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

[JoseClutch]

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.

Following the usual bias, you would expect a "Good things about Hitler" article, because it allows the important article "Adolf Hitler" to read "Sucking cock in Hell!" - the first motivation for spinoffs of unwanted material is "out of sight, out of mind", but the "AfD as not independantly notable" can be a fringe benefit, but I don't think that is quite right. I think it is more like the "Wikipedia should only cover superserious topics - if there is not a so-named article in Britannica, it is not encyclopedic" crowd that swoops in on the spinoffs.

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

Apparently Sceptre doesn't believe Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist.

I believe he will next claim the sky isn't blue, and join the Flat Earth Society.

[Giggy]

Fourth, this is Osama Fucking bin Laden.

From here.

[LaraLove]

Fourth, this is Osama Fucking bin Laden.

From here.

Since seeing a comical vid of JoshusZ, I hear his voice whenever I read anything he posts. It's good times.

Sceptre, what's your problem? Why are you resorting to troll-like behavior? Have you given up?

[Sceptre]

Apparently Sceptre doesn't believe Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist.

I believe he will next claim the sky isn't blue, and join the Flat Earth Society.

I'm not saying he isn't a terrorist, I'm saying it's highly inappropriate to call him one in the manner Wikipedia currently does. Being Bin Laden doesn't mean we suspend guidelines and policies. NPOV is quite clear that we don't say he's a terrorist (because he's one man's freedom fighter). WEASEL also says that we should avoid "Some say" in favour of "Interpol, the UK government, the US goverment, et al".

[Ottava]

I'm not saying he isn't a terrorist, I'm saying it's highly inappropriate to call him one in the manner Wikipedia currently does. Being Bin Laden doesn't mean we suspend guidelines and policies. NPOV is quite clear that we don't say he's a terrorist (because he's one man's freedom fighter). WEASEL also says that we should avoid "Some say" in favour of "Interpol, the UK government, the US goverment, et al".

NPOV is an honorable concept to try to enforce in the place you would most likely get burned. You had to know someone would have gone after you for it when you didn't actually put the "Interpol, the UK government, the US government, et al" in there yourself, right? Perhaps there is too much AGF on your part thinking that the you wouldn't find someone with nothing better to do than to try and start up an edit war with you.

I would just ignore the angry masses.

By the way, did you notice that it is part of "WikiProject Terrorism"? Could be a mass problem of weaseling about.

Kurt has an account here, but I don't think he has posted since there was a debate over the infallibility of Ayn Rand, in which he was the sole pro-infallibility voice.

Oh, the irony of worshiping Ayn Rand made me laugh.

[Sceptre]

I'm not saying he isn't a terrorist, I'm saying it's highly inappropriate to call him one in the manner Wikipedia currently does. Being Bin Laden doesn't mean we suspend guidelines and policies. NPOV is quite clear that we don't say he's a terrorist (because he's one man's freedom fighter). WEASEL also says that we should avoid "Some say" in favour of "Interpol, the UK government, the US goverment, et al".

NPOV is an honorable concept to try to enforce in the place you would most likely get burned. You had to know someone would have gone after you for it when you didn't actually put the "Interpol, the UK government, the US government, et al" in there yourself, right? Perhaps there is too much AGF on your part thinking that the you wouldn't find someone with nothing better to do than to try and start up an edit war with you.

I would just ignore the angry masses.

By the way, did you notice that it is part of "WikiProject Terrorism"? Could be a mass problem of weaseling about.

Kurt has an account here, but I don't think he has posted since there was a debate over the infallibility of Ayn Rand, in which he was the sole pro-infallibility voice.

Oh, the irony of worshiping Ayn Rand made me laugh.

It's not really up to the critic to fix things. However, instead of tag-warring, I made a change to the article so it didn't include that horrible "numerous" phrase, but instead listed his indictments. Guess what? It got reverted because there was no consensus to remove weasel words

[Random832]

I'm not saying he isn't a terrorist, I'm saying it's highly inappropriate to call him one in the manner Wikipedia currently does. Being Bin Laden doesn't mean we suspend guidelines and policies. NPOV is quite clear that we don't say he's a terrorist (because he's one man's freedom fighter). WEASEL also says that we should avoid "Some say" in favour of "Interpol, the UK government, the US goverment, et al".

