Wikipedia talk:Wikipedians with articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Miscellany for deletion This page was nominated for deletion on 24 February 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.


Contents

[edit] List of notable Wikipedians

I suggest the mainspace article List of notable Wikipedians be merged with this wikipedia space article. Tim! 11:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the standard of verification is different. Article space requires independent proof they really are Wikipedians. The Wikipedia space list can be based largely on the say-so of the account holder, or what looks likely. --Rob 15:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's not like the list was making any effort to adhere to a standard of verification, so I've redirected it here. --Michael Snow 23:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Just when I figured out that each of the similar pages has it's own unique purpose, two of them get merged--and completely merged--without creating separate subsections to distinguish between those with articles about themselves and those who are notable but don't have articles about themselves. The "standard of verification" was just one difference between List of notable Wikipedians and the Wikipedians with articles project page. Now, once again, I can't find an article with notable Wikipedians without articles. Please revert the redirection. -Barry- 21:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brian D Foy and Scarpia

The following entry keeps getting reverted for differing reasons by blatant vandal (for other reasons) user:Pudgenet:

Brian D Foy – Scarpia (talk • contribs) 
Scarpia is likely the publisher and editor of The Perl Review, and co-author of books on Perl. He reverted an edit to Perl ( here ) that may show him and/or Perl in a bad light. With that reversion, a paragraph containing blatant vandalism was added back to the article, which Scarpia didn't write, though he presumably would have seen the edit summary indicating the vandalism and shouldn't have reinserted that paragraph. Previously, he had reverted a talk page entry that might have shown him in a bad light.

Note what Rob said on this talk page: "Article space requires independent proof they really are Wikipedians. The Wikipedia space list can be based largely on the say-so of the account holder, or what looks likely." and what it says on the project page: Another reason for this page is to notify the community that these Wikipedians are potential autobiographers, with the risks that entails for NPOV in articles relating to them and their work."

I have about six reasons for believing Scarpia is Brian D Foy. Should I go through them? Would some administrator be kind enough to ask Scarpia himself? -Barry- 03:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's fair to list the user (even if there's not rock solid proof). But, I ask you avoid a negative tone. If you know a user is a certain person (with an article), mention that here, but please mention nothing else. Any other relevant info (such as the basis for the conclusion), can go on the relevant talk page. --Rob 04:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
But there should probably be mention of whether the user received one of the official warnings, or at least a last warning, for vandalism. Or maybe mention only when an administrator got involved. Then the entry could give the date of the relevant discussion that exists on the user's talk page to make it easy to find. Maybe something simple like a link that says, for example, "March 20, 2006 controversy" that leads to the user's talk page. -Barry- 23:03, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
If there's a relevant link, then sure, provide that. But I wouldn't even put a label on it. If people looking up a person here, see the link, they'll follow it, and figure it out. I don't mean to be picky, but I don't like the word "controversy" added here, because this list could be turned into something negative (if others do the same). I don't want anybody to feel there's something bad (or controversial) about being named on this list. When adding a comment or note to one entry, we have to think about the cummulative effect of such notes on the overall list, making people, legitimately not want to be included in the list. If enough people objected to being on this list, I suspect it would be eliminated. --Rob 07:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

-Barry-: please stop lying. You're the one guilty of multiple instances of vandalism, and have repeatedly reverted removals of those acts of vandalism. I had precisely one, and it was a joke, and I've paid my penance. And then you lied about Scarpia by saying my vandalism was his fault when he reverted your other vandalism, just because that reversion also, unfortunately, included re-adding my vandalism. Give it up. You're trying to make this about me, but everyone agrees, including Rob and Durin, that your edits I've removed have been inappropriate. You seem incapable of posting with a NPOV, and this is the real problem. Maybe I've been a jerk, and maybe I've not summarized my edits appropriately, but this is not about me: improve your careless edits. If you can. Which I doubt. But hey, you finally made a reasonable edit on THIS page, so maybe I am wrong, and there is actually hope for you, after all. Pudge 23:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

