Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/-Lumière

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Multiple accounts

Lumière wrote in response to Kelly Martin's outside view and others' comments responding to KM:

I changed my user name from Lumiere to Etincelle after I lost my password, and for no other reason. Also, it was clearly indicated right from the start on the top of my talk page as Etincelle that Etincelle was formerly Lumiere. My user page as Etincelle was redirected to my user talk page as Etincelle. Also, right from the start, my nickname as Etincelle was "Etincelle (formerly Lumiere)". However, editors that do not like me were joking about my change of user name. After a while, I realized that I could get back to something very close to Lumiere, which is "-Lumìère". I tought that it should make people happy because it is almost a returm to my original user name. Also, I checked and I believe that it is not against policy to have more than one user names. -Lumière 13:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice try, but that doesn't explain why you began editing Wiki under the name "Amrit" (for documentation, see [1] ) and then changed it to Lumiere before changing it to Etincelle and then to Lumière . Did you think that no one remembered your first name switch? Every time you switch names, you make it difficult for people to see your track record, and read the ever mounting complaints editors and administrators have been posting against you. You have participated in Wiki under four different user names though you've been here barely 4 months. I doubt we've seen the last of your name changes. Frankly, I believe these name changes are another of your many disruptive tactics.Askolnick 18:32, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Amrit was just a Nickname that I used at the beginning when I was Lumiere, but many was calling me Lumiere because it was my User name. To avoid confusion I simply removed my Nickname. I was just a newcomer. I was just trying to do my best so that people can identify me easily. This accusation is ridiculous. -Lumière 18:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
You shouldn't have blanked criticism and then redirected User talk:Lumiere then. Such actions are the opposite of "doing [your] best so that people can identify [you] easily." A blanking-redirect of an old talk page is one of the best way of making it hard for people to find the history of constant complaints about your behaviour. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I am allowed to remove anything I want from my talk page (except perhaps some special administrative posts). I have seen experienced editors, perhaps admins, do that. However, the ratio of the posts that I removed is small, even amongst the criticisms. -Lumière 19:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
You are allowed to remove things of course. An editor's actions, including what they choose to remove from their talk page, are a testament to their character though. What you choose to remove from your talk page are comments that a significant portion of the editors who you interact with consider to be valid criticisms. That you garner so much criticism and choose to dismiss and hide it does not reflect well on you. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Sure, but I am doing fine at that level. As I said I only removed a small percentage of the posts, even small amongst the criticism. This is the main point that I explain here. I did not try to hide anything with the help of my multiple accounts. -Lumière 21:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
This kind of disagreement about whether you are "doing fine" as an editor is exactly the kind of ignoring of the community that is getting you in trouble. Wikipedia has thousands and thousands of editors, and you are one of the vast minority who can't seem to get along with others. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
And, you do realise that you can have the password for an account reset and mailed to you easily? Making a new username is entirely unnecessary. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I want to remain anonymous, and I do not trust use of email. Also, I did not want to bother anyone with that when there was another simple solution. I really did not know that it would be a big deal. In fact, I am still amazed by that. I think that you are just picking anything you can to discredit me. -Lumière 19:38, 12 April 2006

Well, if you didn't register an email account then, no, there was nothing you could do because it's an automatic process (that involves bothering no-one). Consider registering and email with your current account so that you can avoid this in the future—Wikipedia keeps them confidential so much so that there is a special system in place that allows editors to choose to be contacted by email by others without revealing their address. Nobody by a developer can access it. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

That developer can find out is already too much. -Lumière 21:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I am puzzled. Register a pseudonymous email account (with Hotmail, for example) and use that. This has no meaningful impact on your privacy. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I have considered this, and I might do it. Again, I did not foresee the impact that opening a new accunt would have. I still do not get it. Obsiously, I did not try to hide my previous accounts. -Lumière 22:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Your IP address, which is visible to Developers, is far, far more traceable than your email address. Developers have much better things to do with their time. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that. I don't know how someone can trace me with my IP address without the participation of my internet provider. -Lumière 22:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

