section, and otherwise trim out the 80% of the article that doesn't need to be there.

“Perfection is reached not when there’s nothing left to add, but when there’s nothing left to remove.” - Antoine de St. Exupery

[Milton Roe]

And if the article gets too large, what lines do you suppose it should be split along?

When an article gets too large, the proper remedy is usually to delete the "in popular culture" section, and otherwise trim out the 80% of the article that doesn't need to be there.

“Perfection is reached not when there’s nothing left to add, but when there’s nothing left to remove.” - Antoine de St. Exupery

It also is often possible to split out an "X as practiced around the world" collection of stuff into a separate article, and also a "history of X" which is often long and needs a different article. In both cases leaving a summary behind.

Finally, a "Criticism of X" article is often needed for things which are intrinsically POVs, like Roman Catholicism or the standard Warren JFK assassination theory. Sometimes the article OWNers allow this, and sometimes they don't. When they don't, it guarantees much WP:LAME drama.

[Milton Roe]

The latter definition is negative. Wikipedia shouldn't have negative or positive elements on its own; they should be discussed with each other in a neutral environment (Windows Vista critcism should be in a "critique" or "review" section in the Windows Vista article). Even the article for Adolf Hitler discusses the bad (the Holocaust) along with the good (pioneering the Volkswagen).

But let's be honest-- that's only because the Adolf Hitler article's OWNers' heads would explode if there was a "Good things about Adolf Hitler" article (or the same for the Nazis). There are Catholicism and Mormonism and Anti-Catholicism and Anti-Mormonism articles. There's an Apollo Program article and a Apollo Moon Landing Hoax Conspiracy Theories article. But certain splits would never be allowed. You can devote most of an article to criticisizing Catholic thought, but nobody would EVER allow you do devote most of an article criticizing (say) Orthodox Jewish thought (which would not be the same as criticizing aspects of Jewish culture or Jews as an ethnic or racial group). The former must always be lumped in with the latter so that it can be termed "Antisemitism," and don't you dare try to differentiate the two. Thus, if some Orthodox Rabis think the world was created 6,000 years ago, you're going to have to hunt for that in other articles. BUT, if the Roman Catholic church once proclaimed the Sun goes around the Earth, it will be right there in the Anti-Catholicism article. And so on.

Thus does Wikipedia encourage POV pushing by where it permits article POV forks, and where it does NOT.