Contrib stats retrieved from River's tools, on 17:11, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

Extended details:

Please feel free to replace these temporary stats with X!'s tools, when they are up and running again on August 17, 2010. /HeyMid (contributions) 17:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are some very reasonable rationales in the "Oppose" section, and I don't mean to denigrate those. But there are also quite a few comments that boil down to "Oppose: I was once in a content dispute with this editor." That's unfortunate, both for this specific RfA and for the RfA process in general. Presumably the closing bureaucrat will apply whatever considerations s/he deems appropriate. MastCell ^Talk 18:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that evidence should be presented. As you point out, they are often presented. The simple fact that he was in a dispute with an editor is less significant but it must also be considered. If it happens often, then it is a sign that he has some interest in controversial issues. By itself this does not say much, but in the context of other statements that present evidence it is significant. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a cynical suggestion that I see often on Wikipedia, that any candidate for adminship has to have avoided anything controversial prior to the nomination if they want to have a chance at success. I'm sad to say that this particular candidacy lends weight to that suggestion. There are some valid opposes, but if the partisan attacks were ignored, this RfA would (by numbers alone) probably be moved to a comfortable pass rather than the borderline situation it's at now. A real shame. -- Atama頭 23:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its easy to dismiss editors as a group, to lump them together as one, and not deal with their multiple attempts to explain concerns as is happening in this RfA. I will suggest that however competent the candidate has been on other articles, on the TM articles there have been serious concerns. I feel that if he could apply whatever it is he does on the other articles to the article is question things could be different. Doc has clearly indicated some strong biases in the area I have edited, and although this might be limited to this subject matter, it again may not. if that is the case, he is not Admin material yet. if you take the editors on any topic and bring them together, you are going to get just what we got here, editors who have edited in that topic area, with somewhat the same views of an editor who was a concern in that area. This group of editors was brought to ArbCom, but they were not found to be any more at fault than the editors who brought them, and there were no sanctions. Yet, that is being ignored in these comments. I can only say that untruths are being tossed around with abandon, and personally, although I have tried to clarify a few issues I can't see trying to rebut them here and creating more chaos. And Doc is not in a tenuous position as I see it.(olive (talk) 23:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Well, you know that I respect you Olive and others on both sides of the TM debate. I consider Keithbob my friend. But in this situation I don't feel that the arguments made by pro-TM editors in their opposition is objective. I've refrained from commenting at RFAs where I have had a personal dispute with the editor, because I recognize my own bias. I don't suggest that you or anyone else should be silenced, but just know that your opposition might be given less weight than opposition from someone uninvolved. -- Atama頭 23:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Atama, that's one of the first reasonable comments I've heard. Just consider, that its possible that an editor has a bias on a particular subject that in fact alters the way they deal with that topic. I do vote in RfAs in the so far, rare instances where I really feel I've seen what an editor does over a fairly long period of time.That's the only way I feel I can be fair. I've taught for a fair period of time, and no experienced teacher worth their salt can look at someone they deal with, with out the ability to separate the good from the stuff that needs work, and do so with out condemning the person behind the"stuff". I have concerns based on objective criteria. I don't know what causes what I see so I can't label it publicly, but I do have concerns. If others don't then that majority will rule , but that doesn't make my concerns any the less of an issue for me. And thank you . You have no idea how much I appreciate your comment and your maturity here.(olive (talk) 00:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

RfC? Do you mean RfA? (These TLAs are so confusing...)   Will Beback  talk  00:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dreadstar
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 2
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 3

