Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Kwork

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Response per anon users comments

Well...

All I have to say is here we have:

~a user who is unwilling to sign their comments,

~create a user account,

~accurately determine who started an AN/I report (I did not),

~claims they are blocked when they are not

~whenever there is a edit he/she doesn't like he says the edit has "bad/incorrect grammer" yet cannot point out any incorrect grammer when asked.

Sethie 21:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


moved from project page

-- I sign my comments with a date stamp

-- I have a user account that is currently dormant, a decision not undertaken lightly and which has nothing to do with the Alice Bailey page or with my other work here as an editor.

-- You are partially correct and deserve a partial apology: the block against me was initiated by Renee and seconded by Squeakbox and you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive288#Alice_Bailey_Board

-- There is indeed a block on my posting to the Alice Bailey page. The block expires on August 29th, seven days from when it was initiated.

Nameless Date Stamp 05:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No-one initiated a block against you! Renee said "I think there is a problem, here are some examples of why I see this editor as a problem." Period. An admin reviewed your behavior and decided to "semi protect" the page.
There is no block against you. It is called "semi-protection" of a page. Any unlogged in user can't edit it.
I did not second the block! :) Let me quote myself: " I have put the "non-discussion forum" template at the top of the page, and asked people to stop throwing around their conspiracy theories about why people edit the way they do.... However the page is on the brink of going out of control any help would be greatly appreciated." I don't see any mention of you in that quote.
It's bad enough we can't seem to keep our facts straight on the page, much less facts about what user said/did what! Sethie 06:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Moved from Above

[edit] Moved from Above, part of Kwork's response

The note below is on Sethie's talk page, and discusses the fact that he has remove a great deal of material from (vandalized) the Alice Bailey talk page. Since Most of that is material I put on the talk page, and might be needed by me in this RfC, I would like Sethie to return what he removed before this goes any further. I notice that he has also removed material I have put on this page

Quick Note on "Bad Form" Heya Sethie, thanks for your contributions over at Alice Bailey, I think you've been a great help. But, I just want to point out something to you. (This is meant as a gentle suggestion, so here's hoping it comes out that way. :)

While it is considered "bad form" to blank one's user page(s) to hide comments, I'm pretty sure it's considered much worse form to edit some else's user page, for any reason. Also, as a side note, it's not particularly good form to remove comments from talk pages, even when they are off-topic, and even if the author himself might have decided to remove them a few hours later... ;)

But regardless, keep up the good fight! Eaglizard 11:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Kwork 11:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to the out-of-context use of my statement here in this fashion. I completely disagree with Kwork's contention that it supports his assertion that Sethie has "vandalized" the talk page. While a section of my comments were indeed blanked from the talk page, those comments were in fact blatant soap-boxing on my part and were inappropriate. I felt my failure to re-instate my comments implied my approval. In any case, I'm not at all sure it was Sethie in the first place -- I din't care enough to look. Eaglizard 13:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


(moved per wp:rfc/u)

The note below is on Sethie's talk page, and discusses the fact that he has remove a great deal of material from (vandalized) the Alice Bailey talk page. Since Most of that is material I put on the talk page, and might be needed by me in this RfC, I would like Sethie to return what he removed before this goes any further. I notice that he has also removed material I have put on this page

Quick Note on "Bad Form" Heya Sethie, thanks for your contributions over at Alice Bailey, I think you've been a great help. But, I just want to point out something to you. (This is meant as a gentle suggestion, so here's hoping it comes out that way. :)

While it is considered "bad form" to blank one's user page(s) to hide comments, I'm pretty sure it's considered much worse form to edit some else's user page, for any reason. Also, as a side note, it's not particularly good form to remove comments from talk pages, even when they are off-topic, and even if the author himself might have decided to remove them a few hours later... ;)

But regardless, keep up the good fight! Eaglizard 11:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Kwork 11:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly object to the out-of-context use of my statement here in this fashion. I completely disagree with Kwork's contention that it supports his assertion that Sethie has "vandalized" the talk page. While a section of my comments were indeed blanked from the talk page, those comments were in fact blatant soap-boxing on my part and were inappropriate. I felt my failure to re-instate my comments implied my approval. In any case, I'm not at all sure it was Sethie in the first place -- I din't care enough to look. Eaglizard 13:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, this was not intended to offend you. But the fact remains that Sethie has deleted a LOT of material from the article, and all of it is from the two editors he opposes. He is accusing me of not knowing Wikipedia rules (which he seems to consider a crime), while he is vandalizing the Alice Bailey article to the point it is very difficult and time consuming to find material I need to refer to. If you think that is alright for him to do, or a fair fair way for him to conduct an argument, please explain why. Once again, I am sorry if I offended you, but the information (which you have removed) should to be here in some form. Kwork 14:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your apology, but no worries: I was not offended. I merely wanted to make it perfectly clear to anyone who read this that my comments had been taken out of context and (I feel) mis-represented. But no offense at all, m8. Eaglizard 03:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I see that one more apology is in order, because you moved, not removed, that material. So sorry. If you feel it should be removed, I can certainly live with that, but I would like some recognition, in some form, that Sethie has removed a lot of material from the Alice Bailey talk page. Kwork 14:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The apology is accepted and it is not a big deal, just trying to follow procedure.
Eaglizard, you may misunderstand. My apologies were because my action was (in the first case) not intended to offend you, and (in the second case) because I accused you of doing something you had not done. As for your saying "just trying to follow procedure", if you think I did something wrong, maybe you can get Sethie to add it to his list of accusations. Kwork 19:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I am happy to acknowledge once again, that I removed some portions from the talk page.Sethie 20:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First of all I would like to know why I was not notified of this request for comment on my talk page, I only descovered it by chance

Kwork 22:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


You discovered it by chance?