You've reverted many edits and I don't want to criticize each case, but I made my case on the appropriate talk page and in my edit summaries. I haven't vandalized anything, as the administrator who got involved said. At least not clearly...I forgot his exact words.
I won't give Scarpia the benefit of the doubt considering he'd have to have missed both the vandalism in the paragraph that he reinserted as well as the edit summary pointing it out, and because of his other acts, which I've just linked to next to his entry. -Barry- 03:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Barry, given how personal your taking this, and condemning anybody who disagrees with you (per your edit summary) I suggest you leave this entry alone, and let neutral editors take over. --Rob 05:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you referring to the edit summary in which I used rvv for your edit? You added a link next to brian d foy's entry that has nothing to do with him. It's an anti -Barry- link. You explained yourself (it was an accident), and I explained myself here and I apologized. I'm not neutral, but I added appropriate content based on the discussion on this talk page. Don't let the fact that I called you a vandal get in the way of the main issue, which is what was agreed on and whether Pudgenet has attempted to work it out. -Barry- 18:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Look: you have a vendetta against Scarpia and brian d foy; this much is clearly obvious. You are attempting to make him look bad; this, too, is obviously true. That is your only point here; if not for your personal vendetta, you would not care. You are being a child. Link to information that shows his identity if you must, but links that carry over your petty squabbles with him are clearly inappropriate to the purpose of this page. I saw no agreement here that says linking to him being a "vandal" is appropriate; we interpret Rob's statement differently. If I am wrong, so be it, but I can't imagine that anyone would think such blatant personal attacks by you would be appropriate to this page. Pudge 18:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
The overall problem here is that Scarpia has not acknowledged that he is brian d foy. Rob, how does that jive with Wikipedia:Harassment which prohibits posting of personal information. Steve p 19:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I dunno, I think the fact that the links Barry added had nothing to do with Scarpia's identity is the real problem. Rob said rock-solid proof is not required, and I accept that. But look at the actual links: they have nothing to do with the point of this page, and as Rob said, "If you know a user is a certain person (with an article), mention that here, but please mention nothing else. Any other relevant info (such as the basis for the conclusion), can go on the relevant talk page."
So let's look at the links Barry keeps adding. One is Scarpia removing a personal attack against brian d foy, by Barry himself, [1] in a talk page. Another is reverting an edit according to consensus [2], which mentioned brian d foy. Neither of these is significant evidence Scarpia is brian d foy, and more to the point, in the context, they are clearly added by Barry only to make Scarpia look bad, as the other edits have nothing at all to do with Scarpia's identity. One is merely an edit where Scarpia removed content according to consensus [3]. Another is removing the childish "welcome!" message Barry added, and another separate note, on Scarpia's OWN TALK PAGE [4], [5]. Pray tell me what any of those have to do with the topic of this page.
Then there's the bias discussion, which also has no evidence of Scarpia's identity, and merely shows beyond reasonable doubt that Barry is, indeed, against consensus, and that the edits Scarpia made to that effect were appropriate.
Objectively speaking, I just don't see the relevance of any of this to this article, any more than putting any random edits by anyone else next to their name, and this, in conjunction with the fact that Barry has admitted that he is trying to show that Scarpia is a vandal, and the fact that I saw no one else agreeing with Barry that the links "showing" Scarpia is a vandal (which I think I've proved do not do that anyway) belong here, is why I've persisted in removing the links. Pudge 19:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
This may be relevant: "Another reason for this page is to notify the community that these Wikipedians are potential autobiographers, with the risks that entails for NPOV in articles relating to them and their work." I think that pointing to pages that may help indicate whether these Wikipedians are violating NPOV is consistant with the purpose of the project page. -Barry- 20:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Fine, except that only one of your links had anything to do with this. [6] was indeed about brian d foy, but was a personal attack by you of brian d foy on a *talk* page (granted, only the first paragraph was an attack, but still), so does not apply. [7] has nothing to do with brian d foy at all (unless you think Scarpia is both brian d foy and Randal Schwartz?). And the others were just you trying to annoy him on his own user talk page, which also do not apply.
Again, the only link you had that might be relevant is [8]. That is it: you have no other examples. And in this example, it is Scarpia reverting an edit that others had already reverted anyway, and that every other editor who voiced an opinion agreed was a good edit. So even if Scarpia and brian d foy are the same person, I don't think most people could care less that your one example was a perfectly fine edit supported by unanimous (minus you) consensus. And it only highlights the fact that you are simply out to get Scarpia, since it was your edit he reverted (again, with unanimous support).
You've identified that you think Scarpia is brian d foy. I don't care about that. That in itself is sufficient; if Scarpia edits something about brian d foy in the future, then you can raise the red flag by pointing here, rather than trying to point to links of perfectly appropriate edits *even if* Scarpia and brian d foy are the same person. You are clearly being abusive, and you're not fooling anyone, and I have nothing more to say to you on the matter. Pudge 20:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] edits made for 68.39.174.238