It looks like those editors were on opposite sides of the content dispute in What the Bleep Do We Know!?.   Will Beback  talk  01:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Atama, you seem to suggest that a violation of a content policy is not a criteria in a RFA or at the least that we should not expect that evidence of such a violation will be considered. Now, after having listened to you and Olive, I have no strong opinion about that, but when I wrote my oppose statement I felt that if Doc James violated a content policy, it had to be considered. In that context, I felt that it was necessary that I provide evidence, which, of course, must be based on content. I can see that, if evidence of content policy violation is usually not considered in a RFA, my statement could be misinterpreted and I am sorry about that. Is there an official rule that evidence of content policy violation should not be presented in a RFA? Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 11:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can pretty much say whatever you want at an RFA when explaining your reason to support or oppose, staying within Wikipedia's normal policies and guidelines. People who disrupt RFAs or are otherwise objectionable may get banned if they keep it up (certain editors in the past always opposed any self-nom for example and eventually got in trouble) but for the most part it's an open forum. In your case, it looks like you're extending a content dispute into an RFA which isn't very compelling to convince people that Doc shouldn't be given the tools. RFA is one of the few times when you should "focus on the contributor, not the content". I see that you're trying to demonstrate that Doc has a poor grasp of NPOV, but it really is coming across as an attempt to extend the TM debate to this RFA. That's not going to be received well. -- Atama頭 16:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It is astonishing that you should suggest than an editor making a suggestion in a content RfC could be guilty of a NPOV policy violation, which applies to the content of articles. This sort of attempt to stifle opposition is frankly intolerable, and ought to be sanctioned. Repeatedly trying to promote your opinion of Doc James' talk page suggestion to use a government report as a source into "a policy violation" worthy of concern in an RfA displays a sheer nerve that beggars belief. --RexxS (talk) 16:41, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Atama, I love your answer ! So insightful ! I just did not know at the time what was the expectation in the RFA. I see now that it is expected that we do not discuss content, including evidence of NPOV violation. I believe it is a wrong expectation. I feel that every one, no matter if one is in a dispute or not, should be expected to provide evidence of any policy violation. I feel that an RFA should give the example, which could be followed in the main space, and give a lot of importance to any evidence of any policy violation. It does not matter who provides the evidence - people can judge for themselves and make their own opinion. But, hey, I am not going to change that here and now. So, again, I appreciate very much your insightful answer. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're very much welcome. Ultimately, it's going to be up to the bureaucrat who closes this RFA to decide how much weight to give each support/oppose, we'll just have to see how this plays out. This has been a close one. -- Atama頭 18:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say that I agree with Literaturegeek here Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Jmh649#No Further Comment. I would have replied directly there, but I am not sure that it would have been appreciated. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for agreeing and replying here.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:16, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome ! I presented some evidence in my oppose statement and I don't feel the need to add anything to it. I only replied to comments. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The TM ArbCom has been mentioned multiple times. This should clarify.

• The decision[1] was directed at all editors involved, listed below. With one exception [2] there were no sanctions or restrictions.

• Bigweeboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ChemistryProf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Fladrif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hickorybark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jmh649 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kala Bethere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Keithbob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Littleolive oil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Luke Warmwater101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• TimidGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tuckerj1976 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Will Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

(olive (talk) 02:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

No, this should clarify: Subsequent to the TM ArbCom,one editor was banned for two months from editing the TM-related articles, and that editor, plus olive and Edith were subjected to discretionary sanctions, limiting them to 1RR collectively in 24 hours, for edit-warring on those articles. [3] Those sanctions were imposed on those editors as the result of an AE commenced by DocJames. For what it's worth. Fladrif (talk) 00:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And this clarifies it even further [4] Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 00:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's innacurate, Olive (btw, you forgot to sign). Remedies 2, 3, 4, 5 cover all editors, involved parties or not. And to be absolutely accurate, there were sanctions - discretionary ones:

• "Any uninvolved administrator may ... impose sanctions on any editor editing Transcendental meditation ... if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioural standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles." (my emphasis).