Hmmmm I posted it on the AAB page 5 hours ago, and was waiting to notify you until I had a second signature from someone certifying this dispute. I have not even fully listed it yet on the RFC/U page... so in essence it hasn't fully started yet. Sethie 22:37, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


Just to be clear.

No, an RFC/U has not begun yet for you.

I am in the process of TRYING to start one concerning you, and once it is fully in motion, I will let you know. I still need another signature before it gains an ounce of legitimacey. Sethie 22:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please Refrain...

The antisemitism article is not the right forum for a the Bailey article issue. Anyone who insists on bringing the matter over there should please be sure to sign there posts. I may wind up joining Kwork on the Bailey article. If I do I will accept any clear consensus and refrain from making unwanted edits. I think that you will find that many Jewish editors on the antisemitism talk page will be unsympathetic to Ms Bailey, I Know I am. So perhaps such discussions are best left to the Bailey talk page. The word efficacy comes to mind. Perhaps a fork on Ms Bailey's antsemitism is the answer. Albion moonlight 07:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Good lord!
If you're coming to "join Kwork," then please, please, please, don't come. You'll just make things ten times worse.
If you're coming to "join Sethie" then please, please, please, don't come. You'll just make things ten times worse.
etc.
Look if you're unsympathetic to Alice Bailey, if you HATE her, and are willing to work with wiki policy, then, please, please, please COME! :) Sethie 08:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Albion, thanks for being interested, I would love to see any suggestions or edits you have over at the article. I am curious: when you say you "may wind up joining Kwork", is this because you feel he needs help against disruptive editors? I hope that's not your impression of us - or at least, of me. You are right about Talk:antisemitism however - I should have avoided soapboxing there myself. Eaglizard 09:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Eaglizard, the implication is that you, Sethie, Renee, and James are not cooperating with each other to block the simple few sentences about Alice Bailey's antisemitism that would settle this dispute, and that you have no interest in what the outcome is. That simply is not correct. If you guys (and you are cooperating together) want to settle this dispute, it could be done by this time tomorrow. Several times I made an offer, and never got a response.
I see nothing wrong with what Albion wrote. As for his not knowing much about Bailey, why is that a problem? You guys don't know much either. Today, Jamesd1 (your expert on Bailey) wrote, in reply to a question, that the name of Alice Bailey's world wide movement is called World Goodwill. In fact, World Goodwill was a Foster Bailey project and Alice Bailey had nothing to do with it. Her involvement, aside from writing the books, was entirely with the Arcane School. What you seem to want is that those who want a mention of Bailey's antisemitism included in the article should know more about her than those who say they know about her. Interesting reasoning. Kwork 20:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
What I don't seem to want, what I actually want is for people who want to include the antisemitism material do so following wiki guidelines. Nothing more and nothing less. Sethie 21:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
What you think does not meet Wikipedia guidelines is what AnonEMouse (an administrator who looked the sources over carefully and rejected some I wanted in the article) wrote into the article. I will live with what she left out if you will live with what she allowed in. Kwork 21:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

When I say I may come to join Kwork. I am not thinking of doing so because I think that he is being mistreated by the other editors. From what can see it looks as if there is some validity about your concerns about his edits and his demeanor. I dislike edit warring even more than I dislike Ms Bailey's brand of "alleged" antisemitism. I refuse to go against a clear consensus but I don't have a problem trying to help change that consensus. The article is and should be about Ms Bailey. I think she probably was a racist but even if the sourcing is immaculate I don't think the article should dwell on her racism. I am not really interested in the occult and or theosophy but some people are. I can live with the article no matter how it turns out. I am a Jew but I am not about to let that sway me into turning her Bio into an attack article. Her contributions to her fields of endeavor should outweigh any and all criticisms of her beliefs. I will put that article on my watch list and read up on the articles editing history, Thanks. Albion moonlight 17:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


Albion, at one time in the editing process I had written this into Bailey's bio:

She was, without doubt, one of the most important, and influential, esoteric thinkers and writers of the 20th century. She published twenty four books, most channeled from a Tibetan Master of the Ancient Wisdom, and all of which are still in print *[1]. Adding greatly to the importance and influence of the books, she established a school, The Arcane School, which taught her complex esoteric ideas world wide by a series of of carefully designed correspondence course lessons. These lessons also explained her innovative ideas on meditation as a service to humanity, and gave much practical advice on living a spiritual life in the midst of the world's challenges. The original school, and several other schools based on her teaching, still exist and are still very active.

Does that sound like I am out to be unfair to her? or attacking her? In that same version this is how the ENTIRE criticism section read:

Some statements in Bailey's writings have been criticized for perceived racism and anti-semitism. See critical links under "External Links" below.

and I was perfectly happy with that. I did not try to expand it, but others tried to remove it. There were three links, two of which remain. After months of arguing, the criticism section is ten times as long, and I do not like it as much. Here is that entire earlier version: [2].
I would not ask you to get involved with editing this article, the situation is too crazy. As for making comments on the talk page, what's the use. Everyone is talking, no one is listening. But, thanks for putting in a word for me here, I appreciate it. I would really love to give up editing this article myself, but my ethics will not let me give up on what I believe is right. Kwork 22:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)