User talk:Richwales/Archives/2013-04

Legal threats
I am not going to try and convince you of anything but, that really didn't seem like a legal threat from what WP:NLT states.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Reasonable people might differ on this, but when someone says basically that "I'm going to report you people to the authorities and get you into major legal trouble if you interfere with my editing", that is a legal threat IMO. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I actually consider myself to be a reasonable person. Were those really authorities and was it "legal trouble" that was the goal of whatever the statement was? I don't think so. I am sure there were a number of reasons to block the editor, but WP:NLT does not appear to be one of them.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, I am not trying to convince you to unblock or change your mind here but, senators, representative, the IRS, and DOE are not legal authorities. Clearly this was not a reasonable response in any stretch of the imagination but a legal threat? Is the statement: "I will write my congressman" a legal threat? The Department of Energy and even the IRS are not legal bodies but simply government agencies. Making threats of any kind certainly is not the way to communicate with others and as I said they certainly deserved a block, but I would have thought it would have been for disruption.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * He was invoking US tax law and the IRS — saying that if his "corrections" were reverted, he would report the Wikimedia Foundation to the IRS for engaging in political activity inconsistent with the WMF's status as a tax-exempt charitable organization. I don't mind that much that he was threatening to complain to Senators and Congressmen, but threatening to sic the IRS on us is, in my opinion, as much a "legal threat" as if he were literally saying he would file a lawsuit.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * At best this appears to be a "perceived legal threat". Per WP:NLT:


 * You did not appear to attempt any clarification. Obviously you didn't feel one was needed but to me this was as much an over reaction by you as an administrator in an almost punitive manner. Taking away MWF's tax exempt status is not a legal matter. It is a tax matter. As ridiculous as the whole thing was, this doesn't seem to be helping in my opinion. The exact statement was "I WILL inform senators, representative, IRS, and DoE if an administrator removes any of my contributions when the edit may support a political agenda on this topic.". He did not state he was going to sic the IRS the foundation, just that he would inform them. OK...inform them of what.....that an editor was editing in a manner he didn't like? That he felt this was something that would in any way effect the tax exempt status of the foundation? Come on Rich, you could have attempted to clarify this before an immediate indeff block.--Amadscientist (talk) 07:49, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * We may need to "agree to disagree" here, but I called this one as I saw it, and I see what the user said as a legal threat — specifically, a statement of intention to complain that Wikipedia admins' actions in disagreement with him should result in action being taken against the Wikimedia Foundation through the tax laws. And yes, I most certainly do see a "tax matter" of whether the WMF is violating its status under US tax legislation as being a legal matter.  In fact, I am going to go one step further and send a heads-up e-mail to WMF's legal department, just to be sure they are aware of the situation and can take whatever action they may feel is required.  I brought up this issue at WP:ANI last night, and two admins and two other editors agreed with my action, but if you still believe I made a mistake, by all means feel free to revive that discussion (even though it was formally closed).  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 14:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I purposely did not include myself at that AN/I discussion because this really is your call. While I feel strongly enough to speak directly to you, I made it clear I was not trying to change your mind. I am not really questioning your actions, just that it may not have been the best route. I do still disagree that that was a legal threat. A threat, but not a legal one.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * An attempt to close the discussion was malformed. I have corrected that. Please feel free to revert if your feel there was more needing to be discussed there.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * As I said, I think you and I are just going to have to "agree to disagree" on this one. At least we can do so in a calm and friendly fashion.  Thanks for letting me know what you think.  As for the malformed closure of the ANI thread, it appears someone reopened the thread after it had initially been closed.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 23:39, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We need to be more supportive of admin and at the same time not let everything go unquestioned. I can see why editors may agree with this, but I do think it is a pretty slim line.--Amadscientist (talk) 23:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I take no offence at all at your holding a different view from mine on this. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Note to self: Here is a [ diff link to Nanoatzin's block notice] and the subsequent exchange. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:52, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Maybe self-proclaimed naming and advocacy?
Help please! We're in a bit of a pickle here and here. Thank you for your brief attention. --Septimus Wilkinson (talk) 00:09, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how much I can do, but I'll take a look. In any case, please remember that disputes like this need to be handled by calm discussion; "edit warring" (or anything resembling edit warring) is not acceptable, even if you are convinced you are right and everyone else is wrong.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Syrian civil war
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Syrian civil war. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — RFC&#32;bot (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: SPI
With respect to Sockpuppet_investigations/DVMt/Archive, you must acknowledge that it is a reasonable suspicion, that an editor has appeared, and only made a single edit to an AfD to defend an article created by an editor who has been using sockpuppets recently. I'm not sure what sort of evidence you are looking for, but I've seen plenty of CU requests on things less clear. What is needed is just reasonable suspicion. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I wasn't sufficiently convinced last night — certainly not enough to do a sock block based solely on this one edit. However, I'll admit that I'm still learning the ropes here, and if you feel this case does justify a CU check, I'm willing to revive the SPI and endorse it for a CU.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Well-taken points
Hi Rich. Thank you for your well-made points on this message. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  17:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm not sure if my point got through (see [ his response]), but I needed to try.