And that essentially puts Doc James in the same position as any other editor on the 'pedia, save that an admin doesn't need to warn any of the involved parties before applying discretionary sanctions. That was it; the extent of ArbCom's ruling that closed the matter. Now please tell me that isn't the best any of you can come up with as an example of something !voters at an RfA should be concerned about. --RexxS (talk) 02:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was neutral, but the climate here is attack. No, Doc James like all of the editors working on the TM articles is subject to increased scrutiny and tighter interpretations of the policies and guidelines on the TM related articles per the ArbCom, and that is, not what all Wikipedia editors deal with. Further my comment here was as neutral as I could possibly make it while laying out information per the multiple implied comments that a group of editors was not to be taken seriously because they had been taken to ArbCom, when in fact , the candidate was equally part of that ArbCom. I didn't say that though did I, I just laid out the information so it could be read neutrally... so lets be fair. I have concerns with the candidate which I worded carefully since I don't yet know what causes these problems. Please respect my position. Some editors feel this is a place to attack and to do so while lobbing out false hoods and nasty comments. Bigotry is alive and well on Wikipedia. I'm no longer interested in this RfA. Its a cess pool. (olive (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Your comment may have been politely phrased, Olive, but it certainly was not neutral. On the contrary to the edifice you're trying to build, all editors who choose to work the TM articles are subject to increased scrutiny, and that applies to you, me, James, and any other editor – even members of ArbCom – if they decide to edit there. So no, Doc James is subject to exactly the same level of scrutiny that any other Wikipedia editor does when they edit TM. There are four other RfAs ongoing at present, but I don't see you neutrally pointing out that they would be subject to extra scrutiny at TM. It just isn't relevant here: James has edited at TM without sanction and without anyone invoking discretionary sanctions against him, so his bill-of-health is clean. His only fault seems to be disagreeing with you and the others who share your view. Ask yourself, who's doing the attacking here? A polite attack is still an attack. --RexxS (talk) 04:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're both right. Olive was right to post this information, I believe it's helpful to give a little bit of background to the Arbcom case that has been repeatedly mentioned, I think that the multiple comments about it have made it relevant to the discussion. I also think that RexxS is totally correct in saying that the sanctions aren't really applied to any particular editors, they are applied to the TM articles themselves. Saying that the Arbcom decision makes Doc in any way exceptional is like saying that because BLPs are given such extra scrutiny, and disruption at BLPs are treated harshly, that an editor who edits BLPs is personally under extra scrutiny. Like RexxS said, any editor that chooses to edit the TM articles is under the same restrictions; conversely, if Doc chose to never touch any TM articles then the sanctions wouldn't apply any longer. You both have good points and I'm sorry that you both see ill-intent in each others' words. :( -- Atama頭 16:15, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If one replace "That's innacurate" here by "I would like to precise" and "No, Doc James like ..." here] by "I agree, Doc James like ..." and then remove the last paragraph it seems to me that it becomes a simple conversation, but I might have missed something. The whole thing is so confusing. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 16:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like that RexxS explains what he means by "... save that an admin doesn't need to warn any of the involved parties before applying discretionary sanctions." Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I "oppose" on the project page. This is discussion which may or may not make sense :o)(olive (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

(edit conflict) The reason why Olive's statement "The decision was directed at all editors involved, listed below" is inaccurate is that the decision, which Olive pointed to, was actually directed at all editors, not solely the named parties, as I hoped I'd made clear in my initial quote from that decision. Perhaps if you follow the link and read the six Remedies, you'll get a clearer picture.

The reason Olive's statement "there were no sanctions or restrictions" is inaccurate is that Remedy #3 imposed sanctions (as I quoted). So no, "That's inaccurate" was precisely correct; and no, I didn't mean "I would like to add", because I was correcting Olive's error, not adding to it.

The reason why I used "So no" rather than "I agree" is that I don't agree. The simple fact is that the extra scrutiny (actually Remedy #4 - you'll need to read it) is tied to the article, not to any particular editor or group of editors as Olive was suggesting. I hope this helps clear up your misunderstanding of Olive's errors.

Finally, what I meant by "... save that an admin doesn't need to warn any of the involved parties before applying discretionary sanctions" is that I felt (for completeness) that I should mention the only difference between the named parties and any other editor: namely that Remedy #3 requires a prior warning to any editor before discretionary sanctions are applied, except in the case of the named parties (as it is assumed the ArbCom decision itself has already made them aware). Please read the second paragraph of WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement#Discretionary sanctions, and let me know if you're still confused. --RexxS (talk) 17:51, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was inclusive rather than exclusive. That is, all editors named, which did not exclude other editors but was meant to include implied exclusion here of editors in this arbitration... not politely or impolitely, but neutrally.

Further its clear that the arbitration in general referred to all editors named in the list I attached.

