Φ
Recent administrative action to User:Zenasprime
...
-
- A while ago I personally looked through Wikitruth's website and found nothing that attacked any editor. There was criticism, especially of User:Jimmy Wales, but I do not feel that attacks is the right word to describe its commentary. Would you link to something in particular which you feel is an attack?
- Also, I was prompted by this edit to re-read WP:USER and WP:NOT and I do not agree with your opinion that User:Zenasprime's essay is not allowed on User talk:Zenasprime (the "Talk Page") because it is related to Wikipedia. Which criteria of Wikipedia:USER#What may I not have on my user page? do you think the criticism fails?
- « D. Trebbien (talk) 17:44 2008 June 2 (UTC)
- The part that says (what you may not have on your user page) "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." Also the part about Polemics, unencyclopedic content, etc. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Please know that I am just trying to address some of my concerns. The only thing that I have seen is what was on Zenasprime's talk page and the flurry of recent changes to it that have appeared on my watchlist (including block notices) which have left me somewhat confused.
-
-
-
- "Material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" is meant to apply to things like this, not to this, which is the polemic on Zenasprime's talk page which was removed. If you read it, Zenasprime's mentioning of comments by Orange Mike and jonny-mt really wasn't meant to attack them personally, but to provide examples of actual opinions as a way of classifying the wiki-philosophy with which Zenasprime was arguing against. The fact is, Zenasprime was fair about this and quoted them in full, so why is Zenasprime not allowed to raise issues of accountability?
-
-
-
- As far as polemics, unencyclopedic content, etc., keep in mind that talk pages are not, and have never been, encyclopedia articles (this is mentioned rather plainly in the {{userpage}} template), so WP:NOT does not apply. "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia" does not apply either because the statements are related to Wikipedia, specifically its policies.
-
-
-
- I still would like a link to a Wikitruth page which you feel is an attack. Also, would you link to the evidence for "user has pledged to continue sockpuppeting to evade" and WP:ArbCom's "MONGO" decision? (I would just like to read them.)
-
-
-
- « D. Trebbien (talk) 16:29 2008 June 3 (UTC)
-
- The one-sided WT rant about D. Wool re E. Moller, replete with the phrase "fat fingering of policy" meets my definition of (clueless) attack/polemic. -PetraSchelm (talk) 16:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Okay. I see it.
- The issue now is why Zenasprime's entire commentary was removed (I agree that the WT stuff should have been) and why the user was blocked and the talk and user pages protected. « D. Trebbien (talk) 17:27 2008 June 3 (UTC)
- I don't know, I'm just the peanut gallery, but I would say his previous username "SnottytheTroll" is reason enough. It seems he was here just to be disruptive for whatever fun it is trolls get out of being obnoxious.-PetraSchelm (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- The commentary section was inappropriate for Wikipedia. She was using her user talk page to fight a personal battle against Wikipedia, and that's not acceptable. I waited to remove it, because her actions in the interim went a long way towards proving that she had no intention of contributing and only to disrupt the project. Once I established that, I removed the whole section, blocked her for disruption (note, had I not blocked her for 1 month, FisherQueen would have done so for a year), and protected her user pages because she was edit warring on them for the purpose of disrupting. She then created a sockpuppet and threatened to continue to do so to get her way. Jpgordon also identified another abusive sockpuppet she had used via checkuser. As a result, she was indefinitely blocked for abuse of sockpuppets as a disruptive user. The whole experience shows that users who show up and suddenly begin creating problems generally end up being disruptive accounts. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi Swatjester,
I was just wondering if you wouldn't mind providing the ticket number for this case. I'd been keeping an eye on a similar ticket and just want to make sure that I hadn't missed anything because of my n00bness. Thanks! --jonny-mt 01:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- There's an older, long closed legal queue ticket as well (back when it was PWU), but that wasn't the one I was referring to, the one I was referring to was #2008060210023802 in the quality queue.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 02:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
- That'd be the one, then. Appreciate it! --jonny-mt 02:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Hello Swatjester;
I wanted to respond to your recent action on the CMU site. I have written a similar response to Tallmagic who implied that I may have violated the 3 revision rule of Wikipedia.
I have a name now and it is Viewer111. I read Tallmagic's response and I am a bit puzzled. I do not believe I violated the 3 reversion rule. I made the the intial change to the article and posted it. I didn't realize I needed to provide an edit summary at the time. When Orlady reverted the artilce, I saw her response. I then reverted the article one time. I goofed up on the revision and didn't add the edit sumary so I went right back in and added a summary so all could see my reasoning. Total revisions on CMU site, 1.