  1. Bjornar Simonsen and Andrew Sylvia need to be removed as their articels have been deleted.
  2. Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of JackSarfatti needs to be corrected ([[:Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets...)

I did the three changes listed above. One more request remains (see below). --JWSchmidt 03:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanx. 68.39.174.238 01:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request: marking bans

  1. Someone should probably note that Beckjord and Igor Bogdanov are banned as Daniel Brandt's entry notes that as well.
I noted it for Bogdanov, but not for Beckjord, as he's only blocked for a year, not indefinitely. — Laura Scudder ☎ 19:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 310539 - Terry Waite

310539 (talk • contribs) identified himself as Terry Waite, changing that article and its talk page. I don't know what constitutes enough evidence to warrant inclusion on this page (we shouldn't just be taking people's word for it, particularly with genuinely famous and definately non-technical people like Waite). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IP - Marilyn Hall Patel

69.106.249.111 (talk • contribs) identified herself as Marilyn Hall Patel, changing that article. The IP is consistent with the subject's place of work (the San Francisco Bay area in California), and she knew what a "senior judge" really means, but other than that there's no realy evidence that the IP really belongs to this person. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stephen Colbert

"US TV host Indefinetly blocked" is a misspelling.Roberthoff82 08:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed that entry as it was incorrect: The account was blocked as a likely impostor (EG. There was no proof that it was him). 68.39.174.238 03:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
It happened during the time the broadcast would have been taped. It was either him, or authorized by him. -- Zanimum 19:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christopher Bassford

User:Cbassford1 has identified himself as Christopher Bassford in the creation of the article O. J. Matthijs Jolles, which contains text from his book. If you'll excuse me, I'm off to wikify and categorize his biography. LeaHazel : talk : contribs 12:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] blocked Wikipedians with articles

I noticed that White Dawg's alleged alias User:BrowardPlaya has been blocked. Is there any reason for having blocked users appear on this page? Just thought I'd check here before I end up on some kind of deletion spree. G Rose 14:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, why shouldn't we list blocked editors? I don't really see a reason why we should remove them in the first place. --Conti|✉ 16:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
This may not be the place to track down sock puppets, but it isn't definite that White Dawg has stopped editing. See Thugz Don't Die (talk • contribs). I agree with ContiE's general point. -Will Beback · † · 22:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... I guess I don't really have an argument for removing notes on blocked users. It might be nice, though, to have the page divided up according to whether the Wikipedian is active or not. It's cool to know about the presence of a celebrity on Wikipedia, but not so interesting once you find out that he/she was just a vandal. G Rose 17:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
It's hard to keep track of who is active or inactive, or even to define what we'd mean by "activity". It'd be even stickier to label some of these folks as vandals, at least in this context. -Will Beback · † · 19:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, there's apparently some notion of "active" out there, as many of the users on the list are labeled "not active". As far as the vandal thing, I was referring to users who had been blocked from editing. Since notes of that kind already exist, there's nothing sticky about it.
I'm not really adamant about changing anything here, I'm just wondering about ways to better organize the page. My observation is that, since many users are listed as "not active" or "blocked", there might be some benefit in organizing the users based on those attributes. G Rose 20:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of sentence