All parties instructed

1) All editors who are party to this case are instructed to read the principles outlined above, to review their own past conduct in the light of them, and if necessary to modify their future conduct to ensure full compliance with them. Passed 8 to 0 at 18:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As well, I could care less if Doc James disagrees with me. Suggesting that my oppose is based on disagreement trivializes me and my vote. I work in a field where I have developed cutting edge material and almost everyone disagrees with me. I'm quite used to disagreement and its nothing. My concern is how that disagreement plays out, and whether the style and methods used befit someone who has power over other people. My mistake here has been in not clearly stating what those concerns are. I don't like attack so I hedged. I also assumed that my position would be respected as much as anyone else's.Whether I want to drag out diffs to deal with the issues I have, is something I have to think about.(olive (talk) 18:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

@RexxS, yes, I have seen the possible confusion between editors involved in TM articles and named parties in the Rfc, but the main point in your comment was about Doc James' situation and this was not a part of Olive's initial comment. As far as the discretionary sanction is concerned, if it is a sanction, then why do you say Doc James is clean? It seems to me that you and Olive both feel that it is not really a sanction, but yet it was like a big disagreement. With regard to the "So no", you should read carefully what I write, including the diffs, before going into opposition. The "No" was not yours. Finally, where exactly the Arb com decision says that the named parties can be sanctioned without warning because they are assumed warned. I don't see it in the second paragraph. Are the required correction steps also assumed? I don't think so. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Olive, I disagree that disagreements are nothing, especially not this one. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Olive, Let me get this clear then, the sum total of the concerns that you felt you should bring to the attention of the !voters at Doc James' RfA is that he was part of a group of 12 editors who were instructed by ArbCom to review their past conduct? It would have been better to have made it clear originally that you were only referring to Remedy #1 out of 6, then. Saying broadly that "The decision was directed at all editors involved, listed below" without mentioning that only one sentence in the entire decision was thus directed seems overly economical, wouldn't you agree?

