| Revision as of 23:26, 12 January 2009 editJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,071 edits →Cycling events: done← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:03, 14 January 2009 edit undoJzG (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers155,071 edits →Blacklisted domains: replyNext edit → | ||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) | |||
| Line 100: | Line 100: | ||
| Looks like we once again have sockpuppets spamming links to Dan Schneider's articles. ]. I noticed you helped with this problem the last time it occurred, and would like your opinion on how to proceed. --] (]) 23:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC) | Looks like we once again have sockpuppets spamming links to Dan Schneider's articles. ]. I noticed you helped with this problem the last time it occurred, and would like your opinion on how to proceed. --] (]) 23:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| == Blacklisted domains == | |||
| Hi JzG, a couple of the domains you blacklisted that relate to cold fusion have come up for discussion. Abd and I share a concern. Without getting into the specific merits (or lack thereof) regarding the merits of those sites' POV, or their reliability as sources, etc., it appears--Abd knows more about the details than I do--that you had a role in the content dispute itself, as well as acting in an administrative capacity. It's important to maintain a separation of function between admin and editorial roles. I was wondering what you have to say about the matter, and whether you see the perspective that causes our concerns. | |||
| As you may know, I recently undertook mentorship of ScienceApologist. So people have started approaching me who've been active in the subjects where he tends to edit. It's a lot of learning curve to take up in a short time. Best regards and looking forward to your reply, <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 06:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * Christ on a bike. The problems with lenr-canr.org are: | |||
| :* Extensive promotion by site owner Jed Rothwell | |||
| :* Use of copyright material without proof of release (e.g. full text of journal articles published by Elsevier, and available from Elsevier for over $30 | |||
| :* Use of at least one source which was not as described - in fact, an extensive polemic followed by the source it purported to be. | |||
| :* Claimed to be a reference or library, but turns out to include polemical content such as a rant on "DOE LIES". | |||
| : So, it fails as a reliable source, fails as a repository (because the copyright status is questionable and because Rothwell is disingenuous about the site hosting only reliable peer-reviewed material; it also includes his and his friends' polemic against the Nasty mean Establishment that won't drink their cold fusion kool-aid), fails as a source of original content because it is self-published, and ultimately - and I am getting tired of saying this -we should be using the ] system, not linking to fringe advocacy sites. It seems that Abd is ''very'' determined to have links to this site, and it is not at all clear to me why that would be. If it was proposed as a source even in the absence of blacklisting there would be substantial opposition to its use. Added to that, we have a significant problem with the bias identified at ] being evident on numerous other language projects, with, in some cases, horribly biased articles sourced almost entirely form lenr-canr, whether or not the source was available elsewhere. Jed Rothwell compares his site to Amazon. It's more like lulu.com, but in any case we don't ink to Amazon, we use ISBN magic links. Much has been made of supposed conflict of interest on my part, but this seems to be a smokescreen to obscure persistent promotion by Jed Rothwell, consistent problems with the material linked, numerous identified issues with questionable copyright, and at least one case of outright falsification. Just how crap and abusive does linking have to be before some people will accept that it should simply be stopped? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree that these sites are probably not appropriate references or external links for Misplaced Pages. However, that does not necessarily mean they are spam, nor does it immediately follow that they should be blacklisted. I think it would be best practice to remove them from the blacklist, without prejudice, and then file a blacklisting request with ] and let the editors there make a decision. ] <sup>]</sup> 15:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Actually, JzG, it was the owner of newenergytimes.com who contacted me. Now as I articulated before, the relative merits of either site (or lack thereof) regarding its POV or reliability is not at issue in this query; it's the division between editorial involvement and administrative action. Do you have a response regarding that separation and your interpretation as it applies to this situation? <font face="Verdana">]</font><sup>'']''</sup> 15:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * The problems are problems of abuse. Who is the owner of NET? We know the owner of lenr-canr, Jed Rothwell, and we know that he, Pierre Carbonnel and Edmund Storms are a kind of unholy Trinity whose purpose is to change Misplaced Pages to influence public opinion towards their own agenda. We also know that Rothwell has promoted his site on Misplaced Pages pretty much since arrival, and that the site includes copyright violaitons and has been used to falsify sources. As far as I am concerned, there is no content for which that could ever be a reliable source. NET, too, looks like a site where links are placed solely for purposes of fringe advocacy - I have trouble considering the two separately, considering the overlap in the way they have been used to try to twist articles on many projects. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == One for you == | |||
| . Maybe we could migrate this to OTRS-Wiki. ] (]) 00:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * That one is beyond help :-( Thanks <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 08:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:03, 14 January 2009
|
This user is a member of the Misplaced Pages Ultra Secret Inner Inner Cabal, a cabal so secret that not only am I not allowed to know who the other members are, I am not even allowed to know if there are any other members, and if I ever did find out that anyone else was a member I would have to kill them immediately.
You can contact WUSIIC on #wikipedia-ultra-secret-inner-inner-cabal on Freenode. As a courtesy you are requested to kill yourself afterwards. |
If you are going to be a dick, please be a giant dick, so we can ban you quickly and save time. Thank you so much.
|
I check in most evenings, and occasionally some days during the day. I am on UK time (I can see Greenwich Royal Observatory from my office). If you post a reply at 8pm EST and get no reply by 10pm, it's likely because I'm asleep. My wiki interests at the moment are limited. I still handle some OTRS tickets. You can find me on facebook: my profile. Please include your WP username if sending a friend request.
Dispute resolution, Bible style - and actually an excellent model on Misplaced Pages as well.
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.
