Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:04, 27 September 2020

This is L235's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20Auto-archiving period: 5 days

3rd amendment

This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived.

Hi Kevin! Hope you're doing well, all things considered. I've been working on Engblom v. Carey—one of the only federal 3rd amendment cases—and thought you might be interested in helping out. There's been a renewed interest in the 3rd amendment recently (it went from 200 to 10k hits overnight last week), and it's a rare case which might be fun to get to FA. Let me know if you're interested, but I completely understand if you're too busy though! Hopefully things will be more stable by the fall and you're keeping safe. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Hey, it's terrific to hear from you! I am actually traveling right now, which as you might imagine is a somewhat difficult task at the moment. Give me a week, though, and I'll look it over – it'd be really fun to work with you Kevin (alt of L235 · t · c) 15:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Totally understand. My lease is up in a month, so I'm dreading having to move all my stuff in the current environment. Feel free to help when you can, if anything a fresh pair of eyes would be useful for making sure it's on the right track. Safe travels! — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wugapodes, if you're willing to have me along, I'd be interested in helping - I was actually just reading that article the other day while trying to explain Incorporation of the Bill of Rights to some friends. creffett (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

@Creffett: Of course! All help is appreciated. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans

I saw your comment about having to be an autoconfirmed user when I tried to add the new entry to the enforcement action request. The problem is that my user account was banned (incorrectly) by Neutrality for being a "suspected" sockpuppet, and Neutrality is the same person who is working together with Snooganssnoogans to slant the biographies. Is there some way that this complaint of violating the previous sanction can be added for me? 99.7.151.39 (talk) 23:29, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Of whom did Neutrality accuse you of being a sockpuppet? Kevin (alt of L235 · t · c) 05:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

He accused me of being Whey77, CaveWriting, and other IP addresses. This was based only on the observation that various users were concerned about the same content. Anyone who wanted to bring NPOV was automatically clumped into the same sockpuppet group, I couldn't believe it. 99.7.151.39 (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

PLEASE UNBLOCK ME

Hello, I got a Sock Puppet Ban and I don't understand why ( Stephkapfunde (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC) ).

@Stephkapfunde: I blocked your account "Enthuse Afrika" because you are not allowed to use multiple accounts in the same topic area except under very limited circumstances which include public disclosure. Please do not create or use any other accounts other than Stephkapfunde. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Article deletion

Just wanted to double check with you, I have Ansger Otto, Reginaldo Antonio da Silva and Ivan Xavier de Santana on my watchlist which you just deleted, did I prod those at all?? Govvy (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Yep, you did. Those were all created by a sockpuppet; see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/依頼人. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 22:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

k, I leave them on my watchlist incase another account recreates them then, cheers. Govvy (talk) 22:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC

Hi Kevin,

About the RfC you re-closed on the MEK talk page, I don't quite understand your re-closing comments.

We currently have several paragraphs in the article consisting of a list of people basically calling the MEK a cult in a section title that misleadingly says "Designation as a cult" (when there isn't a single source to support that the MEK was ever designated a cult).

There was a majority vote in that RfC that agreed we didn't need to have this long list of people calling the MEK a cult, the majority basically saying that a couple of lines was enough.

I thought your initial suggestion of coming to an agreement about the final wording was a good idea since we could look at the sources and determine proportion according to sources, etc. So I don't understand why this was overturned to "no consensus"?

Regards. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

@Stefka Bulgaria: Thanks for reaching out. You are correct that, on the substance, my close did not interpret consensus all that differently. My new closure says that if participants reach a consensus about the appropriate distribution and length of the section, consistent with UNDUE, then that should be implemented, and that there is general agreement to reduce in length if possible – which is not all that different from my original closure.

1. The appropriate length of a section is, for the most part, an editorial decision (unless the new section length would make the section so disproportionately larger or smaller than other sections compared with their significance, counted by reliable secondary sources, that it is UNDUE). Therefore, it is essentially controlled by a rough consensus of people, counted for the most part numerically.
2. However, WP:UNDUE requires that appropriate weight be given to viewpoints in proportion to their coverage in reliable secondary sources. I write about this quite extensively in my third and fourth paragraphs, but to summarize: if the vast majority of reliable secondary sources call MEK a cult, and the editorial decision is made to reduce the size to e.g. three sentences, then all three sentences should probably describe sources calling MEK a cult. However, if the size of the section is e.g. 15 sentences, it may be OK to spend one or two of them discussing reliable secondary sources which call MEK not a cult. Similarly, if the split of sources is closer to 70%/30%, then if the editorial decision is made to reduce the size to three sentences, perhaps two of those sentences should describe sources that call MEK a cult and one should describe sources that call MEK not a cult.
3. This is why I was so alarmed in this case. In the article as it stood before the RfC, the most prominent "not a cult" sentence was a complete unverifiable misquote (in that it could not be found anywhere in the cited source) and misrepresentation of the authors (it was not a report "by" the European Parliament, but rather by "Friends of a Free Iran", which is a group of MEPs) and misrepresented even what the source claimed (not that the report found "cult" claims unfounded but rather that claims that "the members are forcibly prevented from leaving the group, involuntarily separated from spouses or children, physically abused or the like" are unfounded). A sentence relying on this misquote was 20 of the 37 words (54%) of the RfC-proposed text, and Idealigic's post-RfC proposal offers it similar prominence (19/45 words, 42%).
4. That alone is enough to render the RfC effectively invalid. The broader issues that this represents, of course, is that you're going to need much better sourcing overall than you've presented if you want to call the cult allegations "false" or "falsified information" (very few of them outright say it). Instead of trying to insert information saying that MEK is not a cult or has improperly been considered a cult, you may be better off (though I'm not familiar with the sources) by inserting information supported by reliable secondary sources: (a) specifically refuting particular elements (e.g. "the members are forcibly prevented from leaving the group, involuntarily separated from spouses or children, physically abused or the like"); or (b) discussing sources regarding how the government of Iran has attempted to cause others to believe MEK is a cult. However, be careful not to juxtapose those sentences with "is a cult" claims in a way that implies that sentences supporting (a) or (b) are also arguing that MEK is not a cult, unless the reliable secondary sources specifically state that MEK is not a cult.

Hope this provides a good overview of my thinking, but I wrote this while rushed so please let me know if you have further questions. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanations Kevin. I think the proposal was far way different of from the DUE representation of content found in the reliable sources. Not only because of a forged claim which could not be found nowhere in the sources, but mainly because of the vast amount of sources deeply dealing with the cultish aspects of the group from scientific, historic and journalistic viewpoints. Also, I have a question Kevin; What do you mean by "counted for the most part numerically". Am I right thinking that "Polling is not a substitute for discussion" and that "polls are generally not used for article development?" --Mhhossein 07:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

@Mhhossein: I'm not going to wade into the content dispute in a situation where I'm acting as an uninvolved administrator, but regarding your question: we don't vote, and unexplained votes are discounted. However, the length of a section is almost entirely an editorial decision. As a closer, after discarding arguments "that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue" (WP:NHC), in an area like this where there are no controlling policies (that is, ones that determine a single appropriate outcome), the determination of consensus is made based on numerical support. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:04, 27 September 2020 (UTC)