@Edith, I'm glad you have resolved your misunderstanding. Let me put it this way: There is "confusion between editors involved in TM articles and named parties in the Rfc" since the former are subject to discretionary sanctions and the latter are not. James is no more subject to discretionary sanctions when he takes Gout to Good Article than anyone else editing that article; James is subject to the discretionary sanctions on TM or those on Israel-Palestine (if he chooses to edit there) as is any other editor. Period. You have a habit of re-factoring your text while others are in the process of replying to it, so I hope you'll forgive me if I've previously replied to the earlier version of what you were trying to say. I apologise for giving you the impression that ArbCom had explicitly stated its reason for not requiring warnings to named parties. I parenthesised it as a bit of helpful information; it is accepted implicitly that ArbCom decisions are read by the named parties (and a notice is placed on their talk page summarising the decision), so for them there is no defence of "I didn't know about the sanctions". Does that help? --RexxS (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe things are black and white as you suggest. If there were specific recommendations, perhaps they can be considered as warnings and specific correction steps, but only for someone that would violate these specific recommendations. Even in the case of an editor that has received a personal recommendation, we can consider that he has received a warning, but we cannot use that to give him a sanction out of the blue for something that is only vaguely related to this warning. It has to be specific. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify. Read what I said. Don't make assumptions.(olive (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Doc James took three editors to AE. None of those editors was appropriately warned. In my case Doc issued a warning to me for something he did, and which I corrected. He made a unilateral move of a fair amount of content within a contentious article and I reverted him asking that he discuss first. That was the situation he warned me for and cited as a warning. He also accused me of edit warring after one revert, and after I suggested he revert me if he wanted to since I have a personal 1RR policy I try to stick with. That's not edit warring. Further the three editors he took to AE without proper warnings where the three editors he was in discussion with about the lead. As well, the case closed in six hours and the closing Admin., Future Perfect at Sunrise did not give two of the three editors a chance to speak. This isn't a matter for this talk page, but this is why I do not feel confident in this candidate at this time. In my book he is at best very inexperienced. No admin should make those kinds moves and he 's applying to be an admin. Future Perfect's performance was not prohibited by policy, and was not Doc's fault, but it was unfair. Had I been the editor who had brought those editors to AE, I would have asked FP to at least give those editors a chance to speak. Doc James performance on this situation on top of discussions where he makes personalized and biased comments about the editors he is dealing with do not lead me to feel this is someone I can trust, who is honest, and who is fair. I won't discus it further... its a matter for the Arbs, but pushed to it ... this is my concern.(olive (talk) 22:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, Olive. I'm not sure exactly what you meant by "appropriately warned", but Doc James did what was required of him and notified each editor [5] [6] [7]. I can sympathise with your dismay at the speed of the closure of the case, but I really don't think you can blame that on James. You are aware you can appeal such sanctions to ArbCom? I should say that I believe the admins working at AE are doing one of the most stressful jobs on the 'pedia, so we are unwise to expect perfection. I've seen no sign that James has any intention to involve himself as an admin at AE, should he be successful in gaining adminship. I can understand you would feel aggrieved against the admins concerned, but I'd ask you to reflect on whether their actions should reflect so badly on James that it becomes a concern at his RfA. I also sympathise with the notion that an editor bringing a complaint to AE might argue with one of the admins in favour of the 'defendants', if he/she felt they were being treated unfairly. But I do recognise that the unexpectedly rapid closure may not have allowed for such a display of altruism in time. I can now see that in your position I might project that perceived ill-will onto James' future actions, and that could give me cause for concern; I'd like to think that I still wouldn't translate that into a "Strong Oppose" (which I believe should be reserved for only the most egregious of cases), but that may be wishful thinking in my case. --RexxS (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Editors per the arbitration must be warned they are in violation of the arbitration, then given a chance to remedy their behaviour before sanctions are possible. My warning was bogus. I didn't do anything wrong, and I certainly didn't do anything wrong that violated the arbitration. The reason given for being taken to arbitration was also false. There was no edit warring as stated. This was James' fault and either he wasn't honest, and knew what he was doing or he wasn't experinced enough to know better. Either way, he needs more time in my estimation to mature, and frankly I would not want any other editor to expericne what I did becasue the admin in charge was short on experience. My strong oppose stands, because facilitaing a sanction falsely for whatever reasons is not admin behaviour. And no, I would never blame James for Future Perfect's action, but I would have asked the admin to reconsider allowing the editors to speak because that's neutral and fair. That's not to say James had to do that. I was brough to AE on false charges and was never allowed to speak, explain or defend myself. The case was closed in 6 hours. And yes I will take it to the Arbs. Thank you for your reasoned response to my comment. I very much appreciate it. (olive (talk) 01:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

The idea that a warning is bogus if one doesn't agree with it is unsupportable.   Will Beback  talk  01:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A warning is bogus if the editor does nothing wrong and if that editor is not in violation of the arbitration The arbs will sort it one way or the other. (olive (talk) 01:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

So, what olive is really saying is that she thinks that AE is a kangaroo court and she got hosed there, and Doc lied to AE when he filed the case that resulted in sanctions against her. Notwithstanding that at least three completely uninvolved admins strongly agreed on the sanctions imposed against her, Edith and another editor who hasn't weighed in here. No formal appeal has been filed. But, no-one is permitted to ask themselves whether her opinion colored her or Edith's objections here, or whether the curious appearance of half-a-dozen TM-Org affilated editors to form a Greek chorus opposing Doc's candidacy, none of whom other than olive had ever expressed an opinion in any other RFA, and one of whom is a SPA who claims to be a brand-new editor with less than a month of experience at Wikipedia but has an extraordinary facility with arcane and obscure editing tricks, might - just might - be a result of off-Wiki canvassing. Especially when olive states that she doesn't want to document what her real objections to Doc's candidacy are, 'cause that would be just too confrontational. Bigotry! Racism! This RFA is a cess pool! We're about one step short of invoking Godwin's Law here.Fladrif (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Flad, you're a great writer, that's for sure.(olive (talk) 02:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I may have left that space when I moved my comment. I didn't realize at first there was only one comment rather than two so had posted in between. Apologies.(olive (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

