See my archives here.
Hi Scott, I see that you have again removed the article on Shaikh Asedullah Quadri. I had discussed with Matthew and made changes accordingly.Could you please tell me what else would I need to do to have this article running? Mikebauer (talk) 15:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- You've discussed it with him, but you are ignoring what he's saying. Your sources don't meet our requirements. Indeed, it looks like Quadri may bot be a suitable candidate for a wikipedia article at all.--Scott Mac 15:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Raise a Glass high!
Brilliant Idea with the Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks. Any page watchers welcome. I particularly want the BLPs reviewed.--Scott Mac 22:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
- In the interest of transparency do you intend to disclose suggestions resulting from your post at WR? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't see the relevance of that. My posts on Wikipedia review are open, and if any concern you, I am happy to address them. Canvassing isn't relevant here, since I'm not trying to influence any debate by undue means, I'm simply trying to get interested people to review articles and identify areas that need attention or discussion. I'm delighted that people like DGG have signed up, who've got a different perspective to me, but are equally committed to ensuring that BLPs are fair and neutral. I'm hiding nothing here. Better to have an open on-wiki project page than network through IRC or e-mail. If you have concerns why not come and help and bring your own perspective.--Scott Mac 16:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Given your last sentence, do you plan to disclose suggestions you receive by email or other non-public means from Herschelkrutofsky and other banned editors with an interest in Scientology? That is my main concern: your WR solicitation gives an opening for behind-the-scenes influence by banned editors. (Addendum: I strongly support your general efforts with regard to BLP, but the way you're going about this makes me uneasy.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- No one is influencing me. I am always open to people pointing me to BLPs they consider problematic. If they do, I examine the content and make up my own mind about whether action is required. My wife (who hates soap operas) pointed me to a poor bio of a soap actor the other week, shall I disclose that? I edit content on its merits, if anyone thinks me editing isn't neutral, they know how to complain. Look, I consider Scientology to be a scam (although I don't know much about it - or have any particular conflict with it), but my current concern is with BLPS that are biased against Scientology, so I don't think bias comes into my assessment. If you think otherwise, I'd like some evidence.--Scott Mac 16:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- You dodged the question. Will you disclose suggestions from banned editors? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I have been pointed to BLPS by banned users. So what? Sometimes I've seen problems with the articles and fixed them, sometimes I've seen no real problem. The question is: is the article a problem, and is any remedial action I take justified. The reason I looked at the article is quite irrelevant.--Scott Mac 16:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- I take that as a "no." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- You asked me to disclose if I'd received suggestions from banned users. I disclosed that "yes" I have, and I'm asking you why it matters. Would you rather I didn't remove BLP violations from articles because I'd been pointed to them by someone you don't like?--Scott Mac 16:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Again, you're evading and redirecting -- not to mention misstating what I said, which isn't very polite. I asked if you'd "disclose suggestions from banned editors", not "disclose if [you'd] received suggestions from banned users." It's clear that either we're unable to communicate or you'd prefer not to give a direct answer, so let's just drop it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'll disclose whatever you want if you give me a good reason why it matters. But I suspect you've no real answer to that.--Scott Mac 16:57, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Again, you're evading and redirecting -- not to mention misstating what I said, which isn't very polite. I asked if you'd "disclose suggestions from banned editors", not "disclose if [you'd] received suggestions from banned users." It's clear that either we're unable to communicate or you'd prefer not to give a direct answer, so let's just drop it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- You asked me to disclose if I'd received suggestions from banned users. I disclosed that "yes" I have, and I'm asking you why it matters. Would you rather I didn't remove BLP violations from articles because I'd been pointed to them by someone you don't like?--Scott Mac 16:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- I take that as a "no." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, I have been pointed to BLPS by banned users. So what? Sometimes I've seen problems with the articles and fixed them, sometimes I've seen no real problem. The question is: is the article a problem, and is any remedial action I take justified. The reason I looked at the article is quite irrelevant.--Scott Mac 16:41, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- You dodged the question. Will you disclose suggestions from banned editors? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:34, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- No one is influencing me. I am always open to people pointing me to BLPs they consider problematic. If they do, I examine the content and make up my own mind about whether action is required. My wife (who hates soap operas) pointed me to a poor bio of a soap actor the other week, shall I disclose that? I edit content on its merits, if anyone thinks me editing isn't neutral, they know how to complain. Look, I consider Scientology to be a scam (although I don't know much about it - or have any particular conflict with it), but my current concern is with BLPS that are biased against Scientology, so I don't think bias comes into my assessment. If you think otherwise, I'd like some evidence.--Scott Mac 16:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Given your last sentence, do you plan to disclose suggestions you receive by email or other non-public means from Herschelkrutofsky and other banned editors with an interest in Scientology? That is my main concern: your WR solicitation gives an opening for behind-the-scenes influence by banned editors. (Addendum: I strongly support your general efforts with regard to BLP, but the way you're going about this makes me uneasy.) Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't see the relevance of that. My posts on Wikipedia review are open, and if any concern you, I am happy to address them. Canvassing isn't relevant here, since I'm not trying to influence any debate by undue means, I'm simply trying to get interested people to review articles and identify areas that need attention or discussion. I'm delighted that people like DGG have signed up, who've got a different perspective to me, but are equally committed to ensuring that BLPs are fair and neutral. I'm hiding nothing here. Better to have an open on-wiki project page than network through IRC or e-mail. If you have concerns why not come and help and bring your own perspective.--Scott Mac 16:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- In the interest of transparency do you intend to disclose suggestions resulting from your post at WR? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