I appreciate Tallmagic's advise. In the future I will make edits in smaller chunks. However, the changes did quote sources and in many cases they were the exact sources already within the article. It seems the original posters picked material that supported their point of view without either reading the entire article/report or reading it and slanting their edits in a manner that made their particular point. If I am not mistaken, that too is a violation of the Wikipedia rules on Neutral Point of View.
My list of changes are summarized below. Please tell me which ones you don't agree with: 1. CMU is Califonria State Approved. The references to this fact are given through the State of Californai site provided. 2. Under accreditation, the verbage of the U.S.D.O.E. specifically talks about State Approved schools in the article that was already cited. This speicific verbage was added and cited. It did not state CMU was accredited, only added the exact wording form the USDOE website and the fact that CMU has been state approved since 1996 which can be verified at the Calironia State Websie already provided. 3. A change in label from Controversy to Controversy Before the Change of Ownership was added. All the items in the Controversy section occured before the change of ownership of PWU-CA/CMU as referenced by the Paul Thacker article. If we want to state all the controversy of the University, it is fair to put things in a factual context. 4. Information on GOA Report was expanded. The exact same references quoted were cited. The GAO report defined their terms of what was a diploma mill and what was an unaccredited school within the report. Earlier contributors simply used the name of the report to draw a conclusion that when is taken in it's complete context, is incorrect. PWU-CA was a California State Approved school at the time. So was one of the other schools, California Coast University. Wikipedia contributors made the same broad sweeping conclusion on CCU at the time and persited even after CCU gained national accreditation. It looks like those Wikipedia contributors violoted the nutral point of view rule in this case as well. 5. A similar item happened in the previous quote about the govenment of Sweeden cite. The information in the article is not only wrong, but seemingly bias. If you review the article, as my revision states, PWU-CA is not the subject of the article and its inflamitory title at all. The only reference to PWU-CA is the picture of its website page as of 2005 with the warning don't assume a school is accredited simply because it has a .edu in its title. Please review the report and see if PWU-CA name appears anywhere else in the report. It does not. 6. The reference to the KVOA article is still cited. However, since the KVOA team call PWU-CA a diploma mill in their article referencing the GOA report, and the GAO Report does not make such a distinction, this is incorrect information about the school. It should either be ammended or removed in this regard. 7. A disclaimer to the mention of Barry McSweeny reference is added to the site. As you know there were two separate PWU's from 1988 until 2006. The warning at the top of the edit page attests to this fact. Earlier contributors assumed that anyone who had a PWU degree was from the California school. That is not a verifable fact. I have access to the student records at CMU and Mr. McSweeny never was a student of PWU California. He may have been a PWU Hawaii graduate. If Wikipedia will not accept the records from PWU California as verification of this fact then certainly Wikipedia has rules to take off the entire reference if there is doubt and it cannot be confirmed as to which PWU was being referenced. 8. The unamaed graduate from Austrailia that was removed and is a ditto to the explaination in items 7. 9. The names of alumni not found in the PWU-CA/CMU database were removed due to the explanation in item 7 above.
In closing, it its not my intent to be troublesome or generate anymore animostiy over this site than has been shown in the past. I have read many of the behind the scenes correspondence on this page. I think that it is clear to see most contributors had a very definite point of view on this page as evidenced by actions in locking the site for months by Brad Patrick.
Every item that was changed is cited and hopefully neutral in nature. It may not appear neurtral to some because of the "my minds made up, don't confuse me with conflicting facts" syndrome. If I have not been neutral, then change those items. That is not my intent. I am only trying to make sure correct, unbias information is on the site.
I certainly expect to be allowed to make my edits in the near future. The fact that you locked the site due to "vandalism" only goes to make me concerned that in locking this site there may be an agenda that is not in keeping with the Wikipedia rules. I hope this is not the case, and that the site is opened back up immediately. I don't mind playing by the rules, but I want a level playing field where noone is given speacial treatment or privledges.
I look forward to your comments.
Viewer111 (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- The problem here is that the article is a very contentious one, which we have received numerous complaints about over the years. What I would suggest you do is use the article's discussion page to post your edits there, and if people agree on them, you or they can institute those edits. If people disagree on them, they can tell you why and you can work out a better one.⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Dear SwatJester:
Thank you for your response! I agree that the article has been a very continuous one. Most of the contention, I believe has been PWU-CA /CMU disagreeing with the slanted way in which material was and is presented and contributors who use carefully selected portions of sourced facts to present information that is slanted to their particular point of view.
