This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Editor 216.57.17.234 is at it again, this time manipulating information found in the source cited and adding it to recently added material, thereby distorting the content of a properly sourced and quoted passage, something s/he has done before. Please review the history and see talk page for details. The passage has been re-worded accurately. Is there any way that 216.57.17.234 can be blocked from editing? 72.76.10.162 13:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Please see my reply to your post at the Michael Lucas (porn star) talkpage. 71.127.229.169 19:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
If I read your talk page right, you have become an admin. Congratulations. Could you check up on
Akebono Taro when you can. I think we are having some trouble. I have reported it everywhere, but I don't want to re-revert, because the other editor just went through and reverted everything to his last edit about post retirement career without regard to any other edits that were made by others -- not only me but others, as the article was moved up to a b status for pro wrestling because of the sources added but those sources where removed. also, i had the article up for good article review status but i guess with this kind of edit war it won't occur :(. thanks for any help you can give.
XinJeisan
18:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you more personally for all your recent contributions to the Perez Hilton page! It is definitely more NPOV now.-- Agnaramasi 01:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
From what I have been reading, I think you might be interested in the following two articles:
A Zone to Stay Out Of by David Ignatius.
The Right to Privacy by Warren and Brandeis, that Ignatius references but didn't provide a link to in his article, for some reason.
XinJeisan 16:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem, happy to help out. I did see the name Hikari mentioned somewhere, so I suspected the redirect might have been proper. Take care! -- But| seriously| folks 02:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
They're at it again. I've made the necessary corrections and notations. We'll see how long it holds up and whether further action is necessitated. Hope all is well during your time away. 72.76.80.106 11:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the big-butt tag which I see you've moved to the talk page; I honestly did not know that it belonged there. It was so official-looking (and large) that I chose to insert it in the hope that it would forestall any further edits from "those editors" but I see that they've done no further edits even after you moved it. Perhaps they're on vacation? -- I guess even sleazes take time off from sleazing, or perhaps they're still sleazing but not making any money off of it. I want you to know that the observations you made over at COIN on 11 July were 100% accurate: one editor whose system changes his IP address.
I don't know how much longer I can hang out editing, but hopefully long enough to see a reply from you here. I wanted to write and say that I appreciate your support with this article. Two things I hate are opportunism and lying; the subject of this article is a lying opportunist, hence my interest in preserving accuracy and balance in the article. I did not feel like I was fighting alone with you on the scene. I think of you as a kindred spirit. Thank you. Even in my absence I trust the article will be kept in balance under your stewardship and watchful eye.
(P.S., Check out his blog site for 11 July, you'll laugh: could the topic have been prompted by some caustic comments made in talk about his appearance??)
Happy trails! 72.68.119.234 18:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I thought I'd pop by and say hello. Thanks for the compliment. I already said this on the talk page of the article but I'd like to repeat it: my compliments on your work on the article back in May. From that point on I knew that I had an ally. And I wanted to say this in my last post: sorry that I let anger take over that one time. It doesn't happen often but none of us is perfect. Your gentle admonition set me on the right path. Thanks. As for your hope that I can keep watch: I'd like to say that I'll try, but I can't make any promises. I have some things coming up, and in the meantime the (New) Jersey shore awaits. I'd like to focus my mind elsewhere, or not at all, if you know what I mean.
I have tweaked a recent addition by the disreputable one. I have seen your recent work there.
Have a happy "rest a' da summah" and hope to talk again soon. Be well. 71.127.226.10 19:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not sure if you're back from your break from Wikipedia yet, but I thought I would go ahead and refer you to the discussed draft version of the article I've been working on. I think the organization is an improvement, but the article still needs a bit of trimming. I have added some references that I think are relevant and that create a more comprehensive description of some of the arguments, but it might be that some less-relevant sources need to be made more concise or removed. I also plan to ask for Homologeo's help in improving this draft; both of you seem to be fairly level-headed in approaching this topic, and I would appreciate it if we could improve the quality of the draft before we consider implementing the reorganization. I will be without access to the Internet myself from Thursday until Sunday, so I will be unable to offer imput during that time. But I hope you guys can help me in improving this draft before any major changes are made to the article itself. Thanks! Mike D78 13:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to post you note on my talk page. Disputes are easier to resolve when everyone can talk together calmly. You made several points and I'll try to address them individually.
