User talk:68.160.140.22

Identity Disclosure and Editorial Purpose
Keen observers will notice that my edits for the discussion referenced below and occuring over talk pages for Jean Baudrillard on the English and French language Wikipedias, as well as European Graduate School originate from 2 ip addresses: 68.160.142.22 and 68.160.140.22. This is an intentional choice. I reference my identity in such fashion because I am a stickler for rules and I have not wanted to create what appears to be a Single Purpose Account. I do not normally edit Wikipedia - in fact nearly all my modifications reflect issues of WP policy and/or factual verification that stem from my frustration at the lack of policy enforcement (especially enforcement of documented veracity) regarding the issue of Abou Didee's recent agressive unsupported comments. For this reason, I've thought that keeping a log of my ip addresses seems more honest than obscuring my identity with a psudonym, or taking the time to create a verified user profile for a user that has no intention of continuing to edit Wikipedia now that this specific issue regarding images posted to wikicommons and the used for the Baudrillard article by Europeangraduateschool is adequately settled by the opinion of several editors and Wikipedia administrators. (I realise that other editors may feel differently about issues of anonymity raised/solved by signing with only an ip. Hopefully it is evident that my choice is the result of reasoned evaluation of the options. Hopefully reasoning of this kind counts for something in Wikipedia).

My reasons for not wanting to continue are ... #1: I feel unsupported comments such as those by Abou Didee are widespread in Wikipedia (and are sufficiently document by other editors); #2: that although Wikipedia has established policies and guidelines to uproot these comments and curb/prosecute such behaviour, the general emphasis on concensus and assuming the best intentions of an editor so work against these policies that they are not employed actively, authoritatively and broadly enough to be effective and render practical result to the casual user; #3: This whole affair makes me long for an accredited "expert" Wiki based Encyclopedia (something along the lines, but even more controlled than Citizendium) ... which leads me to #4: I am aware that these opinions/sentiments are not shared by other Wikipedia editors (perhaps even most Wikipedia editors), and this lack of shared values is why in some sense I've little desire to stick around. I guess I've learned through this recent experience that I prefer an editorial approach that approximates Enlightened Despotism rather than actions by the Hoi polloi. Notable exceptions are: Metamagician300, Trialsanderrors and Goodlucca who I see as employing good objective reason and excellent tact. My sincere thanks to these three for setting an superior example of thorough editing and arbitration. 68.160.140.22 14:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

My edits are to counter the WP point violations committed by Abou didee across multiple WP language domains. The criticism he brings up was addressed in several rounds of Talk discussions - the last of which was 2006. The concensus was that EGS is *not* violating WP standards, and that attempts to remove and/or alter EGS WP entries, as well as open source contributions to the WP are AfD and/or WP:Point violations. For full details, please see the EGS English language Talk pages. In accordance with the concensus and administration decisions, I have removed spam violations by Abou didee across the English, French and German language domains. Please respect these edits, and feel free to use this User:Talk space as a forum to further clarify this *particular* issue.

Comments From Other WP Editors & My Replies

 * I have restored Abou Didee's edits to Talk:Jean Baudrillard. I fail to see how they meet either of the criterion for deleting talkpage discussion, WP:CIVIL and WP:ATTACK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skomorokh (talk • contribs) 02:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC).


 * simply put the claim the user is trying to make money from Baudrillard's death is a personal attack - meaning it is not based upon the *content* of the photography but about the person(s) posting information .. WP:Attack states "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." In addition, the comments 'Abou didee' makes are unverified/unverifyable, this contravening another WP rule. Really the list of violations is quite long. Also, the points Abou didee makes against the user and EGS were raised several times (evidenced on the EGS talk page) and were resolved. Abou didee is not abinding by those resolutions arrived at through discussion of AfD regarding EGS. If this constant reversal of edits is going to continue, then I will ask for formal mediation via RfC.


 * Whether or not the purpose of the the users comment is personal attack is far from obvious. It is wikipedia policy to assume good faith. Furthermore, [|"The remove personal attacks guideline (and the application thereof) is controversial. It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus. It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly"]. Interpreted strictly, I do not think your removals are justified, and encourage you to seek arbitration.Skomorokh 09:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please note: I agree that the person(s) posting these images in various places across Wikipedia does not understand Wikipedia culture. This alone is no reason to accuse this person(s) of trying to make money from Baudrillard's death. There is no verifyable evidence that this person or persons is providing false information, nor are they simply attempting to make money. It is established through credible third party sources (such as the London Times) that EGS is a real institution, and that these notable professors do teach seminars there. It is also Wikipedia concensus that the images are #1 of important persons, #2 they are images of good visual quality, #3 that the images are made available through Creative Commons licence .. and therefore support the overall quality of Wikipedia. With this in mind, the current allegations of spam (like older allegations of the same nature) are overblown - and indeed constitute WP:Point violations. My edits are simply on these objective foundations .. whatever I may personally feel about the person posting these images. It is just possible that this person(s) only desires to share their quality information, and because they do not understand Wikipedia culture they do it in ways that annoy some Wikipedians. This is no offence - in fact Wikipedia guidelines admonish us all to assume the *best* intentions about each other, not automatically assume the worst [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette ].

An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 23:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)