I have sought input on the discussion page thanks to Orlandy moving her response from me over to the discussion page. I have gotten no input onto the "why" people disagree with the edits with the lone exception of TallMagic. Most of his response is "opinion" and not necessarily based on verifiable facts.
I would very much like to hear your response. It seems people are quick to take off and block material with which they may disagree, but very slow to unblock editing access, explain their objections and provide verifiable sources to support their position. This, in part, is why the article has been so contentious in the past.
TallMagic says that I have not been blocked from editing the page and therefore no warning from you to me was needed. The edit button on the top of the "article" screen is not present. If that is not blocking, what would it be called?
This type of blocking seems to be a pattern on this site. I copy here similar sentiments on such practices from the article discussion pages.
MATERIAL COPIED FROM CMU DISCUSSION PAGE-----------
Restoration of well sourced material As required per guidelines I am posting to notify that I have restored material to the article which is well-sourced both by government documents and published investigative journalism and should therefore be considered non-controversial and non-actionable. This is straightforward reportage. Fawcett5 04:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much!! very matter of fact with ZERO animosity (as a reference to the previous section :-) ) Bill Huffman 15:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
How is it that you were able to do this? For months now the page has had a tag stating that it may not be edited. I wrote, repeatedly, above, asking the editor who added the tag to explain himself, and he has not, though he has had months to do so. I was advised to send an email directly to someone named "Brad Patrick," which I did, and he responded very rudely to me, basically saying, "I'll get around to responding to you in my good time." All I asked for is a clarification and none has been forthcoming. In my opinion this callousness toward the community in adding such a tag without explanation or accountability to the community of editors is disgraceful and disgusting. Badagnani 07:02, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
END OF MATERIAL COPIED--------
The information that you are in effect allowing on the current article is incorrect in several material ways. I am trying to correct blatant errors and am getting some of the treatment seen by people with a different opinion in the past. If this is not the case please show me. Not by words alone, but by actions.
I appreciate your response, but I would also like answers to my questions on what you see that is wrong with my edits and I would like the blockage on the site removed. If indeed I can edit the site in it’s current state, please explain to me how this is done.
I simply would like the incorrect materials removed until, if and when, the current stated “facts” can be verified. As the warning atop the article editing page said, when I had access, this is a contentious page and PWU California and PWU Hawaii are separate schools. This, I assume is considered fact since it was boldly stated on the Edit page.
Here are the immediate issues:
The mention of materials about PWU Hawaii appear in the article. Specifically, the following: “PWU Hawaii was sued in 2005 by the State of Hawaii. [11] On 9 May 2006, the First Circuit Court of Hawaii entered a Default and Final Judgment against PWU Hawaii.[12] The judgment dissolved the university's corporate status and effectively forced it to cease operations. [12][13] ” These items are true and well sourced but as the disclaimer on the editing page states, they do not concern PWU-CA and should be moved to the PWU (Hawaii) page if not already there.
The misrepresentation of the GAO Report stating the report labels PWU-CA as a “diploma mill” needs to be changed or removed. I used quotes from the GAO Report itself to verify their distinction of a “diploma mill”. The definition clearly shows that a California State Approved Institution, which PWU-CA / CMU was at the time along with California Coast University, did not fit this definition. References to the BPPVE site and the standards imposed by BPPVE in the approval process were linked to my changes as reference supporting the facts. Several of the links are included again below for easy reference. I also address TallMagic’s logic that CMU is not State Approved now because of the Sunset of the law in June 2007 (see below) Regardless of opinions on the current status, it is a fact that PWU-CA was State Approved in May of 2004 and this fact is verifiable.
The negatively bias statement and conclusion by Orlady and the associated KVOA news article and report that PWU-CA was a "diploma mill" is absolutely incorrect. Read the entire GAO report, its not very long, and it never states this fact. The conclusions drawn by KVOA and subsequently by Orlady and many others are simply incorrect and need to be removed or modified removing the “Diploma Mill” reference. This misrepresentation appears in several news articles following the GAO report that are used as “references” to various alumni references as well. These citations are incorrect.
The sole mention of PWU-CA in the damagingly named article that is included in the article is a picture of its website along with 8 other University websites with .edu extensions. [[1]] The caption for this picture reads:
Bild 3: Exempel på hur domänsuffi xet .edu missbrukas. (Picture 3: Examples of domain suffix extensions .edu misconceptions. )
One of the other 8 schools who’s website was featured in picture 3 above is Fedrick Taylor University. Their website is www.ftu.edu. They are also California State Approved yet unaccredited and were not a subject or listed in the remainder of the article.