But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
— Matthew 18:15
Please do not try to provoke me to anger, it's not difficult to do, so it's not in the least bit clever, and experience indicates that some at least who deliberately make my life more miserable than it needs to be, have been banned and stayed that way. Make an effort to assume good faith and let's see if we can't get along. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please see User:JzG/Harassment links.
the internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers
- Bored? Looking for something to do? Try User:Eagle 101/problem BLPs.
- Really bored? Visit my website: http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
- Misplaced Pages:Civil POV pushing - read it now.
Note to self
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Istria&diff=192329190&oldid=189359747
<3
Celarnor has given you a kitten! Kittens promote Wikilove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Share the WikiLove and civility with everyone and keep up the excellent editing! Send kittens to others by adding {{subst:Joy message}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Exopolitics (Institute)
Hi. As you commented on the AFD for the page Exopolitics Institute, you may want to comment on the AFD of the successor article, Exopolitics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Thanks, Sceptre 17:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
ColScott's IP
Hey Guy, I think you just conflicted me on blocking the 12.x.x.x IP that's been playing silly games. I don't think a one week tariff is enough since the IP's static and has been used abusively since August 2007; do you have any objection with me reinstating my original long block? — east718 | talk | 23:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- None whatsoever. I don't think it's Mr Murphy himself, I think he is wiser than that. At least I hope so. Guy (Help!) 23:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
- ok, I'm bumping it back up. Thanks for your time. — east718 | talk | 23:09, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Dan Schneider again
Welcome back.
Looks like we once again have sockpuppets spamming links to Dan Schneider's articles. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Dan_Schneider_inserting_spam_links_again. I noticed you helped with this problem the last time it occurred, and would like your opinion on how to proceed. --Ronz (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Blacklisted domains
Hi JzG, a couple of the domains you blacklisted that relate to cold fusion have come up for discussion. Abd and I share a concern. Without getting into the specific merits (or lack thereof) regarding the merits of those sites' POV, or their reliability as sources, etc., it appears--Abd knows more about the details than I do--that you had a role in the content dispute itself, as well as acting in an administrative capacity. It's important to maintain a separation of function between admin and editorial roles. I was wondering what you have to say about the matter, and whether you see the perspective that causes our concerns.
As you may know, I recently undertook mentorship of ScienceApologist. So people have started approaching me who've been active in the subjects where he tends to edit. It's a lot of learning curve to take up in a short time. Best regards and looking forward to your reply, Durova 06:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- Christ on a bike. The problems with lenr-canr.org are:
- Extensive promotion by site owner Jed Rothwell
- Use of copyright material without proof of release (e.g. full text of journal articles published by Elsevier, and available from Elsevier for over $30
- Use of at least one source which was not as described - in fact, an extensive polemic followed by the source it purported to be.
- Claimed to be a reference or library, but turns out to include polemical content such as a rant on "DOE LIES".
- So, it fails as a reliable source, fails as a repository (because the copyright status is questionable and because Rothwell is disingenuous about the site hosting only reliable peer-reviewed material; it also includes his and his friends' polemic against the Nasty mean Establishment that won't drink their cold fusion kool-aid), fails as a source of original content because it is self-published, and ultimately - and I am getting tired of saying this -we should be using the Digital Object Identifier system, not linking to fringe advocacy sites. It seems that Abd is very determined to have links to this site, and it is not at all clear to me why that would be. If it was proposed as a source even in the absence of blacklisting there would be substantial opposition to its use. Added to that, we have a significant problem with the bias identified at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion being evident on numerous other language projects, with, in some cases, horribly biased articles sourced almost entirely form lenr-canr, whether or not the source was available elsewhere. Jed Rothwell compares his site to Amazon. It's more like lulu.com, but in any case we don't ink to Amazon, we use ISBN magic links. Much has been made of supposed conflict of interest on my part, but this seems to be a smokescreen to obscure persistent promotion by Jed Rothwell, consistent problems with the material linked, numerous identified issues with questionable copyright, and at least one case of outright falsification. Just how crap and abusive does linking have to be before some people will accept that it should simply be stopped? Guy (Help!) 15:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- I agree that these sites are probably not appropriate references or external links for Misplaced Pages. However, that does not necessarily mean they are spam, nor does it immediately follow that they should be blacklisted. I think it would be best practice to remove them from the blacklist, without prejudice, and then file a blacklisting request with WP:WPSPAM and let the editors there make a decision. Jehochman 15:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Actually, JzG, it was the owner of newenergytimes.com who contacted me. Now as I articulated before, the relative merits of either site (or lack thereof) regarding its POV or reliability is not at issue in this query; it's the division between editorial involvement and administrative action. Do you have a response regarding that separation and your interpretation as it applies to this situation? Durova 15:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
- The problems are problems of abuse. Who is the owner of NET? We know the owner of lenr-canr, Jed Rothwell, and we know that he, Pierre Carbonnel and Edmund Storms are a kind of unholy Trinity whose purpose is to change Misplaced Pages to influence public opinion towards their own agenda. We also know that Rothwell has promoted his site on Misplaced Pages pretty much since arrival, and that the site includes copyright violaitons and has been used to falsify sources. As far as I am concerned, there is no content for which that could ever be a reliable source. NET, too, looks like a site where links are placed solely for purposes of fringe advocacy - I have trouble considering the two separately, considering the overlap in the way they have been used to try to twist articles on many projects. Guy (Help!) 09:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
One for you
Link. Maybe we could migrate this to OTRS-Wiki. Daniel (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
- That one is beyond help :-( Thanks Guy (Help!) 08:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)