 * I know we have disagreed strongly on various issues from time to time, but I do want you to know that I appreciate the efforts you are putting into trying to improve Wikipedia. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as the editor reverting your edits, this is not something unexpected from those who pursue their POV to such an extent and by trying to subdue the spirit of their opponents by employing personal attacks. It's all a part of their zealous mission for the "truth" as they perceive it.
 * Regarding your comment about my efforts at improving Wikipedia, first let me thank you for your nice comments; they really mean a lot to me, especially because they were made by an editor I greatly respect. We may have had our disagreements, in good faith, but I always valued your perspective and I consider you a reliable and trustworthy editor whose opinion I have always held in high regard. Take care and thanks again. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  22:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Lbrad2001 SPI
(copied from User talk:Drmies)

Hi. If you have time, could you review the Lbrad2001 SPI and do any blocking you might consider appropriate now? The SPI was CU-declined, and it's been sitting around for a couple of weeks waiting for someone to take action. Since you left a comment before the CU-decline, I thought you might be in a good position to handle this one — but if you can't for some reason, let me know. Thanks. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, that one. Wasn't that about which gun was used in which Steven Seagal movie or something like that? I'll have a look. Drmies (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Rich, I see no reason for a block based on this report, or the article mentioned in it. As far as I'm concerned you can close it. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for letting me know. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 21:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Banning appeal
Hello. You recommend here that if I have "concrete evidence" that Will Beback has in the past played a manipulative role in Arbcom discussions I should immediately bring it to their attention. I am not sure how that would be defined. If an editor (myself, let's say) were in the past to have been topic banned from a NRM article under demonstrably flimsy pretexts; and if there is reliable evidence (from WBB himself) that he had e-mailed an arbitrator re the case just prior to that decision being made; and if WBB had a proven history of secretly alleging COI against his idealogical opponents...do you think that would be "concrete evidence"? Or just circumstantial evidence, that would be ignored by Arbcom? Rumiton (talk) 12:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The only thing you can really do right now is to send ArbCom whatever information you do have. In my view, your own first task should be to seek a reversal of your current topic ban — primarily on the grounds that you promise not to engage in any future disruptive, "battleground" behaviour w/r/t Prem Rawat or any other articles.  You will presumably also want to question whether it really ever was necessary or appropriate for TBotNL to have imposed an indefinite / permanent topic ban on you in the first place, but don't dwell unduly on this matter; from the standpoint of your own ban, the most important issue is your behaviour, not that of TBotNL or anyone else.


 * As I said before, ArbCom's decision at that time was to reclassify the ground rules under which blocks or topic bans relating to the Prem Rawat article (and other related articles) should be dealt with. It appears that last year's ArbCom members were skeptical of the appropriateness of your ban — and I think they should probably have continued on at that time with the consideration of the ban appeal, rather than closing the appeal and asking you and the others to resubmit it on a different page — but given that they didn't keep the appeal open under the new rules, the appropriate thing for you and the others to do would be to resubmit the appeal now (as an Arbitration Enforcement matter).  Again, don't dwell heavily right now on TBotNL's possible misdeeds (other than to suggest, politely, that his action may have been premature and excessive); the main point at issue is whether you can convince ArbCom that even if disruptive / battleground editing behaviour was a problem a few months ago, it will not be a problem now if your ban is lifted.


 * If, by any unlikely chance, you have something specific and concrete about WBB's actions showing that he has been (and/or still is) manipulating things behind the scenes, you should definitely bring that to ArbCom's attention (probably off wiki, by e-mail). Suspicions that he was/is doing this — or assumptions that he must be continuing to do this now because of things he did in the past — are really not something you can reliably speak to, so I would recommend you not try to do so.  (Think of what a witness can and can't say in court:  you can and should talk about things you know, but your personal assumptions or conclusions are out of order and would rightly be objected to and stricken from the record.)  I don't think you should feel the need to bring up WBB's past again and again in order to be sure ArbCom won't do a flip-flop for no good reason (or for bad reasons); the majority of the currently sitting arbs are carryovers from last year, and we can safely assume by now that they are all up to speed regarding WBB's case (including any evidence that needed to be kept confidential) — and, at the moment, I'll note that it appears a majority of the arbs are still opposed to letting WBB return (not to say some of them might not change their minds, but it doesn't look like a whitewash to me).  I'm not saying this out of any blind reverence for ArbCom; I know they are fallible and flawed, and also overloaded with work, but I am willing to assume that they are trying, and I don't really think any better way to handle our otherwise intractable disputes can be devised at this time, so I believe we should do what we reasonably can to support ArbCom and help them do a good job (which includes civilly questioning their decisions if we think those decisions may have been made in error).


