Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This RfC closed on March 5 with no consensus. There is currently being initiated an RfAR for substantially the same issue.

Users should only edit one position or view, for each dispute, other than to endorse.

Contents

[edit] Dispute 1

Can the Linux Kernel Mailing List, a public bulletin board that allows anonymous postings with forged email headers, be considered a reputable primary or secondary source under Wikipedia:Reliable sources?

Wikipedia defines reputable sources as:

Wikipedia:Reliable sources define prohibited sources as:

Bulletin boards and posts to Usenet

Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources.

Because there is no way we can know for certain who has written them.

Personal websites as primary sources

A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing.

Personal websites as secondary sources

Personal websites and blogs may never be used as secondary sources.

Unattributed material

Wikipedians often report as facts things they remember hearing about or reading somewhere, but they don't remember where, and they don't have any other corroborating information. It's important to seek credible sources to verify these types of reports, and if they cannot be verified, any editor may delete them.

It's always appropriate to ask other editors, "How do you know that?", or "Can you cite your source?" If they didn't have a particular source in mind when they wrote the material originally, someone will have to find a credible source. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who has made the edit in question.

For advice about dealing with unattributed material when you find it, see Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Avoid weasel words which are policy, and Wikipedia:Cite sources, which is a style guide.

Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence

Certain "red flags" should prompt editors to examine closely and skeptically the sources for a given claim.

Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended. Surprising or important facts which are not widely known. Surprising or important recent events which have not been reported by reputable news media. Claims which are not supported, or which are contradicted, by the prevailing view in the scientific community. This is especially true of claims whose proponents consider that there is a conspiracy of "official science" to silence them. Claims which strongly support one or another party in an ongoing dispute (see e.g. Wikipedia:List of controversial issues).

NOTE: Many of the outside views are actually the people involved in the debate who use SCOX role accounts on wikiepdia that originate from proxy addresses with multiple remote users of the same account. Those users identified should only count as a single vote combined. Admin and Reviewers call. Check the history of these accounts. They are suspected meat puppets of the SCOX message board POV pushing into articles. The content in question is commercial advertising in support of Corporate interests involved with Linux.


Identified SCOX Role and Meat Puppet Accounts

Aim Here (talk · contribs)

Why you so hawny? (talk · contribs) SCOX meat puppet role account indefinitely blocked for stalking Waya sahoni 02:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Sue me Jeff (talk · contribs) SCOX meat puppet role account indefinitely blocked for stalking Waya sahoni 02:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

MediaMangler (talk · contribs)

Kebron (talk · contribs)

Pgk (talk · contribs)

jerryg (talk · contribs)

Exabit (talk · contribs)

Vryl (talk · contribs)

Mjpieters (talk · contribs) aso goes by "MJ"

Friendly neighbour (talk · contribs) SCOX meat puppet role account indefinitely blocked for stalking. Waya sahoni 02:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Should an RFC contain perjoratives regarding all members who disagree with the originator of the RFC? Doesn't an RFC require that both positions are NOT written by the originator of the RFC? Vigilant 23:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

Sign here if you have tried to resolve the dispute and failed. Sign with ~~~~.

Waya sahoni 16:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Position 1

The Linux Kernel Mailing List, a public bulletin board that allows anonymous postings with forged email headers, is being used as both a primary and secondary source for this article. Wikipedia:Reliable sources bars the use of bulletin boards, weblog postings, and other unverifiable content except in articles about the subject itself LKML. This content should be removed from this article and placed into the LKML article where it belongs. Waya sahoni 20:29, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


Users who endorse this position (sign with ~~~~)

  1. Waya sahoni 07:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. mikka (t) 00:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. Engjs 12:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Position 2

[Note to the reader: the wording of Position 2 during the latter part of this RfC's activity, contributed and edited by Waya sahoni, was:]

The opposite position is that unverifiable materials which are barred by Wikipedia policy may be used as reputable primary and secondary sources, even if they are anonymously posted and originate from weblogs, bulletin boards, and public mailing lists. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waya sahoni (talk • contribs)

[On 15 March 2006 at 09:03, Waya sahoni deleted the above text and replaced it with the below, the "Outside view" which had been contributed by Aim Here:]

Let me get this straight - I either support Jeff's urgent need to delete most of the Jeffrey Vernon Merkey article under his particular reading of the wikipedia rules, or I support Jeff's twisted and self-aggrandising ad-hominem attack on the vast majority of the people who edit the page which bears his name? Sorry, this is a false dilemma. I support neither of the his viewpoints, in this bogus debate framed by a sockpuppet of User:Gadugi. And by the way, Jeff, you're banned. Get off Wikipedia already.

Users who endorse this position (sign with ~~~~)

[edit] Outside view

Let me get this straight - I either support Jeff's urgent need to delete most of the Jeffrey Vernon Merkey article under his particular reading of the wikipedia rules, or I support Jeff's twisted and self-aggrandising ad-hominem attack on the vast majority of the people who edit the page which bears his name? Sorry, this is a false dilemma. I support neither of the his viewpoints, in this bogus debate framed by a sockpuppet of User:Gadugi. And by the way, Jeff, you're banned. Get off Wikipedia already. --Aim Here 01:54, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

That must be exactly why it says very clearly, "Users should only edit one position or view, for each dispute, other than to endorse." Waya sahoni had no right to edit both positions. OneNamelessCat 06:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Users who endorse this suggestion (sign with ~~~~)

  1. MediaMangler 02:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  2. Aim Here 08:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  3. --MJ(☎|@|C) 16:11, 28 February 2006 (UTC).
  4. OneNamelessCat 06:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
  5. Sue me Jeff 14:50, 1 March 2006 (UTC) user has been indefinitely blocked for stalking. Waya sahoni 02:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  6. Vigilant 07:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
  7. --Jerry | Talk 19:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  8. --Kebron 20:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
  9. --Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  10. --BWD (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
  11. --Vryl 02:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
  12. --Antaeus Feldspar 19:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  13. --talks_to_birds 23:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC) as long as we're still voting

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.