More is the operative word. An email address is less useful for tracing someone than an IP address. An IP address can identify you more than an email address can. Most of the time the ISP's help is useful, but it's not always necessary. The point is that you needn't worry about your email address being in the hands of Wikipedia because it would not make you less anonymous than you already are, especially if you don't use an email address that has your name in it, like a free one. Knowing this, you don't have an excuse for changing accounts anymore. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What difference it will do that I use Lumiere instead of -Lumière? If someone wants to move my previous history all under -Lumière I'll accept, but only if you tell me that it will make a big difference in the way you and others will judge me. The point is that I am afraid of this kind of change -- I do not know the side effects. So, I would prefer that we just leave things as they are, and that nobody plays with my history. -Lumière 00:07, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

By all means, leave things as they are now. But just don't go getting yet another account. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)


I am aware of at three other names/IP's Lumiere et al. has used... I have suspicions of others, but no proof.... In Lumiere's favor, I point out that none of these accounts have huge edit histories and she went back and re-signed them all as Lumier it is the # of accounts that I feel frustration over.


69.156.34.80, Senajit, 216.99.36.103

69.156 stuff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATranscendental_meditation&diff=32257789&oldid=32244454 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=69.156.34.80


Senajit, 216.99.36 stuff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATranscendental_meditation&diff=33838606&oldid=33762105


Sethie 15:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Away for few days

I'll be away for few days. -Lumière 02:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iantresman, walking in -Lumière's footsteps

Iantresman (talk · contribs) has taken up the torch, continuing with the same pattern of WP:POINT disruption with the same incessant droning on about Undue Weight at Talk:NPOV: [2][3][4][5][6]. Per prior requests at that page to drop the issue and comments here, I've moved the discussion to his user talk page. FeloniousMonk 20:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] -Lumière's response, or lack thereof

-Lumière: Your response so far has been, I am going to respond when I will have more time. Right now, I am very busy with other things in my life, and this response will require some careful thinking. -Lumière 00:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC). Perhaps you would have time to respond if you spend less time pursuing your vision on Wikipedia talk:No original research (seven posts yesterday). -- Donald Albury(Talk) 01:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, he has been responding -- only not here where he's supposed to. He's been responding to these charges on the talk pages of sympathetic editors he hopes will jump in and defend him. For example, [7] and [8]
"There is a Rfc on me. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/-Lumière I am just an ordinary user that felt that a clearer policy will be useful when there are disputes. I will really appreciate your neutral comment on this Rfc. Their main argument is that the ratio of the number of my edits on the main space over the number of my edits on the policy talk pages is low. My answer is that it is low because I cannot work on the mainspace with the way the policy is currently applied. So, I should either give up Wikipedia or try to contribute to the understanding and the clarity of the policy. I do not disturb the policy talk pages. I just make thoughtful comments. I am respectuous of other people, etc. There is no policy that say that the ratio of ... edits on the main space over the ... edits on the policy should be large. So, I am not doing abything wrong. -Lumière 03:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)" Askolnick 03:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This is part of what I should do to help this Rfc. Rfc = request for comments. Also, the official reply here is more important and therefore require more time. There is nothing wrong about the fact that I take my time, see what others have to say, etc. before I give my answer. You just show here that you take anything you can to attack me. Those who complaint above have obviously no intention to really work toward a solution. They have a fixed agenda. -Lumière 04:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

