| Revision as of 17:43, 3 November 2006 editThe Literate Engineer (talk | contribs)1,546 edits Regarding original research.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 03:16, 5 January 2007 edit undoKyndFellow (talk | contribs)519 edits →[] | ||
| (54 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == |
== ] == | ||
| This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above. | |||
| As an editor involved in this dispute, you are invited to enter a statement in the ] under ]. — ] 22:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| *] is indefinitely banned from editing ] and related articles as well as their talk pages. It is presumed that articles regarding any person, business or service or any accommodation or sex tourism destination mentioned on his websites are related articles, but the ban extends to all articles which relate to sexual services or sex tourism destinations. | |||
| == Regarding original research. == | |||
| *KyndFellow, editing under any username or anonymous ip, is indefinitely placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or talk page which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing. | |||
| *Content questions regarding the appropriateness of mention or links to the sites promoted by KyndFellow are not addressed; those questions being left to editorial discretion exercised in the normal course of editing. | |||
| *KyndFellow, should he violate any ban imposed under the terms of this decision, may be blocked for an appropriate period of time. | |||
| *Sock or meatpuppets which edit in the same manner and with the same themes as KyndFellow are subject to the remedies imposed on KyndFellow. Indefinite blocks may be imposed on aggressive socks. All blocks and bans to be logged at ]. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee --] 06:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| In answer to your question, yes, participant observation is original research. The exception is if that participants' observations have been published in a reputable source. Additionally, I'll two sections of the ] policy. First, "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article in order to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research. "A and B, therefore C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published this argument in relation to the topic of the article." I think you may be making this mistake, which is indeed a common one, in the ] dispute. The second is "An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following: | |||
| : Hi. | |||
| * It introduces a theory or method of solution; | |||
| : Yes, you are banned from Sex tourism and its talk page. If you do it, you may be reverted and blocked... | |||
| * It introduces original ideas; | |||
| : I think you can still collaborate with Devalover to improve the article, as long as you don't edit the article or its talk page. | |||
| * It defines new terms; | |||
| : ]-] 13:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC) | |||
| * It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; | |||
| * It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; | |||
| * It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; | |||
| * It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source." | |||
| If people think you're doing one of those, the original research charge gets leveled. ] 17:43, 3 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 03:16, 5 January 2007
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism
This case is now closed and the results have been published at the link above.
- KyndFellow is indefinitely banned from editing sex tourism and related articles as well as their talk pages. It is presumed that articles regarding any person, business or service or any accommodation or sex tourism destination mentioned on his websites are related articles, but the ban extends to all articles which relate to sexual services or sex tourism destinations.
- KyndFellow, editing under any username or anonymous ip, is indefinitely placed on Probation. He may be banned from any article or talk page which he disrupts by aggressive biased editing.
- Content questions regarding the appropriateness of mention or links to the sites promoted by KyndFellow are not addressed; those questions being left to editorial discretion exercised in the normal course of editing.
- KyndFellow, should he violate any ban imposed under the terms of this decision, may be blocked for an appropriate period of time.
- Sock or meatpuppets which edit in the same manner and with the same themes as KyndFellow are subject to the remedies imposed on KyndFellow. Indefinite blocks may be imposed on aggressive socks. All blocks and bans to be logged at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Sex tourism#Log of blocks and bans.
For the Arbitration Committee --Srikeit 06:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi.
- Yes, you are banned from Sex tourism and its talk page. If you do it, you may be reverted and blocked...
- I think you can still collaborate with Devalover to improve the article, as long as you don't edit the article or its talk page.
- Fred-Chess 13:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)