Here's a good reason: there might be underlying agendas to the suggestions of the banned editors. When you proxy for banned editors, you take on the responsibility of ensuring that the contribution is in compliance with the rules and precedence of Wikipedia. In some case, that can mean a proxy edit is fine. In others, it can be questionable. But if people aren't aware that there is a proxy, then that's another matter. When people proxied for me when I was banned, they were explicit about it. That's the right thing to do in this environment. Incidentally, I do think that there is some problem with neutrality in a lot of New Religious Movement articles. I don't have time to join another project, but I don't think that having a neutrality project is a bad idea in principle. It's probably better to just make it a subproject of Wikipedia:WikiProject Scientology, though. I assume you're a member there? jps (talk) 23:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
- Firstly, I never proxy for anyone banned or not. My edits are always in line with my own fact checking and understanding of neutrality, verifiability, honesty and policy. They are, on occasion, mistaken and sometimes made in error, but I take total responsibility for them all. I do not edit on behalf of others ever, period. If anyone on wiki or off-wiki asks me to look at an article, and if I choose to do so, I will always apply my own judgement and act in line with that. So, if you see me editing an article, hold me responsible. No, I'm not a member of wikiproject Scientology, since I have no interest in Scientology whatsoever. My interests tend to be BLPs, and I suspect (I could be wrong) that many Scientology related BLPs have been distorted by ideological editing. I simply with to review them and apply policy. An arb suggested I should do more to involve others with my BLP projects, so that's what I'm trying.--Scott Mac 01:11, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's cool and all, but I'm just saying that in this topic area (Scientology not BLPs) openness is something that really has been lacking and so you might want to consider being more open with how you're proceeding. Finally, if you're not a member at WikiProject Scientology, you might consider at least letting the people there know about this initiative and inviting them to help. jps (talk) 06:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Why? This page seems like it will stir up a lot of trouble for little benefit. ++Lar: t/c 03:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Maybe he's making a WP:POINT? jps (talk) 04:50, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is more likely that he is making a point. NW (Talk) 04:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- WP:DENY. Don't make a big deal out of it (which of course is what Doc wants us to do). Ignore it and either the whole thing will blow over or he'll up the ante and get in trouble for it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:34, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- It is more likely that he is making a point. NW (Talk) 04:55, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
OK, it's gone. I suppose I just through it was the season for "twat lists". My bad.--Scott Mac 13:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
RfC
Hi. As you've been involved in discussions (and blocks) regarding MickMacNee, I'm notifying you that a Request for Comment regarding MickMacNee has been filed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MickMacNee. Your comments there would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. HeyMid (contribs) 13:47, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Milorad Ulemek (Legija)
To save having to create a completely new article from scratch, would you mind undeleting the article on Milorad Ulemek? At the time you deleted the article apparently on the grounds that he was alleged to have been a war criminal, he was already serving time for the murders of Zoran Dzindzic[1] and Ivan Stambolic[2] and the attempted murder of Vuk Draskovic[3]. He was a commander of paramilitary forces which reinforced the VRS (Bosnian Serb army) during during the Bosnian war [4] and [5]. So if there's a problem with describing him as a war criminal all that is needed is to insert "alleged" in front of "war criminal" - he has convictions for criminal activity at the highest level and forces under his command were implicitly involved in unlawful military activity in Bosnia and his commander, Milosevic, was sent for trial at the ICTY on war crimes charges relating to that activity. Opbeith (talk) 15:45, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- I deleted the article because it contained any number of negative claims without any sources whatsoever. That violates the WP:BLP policy. For the same reason, I cannot restore the article. What I can do is to e-mail you a copy of it. However, you would need to indicate that you would not replace any negative claims about the subject, no matter how true they might be, without a proper reliable source being provided for each negative claim, preferably using in-line citations. If you haven't already looked at WP:BLP and WP:INCITE please do so, and if you're happy that you can work to those standards, I'll be happy to e-mail you a copy of the deleted article to work from, on the understanding that no material will be replaced unless if fully complies with those standards.--Scott Mac 20:09, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's fair enough. You think of something negative for him, he's done it and in most cases it's been reported as an allegation by an authoritative source if not a forty-year sentence. I've got no problem leaving out anything not referenced, most of the major major stuff would still be there. Thanks. Opbeith (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC).
- OK, done.--Scott Mac 21:05, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- That's fair enough. You think of something negative for him, he's done it and in most cases it's been reported as an allegation by an authoritative source if not a forty-year sentence. I've got no problem leaving out anything not referenced, most of the major major stuff would still be there. Thanks. Opbeith (talk) 21:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC).
The article was prodded and deprodded in 2009, so please take it to AfD. Alternatives are a smerge to Scientology controversies, or a new article or section on Ex-Scientology Kids to which Kendra Wiseman, Jenna Miscavige Hill and Astra Woodcraft could redirect. Fences&Windows 14:23, 27 December 2010 (UTC)