| Revision as of 01:38, 6 January 2007 edit58.179.166.57 (talk) Announcement← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:52, 8 January 2007 edit undoAlanBarnet (talk | contribs)762 edits →Announcement: conflict reduction solutionNext edit → | ||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| refers to you. Take care. ] 01:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | refers to you. Take care. ] 01:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC) | ||
| Doc, you've been around on Wiki longer than me. What can we do about the wetness of Guy at Admin or am I expecting results too quickly? I feel like the current set of editors are just getting worn down by the sheer relentless tedium of dealing with sockpuppets. ] 12:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Not that I'm planning to give up the fight mind you.] 12:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :Hello Fainites (and 58.179.166.57 and Doc pato). It seems to me there isn't any sockpuppeting going on in the NLP article. There are issues to sort out though especially as regards concisely presenting all relevant views with balance and due weight. Fighting or conflict of any kind is to be avoided on any article according to policy. If wikistress is a problem and causes you to make insulting - disparaging or uncooperative actions or remarks - its probably best to take a break.] 03:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:52, 8 January 2007
Hello Doc Pato. Further to your comments on the NLP talkpage - I am clearly not sockpuppeting and if you care to look at the links I have placed (though Comaze seems to have removed many) I am collaborating with Admin by posting any uncooperative behaviour on the ANI noticeboard. I do seem to be the only editor trying to work on a clear and balanced lead section though - and it seems to me that Comaze and a number of other editors are trying to keep the main issues out of the lead section. According to feedback from admin - there is a big problem of editors with an obvious vested interest creating a biased article and promotionally obscuring the main facts just as they have repeatedly done witht the lead section.) . . I am uncertain as how to present the information on cults there and have left the cult information out. I wish to hear more from non-COI (conflict of interest) editors on exactly how best to present the information. AlanBarnet 09:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
- "HeadleyDown initially acts as the "sweet voice of a reasonable editor", claiming to have a scientific or neutral interest, seeking minor improvements, POV fixes, balance, or a legitimate "scientific/neutral" viewpoint in an otherwise not-bad article. However in practice long-term he is a virulent and destructive subtle POV warrior who ignores bona fide research (sometimes calling it "promotion") and gradually over time using multiple socks forces a massive POV slant until articles end up attacking their own subjects, or twisted to a very one-sided POV, rather than explaining them. This is claimed to be "more concise", "more scientific", "cited" or "more neutral". At times, he has forged cites and credentials, invented material, and deleted bona fide information, to do this. He is quite tenacious and persistent and tries to come back if blocked. It is worth noting that Wikipedians lacking prior experience usually mistake HeadleyDown's socks as being good-faith editors...and treat his disputes as run-of-the-mill content/civility/3RR/NPOV issues. As a result his socks are very often given much good faith even by experienced editors, and only slightly chastised by Arbcom, which he uses to continue degrading the article and deterring genuine editorship for months on end.
- You're arguments are the same, your edits are the same, the bulk of your tactics are the same. I'm not buying it.Doc Pato 15:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Announcement
This new announcement refers to you. Take care. 58.179.166.57 01:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Doc, you've been around on Wiki longer than me. What can we do about the wetness of Guy at Admin or am I expecting results too quickly? I feel like the current set of editors are just getting worn down by the sheer relentless tedium of dealing with sockpuppets. Fainites 12:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Not that I'm planning to give up the fight mind you.Fainites 12:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hello Fainites (and 58.179.166.57 and Doc pato). It seems to me there isn't any sockpuppeting going on in the NLP article. There are issues to sort out though especially as regards concisely presenting all relevant views with balance and due weight. Fighting or conflict of any kind is to be avoided on any article according to policy. If wikistress is a problem and causes you to make insulting - disparaging or uncooperative actions or remarks - its probably best to take a break.AlanBarnet 03:51, 8 January 2007 (UTC)