I understand what it's like to care for a sick parent and I know how frustrating it can be to get called away from the keyboard in the middle of a lively exchange. We've worked together on many topics over the past couple of years and I hope we can continue to work together to improve the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I wasn't a party to the comments by user:Diego Gravez. If you found them insulting you should tell him so. If you found them inappropriate you should file a complaint. The only thing I noticed when I initially skimmed his comments was that he said there was not mention of the sexual orientation issue, and that's what I acted upon. The reason I created the RfC was not to rush things, but to meet the demands by another editor who threatened to delete the talk page discussion. I had no way of knowing that you were away from your computer, or how long your break would be. All of us take breaks to eat, sleep, or work, and multi-party discussion don't normally grind to a halt because of the temporary, unannounced absence of one editor. There is a "wikibreak" template you can use on your user page if you expect to be away for extended periods and you can also just leave a quick note on a talk page. Regarding your points on "starting anew":
Again, I think we can work together to find a solution that will be acceptable to most editors while meeting the goals and policies of Wikipedia. I encourage you, as your time permits, to particpate in that process. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your "additional point"
[1] I don't understand what JP has to do with this material. He's not mentioned in the proposed text.
·:·
Will Beback
·:·
02:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
You left a note on my talk page that I can't figure out. Was it directed to me or to BCST2001?
·:·
Will Beback
·:·
18:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jmh123, If you insist on including the low-grade tabloid material (however many newspapers it was reported in, it is still tabloid material, and utterly trivial) concerning an onboard "incident" during a flight, I will not continue deleting the material. However, I would like to make one point. Not only is it the case that the material is utterly unworthy of inclusion, it is also the case that treating the Aiken article as a mindless compendium of trivia about its subject is what makes possible the kind of arguments that we are now witnessing regarding Aiken's "comments" about his sexuality. The attitude that anything reported on television or in a newspaper is necessarily notable and worthy of inclusion is what makes it difficult to get across why the material in question violates WP:BLP (which it most certainly does). People cannot understand how a non-event such as the onboard incident can be included, while Aiken's comments cannot be included. Not everything which is reported is notable or encyclopaedic. Your attitude toward this convinces me that representing the interests of Aiken's fans is not the same as representing Aiken's interest, nor is it the same as representing Wikipedia's interest. BCST2001 03:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you much. Maria202 22:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, isn't that gossip and speculation about the OC and its members? I just would like to say that, although I am DEFINITELY not a member of the OC (nor would I join), I do know some people who are members, and they would dispute some of the story about 'Cake', especially the part about 'ringleaders' posting on the 'DataLounge' (which I have never seen myself either, I refuse to participate in any kind of fan or forum activities on principle) -- the OC people I know consider those who hang on the DataLounge as pariahs and troublemakers. Most of the OC people I know just want to be left alone, and leaving them out of Aiken's article is a good step towards that. (And yeah, this is a change from my position on OC inclusion from a year or so ago.)
Anyway, if you are on a Wikibreak now, enjoy it! -- ArglebargleIV 13:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that the tags had been placed on the pages, but they seem correct. After reviewing the contributions of both accounts there is no question in my mind that FNMF ( talk · contribs) and BCST2001 ( talk · contribs) are the same editor. Multiple accounts are allowed in certain circumstances. Violations of the policy include editing the same article or participating in discussions with more than one account in such a way as to skew the appearance of consensus. Since one account stopped editing before the other started it's unlikely that there were any instances in which they violated that aspect of the sock puppet policy. However another clause of the policy warns of using multiple accounts to hide one's editing history. "Avoiding scrutiny from other editors". I don't see any other reason why FNMF, who had previously been blocked for personal attacks and disruption, would have dropped one account and started another. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Jmh123,
I’m sorry if I offended you with my incivility. However, many of your comments haven’t exactly been the model of civil discourse. I would like to respond to some of the points you have posted on the Talk:Clay Aiken page and elsewhere, because you seem to have the wrong idea about my intentions. My actions were only intended to help make Wikipedia a more accurate source of information for readers.