He also asked for my help. His comment on my premature suggestion concerning WP:V was friendly, helpful and cogent, but that's my only contact with him, and I don't think that an outside view on such a small basis would be very credible. I made some suggestions instead. Robert A.West (Talk) 03:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! This corroborates the fact that I do not disrupt the policy talk pages. Therefore, why should I be excluded from the policy talk pages because my ratio (# of edits on main space/# of edits on policy pages) is low? The spirit of Wikipedia is that new editors should very quickly be accepted as full member of the community. This is just a paraphrase of a statement of Jimbo Wales, but if needed I can provide the exact quote. -Lumière 04:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
It does not corroborate anything. He said he's had little contact with you. And you're not being excluded because of your ratio. You are being asked to stop posting to those pages because you post there too much, and know very little about our policies. Your very high policies/encyclopedia ratio is simply part of the evidence for this. You've been asked elsewhere to show some respect for your fellow editors, so please do that and stop posting your personal views to policy talk pages. Then the complaints will stop, this RfC will be redundant, and you can get on with editing the encyclopedia. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
It might not completely prove my point, but it does corroborate it. It may be a little experience, but it still corroborates my point. I think I have well chosen the word "corroborate" here. These individual comments that corroborate my points are useful, and the more there are of them, the better it is for me. On the other hand, Robert A West's useful comment certainly does not corroborate your claim that I have nothing useful to say about the policy. -Lumière 04:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
This is how you behave on the policy talk pages. It doesn't matter how much evidence exists to show you're wrong or have misunderstood something, you just keep ploughing on with the same point regardless. When I last checked, 24 experienced editors had certified or endorsed a statement saying your edits are disruptive. But then one editor posts that you were once helpful, although he admits he's had hardly any experience of you. Yet his is the comment you leap on, saying it "corroborates" your position. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
What bothers me, -Lumière, is that you see this as a win/lose thing, and I for one am tired of combative Wikipedians at the moment. Why the urgent drive to modify policy? Where's the fire? Where are the dozens of pages with severe problems that can only be fixed if your suggestions are adopted? My suggestion still stands: modify, rather than justify, your behavior. Do more editing and less debating, and come back later with a clearer head, and fewer people irritated at you. Robert A.West (Talk) 04:52, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you that a combative attitude, a constant opposition, etc. is a bad idea. It will bring me nowhere, and it does not help. I want to follow your advice. So please help me. I believe that you succeed to do something useful in the articles that are of interest to you in the main space. However, I tried to do the same, but it does not work with the articles that are of interest to me. These articles are completely jammed and nothing work. It is simply a lost of time to work on these articles. So, the simple natural attitude in my case is to help in the policy talk pages, where I think I can help to improve the way the policy are understood, interpreted and applied. Are you saying that I should start to edit articles that are not of interest to me? Are you saying that I should pretend that I think it is useful to try edit these articles that are completely jammed, if not protected against edits? Should I just leave Wikipedia alone? What is your suggestion? -Lumière 05:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia exists to create and publish articles. Our policies exist only to expedite that process. Policies are not an end in themselves. Unless users have experience with the way polices apply to real-word editing situations, it is impossible for them to know how they work. Your unwillingness to participate in this good-faith RFC indicates an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia norms. That doesn't portend good policy-writing. -Will Beback 06:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I am participating. If you refer to the official reply in the response section, I said that I will provide it. I am listening carefully to the discussion here. I think it is worth it.
Well, I have both a suggestion and a demonstration, Lumiere. Here is one article and here is another, both of which I found by means of hitting Random Article a few times. Both are in need of minor edits, one for mere formatting for compliance with WP:MOS; the other is need of copyedit. What should be done? ---BillC 06:29, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more explicit about the kind of reply you expect from me? I could perhaps take some time to enjoy contributing to Wikipedia in some articles, even if they are not of fundamental importance to me, may be learn about technical aspects of the policies and guidelines that I do not know about. I am positive, but suspicious at the same time because of the so many attacks against me. I am afraid that maybe you mean something else here. Is it a disguised way to tell me that I shouldn't express any opinion in the policy talk pages anymore? -Lumière 17:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it was my question to which you were replying; however if it was, I was suggesting that you take a minute or two to edit some actual articles. If those two I found don't suit you, then there are over a million more to choose from. I just would like to add my voice to those saying that you need to broaden your editing experience before tackling changes to fundamental policy pages. Nor do all articles you edit need be ones on controversial topics. You're perfectly free to decline, of course, but there was no hidden message in what I wrote. --BillC 18:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was to you that I replied. My feeling is that I could enjoy doing that. If I have time to work on the policy talk pages, I could take some of this time to enjoy working on neutral articles. Perhaps, if the community see that I can enjoy something else than the policy talk pages, they will perceive me differently. Editing neutral articles will make me learn the policy aspects that are important in this kind of articles. I have already all the experience that I need with controversial articles, and at this level I could continue to contribute in the policy talk pages. Some say that usually my posts are cogent and help their thinking process. Isn't this harmless? I have no power in Wikipedia, except through the expression of my opinions, which I cannot impose in any way. -Lumière 18:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It was disappointing that you didn't take the opportunity to edit those or any other articles, but instead made lengthy campaign posts on a policy page instead. --BillC 09:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts and Suggestions