Are you trolling, or are you actually serious?

This post has been edited by Random832: Thu 7th August 2008, 1:42pm

[Ottava]

It's not really up to the critic to fix things. However, instead of tag-warring, I made a change to the article so it didn't include that horrible "numerous" phrase, but instead listed his indictments. Guess what? It got reverted because there was no consensus to remove weasel words

Yeah, but the thing that they forget is consensus can't go against the policy, and even consensus can't change some policies, which NPOV happens to have a large amount of points that fall under that little number.

You could always take it up with OTRS, although I doubt someone would sue on the behalf of Bin Laden (although there might be one or two Muslim groups that are willing to say that it damages all Muslims).

If I was there, I would have jumped in and added the specific groups with refs behind each one, but........... I'm not and you'll have to wait a few days.

Are you trolling, or are you actually serious?

Random, if he isn't serious, I will be -

Wikipedia is supposed to be seeing as objective. This means that you cannot use any label that attributes a "value" to an individual without first attributing it to a source. We cannot say this person is "smart", this person is "great", etc, unless we first say "according to ___ this person is ____". Now, people try to get around it by saying "some say" or other vague expressions. This is unencyclopedic, because it is unspecific.

Regardless, it is a best practice to be as specific and as informative as possible, which requires sources for information.

Does that make sense? If not, you can make fun of me for the rest of your time here. I don't mind.

[Sceptre]

You could always take it up with OTRS, although I doubt someone would sue on the behalf of Bin Laden (although there might be one or two Muslim groups that are willing to say that it damages all Muslims).

BLP is a legal and ethical requirement. Even if Osama can't sue, namecalling just lowers us to their level

[Ottava]

You could always take it up with OTRS, although I doubt someone would sue on the behalf of Bin Laden (although there might be one or two Muslim groups that are willing to say that it damages all Muslims).

BLP is a legal and ethical requirement. Even if Osama can't sue, namecalling just lowers us to their level

I know, I know, but I'm sure someone at OTRS can sympathize.

I just thought about what would happen if I made the appropriate fixes when I am able to, and it can either go without a problem, or it will just cause even more problems. Is it worth the risk for me to do that? It should seem reasonable to list and reference directly, but I'm sure people wont like the fact that I did it (although, I've touched some other pages almost as controversial without major problems).

BLPs suck. Too much drama and controversy surrounding them.

[KamrynMatika]

Aha He's now edit warring over an MFD and disputed tag on RFC/U, accusing people who ask him to quit edit warring of poisoning the well, and is spewing crap about "good faith" when anyone bothers questioning him. He couldn't be begging any harder for attention. Kinda sad really. Anyone else would (and should) have been blocked and/or banned by now.

This post has been edited by KamrynMatika: Thu 7th August 2008, 5:10pm

[thekohser]

Please keep in mind that the term "terrorist" is not universally defamatory.

Indeed, my 12th grade Debate teacher, Darcy Butrimas, used to call valedictorian Larry Pines and me "terrorists" because after our assignments were complete, we'd want to go play improvised stickball with a bristle broom and a wadded ball of packing tape, back in the storage room that connected the Debate class with the Anatomy class.

One of the rules of "broomball" -- don't ever knock a pig fetus in a bottle off the shelf! That's an automatic loss of the game for the offending side.

Ah, yes... memories. Darcy Butrimas calling Larry and me "terrorists". So, there's some fondness for the term for ya.

[Sceptre]

Please keep in mind that the term "terrorist" is not universally defamatory.

Indeed, my 12th grade Debate teacher, Darcy Butrimas, used to call valedictorian Larry Pines and me "terrorists" because after our assignments were complete, we'd want to go play improvised stickball with a bristle broom and a wadded ball of packing tape, back in the storage room that connected the Debate class with the Anatomy class.

One of the rules of "broomball" -- don't ever knock a pig fetus in a bottle off the shelf! That's an automatic loss of the game for the offending side.

Ah, yes... memories. Darcy Butrimas calling Larry and me "terrorists". So, there's some fondness for the term for ya.

Wouldn't it be nice if we just all went back to the root definition and throw off all of the negative connotations? "Terrorist" should mean "person who uses fear and terror to inspire or further their goals" instead of "someone our government doesn't like", and, to paraphrase Alan Moore on this, "anarchy" should mean "without rulers", not "without order".