This is not an accurate characterization of my comment. I do think that the article was a whitewash, but other than the omissions in question (references to controversy surrounding Aiken’s sexuality), the article is factually accurate, impeccably researched, and very well-written; certainly not “hogwash”. The “hogwash” to which I was referring was an assertion on the Talk:ClayAiken page stating that the inclusion of sourced statements regarding Aiken’s sexuality “borders on libel”. While clearly a controversial topic and a potential WP:BLP violation, this clearly does not border on libel (as a legal construct). In the U.S., A person who published, and presented as fact, the statement “Clay Aiken is gay” could possibly have committed libel, if the publisher knew the statement to be untrue and printed it with malicious intent. This is hardly the case with Wikipedia, which is purely a secondary source.
Also, in my initial comment “Are you serious?”, I did not imply that the article was written by “claymates”, I simply stated that Clay Aiken’s and his fans’ (i.e., the Claymates) desire to actively suppress any mention of controversy surrounding his sexuality was not adequate grounds for excluding it from the article. At the time, I simply assumed that the contributing editors had bowed to pressure (and fear of recrimination from “libelous” statements) and chosen to exclude the material. I have since changed my mind, because it has become increasingly obvious to me that the article was indeed written by “Claymates”.
I already mentioned that I had not intended to insult anyone, and if you found my comments insulting, I apologize. My post was a gut reaction to my disbelief at the lack of mention regarding Aiken’s sexuality, and if you really felt personally insulted, perhaps you were stung by an element of truth that hit too close to home.
What do capital letters have to do with the validity of my complaint? Somehow, in your self-righteous adherence to prescriptivist “netiquette”, the entire point I was making was negated by my use of: 7 capitalized words (out of 382), one obviously sarcastic statement, and the use of emotional language (to the extent that “hogwash” is an emotionally charged word). Are you serious? I understand the sarcasm thing (some people don’t find sarcasm to be humorous), but your capital letter barb was pure snobbery. If using italics was as simple in Wikipedia as it is in MS Word, I would not have used capitals. However, capitalization is not inherently less valid than the use of italics as a form of emphasis in written expression. To insist otherwise is ridiculous and petty. To imply that capitalization renders the underlying message invalid is just elitist.
But that is exactly what you did: you attributed my valid comment to “some individual” who was obviously not worth the time of day. Your language was clearly intended to inspire some sort of in-group solidarity (not exactly the Wikipedia way) and reject outright any comment –valid or not- that does not originate from within the small editorial oligarchy, whose members seem to have decided that they alone control the Clay Aiken article.
Then you reprimanded me for questioning your (and Maria202’s) ability to be neutral on this topic since it was becoming clear to me that you were both fans of Clay Aiken. Maria202’s actions in response to my initial comments and Will Beback’s subsequent edit made it quite clear to me that a) she was not willing to compromise, and b) she was emotionally invested in the subject matter. As I read through the Talk page, I saw comment after comment trying to justify the exclusion of negative information on shaky policy grounds, only to be wholeheartedly supported by the other 2 regular editors. It seemed that you had all convinced yourselves that consensus = neutrality. I don’t think I crossed a line by suggesting that someone who is an obvious fan and is unwilling to compromise should not be given cart blanche to make unilateral decisions regarding the inclusion/omission of relevant and sourced biographical information. In fact, I assumed good faith; I believed you were probably unaware of you biases. I only suggested that you both search your own motivations and ask yourselves: "Do I feel so strongly about excluding this information because the article will be better without it?" (the right reason), or "do I want to do my part to protect Clay Aiken from the perceived “harm” that could be done to him?" (the wrong reason). Nonetheless, you made the following comment and I took it seriously:
I thought maybe I had crossed a line. Perhaps you two weren’t actually fans, but simply worked on the article (and vigorously defended your point of view) for some less-obvious reason. Or, more likely, perhaps you were able to be Clay Aiken fans and neutral biographers at the same time. I gave you the benefit of the doubt until I read the comment below, in which you don’t seem to heed your own advice/admonishment. The statement, which has some paranoid overtones, not only crosses a line by speculating about the motivation behind my comments (that they were posted to further an agenda), but makes it perfectly clear that you are incredibly biased (and aware of your bias, no less) and your “agenda” does not serve the best interest of a neutral and accurate encyclopedia article:
Can you really not see that you are using Wikipedia to promote an agenda. Wikipedia has incredible potential and a growing number of truly great articles, but it frustrates me when I stumble upon articles that were obviously written by a non-neutral source (i.e., someone in the marketing department, a fan-club member, the subject himself, etc.). These articles are generally easy to spot (the subject is usually a corporation or one of various “new age” topics) and there has been a considerable amount of press lately regarding Wikipedia edits that were traced to corporate/government networks (i.e., biased sources editing articles in their favor), or edits that were clearly written by company/government representatives. My point is, when I went to the Clay Aiken page to settle a bet with my wife (I thought he was in his early 20s - she won), the article just screamed POV and pro-Aiken bias.