OK, I did a little sampling from your User Contributions list, and my comments are subject to caveat because this is just a quick impression. I suspect there are some issues of idiom and tone, as well as an overly-formal approach to policy on your part. For example, your attempt to draw a parallel between the Skeptical Inquirer and the self-published research of a particular claimant is misguided: CSICOP is known to impose peer-review techniques on its articles and invites comment from the claimants on experimental designs specifically in an attempt to minimize bias. Obviously, if the CSICOP research were published in Lancet that would be better, but there is less a priori reason to suspect CSICOP of crocking the data. This is the sort of practical judgment about relative reliability of sources that can't be legislated. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I was wrong about it, but I learned (because I worked a lot on the policies). I do not consider anymore that the SI is self-published source. I mentioned it in the talk page of this article. I still think it is a partisan journal, but a partisan journal is fine as long as it is presented as such. I still have reservation about the quality of fact-checking of this journal, but still this is not a reason to totally reject the journal. It just means that we should be careful when the content is a dubious fact that is not verifiable elsewhere: strong claims requires more reputable sources. Of course, the policy is very clear that editors must evaluate the reputability of sources: size of staff, peer-reviewed or not, fact-checking process, etc. are criteria to consider in accordance to policy. -Lumière 08:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Lord knows, I would do far worse if I ever tried contributing to the German Wikipedia, but there does seem to be a string of misunderstandings on both sides. Obviously, you have an interest primarily in the paranormal, and those tend to be controversial articles, so you have a handicap there. Still, a lighter touch, and a more obvious committment to making your own edits as NPOV as possible would probably help. There are editors interested in this RfC who have more edits in a month than I have total -- perhaps they can provide some more and better guidance. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you really think that the solution in the Demkina article is just that me alone improve my NPOV style and try to be more flexible? I would not be there, and this article would be jammed in the sameway. Similarly, in the TM article, the situation without me would have been about the same. In fact, I gave up on this article: I have been infinitely flexible lately. The TM-ex and the skeptics took complete control over it. There is nothing I can do. These people have a fixed agenda. Discussions without a clear policy (that can be used with authority by all editors) is useless. Without a clear policy that every one can use with authority when we work toward a consensus, a viewpoint that is perfectly verifiable and highly significant outside Wikipedia will be misrepresented in Wikipedia if there is a local majority of editors against it. It is important that the policy use criteria that are as objective as possible to compensate for the possible subjective bias of a local majority of editors. Rfc does not work. If a majority (which may include a few admins) is not guided by a clear policy, we will still have a problem even after a few more people participate in the process. Some people say that I am against consensus because I want a clearer policy, but this is non sense. A clearer policy can just help to achieve a consensus. -Lumière 08:05, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
"Always do what is right. This will gratify some and amaze the rest." -- Mark Twain
I am suggesting that the one thing you have absolute control over is your style, both of editing and of commenting. I am not taking a position on the merits of the articles in question -- assume arguendo that you are correct and that there are NPOV issues that need to be redressed. By focusing on the need for the article to be NPOV (which includes not overemphasizing the side you prefer) you gain credibility. By being polite even in the face of ill treatment, you gain credibility in the eyes of third parties (including possible mediators). By focusing your arguments on making a good article, and less on detailed parsing of policy, you are more likely to convince others.
Of course, there is no guarantee that any of this will work. There is one editor with whom I seem unable to work, even when we agree 90% -- who has backhandedly accused me of being a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, Commie Aristocrat. But, at least, I kept my integrity and my interests are broad enough that shaking the dust of a single article from my feet does me little harm. There are many articles in Wikipedia, including many on paranormal phenomena. Robert A.West (Talk) 08:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I should add -- of course a local majority can effectively override policy, and of course policy can be misinterpreted. This is true of all possible policy formulations. I ask you to consider which is more likely to convince another editor: detailed interpretations of policy, or an appeal to write for the reader, who surely wants to hear the claims of both sides to understand the debate? Robert A.West (Talk) 08:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
The need to interpret the policy cannot be subtituted by an appeal to one personal rules. For example, if one does an appeal to "write for the reader, who surely wants to hear the claims of both sides to understand the debate", one needs to consider this as a part of the policy, which states that we must present all views in accordance with the prominence of each. This no undue weight policy is so fundamental. The whole point of such policy is to be able to appeal to it, especially in the case of disputes. So, I do not understand why an interpretion of the policy and an appeal to some principles should be two opposite things. They have to be one and the same thing. -Lumière 09:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Also you seem to be against "detailed interpretations". My answer is that the way to avoid complex interpretations is to have a clear policy. We should add details to the policy when they are needed to clarify it. What is necessary is necessary. If there are confusions, they must be removed. If there are loopholes, we must do what is necessary to remove them. It should be easy for all editors to understand the policy. The policy should be simple and clear. It maybe a challenge and a lot of discussions amongst different kind of editors might be necessary to achieve this goal, but a consensus of all editors around the policy is only possible if it is clear and simple, and this may require a certain amount of details. A lack of details or a badly structured policy, etc. could make the policy unclear. If the policy is unclear, an editor will make an appeal to what exactly? -Lumière 02:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