[cyofee]

Please keep in mind that the term "terrorist" is not universally defamatory.

Indeed, my 12th grade Debate teacher, Darcy Butrimas, used to call valedictorian Larry Pines and me "terrorists" because after our assignments were complete, we'd want to go play improvised stickball with a bristle broom and a wadded ball of packing tape, back in the storage room that connected the Debate class with the Anatomy class.

One of the rules of "broomball" -- don't ever knock a pig fetus in a bottle off the shelf! That's an automatic loss of the game for the offending side.

Ah, yes... memories. Darcy Butrimas calling Larry and me "terrorists". So, there's some fondness for the term for ya.

Wouldn't it be nice if we just all went back to the root definition and throw off all of the negative connotations? "Terrorist" should mean "person who uses fear and terror to inspire or further their goals" instead of "someone our government doesn't like", and, to paraphrase Alan Moore on this, "anarchy" should mean "without rulers", not "without order".

Well that's not for you to decide, is it?

[Milton Roe]

Please keep in mind that the term "terrorist" is not universally defamatory.

Indeed, my 12th grade Debate teacher, Darcy Butrimas, used to call valedictorian Larry Pines and me "terrorists" because after our assignments were complete, we'd want to go play improvised stickball with a bristle broom and a wadded ball of packing tape, back in the storage room that connected the Debate class with the Anatomy class.

One of the rules of "broomball" -- don't ever knock a pig fetus in a bottle off the shelf! That's an automatic loss of the game for the offending side.

Ah, yes... memories. Darcy Butrimas calling Larry and me "terrorists". So, there's some fondness for the term for ya.

Wouldn't it be nice if we just all went back to the root definition and throw off all of the negative connotations? "Terrorist" should mean "person who uses fear and terror to inspire or further their goals" instead of "someone our government doesn't like", and, to paraphrase Alan Moore on this, "anarchy" should mean "without rulers", not "without order".

Well that's not for you to decide, is it?

No, but it's not for the government to decide, either. "Terrorist" is a word like "murder" which is entirely conditioned by whether or not the user recognizes some "authority" or other. And "authority", like "beauty" is in the mind of the beholder. It's as useless to debate about where some killings are "really" murders or some groups acts are "really" terrorism, as it is to debate about whether or not some bit of self-expression is "really" art.

Even better is whether or not a groups get to define themselves.

"Group X isn't really Christian."
"But they CALL themselves Christians."
Yeah, but they're not TRUE Christians. No TRUE Christian believes Y."

And off we go.

[Sceptre]

Just as a funny side note about Kurt, he claims to be fluent in Latin. In that case, he should know the difference between prima facie and res ipsa loquitur.

[Apathetic]

fluent in bullshit

[ColScott]

Please keep in mind that the term "terrorist" is not universally defamatory.

Indeed, my 12th grade Debate teacher, Darcy Butrimas, used to call valedictorian Larry Pines and me "terrorists" because after our assignments were complete, we'd want to go play improvised stickball with a bristle broom and a wadded ball of packing tape, back in the storage room that connected the Debate class with the Anatomy class.

One of the rules of "broomball" -- don't ever knock a pig fetus in a bottle off the shelf! That's an automatic loss of the game for the offending side.

Ah, yes... memories. Darcy Butrimas calling Larry and me "terrorists". So, there's some fondness for the term for ya.

Wouldn't it be nice if we just all went back to the root definition and throw off all of the negative connotations? "Terrorist" should mean "person who uses fear and terror to inspire or further their goals" instead of "someone our government doesn't like", and, to paraphrase Alan Moore on this, "anarchy" should mean "without rulers", not "without order".

Doofus I know Alan Moore- made two of his movies.
He HATES CULTS.
And spotty little children.
You're screwed.

[Kurt M. Weber]

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.

No, I haven't.

And it's quite sneaky of you to start it on the day I go out of town for a week to do something way more productive than put stuff on a stupid website.

Kurt most certainly needs banning, or at least a topic ban on certain areas such as RfAs.

No, I don't.

No. He acts like a spoilt child on IRC,

No, I don't. Please stop making up lies.

although he has sent me personal messages on this forum along the lines of "Hey, troll. Why do you hate Wikipedia?"

Yes, because you clearly hate Wikipedia and I want to know why.