*cough*

The opposes have served a very useful purpose; they have afforded us a clear self-identification by the TM-SPA block. Welcome to Wikipedia; this is how it works. Thank you, Jack Merridew 18:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All opposes? All SPAs? Really. Be careful of gross generalizations, assumptions and of tagging a community, that can only succeed if its truly collaborative and with out bigotry, with this RfA as a template.(olive (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I don't think he said "all opposes". It isn't a gross generalization to point out that all of the pro-TM editors participating have opposed this nomination, including those like ChemistryProf (talk · contribs) who've never commented on an RFA before. ChemistryProf reappeared after a five-month hiatus just to give his opinion. While it's possible that he has been monitoring WP:RFA all of this time, just waiting for this opportunity, the more likely scenario is that there was off-site canvassing.   Will Beback  talk  19:30, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, not all, just the ones that WP:QUACK. I don't know boo about that case or the participants. And whoever stuck a section heading over my post should not have ;) Jack Merridew 19:49, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I struck my oppose vote largely because I do not want to be associated with a gaggle of single-purpose agenda promoters. Woodcocks to their own springe and all that. Skinwalker (talk) 23:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above comments [8] [9] [10] about TM involved accounts, which came out of the blue in a thread where they don't fit, do raise an important issue. One cannot deny that 20% to 30% 40% to 60% of opposes from accounts involved in TM articles is not negligible. However, different aspects need to be considered here. For example, if Doc James most recent or important disputes were within TM articles, then it is natural that a significant number of opposes come from TM involved accounts. For example, ChemistryProf had a direct interaction with Doc James in a TM article. It is natural to assume that he monitored the situation from times to times and found that it was important that he presents his oppose. Yes 20%-30% 40%-60% is not negligible, but the explanation is simple and there is no need to assume a conspiracy against the greater good of Wikipedia or against Doc James. It is this assumption or any other assumption of this kind that is wrong.

However, the most important aspect to consider, in my opinion, is not whether there is a simple explanation or not. The most important aspect is that this argument (these percentages - 20% or 30% 40% or 60%) can only be used with editors that are easily identified under a given umbrella. It must be obvious to every one that there are plenty of interactions and common point of interests amongst editors in Wikipedia, which are also very important, but not as easily classified under some special umbrella. There is no doubt that all these interactions and common point of interests influence the opposes and supports. This is natural and expected. I am not complaining about that. It is just not fair that we only focus on those interactions and point of interests that can be easily identified under a given umbrella. It is comparable to racism. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 20:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your math is off a bit. As of this moment, there are 16 "oppose" comments.[11] Six TM editors have commented, which is 37%. Also, at least one editor who has supported the TM editors in the past has also opposed the nomination. If added to the total that's 44%.