You make an impassioned argument... for something that is not the point of this page. You are arguing your justification for your policy project again instead of discussing your behaviour. — Saxifrage ✎ 09:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
On the contrary, the need for a clear policy, especially in the case of jammed articles, is fundamental to understand my behavior. This is the most fundamental aspect of this Rfc. If the articles that are of interest to me are jammed, what should I do? Should I leave Wikipedia alone? Robert A.West provided an answer, and I replied. -Lumière 09:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Certainly your position that the policy is unclear and needs to be changed is fundamental. You're missing the point I make: you are advancing your argument here. This is not the place to do so. I can sum up everything you need to say here about policy as I already did, with a simple statement that you hold the "position that the policy is unclear and needs to be changed". Anything beyond that does not belong here.
Now, given that you believe this, and given that there is a strong indication that many fellow editors—perhaps not as many as you think there should be to make heeding them necessary, but certainly enough to indicate that somewhere there is a problem—have taken exception to how you have comported yourself regarding your position, you must address the point of your behaviour, not why you think the policy needs to change.
As a separate point, you ask what you should do. If you only want to contribute to Natasha Demkina and Transcendental Meditation, then you have already discovered that your views on how those articles should read have just not been realised. Do you want to contribute to Wikipedia, or do you only want to contribute to those articles? If you care about the project, there is much that you could do that would not only help the project but gain you valuable experience for learning how to edit in a situation of conflict. If you only care about those two articles, then you are likely out of luck and might consider calling it quits. As for policy, if you only care about those two articles then you are not sufficiently unbiased nor have a broad enough view of the project that the policy governs to be a useful contributor to policy. However, if you care about the whole project, then there is much else that you should be doing while trying to contribute to policy.
Now, and here's the crucial question, are you going to try listening to what people have to say, or are you going to continue to assume that Lumière Knows Best and that we're all out to get you, and keep telling us why you're right and we're all wrong about this entire thing? — Saxifrage ✎ 09:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Outdent because of intervening comments: Let me ask you a question. If you wanted to dissuade a man from hiring a hitman to kill his wife, would you parse the details of whether the statute is justified under the Felony murder rule or as a form of Vicarious liability (criminal) or some other theory of law? Or would you try to convince him on other, more visceral grounds? (Murder is evil. His wife doesn't deserve it. He will get caught.) I suspect that you would use the latter. The precise legal rules are a means to the end (reducing the murder rate) not the end.

By the same token, Wikipedia articles don't exist to serve policy, nor will policy create good articles. Only hard work and good judgment can do that. Policy is a backstop to keep us from creating some kinds of bad articles and from putting some types of bad edit into good articles. It is simply better tactics to argue, "This will improve the article," than to argue, "This violates such-and-such a technicality in thus-and-thus policy." If you can't win the quality argument, you are unlikely to win the technical argument, unless the violation is blatant enough to take to RfC or Arbitration, because the technical argument is easier to crock.

I commend to you the writings of Oliver Wendell Holmes. The law teaches us only what we will not tolerate from bad men, it does not teach us how to be good men, who do what they do for other reasons. If you feel that you are surrounded by nothing but bad editors, then yes, you must continually appeal to policy, but that is a depressing position. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] View or comment

Should my addition have been under the view heading or the comment hdg wher I put it. I dint understand the difference. Help--Light current 03:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)