 * I hope the above helps, and I wish you and the others good luck with your renewed ban appeal. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for this thoughtful and thorough reply. I will do as you suggest, but the crucial point is that I was never accused of being disruptive. Blade banned me to "break the endless deadlock." I and others did not perceive that there was such a deadlock, but even if there had been, I don't believe this was a legitimate action. I'll start work on an appeal this evening. Thanks again. Rumiton (talk) 22:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have made the appeal, already it is not going well. Your comments would be welcome. Rumiton (talk) 00:46, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Gbeach03 SPI
(copied from User talk:JetBlast)

Hi. Could you take another look at your SPI request (Sockpuppet investigations/Gbeach03)? It doesn't look like a case of sockpuppetry to me. Rather, it appears that the user initially created an account with the name of his organization — and when that account was blocked per policy, he followed the instructions in the block notice and created another account with a different, non-objectionable name. Or am I missing something here? — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi, If you have a look (if you can) the company account name was blocked after i put the sock puppet case in. When i put the case in both accounts where unblocked. It was me who reported the username after reporting the sock puppet stuff. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 08:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Balance
In your questions at AE you mention Balance twice. I'm curious, can you please indicate what you mean by balance? IRWolfie- (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I am referring to the Neutral Point of View policy (WP:NPOV). Go re-read WP:NPOV and see how the concept of "balance" is discussed there.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 15:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have read NPOV many times over the last 2-3 years, considering the topic area (Fringe science/Pseudoscience) I edit in. I'm looking for what you mean. And no offence, but pointing an experienced editor (we have roughly the same edit count) at NPOV and saying read it, is a little bit dismissive; I'm asking the question because I already know what NPOV says, but I think what you believe contradicts that. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:20, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I will highlight what that is; we only ever aim for balance when the sources themselves are equally divided per WP:BALANCE. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * "Balance" is used in other places in WP:NPOV, not solely in the WP:BALANCE paragraph. If the point of your questioning is that you are concerned I'm trying to argue for giving "equal validity" to views widely acknowledged as being pseudoscience, I am not; see, for example, WP:FAQ and WP:ARBPS.  And part of the purpose of my questions to Rumiton is that I want to understand how he views the question of "balanced" in the context of this particular topic area.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:04, 7 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Can you stop referring me to things I've already read. I already know the policy. I'm asking specifically for your interpretation, as your question heavily implies a particular interpretation of what balance means. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't really agree, and I'm not prepared to discuss this issue further right now. I would prefer to see people concentrate on the way Rumiton answered my questions; his positions (not mine) are what we should be talking about.  If you believe his answers show an unacceptable approach to writing Prem Rawat or related articles — or if you think some followup questions for Rumiton are in order — by all means say so (on the AE page).  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 16:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This wasn't about the AE case (which I don't currently have that much interest in), but ensuring that there isn't a misunderstanding around NPOV (defined by weight by coverage in the reliable sources) vs balance. If I thought it was relevant to the case I would bring it up there. If you aren't interested in answering, that's fine. Cheers, IRWolfie- (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That wasn't meant to sound abrupt, :) good luck, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Badly-formatted SPI needs medical assistance
Hi,

I'm contacting you since you were the last one to clerk-endorse an SPI at Sockpuppet investigations/Deonis 2012.

User:Alhanuty has attempted to file a new case there, but does not seem to have done it properly. I manually added in the headings, but the case definitely needs to be listed at SPI and needs checkuser attention.