The Universities that were identified in the article as: Bluffuniversiteten och Sverige (Fake Universities in Sweden) are:
Blekinge tekniska högskola Linköpings universitet Chalmers tekniska högskola Luleå tekniska universitet Handelshögskolan i Stockholm Lunds universitet Högskolan i Borås Lärarhögskolan i Stockholm Högskolan i Gävle Mälardalens högskola Högskolan i Halmstad Mittuniversitetet Högskolan i Jönköping Stockholms universitet Högskolan i Kalmar Sveriges lantbruksuniversitet Högskolan Kristianstad Umeå universitet Högskolan i Skövde Uppsala universitet Karlstads universitet Växjö universitet Karolinska institutet Örebro universitet Kungl. Tekniska högskolan (KTH) Linköpings universitet
Bluffuniversiteten och Sverige (Fake Universities outside of Sweden) identified were: University of Palmers Green Greenleaf University Century University Washington International University Clayton University Colombia Pacific University Kensington University University of NorthWest
Svenska bluffuniversitet? (Swedish Fake Universities?) identified were: The International Cultural Academy Medicina Alternativa in Stockholm Swedish Royal University Lhoon University St. Ephrem’s Institute
As you can see the article is not in Chinese using characters, it is in a Germanic Language, clearly distinguishable. These names were cut and paste from the actual article. Since PWU-CA name does NOT appear anywhere else in the article, particularly in the section on Fake Universities outside of Sweden, and this is clear for a non-Swedish speaker to see, the article has been mischaracterized in a very negative manner, and should be removed.
On the issue of California State Approval, the subject is concrete and verifiable at this time. The old BPPVE law has expired, but the BPPVE which was always under the Department of Consumer Affairs site is still operational. This material explains the history quickly and rather well. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Update July 2007
“The Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education, under the Department of Consumer Affairs for the State of California, became inoperative on July 1, 2007.
Recently the Governor signed into law (Assembly Bill 1525)that would extend the previous provision of the education laws that will ensure continued student protection. This legislation will remain in effect until the new successor takes over. Although there will no longer be staff or resources to continue the regular operations of the BPPVE, the Department of Consumer Affairs will provide assistance to students after July 1, 2007. All state approved educational institutions have been invited to voluntarily conform and subscribe to all of the standards in place prior to the closing of the Bureau. The purpose of the voluntary agreement is to provide a legal method by which we may comply with applicable federal statues, rules and regulations from July 1, 2007 to January 31, 2008. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
The links that I provide, navigates to these sections of the DCA / BPPVE site. Here are the links once again for easy access. Link showing Bill 1525 referenced above:[[2]]
Within that page is a link to the list of the current State of California Approved Schools. CMU is listed on this page. [[3]]
Now should contributor "opinions" outweigh verifiable fact? You may personally disagree with how the State of California's BPPVE operated in the past, but the facts remain. The DCA and its’ BPPVE were and are the state's licensing authority and PWU-CA/CMU was, and under the signed agreement with DCA, is California State Approved. My edits should be allowed in the regard, as I have current verifiable links.
Any dispute or modifications of the matter should be done with verifiable, non-biased sourced materials. That, after all is the Wikipedia policy.
I await your response to all of the above and will post this message and yours on the article discussion page, as I assume, it should be. Viewer111 (talk) 18:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- You appear to be getting along quite well on the discussion page. Your discussion should continue there. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 18:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Request for page unprotection
Hi
I think you can unprotect Club Penguin now as vandalism to the page has died down. --TwentiethApril1986 (talk) 19:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- I hold out very little hope for it, but lets give it a shot at least. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
When moving pages, as you did to Bendery, please remember to fix any double redirects. These can create slow, unpleasant experiences for the reader, waste server resources, and make the navigational structure of the site confusing. (Yes, I know placing this template probably violates Don't template the regulars, but I just thought I'd let you know anyway. All the double redirects created by this pagemove have now been corrected.) Terraxos (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Yeah yeah, I know, no worries, and thanks for catching it for me. I'm working on a shoddy internet connection at the moment, in between three computers, so it's a bit of a problem. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I guess personal attacks are allowed when made by an admin during an RfAR. Oh well, I guess White Pride is a wonderful POV, they're just misunderstood. Bah again. Anyways, good luck with your Board election. One day, I'd like to know more about your military background. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
-
- Email me and I'll be more than happy to tell you about it. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 09:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Test edit
Test edit ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 13:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
.jpg/46px-Hilton,_Paris_(2007).jpg){kind=small}