I am not a Clay Aiken fan. I have never listened to one of his songs (although I have possibly heard one or two as incidental background music), and I have never watched American Idol. Before reading the article, my entire perception of Clay Aiken consisted of: “the nerdy American Idol winner (I didn’t know he placed second) with a fan base of adoring middle-aged and elderly women, who is frequently made fun of on television for being a perceived closet homosexual, and got angry at Diane Sawyer for asking him about it. And the Kelly Ripa thing”. I know I am not alone: there are millions of people like me, who are not fans, have only a passing interest in pop culture, and are much more familiar with “Clay Aiken, the butt of junior high gay jokes” than “Clay Aiken the multi-platinum-selling recording artist.”
Is that fair? No. In a perfect world, his sexuality would not be an issue (or, depending on one's religious persuasion, homosexuality is a huge issue, but Aiken is definitely NOT gay), and he could be judged purely on the merits of his music. But this is not a perfect world and the “gay issue” is a big part of his fame. Perhaps, as a fan, you cannot see that. I did not propose that half the Clay Aiken article be devoted to the rampant speculation about his sexuality, but it should be mentioned because it is central to his popularity (i.e., the reason someone would want to look him up on Wikipedia). Excluding the information gives the impression that the editors are trying to hide something, and can make casual readers (like me) question their (the editors’) motivation and neutrality.
Again, I do not have an agenda. I do not care whether Clay Aiken is gay, straight, asexual, or somewhere in-between. I am not a celebrity blogger. I am not gay. I am not anti-gay. I have no interest in “outing” people who are either a) not gay, or b) do not choose to be out. I am not familiar with Clay Aiken’s music. I don’t think Aiken’s sexuality should be comic and blogger fodder unless his actions overtly encourage it (which they decidedly do not). And I do not think Wikipedia has any business spreading tabloid gossip or perpetuating false allegations.
However, after the buzz reaches a sort of critical threshold (and the subject publicly discusses it), acknowledging that that gossip does exist is valid and encyclopedic, especially if accompanied by Aiken’s comments on the matter so readers can know that the tabloid accusations are without merit and hurtful to the subject. Printing Aiken’s words will leave no doubt how he stands on the issue, that he is not seeking the limelight, and that he is a very private individual (a rarity among celebrities).