Claiming that pointing out tag team behavior is comparable to racism seems like hyperbole.   Will Beback  talk  21:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, with Timid Guy, 7/17 (41%) or 8/17 (47%) depending on whether one counts Dreadstar. Fladrif (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You do understand that it does not really matter in the current discussion. It would be 80% and the same arguments would hold. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not hyperbole at all. I think it is something that one should write an essay about. If the editors (which also play the role of authors and referees) were selected inside Wikipedia in the same way as the authors, referees and editors are selected outside Wikipedia, there would be nothing special. However, the editors in Wikipedia are self-selected and this makes it completely different. Some of the self-selected editors are easily identified under a given umbrella (associated with an article or set of articles) and we fear that they might be an important source of bias, but the fact is that all self-selected editors in a controversial article have a special interest and are not less or more impartial. In both sides, this special interest can lead to a desire to suppress a POV or to promote a POV against NPOV. Therefore, by focusing on those that are easily identifiable, we break the natural balance and we can create the bias. BTW, sorry for the math, I did not count because I would not be able to easily recognize the TM involved accounts, but I thought that with the two last opposes, the percentage would be smaller than 37%. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That logic is so wrong it isn't even worth rebutting.   Will Beback  talk  22:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know in which category I should put this last argument of yours. It is useful when one does not have a rebuttal or has one but is afraid of presenting it. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ya, I noted the 'bigotry' and now 'racism' in all the tl;dr. methinks blocks landing on a few heads in teh near-future. Jack Merridew 23:41, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I took out the comparison with racism. I thought it was useful because in both sides of the comparison, some visible characteristics are used to draw conclusions that do not necessarily follow from them. It was this aspect that I wanted to bring out. There was no bad feelings. No intention to insult. It was purely explanatory. However, there are many degrees of racism and taken to its extreme this comparison can indeed look like an exaggeration. That was not the objective. I had already explained what I meant in the previous sentences and this comparison was not intended to mean anything else. Now, I understand that in the current context, it was not wise. I will try to avoid this in the future. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is diametrically opposed to racism - racism being a particular view of someone because of what they essentially are. I understand you to be claiming to be discriminated against because of what you believe - a quite different thing. Argument about beliefs is an intrinsic part of the Wikipedia process. An accusation of racism is never anything other than ad hominem (though it may be justified where there is strong evidence to support it - as it is a serious allegation).Fainites ^barleyscribs 10:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Fainites, I believe I understand what you are saying. Let me explain it in my own words. You refer to the fact that there are two steps in a discrimination. First, we put someone into a category that is objectively defined (in your terms: what the person essentially is). Second, we attack the person on the basis of that category (in your terms: have a particular view on the person). Only the second step, not the first step, is the problem. You are arguing that the first step does not exist in my case, that is, that you did not first put me in a category that is objectively defined to next discriminate me using that category. Here is my reply. The fact that you think that I have a belief that is easily placed under the TM umbrella is what define my category. You don't accept that TM is good for health, etc. and therefore you assume that it is a belief. In accordance to reliable sources published in peer-reviewed journals and also in accordance to the personal experience of many individuals, your premise is wrong, but I don't care that you do that. For me this is the first step. It is not the problem. I can easily live with disagreements, even important ones. The second step, the problem, is when I am put in a 1RR team restriction and other things like that.

My argument, which I tried to explain above, is that the basis of that discrimination is that we fail to recognize that the main source of bias from the editors in Wikipedia is the self-selection. Editors in Wikipedia in general have all sort of beliefs, personal interests, etc. They can be influenced by large corporations, special communities, etc. I am not yet talking about any side of a dispute, but just the normal situation in general. I am also not saying that the majority have strong beliefs or are strongly influenced, etc. There is no need for that in my argument. Just the normal and expected situation is enough. Given this normal and expected situation, the thesis that an editor will self-select himself (amongst all other editors) to participate in a given side of a dispute because he has a bias that is specifically related to the dispute is very natural. I believe that this natural and expected effect of the self-selection is very important and that any asymmetry between the two sides only participates in this effect, equally on both sides, instead of opposing it. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not saying there are "two steps". I am saying they are diametrically opposed. At the risk of stating the obvious, racism is objecting to someone because they are say black or white. What you are complaining about is people making certain assumptions about you because you are a follower of TM (on which I expressed no views by the way). That is a matter of either cultural upbringing or more likely, adult choice. Such beliefs are as open to discussion and criticism as any other belief, though hopefully politely. If you are saying that people will naturally fall into groups based on their own cultural norms, then that is probably true to a certain extent - hence the attention given to the range of policies needed to enable wiki to work to get round this, particulary those referring to sources.Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(By the way, you may know about this being new but it's preferable not to add bits to your comments after people have already replied, otherwise what they replied to is no longer obvious. Just add a clarification underneath as a new post. Fainites ^barleyscribs 14:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I apologize. I acknowledge that I added the parentheses "(in your terms: what the person essentially is)" and "(in your terms: have a particular view on the person)" to my last comment. I planned to acknowledge that here -- I did not want to confuse people -- it just simpler to add the additional info in its context, but I agree the best is either to use strike when possible and otherwise simply add the new information after.

In your reply, you also put the emphasis on the comparison with racism - you say that it is actually diametrically opposed, but this comparison is only a small complement. It is not central to my argument, but I will explain it again, in case it could be useful. You need to see that there are two steps or components in racism. First, you classify into a category. Second, you attack the person in terms of this category. The first step is not the problem. For example, because someone is black (first step), we say that he is uneducated (second step). The analogous sentence in my case is because I am seen as a follower of TM and there is a lot of assumptions about TM (first step), we give me a 1RR team sanction (second step). You see, in the context of Wikipedia, I don't care about these assumptions. They are not the problem. I include them in the first step (the categorisation). If it is not clear, just forget about this comparison.

