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

[Apathetic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ts#Ban_proposal

[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

[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).

[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?

[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?

[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.