I am extremely busy and I do not have the time or energy to immerse myself in what is largely an inconsequential debate, but I felt the need to let you know where I stood, and my hope is that I have conveyed to you that the comments of an average Wikipedia user (me) regarding a biased, unrepresentative article do not constitute an “agenda” aligned against you and the rest of Clay Aiken’s fans. I think you are too close to the subject to accurately reflect on the merits of this debate, and in the interest of improving Wikipedia and helping to mitigate the impact of special interests on its content, you (along with Maria202) should recuse yourselves from any further edits to the Clay Aiken article. Leave it in the hands of disinterested editors who, not blinded the insidious bias induced by adoration and devotion, can more accurately judge the worth of proposed edits. Thank you. - Diego Gravez 20:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Editor 216.57.17.234 is at it again, this time manipulating information found in the source cited and adding it to recently added material, thereby distorting the content of a properly sourced and quoted passage, something s/he has done before. Please review the history and see talk page for details. The passage has been re-worded accurately. Is there any way that 216.57.17.234 can be blocked from editing? 72.76.10.162 13:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Please see my reply to your post at the Michael Lucas (porn star) talkpage. 71.127.229.169 19:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
If I read your talk page right, you have become an admin. Congratulations. Could you check up on
Akebono Taro when you can. I think we are having some trouble. I have reported it everywhere, but I don't want to re-revert, because the other editor just went through and reverted everything to his last edit about post retirement career without regard to any other edits that were made by others -- not only me but others, as the article was moved up to a b status for pro wrestling because of the sources added but those sources where removed. also, i had the article up for good article review status but i guess with this kind of edit war it won't occur :(. thanks for any help you can give.
XinJeisan
18:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to thank you more personally for all your recent contributions to the Perez Hilton page! It is definitely more NPOV now.-- Agnaramasi 01:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
From what I have been reading, I think you might be interested in the following two articles:
A Zone to Stay Out Of by David Ignatius.
The Right to Privacy by Warren and Brandeis, that Ignatius references but didn't provide a link to in his article, for some reason.
XinJeisan 16:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem, happy to help out. I did see the name Hikari mentioned somewhere, so I suspected the redirect might have been proper. Take care! -- But| seriously| folks 02:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
They're at it again. I've made the necessary corrections and notations. We'll see how long it holds up and whether further action is necessitated. Hope all is well during your time away. 72.76.80.106 11:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry about the big-butt tag which I see you've moved to the talk page; I honestly did not know that it belonged there. It was so official-looking (and large) that I chose to insert it in the hope that it would forestall any further edits from "those editors" but I see that they've done no further edits even after you moved it. Perhaps they're on vacation? -- I guess even sleazes take time off from sleazing, or perhaps they're still sleazing but not making any money off of it. I want you to know that the observations you made over at COIN on 11 July were 100% accurate: one editor whose system changes his IP address.
I don't know how much longer I can hang out editing, but hopefully long enough to see a reply from you here. I wanted to write and say that I appreciate your support with this article. Two things I hate are opportunism and lying; the subject of this article is a lying opportunist, hence my interest in preserving accuracy and balance in the article. I did not feel like I was fighting alone with you on the scene. I think of you as a kindred spirit. Thank you. Even in my absence I trust the article will be kept in balance under your stewardship and watchful eye.
(P.S., Check out his blog site for 11 July, you'll laugh: could the topic have been prompted by some caustic comments made in talk about his appearance??)
Happy trails! 72.68.119.234 18:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I thought I'd pop by and say hello. Thanks for the compliment. I already said this on the talk page of the article but I'd like to repeat it: my compliments on your work on the article back in May. From that point on I knew that I had an ally. And I wanted to say this in my last post: sorry that I let anger take over that one time. It doesn't happen often but none of us is perfect. Your gentle admonition set me on the right path. Thanks. As for your hope that I can keep watch: I'd like to say that I'll try, but I can't make any promises. I have some things coming up, and in the meantime the (New) Jersey shore awaits. I'd like to focus my mind elsewhere, or not at all, if you know what I mean.
I have tweaked a recent addition by the disreputable one. I have seen your recent work there.
Have a happy "rest a' da summah" and hope to talk again soon. Be well. 71.127.226.10 19:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I'm not sure if you're back from your break from Wikipedia yet, but I thought I would go ahead and refer you to the discussed draft version of the article I've been working on. I think the organization is an improvement, but the article still needs a bit of trimming. I have added some references that I think are relevant and that create a more comprehensive description of some of the arguments, but it might be that some less-relevant sources need to be made more concise or removed. I also plan to ask for Homologeo's help in improving this draft; both of you seem to be fairly level-headed in approaching this topic, and I would appreciate it if we could improve the quality of the draft before we consider implementing the reorganization. I will be without access to the Internet myself from Thursday until Sunday, so I will be unable to offer imput during that time. But I hope you guys can help me in improving this draft before any major changes are made to the article itself. Thanks! Mike D78 13:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to post you note on my talk page. Disputes are easier to resolve when everyone can talk together calmly. You made several points and I'll try to address them individually.