Thanks, Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know. I've worked on the formatting of this case, and I've also endorsed it for CU.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

My vote was forgotten in lifting Rumiton's ban
My clear support for lifting of Rumiton's ban seems to have been forgotten. I hope you will reconsider the count. I am a minimally involved editor and only for a short period of time. Thank you.(olive (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC))


 * The decision is not mine to make at this point. However, I have posted a request at the Administrators' Noticeboard (WP:AN), asking for additional opinions as to whether or not a consensus does exist for lifting the topic ban.  We'll all just have to see what happens.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 18:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Endorsement of HollyZuelle SPI case
Hi Richwales. I am a bit puzzled by this endorsement of the HollyZuelle SPI case. To help me understands, perhaps you could explain what circumstances led to you endorsing the case? Thanks. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 11:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I saw evidence of abuse of the article creation/deletion process — the first account (Maddymonty) created the Holly Zuelle article, which was speedily deleted; then the second account (HollyZuelle) re-created the same article right after it had been speedied. There are reasonable grounds to suspect that these two accounts may belong to the same person, but I don't see it as a slam-duck.  If CU fails to show a connection, it could still be sockpuppetry, or it could be meatpuppetry, or it could possibly (not really that likely, but possibly) be two independent fans/groupies.  But, in any event, I believe there is enough reason to suspect sockpuppetry here that I felt a CU check would be appropriate.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 17:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Let's say we assume it is the same person. Where is the abuse of multiple accounts? Neither you nor the case filer have explained that. This is the issue I have with your endorsement. For the record I'm not saying that evidence isn't there, I'm just saying that so far nobody has actually provided it. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 09:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

We have added information about the readership of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High.

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

foreign sources
How do we verify 100% beyond all doubt the accuracy of translation of sources written in Japanese, chinese and Korea regarding Jung Myung seok?MrTownCar (talk) 13:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * See WP:Translation for the accepted guidelines. And please understand that "100% beyond all doubt" is an ideal that may not always be reachable.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 14:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

topic ban
How do I request a topic ban? I checked ANI but that seemed to not be the correct place.MrTownCar (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Who are you trying to get topic-banned? And why?  People who lobby to have other people with whom they disagree banned, all too often end up being banned themselves.  You are probably a lot better off trying to work for dialogue and consensus, rather than try hard to get someone banned.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:BLP rules
IF content posted on a page is categorically false and refers to a living person, why would this not be in violation of the BLP rules specifically the contentious material portion of the aforementioned rules and the material remains posted?MrTownCar (talk) 23:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Per WP:BLPSOURCES, "Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." In an ideal world, a standard based directly on truth would probably be a good thing — but since people may disagree sharply on what is "true", the Wikipedia verifiability policy requires that material must be substantiated by reliable sources — and the Neutral Point of View (NPOV) policy requires that we must represent, "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."


 * This doesn't mean we don't care about whether something is true or not as long as it has been published — only that we recognize that it's far easier to tell whether sources of information are generally reliable than to determine how factual a given piece is. If there is a broad consensus that a given piece of source material is suspect despite its having come from a source we would ordinarily accept as reliable, that source may (and should) be disregarded.


 * If some people insist that a given source is "categorically false", but the claim in said source is supported by material of a type that we can normally rely on, that claim may (and should) be included in the article. If there are multiple sides to an issue, each supported by reliable sources, we report both/all views and indicate who supports which view.


 * I must caution you here that if you are approaching this topic from the viewpoint that certain things are categorically false, and no matter how dependable the source is or appears to be, the source must by definition be somehow biased, deceptive, or fraudulent because you are absolutely convinced that what the source says is not correct, then you are not going to accomplish much of anything useful here on Wikipedia, and you will most likely end up being banned from this topic (or from the entire site) for edit-warring or other disruptive behaviour.


 * I would prefer, by the way, that future in-depth discussion of the Jung Myung Seok article and its proposed claims/sources should take place on the article's talk page — or on noticeboards such as WP:RSN — rather than here on my own talk page. Please be advised that if you post further comments here on this article, I will probably move those comments to the article's talk page, so that others will have a chance to comment.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you move this last section to the talk page please?MrTownCar (talk) 02:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

ani antecedent?
Which "you" are you referring to here [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=552509428&oldid=5525093]? The indenting makes it appear you're replying to me but it doesn't seem like it from the content. NE Ent 02:44, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry for any confusion. I was addressing my question to any/all of the people who have been objecting to Doc James' reversing Ched's indef-block of Fladrif.  I've edited my question on WP:ANI to (hopefully) make this clearer.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 02:53, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. NE Ent 03:00, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

what
— Ched : ?  03:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

NPOV
Hi. I sent you an e-mail 6 days ago to get your opinion on what I could and could not do, and how to go about it, if I successfully seek reinstatement to Prem Rawat. I can't continue until I get some clarity on this subject. Are you able to help? No problem if you are too busy, I can wait. Rumiton (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry I failed to reply earlier. I will try to send you something in the next 24 to 48 hours.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 14:28, 28 April 2013 (UTC)