You moved to a certain extent toward my point when you wrote "people will naturally fall into groups based on their own cultural norms." That is the basic principle, but you must replace "groups" by "one side of a dispute" and "fall" by "self-select" and "cultural norms" by "whatever bias related to the dispute they have": people will naturally self-select themselves in one side of a dispute based on whatever bias related to that dispute they have. This bias could be anything and it does not have to be associated with a group. This self-selection is much more direct and it does not just happen to "a certain extent". On the contrary, self-selection within a large environment of various editors, which are all invited to join a dispute, entirely explains how editors on both sides of a dispute can be biased. If you think that, because of an asymmetry or whatever, there cannot be bias against TM in this large environment of various editors, think again.

Currently, when we discuss about disputes in Wikipedia, we emphasize too much the role of groups, say TM supporters, etc., which is the basis of the asymmetry. The bias in the involved editors might be indirectly related to existence of groups to a certain extent, but this effect is already subsumed in the self-selection argument and do not need to be called again. Calling it again would be like saying that self-selection creates more bias on the side that is associated with a group. On the contrary, one can argue that the side that is not under a given umbrella can proceed without being noticed and therefore more efficiently.

Finally, I applaud you when you say "hence the attention given to the range of policies needed to enable wiki to work to get round this, particularly those referring to sources." I only wish there were much more attention given to content policy. For example, here, there is no discussion about evidence of violation of content policy. It is called a "content dispute" and it is not welcome. I would really welcome a discussion based on content policy and concrete evidence (i.e., based on content). Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You may comment and certainly have, but If someone comments on the wrong side of the opinions given here then you threaten to go to a noticeboard? [12]Threatening those who comment is not good. Please don't. And thanks.. that Xeno is a bureaucrat may mean I shouldn't have commented I wasn't aware of his status, or that his comment was closing the discussion, but Admins have no more right to end discussion than do editors. Your comment certainly describes the tenor of this RfA.(olive (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Please note my participation in this RFA is strictly one of an editor, not an administrator nor bureaucrat. I still think extended discussion of the TM case is undesirable here. To clarify, I am not suggesting that users avoid pointing to the TM case in their rationale, but I think that extended debate over such !votes (revisiting the case, questioning motives, etc.) is distracting and best avoided. –xeno^talk 19:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Olive, if you review the discussion, I was giving you and Timidguy the "last word". The spirit of wikipedia is to give warnings before seeking anything further. The problem that I am trying to resolve is the spiraling out of control of seemingly endless arguing, back and forth bickering etc. Xeno, sorry for my post which implied that you were commenting as an admin or bureaucrat.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:29, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are warning for what? How many times has TG commented on the Project page, how many times have I, how many time have you? Take a reality check and please do not threaten me. (olive (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you Xeno for explaining with out attacking.(olive (talk) 19:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I tend to agree with Xeno. I know my own statement was long. If I had to do it again I would provide the same evidence, perhaps even more, but cut the discussion to a strict minimum, just enough to let the reader know what the evidence is about and let them use it as they wish. I think TimidGuy statement was reasonable, but what should be avoided is a long debate about the evidence. If no one starts these discussions, it would work. In my case, if one starts it, I tend to reply in length. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Olive I have made very few comments in recent days other than trying to calm the situation down and lead people to the talk page. I have no powers on wikipedia to threaten you with and as stated above, my aim is not to intimidate but to calm the situation down by getting people on to the talk page. Please don't twist my words and intentions in your favour, additionally see WP:AGF.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The answers to your questions, Edith, can be found here and here. You might want to consider what would happen if everybody else decided to make their points as often as you do. --RexxS (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to [13], I am not sure what you are referring to. If it was something that you mentioned in the context of my oppose, then I feel you are taking it out of context. Please do not involve me in the project page. Use this talk page. Edith Sirius Lee (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]