I understand what it's like to care for a sick parent and I know how frustrating it can be to get called away from the keyboard in the middle of a lively exchange. We've worked together on many topics over the past couple of years and I hope we can continue to work together to improve the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. I wasn't a party to the comments by user:Diego Gravez. If you found them insulting you should tell him so. If you found them inappropriate you should file a complaint. The only thing I noticed when I initially skimmed his comments was that he said there was not mention of the sexual orientation issue, and that's what I acted upon. The reason I created the RfC was not to rush things, but to meet the demands by another editor who threatened to delete the talk page discussion. I had no way of knowing that you were away from your computer, or how long your break would be. All of us take breaks to eat, sleep, or work, and multi-party discussion don't normally grind to a halt because of the temporary, unannounced absence of one editor. There is a "wikibreak" template you can use on your user page if you expect to be away for extended periods and you can also just leave a quick note on a talk page. Regarding your points on "starting anew":
Again, I think we can work together to find a solution that will be acceptable to most editors while meeting the goals and policies of Wikipedia. I encourage you, as your time permits, to particpate in that process. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding your "additional point"
[1] I don't understand what JP has to do with this material. He's not mentioned in the proposed text.
·:·
Will Beback
·:·
02:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
You left a note on my talk page that I can't figure out. Was it directed to me or to BCST2001?
·:·
Will Beback
·:·
18:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi Jmh123, If you insist on including the low-grade tabloid material (however many newspapers it was reported in, it is still tabloid material, and utterly trivial) concerning an onboard "incident" during a flight, I will not continue deleting the material. However, I would like to make one point. Not only is it the case that the material is utterly unworthy of inclusion, it is also the case that treating the Aiken article as a mindless compendium of trivia about its subject is what makes possible the kind of arguments that we are now witnessing regarding Aiken's "comments" about his sexuality. The attitude that anything reported on television or in a newspaper is necessarily notable and worthy of inclusion is what makes it difficult to get across why the material in question violates WP:BLP (which it most certainly does). People cannot understand how a non-event such as the onboard incident can be included, while Aiken's comments cannot be included. Not everything which is reported is notable or encyclopaedic. Your attitude toward this convinces me that representing the interests of Aiken's fans is not the same as representing Aiken's interest, nor is it the same as representing Wikipedia's interest. BCST2001 03:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you much. Maria202 22:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, isn't that gossip and speculation about the OC and its members? I just would like to say that, although I am DEFINITELY not a member of the OC (nor would I join), I do know some people who are members, and they would dispute some of the story about 'Cake', especially the part about 'ringleaders' posting on the 'DataLounge' (which I have never seen myself either, I refuse to participate in any kind of fan or forum activities on principle) -- the OC people I know consider those who hang on the DataLounge as pariahs and troublemakers. Most of the OC people I know just want to be left alone, and leaving them out of Aiken's article is a good step towards that. (And yeah, this is a change from my position on OC inclusion from a year or so ago.)
Anyway, if you are on a Wikibreak now, enjoy it! -- ArglebargleIV 13:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that the tags had been placed on the pages, but they seem correct. After reviewing the contributions of both accounts there is no question in my mind that FNMF ( talk · contribs) and BCST2001 ( talk · contribs) are the same editor. Multiple accounts are allowed in certain circumstances. Violations of the policy include editing the same article or participating in discussions with more than one account in such a way as to skew the appearance of consensus. Since one account stopped editing before the other started it's unlikely that there were any instances in which they violated that aspect of the sock puppet policy. However another clause of the policy warns of using multiple accounts to hide one's editing history. "Avoiding scrutiny from other editors". I don't see any other reason why FNMF, who had previously been blocked for personal attacks and disruption, would have dropped one account and started another. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Jmh123,
I’m sorry if I offended you with my incivility. However, many of your comments haven’t exactly been the model of civil discourse. I would like to respond to some of the points you have posted on the Talk:Clay Aiken page and elsewhere, because you seem to have the wrong idea about my intentions. My actions were only intended to help make Wikipedia a more accurate source of information for readers.