I propose deleting the following sentence: "Also, remember that nothing in a user account's edit history should be held against the reputation of its operator, famous or not, in real life." That's completely ridiculous. Why would one assert that someone's actions in Wikipedia should not reflect on the editor responsible for those actions? Is there some rationale for this statement of which I am unaware? --ElKevbo 10:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Its doesnt refer to the actions but to the content/articles being edited. Example a US Senator who publicily/personally opposes abortion could have made edits to the article section on Abortion#Abortion_debate that are opposite to the Senators public position. Gnangarra 10:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. If that's what is meant then the sentence needs to be rewritten for clarity. --ElKevbo 10:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Individuals suggesting corrections to their pages

Should we include people who have emailed Wikipedia? Or is this confidential? -- Zanimum 00:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, should we include people who have emailed Wikipedia with corrections to their articles? -- Zanimum 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello? -- Zanimum 19:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, people who emailed Wikipedia can hardly be seen as Wikipedians, IMHO, so I wouldn't include them here. It'd also be a mess to verify this, anyways. --Conti|✉ 20:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
It's just OTRS messages, which each have numbers. -- Zanimum 21:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, point taken. Still, I wouldn't consider people who email Wikipedia to be Wikipedians. --Conti|✉ 22:07, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Neither do I. Frankly, I don't even consider most of the people in this page as Wikipedians. But we do already have a section of the article named "Individuals suggesting corrections to their pages". It includes Madeleine Albright, Walter Block, Noam Chomsky, Harlan Ellison, and Mike Watt. The people I helped on OTRS included the co-star of a cult-classic 1960s TV series, an Oscar winning songstress, and a Grammy winning songstress. Plus a few other stars of lesser importance, all TV. And with all of them, I'm 99.9% sure they're authentic. -- Zanimum 16:30, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, I actually never noticed that section. It'd be quite interesting to have a list of all celebrities/notable people that have suggested corrections to their articles through OTRS, but that wouldn't be "Wikipedians with articles" anymore. You could always create a new article, of course. --Conti|✉ 23:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are we singling out certain Wikipedians for unwelcome scrutiny?

I am concerned that this page may have the effect of singling out the Wikipedians on it for unwelcome scrutiny. Having read the introductory paragraphs, I can see that care was taken to be sensitive to the interests of these people. Even so, I worry that this list could be a magnet for bad forms of attention, such as

  • vandalism
  • trolling
  • stalking

Even the scrutiny that this page endorses could have a chilling effect. Consider the justifications for the existence of this page laid out in paragraph two:

All editors should be careful of these users' edits for two reasons: One, they may edit their own articles, which raises the possibility of vanity editing and POV. Two, sweeping edits they make to their articles may be attempts to remove libel against them (something that missed WP:BLP). In any case, such edits should be gone over carefully and discussed with them before taking any action.

Sentence one suggests we should anticipate that people listed on this page will make bad edits, and prepare pre-emptively to correct them. This could be considered a violation of WP:AGF.

Sentences two and three suggest that we should be wary of these users because of WP:BLP concerns, and that we should be careful while interacting with them. Despite the good intentions behind this argument, it has the effect of creating a divide between the subjects of this list and the rest of us who come across them.

I don't believe this kind of division is healthy for Wikipedia. Thankfully, I am not a notable Wikipedian, but I would feel uncomfortable if I found myself on this list.

I see that I have missed the 2007-02-27 deletion debate for this article. I will not challenge the consensus in favor of keeping this page, although I would have voted delete in the debate.

However, I would like to see the second paragraph changed or removed. My first instinct is to edit it, but I don't think that will be effective; apparently the paragraph already accurately describes the main reasons Wikipedians use this page. Softening the language would only detract from clarity.

On the other hand, I find the Category:Notable_Wikipedians page less off-putting, primarily because it lacks the commentary of this project's introduction. It does not highlight and tacitly endorse a potentially upsetting use of information.

So, I recommend deleting the second paragraph of the introduction. Does anyone else share my concerns? If so, what should we do about this? Baileypalblue 11:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikipedians_with_articles_9cd9.html"