This is not an accurate characterization of my comment. I do think that the article was a whitewash, but other than the omissions in question (references to controversy surrounding Aiken’s sexuality), the article is factually accurate, impeccably researched, and very well-written; certainly not “hogwash”. The “hogwash” to which I was referring was an assertion on the Talk:ClayAiken page stating that the inclusion of sourced statements regarding Aiken’s sexuality “borders on libel”. While clearly a controversial topic and a potential WP:BLP violation, this clearly does not border on libel (as a legal construct). In the U.S., A person who published, and presented as fact, the statement “Clay Aiken is gay” could possibly have committed libel, if the publisher knew the statement to be untrue and printed it with malicious intent. This is hardly the case with Wikipedia, which is purely a secondary source.
Also, in my initial comment “Are you serious?”, I did not imply that the article was written by “claymates”, I simply stated that Clay Aiken’s and his fans’ (i.e., the Claymates) desire to actively suppress any mention of controversy surrounding his sexuality was not adequate grounds for excluding it from the article. At the time, I simply assumed that the contributing editors had bowed to pressure (and fear of recrimination from “libelous” statements) and chosen to exclude the material. I have since changed my mind, because it has become increasingly obvious to me that the article was indeed written by “Claymates”.
I already mentioned that I had not intended to insult anyone, and if you found my comments insulting, I apologize. My post was a gut reaction to my disbelief at the lack of mention regarding Aiken’s sexuality, and if you really felt personally insulted, perhaps you were stung by an element of truth that hit too close to home.
What do capital letters have to do with the validity of my complaint? Somehow, in your self-righteous adherence to prescriptivist “netiquette”, the entire point I was making was negated by my use of: 7 capitalized words (out of 382), one obviously sarcastic statement, and the use of emotional language (to the extent that “hogwash” is an emotionally charged word). Are you serious? I understand the sarcasm thing (some people don’t find sarcasm to be humorous), but your capital letter barb was pure snobbery. If using italics was as simple in Wikipedia as it is in MS Word, I would not have used capitals. However, capitalization is not inherently less valid than the use of italics as a form of emphasis in written expression. To insist otherwise is ridiculous and petty. To imply that capitalization renders the underlying message invalid is just elitist.
But that is exactly what you did: you attributed my valid comment to “some individual” who was obviously not worth the time of day. Your language was clearly intended to inspire some sort of in-group solidarity (not exactly the Wikipedia way) and reject outright any comment –valid or not- that does not originate from within the small editorial oligarchy, whose members seem to have decided that they alone control the Clay Aiken article.
Then you reprimanded me for questioning your (and Maria202’s) ability to be neutral on this topic since it was becoming clear to me that you were both fans of Clay Aiken. Maria202’s actions in response to my initial comments and Will Beback’s subsequent edit made it quite clear to me that a) she was not willing to compromise, and b) she was emotionally invested in the subject matter. As I read through the Talk page, I saw comment after comment trying to justify the exclusion of negative information on shaky policy grounds, only to be wholeheartedly supported by the other 2 regular editors. It seemed that you had all convinced yourselves that consensus = neutrality. I don’t think I crossed a line by suggesting that someone who is an obvious fan and is unwilling to compromise should not be given cart blanche to make unilateral decisions regarding the inclusion/omission of relevant and sourced biographical information. In fact, I assumed good faith; I believed you were probably unaware of you biases. I only suggested that you both search your own motivations and ask yourselves: "Do I feel so strongly about excluding this information because the article will be better without it?" (the right reason), or "do I want to do my part to protect Clay Aiken from the perceived “harm” that could be done to him?" (the wrong reason). Nonetheless, you made the following comment and I took it seriously:
I thought maybe I had crossed a line. Perhaps you two weren’t actually fans, but simply worked on the article (and vigorously defended your point of view) for some less-obvious reason. Or, more likely, perhaps you were able to be Clay Aiken fans and neutral biographers at the same time. I gave you the benefit of the doubt until I read the comment below, in which you don’t seem to heed your own advice/admonishment. The statement, which has some paranoid overtones, not only crosses a line by speculating about the motivation behind my comments (that they were posted to further an agenda), but makes it perfectly clear that you are incredibly biased (and aware of your bias, no less) and your “agenda” does not serve the best interest of a neutral and accurate encyclopedia article:
Can you really not see that you are using Wikipedia to promote an agenda. Wikipedia has incredible potential and a growing number of truly great articles, but it frustrates me when I stumble upon articles that were obviously written by a non-neutral source (i.e., someone in the marketing department, a fan-club member, the subject himself, etc.). These articles are generally easy to spot (the subject is usually a corporation or one of various “new age” topics) and there has been a considerable amount of press lately regarding Wikipedia edits that were traced to corporate/government networks (i.e., biased sources editing articles in their favor), or edits that were clearly written by company/government representatives. My point is, when I went to the Clay Aiken page to settle a bet with my wife (I thought he was in his early 20s - she won), the article just screamed POV and pro-Aiken bias.
I am not a Clay Aiken fan. I have never listened to one of his songs (although I have possibly heard one or two as incidental background music), and I have never watched American Idol. Before reading the article, my entire perception of Clay Aiken consisted of: “the nerdy American Idol winner (I didn’t know he placed second) with a fan base of adoring middle-aged and elderly women, who is frequently made fun of on television for being a perceived closet homosexual, and got angry at Diane Sawyer for asking him about it. And the Kelly Ripa thing”. I know I am not alone: there are millions of people like me, who are not fans, have only a passing interest in pop culture, and are much more familiar with “Clay Aiken, the butt of junior high gay jokes” than “Clay Aiken the multi-platinum-selling recording artist.”
Is that fair? No. In a perfect world, his sexuality would not be an issue (or, depending on one's religious persuasion, homosexuality is a huge issue, but Aiken is definitely NOT gay), and he could be judged purely on the merits of his music. But this is not a perfect world and the “gay issue” is a big part of his fame. Perhaps, as a fan, you cannot see that. I did not propose that half the Clay Aiken article be devoted to the rampant speculation about his sexuality, but it should be mentioned because it is central to his popularity (i.e., the reason someone would want to look him up on Wikipedia). Excluding the information gives the impression that the editors are trying to hide something, and can make casual readers (like me) question their (the editors’) motivation and neutrality.
Again, I do not have an agenda. I do not care whether Clay Aiken is gay, straight, asexual, or somewhere in-between. I am not a celebrity blogger. I am not gay. I am not anti-gay. I have no interest in “outing” people who are either a) not gay, or b) do not choose to be out. I am not familiar with Clay Aiken’s music. I don’t think Aiken’s sexuality should be comic and blogger fodder unless his actions overtly encourage it (which they decidedly do not). And I do not think Wikipedia has any business spreading tabloid gossip or perpetuating false allegations.
However, after the buzz reaches a sort of critical threshold (and the subject publicly discusses it), acknowledging that that gossip does exist is valid and encyclopedic, especially if accompanied by Aiken’s comments on the matter so readers can know that the tabloid accusations are without merit and hurtful to the subject. Printing Aiken’s words will leave no doubt how he stands on the issue, that he is not seeking the limelight, and that he is a very private individual (a rarity among celebrities).
I am extremely busy and I do not have the time or energy to immerse myself in what is largely an inconsequential debate, but I felt the need to let you know where I stood, and my hope is that I have conveyed to you that the comments of an average Wikipedia user (me) regarding a biased, unrepresentative article do not constitute an “agenda” aligned against you and the rest of Clay Aiken’s fans. I think you are too close to the subject to accurately reflect on the merits of this debate, and in the interest of improving Wikipedia and helping to mitigate the impact of special interests on its content, you (along with Maria202) should recuse yourselves from any further edits to the Clay Aiken article. Leave it in the hands of disinterested editors who, not blinded the insidious bias induced by adoration and devotion, can more accurately judge the worth of proposed edits. Thank you. - Diego Gravez 20:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |