User talk:Catherineyronwode/2008

Kate Atkinson Boehme

I noticed that you recently tagged the Kate Atkinson Boehme article for non-notability. Why did you do that? She was a well-known and well-respected New Thought writer of her era and at least some of her books are still in print, 100 years after their first publication.

I think it is always better to add data to Wikipedia than to suggest taking an article away.

I suggest that in the future instead of tagging a stub about a long-deceased author as non-notabile that you do a simple amazon search on the author, pick up the status of any current in-print books and current ISBNs and add same to the author's article. That's what i just did. And then i removed your spurious non-notability tag.

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the Kate Atkinson Boehme article with {{importance}} because it does not explain her importance. That label suggests improvement, not deletion. What I would suggest is adding information about what her writing introduced or meant to the field. What did her contemporaries think about it? And what do modern writers have to say about her conclusions? How did she shape thought in her field? Thats the kind of information that is needed to explain her importance and the importance of her writings. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 15:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I have added more about her philosphy and the general content of her books, and also listed two more book titles by her. I have no biographical information on her but, due to the "Atkinson" name, i have always wondered what -- if any -- relatioship she had to William Walker Atkinson, another New Thought writer. Both of them worked for Elizabeth Towne, but i have found no record of them ever living in the same place at the same time. As for what her contemporaries thought of her -- well, i could quote Elizabeth Towne, i suppose, but i don't have time to pull down my old Nautilus mgazines and copy such stuff out. She certainly was regarded well in her time, but if i wrote that in so many words, someone would put a cite tag on it, so i'd rather just let the fact that her work remains in print speak for her popularity, since the current ISBNs function as citations for that. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Looks much better. Nice work. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 12:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

channelling (mediumistic)

I also missed the merge with mediumship of channelling and consider it to be a terrible idea.

Do you know what the history was or what the old article was like?

Thanks. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Spiritualism

I noticed you made a few nice edits this fall to the article on Spiritualism. The article has fallen into a kind of crisis in the last week. An editor, without discussion, moved it to Spiritualism (religious movement). Another editor, who apparently is unable to distinguish between animism and spiritualism, grabbed the original Spiritualism title and has written an interesting article, as well as adding significant material to the now Spiritualism (religious movement) article. There is probably something worthy in all the new stuff, but it will take sorting out. Hoping that you'll take a look.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, as Anthon.Eff well knows, the move was discussed at length. I, being the "other editor", did not start a general page on spiritualism but I agreed with the split and have certainly added to it.

I am sorry to see someone as educated as Anthon lower himself to the provocations and condescensions that I have been suffering, I am perfectly capable of distinguishing between animism and Modern Spiritualism. Anthon seems to refuse that the word spiritualism or spiritualistic is used for any topic broader than referring to the historical movement alone, which is where all this started.

Yes, by all means, please do help. I have also made an infobox to bring together the broad spectrum of spiritualist topics [1] which also offends him, opened the documentation up to spiritualism and spiritism from non-Anglophile nations and added a feminist perspective.

I am happy to be judged my the referenced and citations I have added. Thanks. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Catherine Yronwode Article

I reverted some original research from it that attacks your motives for something or the other but perhaps you should have a look at it. I t is on my watchlist but ...... : Albion moonlight (talk) 12:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of articles

Hi Cat. need your help. Tags for deletion have been place on different articles pertaining to New Thought Divine Science has been deleted Religious Science is Tagged by the same person. He seem to have some sort of issue with religion or things that cannot be proved. Can you take a look maybe I'm wrong. Can you let me know.JGG59 (talk) 02:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

JGG59, Cat seems to be away (see her userpage) ... please see my comments on the TALK page for Divine Science. I agree something seems off. Who do we call to look over this? Low Sea (talk) 14:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Florence Scovel Shinn

An article that you have been involved in editing, Florence Scovel Shinn, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florence Scovel Shinn. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Lumos3 (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the resolution was to Keep. Good thing, too. I enjoy Wikipedia most when it provides quick biographical information on long-dead people. The "notability" boondoggle -- judging all dead authors by the popularity standards of the current "American Idol" finalists and trying to delete good pages about authors who are unknown to today's crop of arrogant tv-educated know-nothing editors -- could easily destroy Wiki usefulness. I mean, what is the problem with retaining a short bio on Florence Scovel Shinn -- lack of bandwidth? cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You're back! Woo-hoo. I'm glad your discouragement has worn off. I realize that a few editors can be uncivil and worse, but this is the place that articles like Florence Scovel Shinn, or Malinda Cramer or Nona L. Brooks (both of which recently made the Main Page as part of Did You Know . . .) and thousands of others can be made available to the world. See you around, Madman (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Amy Winehouse

I'm not sure why you think the article is locked from editing, unless you didn't try to edit the page. It is semi-protected to prevent anonymous IPs and newly created accounts from editing due to continuing problems with vandalism, and such is noted at the top of the page when it is opened. There is no reason why you can't fix typos and punctuation problems. I will take this opportunity to suggest to you that it garners no favor and is bad form to write on a talk page of a high profile article (at least in terms of keeping on top of vandalism and inanities) that "obviously this is a contended and not very well written article". While there is often a great deal of debate regarding what should be added to the article or what should come out, there is no air of contentiousness amongst the editors who debate. Meanwhile, perhaps you didn't notice that the "cooking a snook at the law" comment is, in fact, a direct quote from this source and therefore cannot be changed. In any case, feel free to whip this article into shape and monitor it for the general rambling stupidities and occasional "Amy Winehouse is a CRACK ADDICT" additions and that constantly must be removed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

dyk

On 23 August, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Horse murders, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

your subpage

Hi - I was reviewing your subpage about the New Thought-related topics and fixed a few typos. Those corrections were reverted by an IP, for reasons I can't guess. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it was an edit conflict. I thank you for the corrections -- they've been utilized! cat 64.142.90.33 (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Dispute and legal threat

Your edit summary at the Michael Dowd article and associated talk page comment resembles WP:Wikistalking and shows misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Verification policy as well as a failure to assume good faith of Hrafn. This follows after you made accusations of libel and slander impinging on your employment, and then asserted that "The legal threat is real" after being reminded that making legal threats is blockable.[2] Far from withdrawing the threat or stopping editing, you're begun to escalate the dispute by preparing an ANI complaint against Hrafn.[3] His work in improving compliance with verification policy is useful and valid, and you do not seem to appreciate that Wikipedia is not for promoting or giving undue weight to fringe views. Hrafn has a good grasp of policy, and you should work with him to improve these articles so that they are fully cited and give due weight to majority views. However, before going any further you must explicitly withdraw your legal threat in accordance with Wikipedia:No legal threats. As that policy states that "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding.", a report has been raised at WP:ANI#Catherineyronwode. .. . dave souza, talk 17:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Why are you connecting these two things? The ANI proposal is something i have been working on off-line for a long time. See the notes above where people came to me asking for help. I recently put the text online and asked others to help refine or edit ss they wished. It's just a proposal, not an AN/I report. Meanwhile, the false charge of copyright violation hrafn made against me was withdrawn by hrafn as soon as he saw his error, and he also removed the text connecting his mistaken charge to my *real name* very quickly. So, are you clear on that now? I hope so.

Best wishes, cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn asked me to look into the disagreements between you two on the Michael Dowd article. In researching what was going on, I came across the unresolved legal threat which from my understanding of WP:NLT had to be withdrawn as a first priority. If my understanding is correct, your various statements now make it clear that you've withdrawn that threat and normal dispute resolution can proceed. . . dave souza, talk 12:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Cat:

As you know from the above comment, there is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Catherineyronwode about some words you used in the long standing disagreement between yourself and User:Hrafn. I've read enough to understand why you might have some of the feelings you do about his previous actions. I see your work in progress at User_talk:Catherineyronwode/ANI-proposal and feel for you. I'd like to clarify what your meaning may have been, as I don't see the legal threat that others have stated. What I see is that you are concerned about some of the comments that another user have made about you, and whether it might interfere with your reputation and future freelance writing opportunities. I think this is a basic dispute between two users, and not anything more. If you would not mind, could you answer some questions for me to clarify to others what your intent may be?

Wikipedia:No_legal_threats says, among other things: "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably “understand” as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if it is not intended." Probably, when you said "Do not accuse your fellow editors of committing illegal acts. You have now gone past gratuitous personal insult and into libel and slander, impinging on my ability to secure employment as a freelance writer" The two legal terms libel and slander set off someone's legal detector.

And

"Rather than blocking immediately, administrators should seek to clarify the user's meaning and make sure that a mere misunderstanding is not involved." Several people have offered opinions as to what you must have meant. I thought I would just ask.

Questions:

1. Do you have any immediate plans to sue Wikipedia, or User:Hrafn? (yes, no)
2. Were the comments you made "a legal threat" to sue for libel or defamation, or was it just a reaction to the accusation made by User:Hrafn ("erroneously throught was a copyright violation")
3. Are you willing to work through Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution to clear up the issue where User:Hrafn falsely claims that you made a copyright violation?

Atom (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I am a freelance writer and editor, and Wikipedia is read by my peers and potential employers. I believe that hrafn's false charge that i was on a "crusade" to commit illegal acts -- in my *actual field of employment*, linking that charge with my *real name* -- was a real threat to my livlihood.

If you were, say, an accountant, and someone accused you of fiduciary criminality in a magazine about accountancy, i think you'd feel legally threatened too.

I asked for the charge of ciminality to be withdrawn and hrafn did admit his error and deleted the sub-head, which contained the worst part of the accusation; the rest of the text he merely struck through rather than deleting, which i considered vile on his part, but that is typical of his personality. He did not apologize. That was that. I have no plans to sue Wikipedia or hrafn; rather, i felt that hrafn was using Wikipedia to publish his accusation that *i* was a criminal.

Note, by the way, how hrafn's apparent friend, Dave souza (whom i have never previously encountered in Wikipedia, to the best of my recollection) tried to link his AN/I agaist me with the fact that i have been preparing a rather complex AN/I against hrafn. (My AN/I proposal agasint hrafn arose due to notes like those above, on this very talk page, asking for my help. It has nothing to do with his false accusations of against me and their withdrawal.)

I am not a particularly sophisticated or social participant in Wikipedia. I write and edit on my own on hundreds of pages, in dozens of categories, sometimes creating articles, sometimes improving them, sometimes finding refs, sometimes just copy-editing. I belong to no clique or back-channel group. Nobody has ever given me a barn star, a birthday card, or a smiley-face icon. I have no real interest in Wikipedia as a culture.

If you think that dispute resolution would accomplish anything here, sure, i'd play along, but i think it's a time-waster. Wikipedia can benefit much more from my goodwill, talent, and skill as a writer if i am left alone. Any time taken from my schedule to answer AN/I reports or participate in dispute resolution is time i won't be working on the encyclopedia. Tonight, all i am doing is replying to folks about this Dave souza stuff. So ... no work on old-timey musicians, breeds of dogs, methods of divination, African American spiiritualsit churches, varieties of tea, or early 20th century authors. Time's up. Now i have to go work on a paying gig, the revision and update of a famous old 1930s dream book containing lucky numbers for lottery play. Adios.

cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 07:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You are of course welcome to prepare an AN/I proposal agasint hrafn, but my understanding is that dispute resolution is more likely to be productive. It's probably worth seeking advice from others about that. Either way, such reports and procedures are indeed time-wasters. I sympathise, as this has held back my work on a 19th century author. As an aside, what made you think that there's nothing "commercial" at the haanel.com site? The Complete Master Key Course is now available for as little as ... $59! and is published by Kallisti Publishing who share copyright on that bio page. . . dave souza, talk 12:33, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the .com part of its address does imply a commercial entity, according to RFC 1591. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Mediation cabal

Per your concerns there; I was trying to make such a reassurance because no evidence of this ganging up was there,as of my writing it. MEDCAB is there to help users solve content disputes- if there is a problem with conduct, there's nothing that can be done through MEDCAB. I'm trying to "weed out" the content concerns so that we can solve those, at least. If there is anything like this occurring, it would have to be dealt with through WP:ANI, WP:ARBCOM, etc. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Cat, that posting at the Mediation cabal is not the best place to raise the issue of what I perceive as Hrafn's targeting of and deleting New Thought articles. Madman (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Your perception is inaccurate. Hrafn isn't in a position to delete articles, he has to follow to proper process to put any unsourced article up for deletion, and the evidence is that he's looking for proper verification of content in articles. Provide citations to reliable secondary sources, not selfpublished or publisher's advertising, and the articles will stay. . . dave souza, talk 17:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

You have an document in progress on your user page (User_talk:Catherineyronwode/ANI-proposal) that lists the past activity that concerns you. If it were me, I would just keep it updated, and every time I ran into a new dispute, I would try one time to resolve it per WP:AGF by stating my objection, and then (if) after it was ignored or rejected by that user, I would add the indident to the list, and then post a new entry at ANI that briefly stated the current incident, stated that there was a past history of difficulties with that user, and a link to the running list of issues. After a few times, you will probably accumulate a few users and admins who understand the concerns and jump to help you each time it occurs again. Atom (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeremy, Madman, and Atom, for your suggestions.

I am not a bureaucratically-minded person and throughout my career in publishing, i have become used to small-group discussion with fairly quick decision-making.

I may be congenitally and culturally unsuited to take a supplicant's role with respect to Wikipedia's layers-deep disciplinary oversight bureaucracy.

To me, the pattern of hrafn's targeted disruption of religion articles is evident and Wikipedia's lack of administrative helpfulness is equally evident.

During the time that i continue to log incidents, editors with a stronger facility for treading the path of Wikipedia's forest of adminstrative acronyms are encouraged to make full use of my research.

catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Catherine, your statement above indicates that you aren't preparing it for immediate use in the proper dispute resolution process. The page is wildly inaccurate and reflects badly on you, and in any event comes under the description in Wikipedia:Attack page that "keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad that some user ever did" is not constructive or appropriate. Bear in mind that the key to resolving a dispute is not to find and list all the dirt you can find on somebody." If you don't delete the page or proceed promptly with dispute resolution, it will be appropriate for the page to be tagged for deletion. My recommendation is that you read Wikipedia:Tendentious editing with care, and delete the page rather than wasting your time in this way. . . dave souza, talk 14:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That is nonsense Dave. You have a right to disagree with her, or any other contributor. If you think it is innacurate, then you can discuss it with her, or just wait until she uses the page to object -- whatever. It seems to me to be a work in progress, and expresses her point of view. Offer her some respect by letting her finish her work in progress, and if and when she uses it, you can give your opinions from your perspective. (or offer kind advice on how she might be more objective to your view.) It isn't your job to judge her motivations, or her prospective future actions. Whether her work meets your standards, of follows your method of operation is not relevant.

If you want yo use Wikipedia:Attack page as a basis for your objection, that is your right, but in my opinion, it does not meet the description of that policy. The policy says: "A Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject." And also says: "This is not meant to apply to requests for comment, requests for mediation and similar processes (although these processes have their own guidelines for deletion of requests that are invalid or in bad faith). On the other hand, keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad that some user ever did" is not constructive or appropriate."

The page she is working on, firstly is titled "ANI-proposal" so it is clear her intention (currently) is to use it for an ANI complaint. The timing of that complaint is up to her, and not you. If it has not been used for an ANI complain in 6 months or so, then maye you can complain. Additionally, see above where I recommended that she keep an objective list of conflicts she has had with the user -- for use as a future ANI complaint. That is exactly what that page has on it. She states her opinions about the users past edits. No place in that prospective ANI complaint does she attack him, call him names, or disparage him in any way. She does characterize his editing behavior -- that is not an attack, but is fair game. Certainly there is no shortage of places where you or user:Hrafn have criticized her editing behavior.

I can see how someone, like yourself, might consider "list of everything bad that some user ever did" to apply. I don't believe that is applicable to this case, as the document is obviously intended to be an ANI complaint (the listed exception on the policy) and has existed for all of 4 days as of this writing. As this is obviously a long and continual conflict between the philosophical beliefs of these two editors, preparing an ANI complaint, reviewing it and tweaking it, and then submitting it could take some time. Keeping that document until the next ANI complaint (based on the continuing history of the conflict) for the next ANI complaint seems prudent to me. Also, the list seems hardly exhaustive, and is focused on examples of edits he has made in specific content disputes with her, and hardly "a list of everything bad that user:Hrafn might have done". Summary: Her document fails to meet the definition in Wikipedia:Attack page. Is is not disparaging, but focuses on edit conflicts. It is not a list of "bad things" for the same reason. Nor is it a list of "enemies". As it clearly IS a prospective request for comment, request for mediation or similar process it meets the definition of what the policy says is not meant to apply anyway.

My apologies for being to wordy. In short, I am asking you to remain civil with this editor and work with her in a respectful manner as appropriate to WP:AGF. In my opinion your continual criticism of the editor (rather than focusing on her edits) is bordering on being uncivil.

Atom (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

My apologies for seeming bense, but how was Dave uncivil? Try as I might I can find no evidence corroborating your accusation. Please WP:AGF. Gratias tibi ago. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 17:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Often tone can be lost in written communication. I mean no disrespect to anyone. My comment said "borders on the uncivil". I made no accusations. I'm not looking to get in an argument with anyone, least of all an admin like Dave. My goal is for him to take a step back and evaluate how his words are perceived and perhaps become more objective about it.

I thought I used too many words describing my thoughts already (above). In a nutshell, it seems to me that Dave is being too assertive in this case. The focus of attention should be on the user:hrafn, not on Catherine. Looking at his (Hrafn) talk page, current and history shows a long list of people who are complaining about his editing style, usually some form of him being disruptive, uncivil and generally disrespectful of others. Catherine is just one user complaining about that.

Looking at the document she is working on, she is trying to find an objective way to describe her personal experience related to the edit histories for this user. Four days after she starts to do this, but before she can take any action, Dave criticizes her attempts to document the pattern of behavior that she is trying to (and likely to) complain about. He characterizes her attempt to find a solution by explaing her view as "wildly inaccurate and reflects badly on you, and in any event comes under the description in Wikipedia:Attack page" Even a cursory look at the page indicates no attacks, no disparagement, and a general focus on trying to explain her viewpoint. Looking at some of this, you see echoes of the same issues from a number of other people on Hrafn's talk page. Dave says to her "If you don't delete the page or proceed promptly with dispute resolution, it will be appropriate for the page to be tagged for deletion." Essentially cooercive and a borderline threat. I know that Dave is an experienced admin and editor -- but, assuming good faith on his part, four days does not seem to be like much time given the number of issues. Catherine described elsewhere her very busy schedule, as well as her reading disorder. So, if she decides to work on that for a month, is that too long? Is there some reason that she needs to hurry up and jump through a hoops to get it done this very moment, or it will shold be deleted? Dave behaves as if Catherine were the problem here, rather than the victim.

Now, prior to this Dave brought a complaint against Catherine on ANI[4] claiming that she was making legal threats. Catherine was again attacked by user:Hrafn, tried to defend herself, and Dave tries to have her account blocked. I agree that WP:NLT is a very sensitive area. We need to be cautious about it. I don't blame him for being concerned. When I intervened we were able to work that out, without blocking her account. My point is that Dave seems to be on the wrong side of the argument here, and instead of trying to mentor user:Hrafn into becoming a good Wikipedia citizen, he is pushing Catherine for some reason. I'm sure that CatherineYronwode can take care of herself, and needs no help from me, and that she has had her share of objectionable edits in the past. I'm not trying to take sides (or get) between two editors who have a history on conflicts with one another. But, I think We ought to give her all the time in she needs to generate her complaint, and to express it the way she wants to (from her perspective) without an admin breathing down her neck. Atom (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Be clear, I haven't attempted to have Catherine's account blocked. I did raise the question as WP:NLT suggests that is normal when legal threats are outstanding, and am glad that issue has been resolved. Since Catherine's been posting invitations around to look at the page, I've looked it over and while she makes passing remarks about civility issues, the main thrust seems to be the idea that she wants Hrafn restrained from a whole subject area because he's applying policy to articles of dubious notability. The accusations I looked at in detail didn't stand up to scrutiny, in my opinion, so I think she's wasting everyone's time. She is of course free to raise conduct concerns at ANI or to follow dispute resolution procedure. If she'd like detailed discussion of any particular issue I'll be glad to comment, but otherwise I'll leave y'all to get on with it. Of course I reserve the right to look at issues on any article that comes to my attention. . . dave souza, talk 20:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Daylight Origins Society

An article that you have been involved in editing, Daylight Origins Society, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daylight Origins Society. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI proposal

Hi Catherine. I added an example to the Hrafn ANI list. Please feel free to edit or move it. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh please do. Can't wait for it to be posted, because then we can really stomp out your POV editing, and keep articles filled with basic ideas like WP:VERIFY and WP:RS, while eliminating fringe theories. Thanks for your help here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed ... a cloud, a silver lining, life is beautiful. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Firefly. 322. I don't have time to edit it tonight, but i will try to get to it soon. I will note that it is your contribution, but i will also edit it a bit to match the style of the rest of the document. Ditto for what Madman just added, too.

Welcome to my Wiki-home; please remove your muddy boots at the door

I've been off writing, and have returned to find an interesting display of bravado on the part of Orangemarlin, Jim, and Dave (above -- and Dave is an admin, no less). Obviously it's a hot-button issue. Obviously i absolutely do not like to see my talk page used as a place for others to post sarcasm, personal attacks, or trash-talk.

To all who posted here, i'd ike to make a comment. This will not apear on the AN/I report, but it will certainly explain what i am up to and why i have never considered hrafn an "enemy" of mine:

As i have explained repeatedly, it is difficult to demonstrate a pattern of editing that is disruptive if one has no links to pages that provide examples. That is why this material began as a log of my personal interactions with hrafn, and grew to include a log of the experiences of others which i had wtnessed first-hand, and now included material brought to the page which i did not witness first-hand.

I initially encountered hrafn in the New Thought Movement section earlier this year -- perhaps in April, perhaps as early as January. Due to my other duties, i only sporadically write and edit in Wikipedia, usually working for a month or two at a time, and then taking a several-month layoff except for drive-by copy-edits. In looking over the history of what had changed on my watchlist during my most recent wiki-break, i was suprised and dismayed at hrafn's level of incivility and bullying, especially toward inexperienced editors, against whom he was using selected portions of Wikipedia policy as if he were a bureucrat or at least an admin with a scowling, punishing mind-set.

He was scattershot fact-tagging, cutting text, effacing-by-redirect, and bullying editors at a number of New Thought pages, but he seemed quite uninformed on the topic of New Thought, seeming to treat it as if it were primarily either a religion or a form of pseudoscience, or both. His heated and abrasive comments hinted to me that he was on a mission against New Thought, but for the life of me i could not figure out why until i found his anti-Christianity and anti-creationist edits. Then it clicked: he had mistaken New Thought for a pseudoscientific or anti-scientism Christian religious denomination, and was attacking it as such, using "verifiability" tags to tear apart pages that dealt primarily with the anecdotal philosophical, empirical, or mystical beliefs of a group of late 19th and early 20th century authors. He was asking -- no, he was DEMANDING -- that the personal viewpoints of folks like Phineas Quimby (who believed that a sick person's mental state could influence his or her medical condition) or Wallace Wattles (who believed that a mental state of willed certainty of purpose could influence a person's business success and that skipping breakfast was a Good Idea) be "verified" by 3rd party reports or discarded from Wikipedia!

Now, it was okay with hrafn that Wikipedia claims that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle "apparently" believed in fairies. I checked; hrafn has never insisted on having Conan Doyle's psychical beliefs in fairies be "verified" by a 3rd party under threat of any mention of same being discarded from Wikipedia.

Likewise, it was okay with hrafn that Wikipedia claims that Pythagoras taught that human contact with beans was a Bad Idea. The sentence "The Pythagorean code further restricted the diet of its followers, prohibiting the consumption or even touching any sort of bean" is unsourced, makes a remarkable claim of possibly religious or pseudoscientific import -- and is completely devoid of a "verify!" tag.

So i concluded that hrafn was not merely insisting on "verification", but rather that he was using hyper-verification demands -- which i called "hostile cite-tagging" or "hyper-tagging" -- with the goal of getting material removed from Wikipedia. This stategy is what Firefly has brilliatly termed his "negative WP:OWNERSHIP" of articles. He wants the articles *gone* and he will fight strategic battles on virtually every page he deems vulnerable to his tactics. If he loses a battle and every sentence on the page can be sourced by a reliable 3rd party, then he moves on and attacks another page.

He may believe he is working from a high moral ideal, ridding Wikipedia of half-baked "pseudoscience" and "fringe theory" articles and dodgy religious ideas and the like -- but the truth is that he is slowly dismantling dozens of WP:IMPERFECT pages at Wikipedia that touch on Christianity, New Thought, antiquated theories of psychology, or anecdotal recitations of unusual life-experiences by once-popular and long-deceased authors.

That's why it is taking me so long to assemble this AN/I report: i am unsure of how large a body of evidence i must bring before the admins to make an impression. I *already* know that one admin, dave souza, believes that my collection of evidence is a personal "attack page" against hrafn and also tried to get me blocked from Wikipedia because i had reacted with outrage to hrafn's outrageous (and later retracted) charge that i was running a "crusade" of deliberate copyright violation at Wikipedia.

I deliberately made my accumulation of evidence of hrafn's deconstruction of Wikipedia religion pages known, not to hold it over hrafn's head as a threat, but to allow others to help me formulate the presentation or knock holes in my premise if they can. Hrafn has not een threatened or deterred by my work in the least -- he is still prodding pages, hyper-tagging pages, reverting newly-sourced pages to unsoursed status by claiming the sources are no good, and AfDing religion-connected pages this very day.

As i have said before -- i am not a social Wikipedian. I am just here to have fun writing and copyediting. I have other committments on my time, as well -- i should be at work now instead of writing this -- and, to put it in plain speech, based on a few previous incidents in which i saw admins taking sides in matters of religion, i am not confident that this AN/I report will even receive a fair and impartial hearing.

Before beginning the AN/I report offline, i was seriously considering the creation of an alternative wiki for New Thought articles, because that topic seemed to be hrafn's chief target. I planned to ask for the temporary restoration of the deleted pages to my sandbox, where i could fix them up and then GNU-license them to my hypothetical alternate wiki, so that people could read all of the cool New Thought articles that had been stubbed, redirected, or deleted from Wikipedia.

Then i found out that New Thought was only the tip of the iceberg of hrafn's tag-and-delete campaign; his main targets were actually Christianity and creationism. I have a minor interest in the former but very little expertise (although some general intellectual interest) in the latter -- and the idea of adopting unknown dozens -- hundreds? -- of wiki pages that had been "hrafnated" was a bit daunting. So i decided to try out Wikipedia's own system of disppute resolution and complaint handling instead. That's why the AN/I page was created. My inexperience led me to post it to a MEDCAB page where it was promptly folded up and declared off-topic, so i let that be and went back to work on it. I am still working on it.

Please, let me finish gathering together what i can -- and please allow other editors to contribute to the work, because they may have encountered hrafn in other venues than where i have met him. And please, dave souza, do not pre-judge me or this matter, but let it play itself out. In fact, given that you have already tried to get me blocked and have written so much antagonistic material about my motives on my own talk page, i'd like to ask you to recuse yourself from acting in an admin capacity when this material is presented for discussion and possible remediation.

Also, as a final note to dave souza. I get the impression that you support what hrafn is doing and don't like me for objecting to it, else you would not accuse me of being on a personal "attack" against hrafn. If you can cool down a bit, i would like you to please re-read the "desired outcome" at my AN/I proposal page: I simply want hrafn to lay off (if he can; that is, if he is capable of self-restraint with respect to the topic of religion) and for the material he unilaterally redirected out of existence to be restored, with a list of pages provided so that other editors can sort this mess out.

Not everything he deleted does deserve to be on its own page -- but, to give just one example, there was material on Affirmative Prayer (in the religious New Thought sense of the term) that he effaced without merging when he blanked the Affirmative Prayer page and redirected it to Prayer -- and i think that the material should be looked at with an eye to having it form one of the co-equal sub-sections on the Prayer page.

It is that level of outcome i am aiming for. This is *not* about hrafn or how bad he is or what makes him tick. It is *not* about my trying to promote "pseudoscince" or "fringe theories" or religion above science. It is about a lot of work by a lot of dedicated editors that *described* those subjects being deleted from Wikipedia at hrafn's whim, without consensus -- and it is about getting admin permissions to restore the damaged articles that he has dismantled so that they can be read by the general public again, and improved as editors find time to volunteer on them -- or, as a last resort, GNU-licensed to appear at a different wiki where they would be archived in their largest-byte-count state, without further editing.

Sincerely, cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a bit better, to the extent that your concern is with content we can all work together. The personal animosity between yourself and Hrafn is unfortunate, and something that needs to be overcome by civility and assuming good faith on both sides. Your page looks like an attack page to the extent that your aim seems to be attacking Hrafn for acting according to policy, and getting him blocked from working on areas where you disagree with him. Relations would be greatly improved if you accept that Hrafn is highlighting genuine problems, and reconsider your aims to focus on improving the articles. Be clear that I've not tried to have you blocked, I've taken up the issue of your legal threat which was preventing further discussion for the good reasons set out in WP:NLT and am glad that you've lifted the threat. Similarly, I think you'll find relationships improve greatly if you lift the threats of blocking you're pushing for, and instead work towards dispute resolution.

Where I think you're mistaken is the idea that things once added should stay in Wikipedia regardless of how poor the sources are – verification policy is clear on that. Hrafn's doing a valuable service in scrutinising articles, looking for better sources and removing incorrect or unsourced information. The information isn't "out of existence", it's all there in the history of the article and can be readily restored if someone can support it with a reliable source. He's put articles up for deletion, but the decision isn't his, it's the outcome of discussion and consensus as assessed by the closing admin. There's no problem with recreating the articles when reliable third party sources are presented showing the notability of the subject. All content is under a free license, so if you want to put previous versions of pages on a different wiki in compliance with the license that can be done – it's probably been done already.

It does our readers no service to provide them with unreliable information, or links to articles that say no more than what they're linked from. From my experience Hrafn has been careful to work that way and you'd be well advised to check your examples carefully to ensure that they're up to standard, though of course no-one's perfect and there will always be room for discussion. If Conan Doyle's psychical beliefs in fairies are "verified" and shown to be notable by a 3rd party reliable source, they've a place in Wikipedia. If they're only available from primary sources, no original research makes it clear that we don't add our own interpretation of these sources, and if Conan Doyle's only claim to fame was a website he'd published himself, he wouldn't be notable enough for an article.

So, if you want to see articles improved and maintained in Wikipedia, it's clear that Hrafn has already pointed you to a number of articles needing work. Work together on this and there will be an improvement in quality of coverage of these fields that you're interested in, with redundant or misleading information removed and articles expanded to bring them into full compliance with policies. . . dave souza, talk 14:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A response to dave souza

I am sorry to say, Dave, that you have missed the main thrust of my research. Your statement that "Hrafn's doing a valuable service in scrutinising articles, looking for better sources and removing incorrect or unsourced information" does not take into account the following points:

• (1) Hrafn does not always go through AfD: rather, he BLANKS PAGES AND REDIRECTS THEM. This is not good policy. It is unilateral, nonconsensual deletion of material. Few editors except those previously involved (as i was with Affirmative Prayer) will know that there was a page, or material on the page -- sometimes as much as 2,000 bytes -- before it was blanked and redirected. Functionally, and for all intents and purposes, the material is lost to readers and to new editors. I do not consider this "a valuable service" to Wikipedia.
• (2) Hrafn is targeting specific topics. As you agreed, after i pointed it out, no one has tagged the Sir Arthur Conan Doyle for the sentence claiming that Doyle "apparently" believed in fairies. Why not? Because Wikipedia is imperfect -- but hrafn holds a selected small set of articles on specific topics to an almost impossibly high level of research and scholarship. He is not merely "scrutinising articles," he is targeting specific topics for hyper-scrutiny as an obvious excuse to delete text ON THOSE TOPICS if it does not meet his supposed standards. It's about the TOPICS, not about the standards. No one is asking for permission to write in a sloppy manner -- but hrafn's SELECTIVE TARGETING places an intolerable burden on any editor who wishes merely to *describe* (not endorse -- describe) the writings of or biographical details about a specific set of early 19th or 20th centruy religious, self-help, or self-improvement authors. It is this SELECTIVE TARGETING OF TOPICS that makes hrafn an undesirable editor. He is not hyper-tagging or deleting-by-redirect uncited wording on breeds of dogs ("Some sources believe the show clips evolved from working clips, which originally provided warmth to major joints when the dogs were immersed in cold water."). . . or cookbooks ("While western cookbooks usually group recipes for main courses by the main ingredient of the dishes, Japanese cookbooks usually group them by cooking techniques (e.g., fried foods, steamed foods, and grilled foods)."). . . or musicians ("A musical scale presupposes an unlimited continuum of pitches, which must be limited in some way in order for a scale to arise.") . . . or auto racing ("The first race ever organized, by the chief editor of Paris publication Le Vélocipède, Messieur Fossier, was on April 28 1887 and ran 2 kilometers from Neuilly Bridge to the Bois de Boulogne."). He is not "enforcing compliance" on pages on a wide variety of subjects at all: He is pointedly targeting only one area of Wikipedia, religion, and he is doing to to a damagingly disruptive degree.
• (3) Hrafn is pushing a POV. His campaign of "enforcing compliance" serves the goal of eliminating material and terminating articles that deal with human thought and belief *with which he disagrees.*. If he were making politically-historically motivated deletions (for instance, endless hostile revisits of the 1915 Armenian genocide from the Turkish viewpoint) he would have long ago been outed and bounced from Wikipedia. Perhaps if you were to think of religion as "just another topic," like politics, it would be easier for you to see how disruptive he has been. His goal is to eliminate religious points of view with which he disagrees, so that his point of view (which is apparently that of scientism) will prevail.
• (4) Hrafn is not civil. As i have noted by example, not only are hrafn's edits often hostile, tendentious, disruptive, chilling, and biased, his personal communications with other editors are often conducted in a rude and abrasive manner accompanied by offensive, bullying language. His tyranical presumption of authority ("Put up or shut up!" "You don't like it? Well tough!" "If you want this article to exist, reduce it to a cited stub") is simply counter to Wikipedia policy. The fact that he has driven editors away from their tasks, caused them to leave Wikipedia, and caused them to seek mediation should indicate that we, as a collegial group, need relief from his bullying.
• (5) Hrafn is noticeably impeding our good-faith volunteer efforts here. Scattershot hyper-tagging and throwing harshly-worded pseudo-authoritarian directives around takes hrafn only a few minutes per page per day, but it has caused editors to spend hours of time trying to meet his demands. Now, meeting his demands MIGHT be seen like "improving Wikipedia with better references", but what i have also documented is that when editors do attempt to meet his demands, he habitually trashes their sourcing work and fires off an second or third series of hyper-tagging demands. Furthermore, while he makes a pretense at scholarship, he is working so shallowly that he routinely claims that good citations are either bad ones (e.g. unsourced, commercial, unrelaible) or that they don't contain what they obviously do contain (e.g. an author's name, a reference list) and he thus forces editors to debate him over the inclusion of sources. (See the ANI/I proposal for documentation of this complex issue). If any editor gives up under his barrage of tags and cuts, hrafn has met his goal; the page is either stubbed or redirected out of existence -- resulting in massive loss of good, informative text on his targeted topics. When ediors devote hours or days to writing, only to see their best work systematically deleted because the topic on which they have written is under attack by hrafn -- and no admin will step in to relieve them or side with them -- they understandably feel that Wkipedia is a "waste of time" and leave.
• (6) I have found no evidence of "good faith" in hrafn's edits. Dave recommends that i "accept that Hrafn is highlighting genuine problems." When it comes down to Assuming Good Fath, the proof is in the texts. Hrafn has never, not once that i can find -- let me repeat that, dave: NOT ONCE THAT I CAN FIND -- actually added new good sourcing or new good text to an article that he is dismantling. "By their works ye shall know them": I find no evidence that hrafn is *writing* for Wikipedia on the topics in which he claims to have a hyper-scholastic editorial interest; please correct me if you can.

If this is "okay behaviour" with you, dave, please let me know. So far, it seems to me that you either fundamentally disagree with or have rationalized away every one of the above six points upon which my AN/I report will be based. If Wikipedia administrators think i am wrong about hrafn, that's okay -- but if adminstrators condone, approve of, or turn a blind eye to the sort of behaviour with which i am charging him, i need to have that information before i resume my collection of evidence. I have little time to waste on a Quixotic attempt to delimit what i sincerely believe is a topic-driven desertification of the Wikipedia Christianity and New Thought categories if administrators truly believe it to be "a valuable service" for an editor to use the methods outlined above to eliminate articles that describe spirtual, philosophical, mystical, and biographical subjects. catherine yronwode, not logged in on my own talk page, sorry. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A response to Catherineyronwode's repeated and fallacious accusations

When I asked Dave for advice on whether to have User_talk:Catherineyronwode/ANI-proposal WP:SPEEDYed as a WP:ATTACKPAGE, he suggested that he try to reason with her. I did not think that this would be productive, as I saw little indication that she would even listen to anybody in any way associated with me, but gave him the go-ahead to try. This attempt at reason has clearly failed, so I am offering this blunt rebuttal to her latest baseless personal attacks. As this is her user talk page, she of course has the option to simply revert this material, but I will be posting it to my own user talk as well.

Worthless research

I'm going to be unkind and select the most ludicrously inaccurate example from her attackpage:

Example

Affirmations

Affirmatons are a form of self-talk used by secular and religious New Thought adherents, and other groups as well. (Basic Venn-diagram explanation for those unfamiliar with New Thought belefs: Affirmations is the name of one of two super-sets of which Affirmative prayer is a sub-set. The other super-set of which Affirmative prayer is a sub-set is Prayer.)

The Affirmations page was said to have been deleted by hrafn without discussion. I know Affirmations one contained a mention of, and a link to, Affirmative prayer, because i once did some edits on it. The dab page Affirmation now contains no mention the meaning assoicated with Affirmations in New Thought religion or secular new Thought. Here is where the deletion occured:

# 16:03, 30 April 2008 Low Sea (Talk | contribs)    (1,113 bytes) 
(removed terminology implying negative biases and 
removed erroneous use of supplicatory (which is 
contrary to affirmation))[an editor simply tried to 
remove the negative word hrafn had added]

["supplicatory" was a term added added by hrafn]
# 16:05, 21 April 2008 Hrafn (Talk | contribs)       (1,142 bytes) 
(rm self-link)  
[it became a "self-link" because hrafn had redirected 
the [[Affirmative prayer]] page out of existance]

# 22:40, 19 February 2008 Vernon39 (Talk | contribs) (1,146 bytes) 
(add link to "Affirmation" article) 
[Affirmative prayer article existed at this point, 
hence the shrt defining sentence and the link from 
the dab page]

The problem is that Affirmations was never anything other than a redirect, as can be seen by anybody with the basic research skills to inspect its history.

While none of the other examples are quite so absurd (although Affirmative prayer comes close), the almost complete lack of difs means that that page has absolutely no probative value, and would be worthless in any WP:Dispute resolution. The page therefore serves no purpose other than as a WP:ATTACKPAGE.

Sorry, you are working from a couple-day-old version of the AN/I proposal page. I had taken the word of the editor who claimed the Affirmations page was once extanxt and had been deleted, but on examining it, i realized that he had been referring to the Affirmative prayer page, which was once a link on the Affrimations dab page -- and had now ceased to be so. I completely reqrote that entry in the AN/I proposal. It was rewritten before you posted this here. That's why it is a "proposal" -- i am still working on it. The latest version reads like this, complete with two typos -- "one" for "once" and a missing "of", showing that it is still a work in progress: "The Affirmations page was said to have been deleted by hrafn without discussion. I know Affirmations one [sic] contained a mention of, and a link to, Affirmative prayer, because i once did some edits on it. The dab page Affirmation now contains no mention [of -- missing word, sic] the meaning assoicated with Affirmations in New Thought religion or secular new Thought. Here is where the deletion occured:"

So, no further worries aout inaccuracy on that example, i hope.

Catherineyronwode's specific accusations

1. Redirection
   1. I DID NOT redirect Affirmative prayer. PhilKnight did. Catherineyronwode has been informed of this, but still insists on repeating this falsehood over and over.

I am glad to hear that. This is the first time i have seen mention of it. I'll check it out tomorrow and, if you are correct, which is proably so, since you have researched it, i will delete that item. I have no reason to add spurious items. There are enough real ones. My apologies for taking the word of other editors; i should investigate each example myself, of course. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 10:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, i did check it -- but the situation is not as simple as you say. It was put up for speedy deletion by a now-blocked sockpuppeteer --= but only *after* hrafn had gutted it of all information except for a couple of sentences. No one posted a note about the speedy or the gutting to my talk page (of course, i could have checked my watchlist, but a note would have een polite, given that my watchlist contains umpty-zillion watched pages) -- and then, since it only contained the one paragraph, the one paragraph was redirected. All on one day. Yep. All on one day.

Had anyone asked me for inline refs, i would have supplied them. As i said, back when that page was created (by Lowsea) and expanded (by me), there were few pages with footnote refs in the religion sections, and many fewer pages with inline refs than with footnote refs.

A kind personal reminder to every busy editor who ever worked on a given page on the day that it is cited for lack of sources, such as

"We appreciate the work you did on < name of page >, but it no longer meets Wikipedia standards because it lacks inline sourcing. The text you wrote may soon be deleted. Can you help by providing sources for what you wrote?"

would have been met with a happy, source-providing response.

Maye there should be a "sources needed tickler template" to that effect. Maybe hrafn could use it. No, on second thought, a robot could do it, as an automatic function of anyone adding the general "sources needed" template to a page.

You know, there's a bit of philosophy in that: Robot messages at Wikipedia are always civil, if not specifically kind-hearted; the angry, snarling, snide, sarcastic, and demeaning words at Wikipedia all come from human beings.

cat yronwode 64.142.90.33 (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

1. 1. WP:REDIRECT is neither WP:BLANK nor WP:DELETION. Let's get the terminology straight.
   2. Redirection is accepted practice as an eventual resolution for articles that are chronically unsourced (or lack sufficient sources to establish WP:NOTABILITY). WP:PROD is also accepted practice.
   3. The reason articles get redirected/prodded is twofold:
      1. The editors who create them cannot be bothered sourcing them.
      2. These self-same editors likewise cannot be bothered watchlisting them to ensure that tags get responded to, and improvements made, before the article is eventually redirected or prodded.
   4. Her reference to WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS on articles, many of which I've never even read, is a ludicrous non sequitor.
2. Purported 'POV'
   1. I do redirect and remove unsourced material on a range of topics.
   2. People tend to write about people and causes they disagree with, not 'efface' (to use Catherine's much-loved verb) them. If I care enough to disagree, I find reliable sources and write articles that will pass muster on WP:V, WP:NOTE & WP:NPOV on these topics. Examples include George McCready Price and Academic Freedom bills. If I had replaced the unsourced WP:FANCRUFT on these articles with unsourced WP:ATTACKPAGEs, she would have a genuine POV complaint. As things stand, she doesn't have a leg to stand upon.
   3. As it happens, I had never even heard of New Thought until I encountered a couple of articles on the subject nominated for deletion while browsing AfDs. I did a bit of digging and found a large array of articles with bad (and generally nonexistent) sourcing and unclear notability. This is what engendered my clean-up drive.
   • The enemy of a an article's existence is not antipathy, but apathy — people can't be bothered writing about the topic -- so WP:RSs don't exist and WP:NOTE can't be established, people can't be bothered sourcing the articles, so they don't meet WP:V, people can't be bothered watchlisting them so nobody opposes WP:REDIRECT, WP:PROD or WP:AFD.
3. Incivility: this accusation is ludicrously WP:POT given:
   1. Her first comment to me contained the clear implicit accusation that I was a "DESTROYER", "lazy" and a "bully".
   2. Her repeated WP:BAITing of me (e.g. this edit summary).
4. "Impeding"
   1. The 'value' of these volunteers efforts can be seen from her own example Affirmative prayer, which she edited nine times in Sept/Oct-07 but failed to add even a single source to this wholly unsourced article (as can be seen from its state as of her last edit here).
   2. The authority is not mine but that of WP:V & Jimmy Wales: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."
5. I am completely unsurprised that she has "found no evidence of 'good faith' in hrafn's edits" -- as she demonstrates a complete and blinkered immunity to any facts or logic that does not match her preconceptions.

Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 06:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Preconceptions? Nuh-uh. I first crossed your trail in April at the latest. It took me until late August to finally decide that i didn't know if the incivility and wiki-policing i was seeing in you was the result of random molecular adhesion or evidence of Intelligent Design. The jury is still out on that, but one thing's for certain-sure -- this was not a "preconception" on my part. I'm as patient as dirt and as long-suffering as an old dog. I assumed good faith on you for months, and i watched in good faith the whole time, watching to see if you would ever help fix a page once you got it in your sights. If you'd have just helped out one time -- given one added reference, written one added paragraph, posted one note of encouragement to another editor, said one helpful word . . . But i never saw a one.

And meanwhile, you were quoting Jimmy Wales about "It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." So, okay, i thought, "We sure disagree on that one" (as i read it, what's supposed to be deleted is "random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information," not "all Wikipedia articles that lack inline sourcing"). So i figured maybe you just took that not only different from me, but also really really seriously, and if that were the case, you ought to be off tagging pages right and left, hundreds of 'em, maybe thousands. But i looked at your editing record. And you weren't doing that. You were only tagging pages about Christianity and New Thought. To my way of thinking, that's "bias," hrafn. And bias trumps incivility on my list of "Things That can Go Wrong With Wikipedia."

So that's all there is to it. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk)

(interposting) I'm 99.99% in agreement with Catherine in her views here. But in the interest of full disclosure, I believe that User:Hfran did make a sincere effort to improve to the article Victoria Institute. Check the edit history. He did add a lot of detail. Although I personally cringe at Numbers as a source (for me, reading him and his conclusions is like listening to nails being drug across a chalk board), I don't think Hrafn could guess that about me. So unless he somehow knew that...possibly but not so likely, I must again in the interest of full disclosure point this out as possible example where Hfran actually did try and improve a Christian article. --Firefly322 (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply from dave souza

Catherine, I'm disappointed in your response which shows a failure to understand how Wikipedia works and a failure to work within policies. You still seem to have this misconception that Hrafn has "lost" material to readers and new editors – it's all still there in the edit history and can be restored by anyone who cares to look. It's hidden because it's unsupported by sources, and our task is to provide material with verification, not any old rubbish that someone has conjured up.

Secondly, and more importantly, ASSUME GOOD FAITH means what it says – to work in a collegiate way you assume good faith, you don't decide to withhold good faith until persuaded otherwise. Your approach breaches the important policy of civility and leads to your disruptive and tendentious repetition of baseless accusations.

Finally, you really need to try to understand WP:NPOV – it's a core policy and means representing all notable viewpoints, giving due weight to majority views, on the basis of reliable sources. Everyone takes an interest in specific areas of knowledge, and everyone has their own point of view. Removal of unsourced speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is not "desertification", it's clearing away a tangle of rubbish giving an opportunity to find good sources and reinstate and improve any valid information.

You can learn a lot from Hrafn and can treat this as an opportunity to improve desperately poor articles on subjects that you evidently hold dear, or you can continue on this path of looking to create an unnecessary and time-wasting conflict. I urge you to take the former path. . . dave souza, talk 07:49, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

(Interposting) And there's biological research from world war II that the scientific community could have learned a lot from, but it chooses not to. This is an extreme example and a direct comparison would be inflammatory. But as a real counter-example it does show a weakness inherent to Dave's argument. Just because we can learn a lot from something or someone that doesn't mean that a community honestly believes that it's a good thing to actually do nor would its members even want to do so (once exposed at least). --Firefly322 (talk) 02:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, you gave me a chuckle, dave; i'll say that for you. You want me to learn Wikipedian behaviour from the person who tells other editors to "put up or shut up!" and "If you don't like it -- tough!" Okay, then. That's real helpful of you.

More to the point, i think we both know (although neither you nor hrafn will admit it) that sourcing rules have been gradually changed, improved, tightened, and made more stringent. I have been editing here for years. If you have been here very long, you know that in 2007, few articles had the kind of sourcing and inline refs now considered proper. We all know that. So don't get all "This article must be improved NOW or i will delete it!" on me, dave. That's a really weak argument for deletion. In fact, i will go so far as to say that it is a specious argument for deletion.

Next, i am very sorry to see you make the same mistake that hrafn did when he foolishly opined that i am a Wikipedia inclusionist because certain topics are my "sacred caows" and represent my idea of "Truth" -- or, as you say, that certain articles cover "subjects that [i] evidently hold dear."

You are way, way off-target. Neither you nor hrafn know what i *really* hold dear -- but i will tell you: It's KNOWLEDGE.

Surprised? I thought you would be.

Deletionists don't ever get that, you know. They continually accuse polymaths and generalists and inclusionists of being wedded to certain concepts or articles -- even when the topics that these folks enjoy mutually contradictory. Logic should inform you that i would hardly spend my time rsearching the Daylight Origins Society if i were a follower of Wallace Wattles or a believer in Spiritualist organizations -- all three of which are mutually contradictory. And none of that explains why i stayed up all night without sleep to write an article on the horse murders. The only thing that accounts for it, dave, is that i like KNOWLEDGE. I like INFORMATION. I like LEARNING. I like RESEARCH.

The thing is, when hrafn redirects New Thought and Christian pages out of existence, all that information goes away. Sure, it's in electron-limbo back in the page history. Yeah, yeah -- but i'm sorry; that's not good enough for me, for our newbie editors, or for our readers. A clean, honest MERGE makes sense -- but redirecting a fully-written page? No way.

Now, if folks come to my talk page all upset because the pages that describe their religion (not mine, dave -- theirs) have suddenly diappeared, well, i feel like digging in and helping them. Madman does too -- i've seen him do it. But when i try to help them with their pages, i get treated uncivilly and am forced to jump through hoops by hrafn, the self-appointed verification-cop who takes a zero-tolerance policy toward sentences without inline sources. That's not good. He should be helping us help those readers and newbie editors, helping us pull those pages into shape. Wikipedia is about KNOWLEDGE, right? Right, dave?

Or is it about *discarding* knowledge, because religious beliefs are simply not the kind of knowledge that hrafn wants people to read here?

Maybe its just that anything short of "perfect" pages sets hrafn's teeth on edge... except he doesn't notice all the other imperfect pages, only the imperfect pages about Christiany and New Thought. Funny thing, that ... it kinda stands out when you read his editing history.

I know hrafn's upset. He has demonstrated his volatility on Wikipedia plenty of times. His capacity for getting upset is obviously bigger than mine. He'll calm down sometime. Or not. You'll calm down too. Or not.

As for me, i am so calm right now you could roll me down the hill in a gunny sack and i wouldn't even squeal.

Here's one final thought for the night: Somebody's gotta be having fun around here or this project isn't worth working on -- and that's why hrafn's gotta stop treating people so badly, because he's hurting them, and that's causing the fun to drain out of Wikipedia.

Well, it's past my bed time and i've got lots of work to do tomorrow, so, once again, i'll see you all later. In the meantime, stay cool. I'll work on the AN/I thing and get it posted real soon. I'm not trying to hang you up, dave. I can't do it tomorrow (i have a radio show to prepare for and be on), but Thursday or Friday at the latest, i promise.

Good night.

Cordially, cat yronwode (probably logged in, but i can't see the screen, so let's just let the tildes decide for themselves how to sign this thing. :-) ) Catherineyronwode (talk) 11:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

This little hill of beans, Poetlister, QuillerCouch, Cato, Rachel Brown, etc.

Well, it sure didn't take long for reality to over-run this little tempest in a teapot regarding hrafn dave, Orangemarlin, and Jim. I refer you to Slim Virgin's talk page for her account of "Poetgate." There are other bits and pieces of this story scattered all over the AN/I and admin other discussion areas of Wikipedia by now, where the issue has been festering for about five days. And you know what? It has made this battle over the New Thought pages look like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. The most gross thing about it is not that a British civil servant created dozens of fictitious accounts at Wikipedia and gained admin, beureaucrat, and checkuser status, but that, except for Slim Virgin, a majority of the admins discussing this scandal are asking that the whole mess be hushed up! Shades of the Catholic Church and the pederast priests.

Very strange doings in the Wikiverse.

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 05:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this extremely unpleasant situation, don't know if you noticed my comment on Slim's talk page. She's had my respect from long before these squabbles started, ever since she gave me a severe and well earned telling off, explaining no original research admirably. For much of this year there's been quite a nasty argument with those, apparently taken in by Poetlister's smears, who are trying to get Slim de-adminned and at the same time attacking those you've met in this little tempest in a teapot. I put a lot of effort into preparing evidence against someone who's at the fore in attacking Slim,[5] investigating in depth an interaction I'd been involved in rather than trying to start from scratch in working out the complex claims about Slim as time simply didn't permit.

These procedures are time consuming and unpleasant, and that's what you seem to be aiming for with Hrafn. My advice, which you're free to disregard, is that it'll be much better if we can all work together to scrutinise these poorly sourced articles and bring them up to standard while removing unsupported claims and if need be putting non-notable articles up for deletion or redirecting articles with no real content to the appropriate parent article, ready for future expansion if someone is willing to work on them. Civility all round is important and I'll continue to urge everyone to take care, but my aim is to improve the encyclopedia rather than get diverted again into spending time arguing over people's behaviour. All the best anyway, dave souza, talk 09:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's important keep the light on Hrafn. I believe he or she will continue to test the patience of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF until he or she is an ARBCOM User subject to restrictions like those of say User:ScienceApologist. Everytime (neary 365 times a year, several times a day, pretty much) an editor unwittingly interacts with Hrafn at least these two of the five pillars become a little bit weaker. The damage accumulation from Hrafn is already considerable from my perspective. --Firefly322 (talk) 11:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, cat... I remember you from the '80s TBG/CBG columns, and I think we exchanged paper mail at some point. (I remember mentioning the other Cat, Cat Stevens, to you at the time he was infamous for supporting the Ayatollah's fatwa against Salman Rushdie... somehow, this connected in some way with one of your column subjects, I guess.) I see you've stumbled onto the tip of the iceberg of some of the complex, convoluted Wikipedia conflicts and scandals. On the issue of the "Poetlister" multiple-personality scam, SlimVirgin was on the right side (and I was previously wrong, as I mistakenly supported that person against the charge of sockpuppetry that was eventually proven true). However, on some other issues, Slim's stands have been more questionable, and she's sometimes sided with some of the people you're in conflict with. On the issue of letting things get out in the open rather than being squelched, suppressed, and censored, Slim was unfortunately one of a clique I fervently opposed last year because they were pushing for a policy (sometimes labeled "BADSITES") to ban linking to certain sites critical of Wikipedia; see my essay on the subject. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Catherine, if you haven't read this yet, you might want to look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Intelligent Design and also read the entire evidence page from the ArbCom case that Souza links to above. Those pages, plus Dan's essay, should give you most of the scoop on a few things that are going on around here. Cla68 (talk) 20:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, you might find this somewhat enlightening [6]. Cla68 (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, the BADSITES policy concerned would have principally prevented drama-linking to the website the Poetlister complex used to spread its anti-SlimVirgin campaign. No loss. John Nevard (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

and also to the site that discovered and helped remove a similar complex that sv supported unquestioningly (Mantanmoreland). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Good note

Thanks for the note. AfDs frequently do not succeed, and if there has been significant change to the article in the course of the AfD , the administrator can start the process again from the beginning because the article has become very different. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:41, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply

Thanks for your note, Cat. I wish you well with your efforts, it's a lot of work. These days I stay away from Hrafn as a waste of time but am happy to be kept informed. REad your very good Horse murders article. Ironic, isn't it? Julia Rossi (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

PS, it strikes me that anti-fringer might be a mentality much like holocaust denial – to my way of thinking, wikipedia is about information and many articles don't have the bar raised so high nothing can be written or else, so why do it to new thought? It's a movement, it has followers, notability, history and other footprints. So much censorship is kinda crazy. Julia Rossi (talk) 23:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent Design and other ideas

Thanks for the note you left at my talk page. I read the pages you noted, which was extremely disheartening. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

If you'd like to see more, I suggest also reading through the threads that are currently on my user talk page. In spite of all this, however, there are places here where editors are really trying to build an encyclopedia in a cordial and cooperative way, such as at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates, Wikipedia:Good article nominations, and Wikipedia:One featured article per quarter. Cla68 (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I shall read the material you pointed out. I grasp what you are saying, but in my opinion there is no way that a volunteer-written Encyclopedia can consist only or primarily of peer reviewed Good and Featured Articles unless it leaves out Paschal Beverly Randolph and Wallace Wattles and Forestville, California and goofer dust and Tasseography to name but a few of the topics that never made it into the 1911 Brittanica. And this is not to mention the solid B-Class articles that have been reduced to stubs and then deleted by zealots. I have added a message to my user page that goes to another aspect of this subject as well. It was inspired by the events of the past two weeks. Catherineyronwode (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I just read what you wrote and I think you make some good points. Cla68 (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

RFC

Hi there. I can't figure out how to edit that ANI section anymore with the collapsed section, so I'll leave you some information here.

Essentially, the RFC is somewhat like what you've laid out already. If you go to this page, you'll find, at the top of the page, a series of instructions and some links to some reading material. Take a look at some of the filed RFCs already active, and you should get the idea pretty quickly. The thing here is that you need to have tried and failed to resolve the dispute, and you need two people to certify they have done so before it will be certiifed. If that fails, you may have to consider taking the same route to arbitration, but an RFC is usually preferred, as an earlier stage of dispute resolution. Hope that helps. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cat.

I have been watching your talk page for quite some time now. It is good to see you are back editing Wikipedia on a regular basis. I am against deletion in general. Feel free to alert me when one of those articles are nominated for deletion and I will vote against it. Danny Weintraub: Albion moonlight (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, that would be Cabalism, or Canvassing, or having friends, so we can't go there, or we'd all be kicked out of Wikipedia forever. But feel free to check out any of the pages mentioned and vote your Inclusionist heart. I can't stop that. Daylight Origins Society is a minor example of a page on the verge of deletion. Hrafn doesn't like it because he doesn't like pages about creationism, I do like it because it connects to Maciej Giertych, and he's a fellow well worth learning about, as you'll understand when you read his bio, which makes the DOS well worth knowing about as well. I love connecting the dots, and if the information is there, the dots are more easily connected than if the information is gone. Read the pages and see if you don't agree. Also, you might enjoy reading the new message on my User page. Nameless Date Stamp. 64.142.90.33 (talk) 06:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you about connecting the dots. Maciej Giertych is an interesting character. I do not share his views on creationism but I fail to see any good reason to delete the article, I believe in freedom of information and freedom of religion even though I am an atheist. It doesn't look as if the DOS article is in any real danger of being deleted. I think My brother may be User busker49 if he is I will not vote in that AFD. Otherwise I will go there and vote to keep it. He and I share a Router. Albion moonlight (talk) 13:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Albion, If you want to check on this, there's an easy legit way: just put them on your watch list. DGG (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Other account details

User Alternate Acct - 64.142.90.33

I've put this here and on your other page to avoid confusion. Hope this helps, Verbal chat 08:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, but you missed the others in that block: 64.142.90.32, 64.142.90.33, 64.142.90.34, 64.142.90.35 -- that's why when i forget to log in, i sign as "64". cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 08:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I t might be a good idea for you to add that tag pointing here to all those pages then - as I said to avoid confusion etc. All the best, Verbal chat 08:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

		CVU Anti-Vandalism Award
		You have cast a spell of invigoration and protection upon wikipedia's WP:5, strengenthing WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. For you have halted one very serious source of crude comments. Alas, it's too bad that such a cessation couldn't have invovled transformation rather the retirement of the editor. Firefly322 (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"I think it's sad to see Hrafn go." - Firefly322 -- LOL -- Aunt Entropy (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

A most inappropriate "award" Hrafn was many things but NEVER a vandal. It sounds like more gloating to me. Teapotgeorge^Talk 16:17, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiVersity

Could you please copy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Catherineyronwode/ANI-proposal to http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=Ethical_Management_of_the_English_Language_Wikipedia/Religion_articles,_Catherineyronwode%27s_investigation&action=edit&redlink=1 ? We just recently started a project there to find examples of unethical behavior and suggestions for improving that behavior. Unfortunately you seem to have run into a group that is sometimes referred to as "IDcab" or the "ID cabal" or the anti-Intelligent Design interest group. They support each other in trying to promote science in Wikipedia articles using methods that are inappropriate. http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=20294 is where I first heard about your difficulties. If there is anyone reading this that does not understand what Hrafn did wrong, then let me explain it - You are not supposed to go around deleting things just because they are not sourced. You are only supposed to delete unsourced or poorly sourced claims that you suspect of being false. It simply does not pass the smell test that everything he deleted/redirected was probably false. People need to edit subjects they know something about. Being ignorant is not a reason to delete things that can be sourced. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:22, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that unsourced material can be deleted at any time [7]: "Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references." Moreover, editors are not supposed to be concerned with the "truth" of information in articles but verifibility: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not blindly follow a set of rules. Anyone who wishes to destroy Wikipedia could simply delete every single unsourced claim if we were to follow your misunderstanding. That obviously is not appropriate. On the other hand, we do wish people to be able to delete claims that they really believe are probably either false or can not be sourced. We assume good faith in such matters until their behavior provides evidence that something else is going on, such as deleting hundreds of probably true religious claims based not on arguments that the claims seem to be false, but merely claiming they are unsourced. Your second mistake is to take the statement about "truth" to indicate we are not supposed to care about truth. That also is a misunderstanding. The point that the statement is trying to make is that our procedures for deciding if something is included must be something objective that we can all access. It can not be based on claims someone makes that "But it is TRUE!!!" wE NEED SOMETHING BETTER THAN MERE ASSERTION. tHAT WE CARE ABOUT TRUTH CAN BE SEEN IN THE CAREFUL WEIGHING OF SOURCES TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHICH ARE reliable I.E. MOST LIKELY TO BE TRUE. WAS 4.250 (talk) 08:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary. The policy for inclusion of information in Wikipedia is verifiability not truth. Many times I 'bit the bullet' and included material I strongly disagreed with, or allowed other editors to include information from a source I considered a fool because that source was undeniably 'notable' and considered by many to be a 'reliable source' for the subject of the article. Anyone who can not manage to do that should not be editing Wikipedia. Any other approach is a formula POV pushing, because what you are sure it "TRUE" may be what other editors think is bullshit. (And, by the way, your abundant use of all cap words, phrases and sentences, is considered uncivil, and the equivalent of yelling. Please do not do that.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 12:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Just dropping in, those caps just look like forgetting to turn off caps lock after caps for TRUE. I think the criticism of it is in this particular instance uncalled for. DGG (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Gloating

Gloating is generally considered poor form. {{uw-own1}}. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I find it extremely sad and VERY discouraging that User:Hrafn has been hounded from wikipedia for insisting on reliable sources and references on many fringe articles, albeit in a slightly abrasive way. Wikipedia is a poorer place without him. Teapotgeorge^Talk</sup> 17:45, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is improved every time a deletionist leaves. You are not supposed to go around deleting things just because they are not sourced. (See previous section). WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What absolute nonsense.... I would far rather have less information well sourced, than more information poorly sourced. Teapotgeorge^Talk 18:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Right on Teapot. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You are confusing "sourced" with "reliable". I also prefer fewer unreliable claims and more reliable claims. Seeing an inline footnote after a claim does not automatically make a claim reliable and the lack of one does not make a claim unreliable. Further this encyclopedia writing is a process that takes years and many people. Anyone who went around deleting huge amounts of unsourced claims in math articles would be indef banned (check them out; they have a low number of inline cites). Someone doing the same in religion articles should also go away. And he did. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:07, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You cannot compare maths with religion! Maths is concerned with facts, religion with beliefs. Teapotgeorge^Talk 20:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

cat's comment was not "gloating". She provided information relevant to the context of the AfD. The information is relevant because Hrafn did not simply nominate the article for AfD and leave it to the community to decide, he was campaigning aggressively for its deletion, both on the AfD page and by removing information from the article as the AfD was going on. The process is not called "Campaign for Deletion" - it's intended for the community to review and decide about articles, not for editors to fight to get articles deleted. His actions in regard to the AfD are relevant to editors reviewing the AfD to make up their minds about the article, and it was appropriate for cat to report that on the AfD page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

No she wasn't. It is totally irrelevant to the AfD, it was mildly uncivil. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A few comments on the above:

• To Eldereft: I wasn't gloating; i was trying to explain to editors why the nominator of the AfD had left what he had started.
• To Teapotgeorge: I personally do not think it "sad" that the hrafn persona was retired by the human being who created it. It was a disruptive persona.
• To WAS 4.250: I tend to agree with you. I am an inclusionist, especially when calls for deletion are based on "notability" issues. As a person who has an unusually rentetive memory, i have enjoyed the sheer computing capacity of both google and Wikipedia, and i think that any form of deletionism that subtracts from the google or Wikipedia data-piles based on "notability" requirements means that a decision has been made in error to force those concatenative and associative files to hold less data than my own brain, which is ridiculous, considering the low cost of electron-shuffling versus the high cost of maintaining organic life.
• To Jack-A-Roe: Thanks for your support. I would also like to add that meeting you through this series of exchanges has been a real pleasure. I will remember your persona-name if and when our paths cross again.
• To Orangemarlin: I oppose your arrogant presumption to judge me, my thoughts, or my motives. Meeting you and your series of tag-team persona-buddies through this series of exchanges has been educational. I shall remember your persona-names if and when our paths cross again.

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

@Catherineyronwode: The abrupt retirement of Hrafn, who had hitherto been very active on that VfD, might legitimately be of interest to participants in that discussion or to the closing administrator. The rest of that comment serves no legitimate purpose that I can fathom, seeming to seek only to denigrate and poison the well against a user who has stated a lack of intention to rebut. Please consider refactoring that comment to focus on the debate at hand without the extraneous details of your personal dispute with Hrafn. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point, Eldereft. I have removed the sentence and placed an apology on the page. Thank you for pointing out my having stepped over the line of propriety. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I apologize for not more clearly stating my concerns at the outset. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:50, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Hrafn left a WP:POINTy message about me on his talk page. An idea that goes against WP:IMPERFECT and in that sense its {{uw-npa2}} from Hrafn to me. I have learned that inappropriate Humility shown to the wrong person can be as improper (as sinful) as its complete lack. I think that Hrafn's activies if they are taken up by other editors need the same kind of light as Hrafn just received. Efforts to eliminate a category of articles or core policies such as WP:IMPERFECT should not be tolerated on wikipedia. In this sense, I don't think Eldereft's comments about gloating really fit the facts. I have begun to believe that Eldereft should retract his comments about gloating on this talk page and mine. They are starting to look like another form of personal attack, in light of the facts. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

You bring up another side of the issue, Firefly, and it does deserve discussion. At the urging of Eldereft, and most particularly after an explanation of Eldereft's vague wording by Orangemarlin, i have removed from the Daylight Origins Society AfD page my mention that Hrafn, who had nominated the article for AfD, had retired while facing a MEDCAB, an AN/I, and a Wikiquette Alert -- because Eldereft thought that to do so was "gloating" on my part -- but on hrafn's talk page, i am still referred to as

• "ludicrously out of touch with reality"
• "grossly inaccura[te]"
• the writer of an "WP:ATTACKPAGE"
• "foolish"
• one given to "baseless complaints"
• "delusional"

Is it "humility" on my part to let those uncivil accusations stand -- or is it silent witness? I believe hrafn's final parting shot at the three of us serves as a memorial and a reminder: We know what the hrafn persona did here, and we know that the persona was retired when sufficient attention was focussed on its activities and its techniques. I'm strong enough to take the parting shot; as with all of hrafn's random fire, it's a miss. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

MUD-Wiki: Writer Flight and Trumped Up Statistics Amidst Warring Cabals

In September of 2008 my adorable wife, catherine yronwode, reflected on discussions which she and i were having about the social dynamics within hotly contested topic areas of Wikipedia. These pertained primarily to religious and esoteric topics, and to perceived cabals assembled to efface and bury substantive contributions to Wikipedia as part of an ongoing cultural struggle. She placed the text below, comparing Wikipedia to a MUD, on her User page:

What is Wikipedia?

I see a cascading series of failures of human decency here: The horrific Poetlister / Slim Virgin debacle and especially the clearly worded attempts to shush it up for the sake of Wikipedia's reputation (and the clearly worded instructions to allow the culprit to "slink off" rather than to expose him, so similar to the mentality that lay behind the Catholic pederast priest scandal); my brief time spent reading Wiki Review, Encyclopaedia Dramatica (currently blacklisted at Wikipedia -- nagasiva), WikiTruth, et al; and my reading of the pages on previous MEDCABs, ANIs, RfCs, and so forth, pointed out to me by helpful readers -- all of these make clear the multiple failed attempts by editors to put a stop to the incivility and ownership and cabalism of people who are trying to negatively impact important portions of Wikipedia. I am now convinced that MEDCAB, ANI, and RfC pages are utter time-wasters. I hold out little hope for ArbComs, either.

My thinking turns to the view that, contrary to the slogan "Wikipedia is not a Battleground," Wikipedia IS a Battleground, and that it was designed that way and is being played that way by a bunch of gamers. It's a MUD or a Dungeon where the premise is "Let's build an Encyclopedia." It is structured upon the storyline that "editors" are needed, and it sucks in a lot of high-minded writers who tend to be a little lonely and would love to have occasional text exchanges with others interested in whatever obscure topics interest them ("Hi, Danny! Wow! I couldn't help but notice that you took your nym from a book by the poet Kenneth Patchen! Cool!") -- but we, the writers, are just cannon fodder or targeted Red Shirts, while the REAL players at Wikipedia are those who know that it provides a shoot-em-up free-fire zone where people can take on anonymous personae and tear apart our writing (called "editing" by the gamers) on any class of thought or belief with which they don't agree.

We set the words up; they take them down. They award themselves points. They promote one another to high offices. That's the game.

To this end, complaints from hard-working writers that they are being treated with incivility are ignored, while the writers themselves are given the run-around. ("You need to develop a thicker skin." "Go ahead, just take a Wiki-Break." "Have you tried Wikiquette alerts?" "Why don't you try MEDCAB?" "This isn't a MEDCAB issue; try Dispute Resolution." "This is unlikely to be resolved; take it to ANI." "This is too long for ANI; take it to RfC." "This isn't an RfC matter; take it to ArbCom"). Meanwhile, the uncomplaining writers who leave in sorrow, confusion, fear, or disgust are said to have "retired." Nothing must interfere with the Battle.

I could say more, but i think you understand my point. No, i take that back. I have no idea if you understand my point or oppose it or are snickering with laughter right now. You are just another anonymous nobody here, and the fact is that you and your Wikipedian comrades are either writers who have thanklessly provided thousands of hours of good writing for target-practice or you are one of the real patrons, the shooter-boys, just hoping to find a handy target.

If i "retire" now, another writer-geek will take my place, and the Battle can go on . . . and on . . . and on.

catherine yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 03:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

She informed me that she'd written it, and i immediately began imagining what might be contained in it, based on the many hours that i enjoyed playing in and helping to create MUD environments. Once i'd read it, i was inspired to detail just how much commonality there was between Wikipedia and MUD communities. You may find the result below.

Many times i have been struck by the similarity between Wikipedia and a MUD. For those who are not familiar with them, and won't be looking at the supplied link, MUDs are Multi-User Dimensions (formerly 'Dungeons') which are text-worlds created for inter-textual communication and exploration, typically to battle monsters, find treasure, engage in social role-play, and have conceptual adventures, gleaning points, developing skills for the character, and collecting imaginary "stuff" like fabulous magical objects and impressive wardrobes. In the more complex MUDs there are secret or vibrantly public clubs to which one's character may belong, territories and buildings which one may own, and offices which one may hold in the social strata of the fictional society composed of real people posing as fictional characters.

After hours and hours spent wandering, exploring, puzzle-solving, battling, and socializing in MUDs, there are some things which become apparent tying them together as enterprises.

First, they usually have a THEME, and this theme is in part what glues the fictional world of drama together. It informs the types of characters that people are likely to play, what abilities and loot one may be able to obtain, and contribute heavily toward what one may do in the MUD.

Second, MUDs are OWNED. The machine they run on, the software booted on the machine, etc., are typically owned and operated by a single person, who operates the God character (no kidding, this is what it is usually called). That character has superpowers with respect to the MUD universe, can easily create and destroy things, places, and people (turning them into other thngs and making them vaporize). The God character is so powerful that it is sometimes set aside and only used in unusual circumstances, like a high tech tool. The owner usually empowers what are called 'Wizards' who administrate the operation, building, and socializing in the MUD. Their powers are comparable to, but they cannot affect, the God character, which can effectively make and unmake Wizards. The most cherished Wizards are those who are software developers, because they can facilitate the empowerment of the other Wizards and those who construct the MUD. The God of the MUD and these Wizards constitute the 'elite of the MUD' gaming environment.

Third, and this may in fact be the first thing one notices even before the other two if the MUD is very new, the MUD has CABALS. Social groups and cliques form fairly quickly, with variable strength and intensity, primarily depending on any offline and previously established relationships or developing social interactions, exterior and interior to the MUD world. Entire kingdoms may grow up around the owner's Ruling Character, a whole court of Lords and Ladies, their retinues, servants, aspiring replacements and pets. Since these are role-playing environments, role-players may feel the liberty to be extreme in their character personality constructions. A new player may, if lucky, run into a very helpful Wizard-Lady who provides them with countless tools to make their playtime in the MUD more enjoyable, easier, and more successful. She may gift them with baubles, tokens of appreciation, medallions of merit, and any number of badges that help their social advancement. The player may, contrariwise, encounter an evil Wizard-Lord who enslaves them, tricks them, and plays with them tormentingly or perversely, providing them with items only to take them away or make them the butt of jokes while his toadies sit about laughing. The upper echelons of MUDs are typically proportionate to their size. In large enterprises with hundreds of active characters there may be a dozen Wizards and several dozen lords and ladies, sometimes stratified and dispersed into sectors of the kingdom or into separate cities. Finding and encountering them is all part of the drama of the game.

Fourth, unless there are barriers or technical limits set to guard against it, one will encounter GAMERS. These are usually juvenile gangsters and bullies who wander about slaying things for points, amusement, or both. In the MUDs which allow or enable it, gamers can acquire coins or gems for killing things, and their delight in repeatedly destroying other characters for these personally-empowering points sometimes extends in sadistic dimensions. In most MUDs the gamers outnumber all the role-players (because there are more puzzle-solving and battle-prize-winning MUDs than any other kind). You may create a character, and, if unlucky, may be immediately beset by a group of gamer thugs who kill you and loot your body for whatever is provided to new characters. More sophisticated MUDs have safe-zone start-points in which this kind of roguishness is not tolerated (call 'no-kill zones'). You may team up with a group of adventurers and later discover that one has fallen into a gang of thieves who merely want to exploit your power as a weapon-wielder and who kill you as part of their next loot-taking episode.

Fifth, especially when trying to initiate or develop the MUD, one may be encouraged to become part of the BUILDERS. These are characters whose powers have been extended to the making of portions of the MUD itself, such as personal accoutrements, places, venues, buildings or subclimates within a particular place like a room in a castle or an apartment in a high-rise, or a whole section of a new town. Builders not only create the objects or places, they also pretty them up with decorations, ornately describing them in dramatic language so as to give the reader and explorer a 'feel' for the imaginary place through which they travel, and connect them in to other parts of the accessible MUD by coordinating with the managing Wizard who control the various building sectors of the MUD gaming environment.

In brief, Wikipedia seems to have all of these aspects, and is stratified in a particular way that is quite visible to those who spend any time encountering it and trying to achieve things in its MUD-like structure. Its THEME is reference. Those assembled to construct it attempt to provide data or discussion that lend it an air of informativeness. It is OWNED by Jimbo Wales. He may have set into motion a cooperative ownership of the whole (as does happen in some MUDs, interestingly enough), but his influence is still obviously operating and somebody still owns and operates the computers (in Florida or wherever they have been moved) where Wikipedia is being saved and, presumably, backed up routinely). The CABALS within Wikipedia are centered around Administrators. These Administrators have variable powers and responsibilities, form alliances, engage in feuds, and belong to social cliques in Wikipedia that may extend outside of the MUD. The GAMERS in Wikipedia appear to be in part arrayed against the BUILDERS, which is to what catherine yronwode refers in her essay "What is Wikipedia?", to which this is a response.

For our purposes the important part of this analogy is that it facilitates an analysis of the dynamic of the GAMERS vs the BUILDERS. While Wikipedians tend to refer to both groups as 'editors', they may be roughly identified by activity: Editors (GAMERS) vs Writers (BUILDERS). The MUD of Wikipedia enables or rewards both groups for their participative actions, and the weapons or tools provided to these groups allow them differing effects that will have an important influence on their ongoing relationship, and what is constructed in the MUD. Editors make edits and Writers make contributions. The former must depend upon the latter for their raw materials, and therefore they exploit or feed off of the latter to a degree. This is in part to what catherine was referring when comparing how the Editors are treating the contributions of the Writers like monsters in a gaming MUD which they shoot, or hack away at with their swords, reducing text to a pile of goo which hovers and then evaporates. Insofar as there is a stratification of power, and reduction-based editing is enabled, and personal/social points are awarded for this kind of gaming activity, so do Editors have the gaming upper-hand and Writers' contributions are exploited for the enjoyment of target practice by Editors.

The Editors employ the Weapon of Effacement to assault text contributions (when not personally assaulting the Writers themselves with insults). They wield a kind of sand-blowing tool which covers over any amount of contribution they desire or can get away with, based on the cabal of their involvement. If they have the patronage of a powerful Administrator, they can use their sand-blower to efface (cover over) entire pages or sections, or incrementally whittle away at entire topic-sectors with which they may have some ideological difference of opinion. They use category tags to identify the contending ideologies in the struggle, and then set about blowing sand all over the contributions made by the Writers within those contended categories. At its best, this struggle produces a refined result, in which text of both substance and content are presented to the interested public. However, when the Editors are armed too heavily and enabled too powerfully by their Administrative patrons, the outcome is burial of content and substance, and the flight of Writers from the project as they tire of being the repeated victims of Editorial target practice, and seeing no Administrative support for their interests.

Just as in the gaming MUDs, Editors form cliques, tag-teams, and cabals. In MUDs, cabals surrounding Wizards engage in contention and struggle for power, and in some cases this leads the MUDs to break apart socially. User flight from a MUD leads to Builders shifting their efforts toward numerous alternatives developed using the same basic software on other machines, owned and operated by others. This situation seems to be reflected fairly directly in the cabal-contentions among Administrators in Wikipedia (consider, for example, the misuse of Administrator-assigned power-objects such as Twinkle and how these are leading to such power-struggles). This kind of cabal-contention occurs regardless of the expressed public statements to the contrary by the God of the MUD, as may appear on Mr. Wales' User Page, Principle #2.

If the God of the MUD abdicates his responsibility to both Gamers/Editors and Builders/Writers, we may witness in Wikipedia what has happened in countless MUDs that were once populated, living communities, but have been superceded by newer, more interesting, more equitable alternatives whose Wizards/Administrators are more pleasant and less caustic, and who protect their Builders/Writers.

If this situation doesn't change, and Writer/Builder flight continues to take place, then the Wikipedia project may succumb to the fate of myriad MUDs, from whom Builder-flight resulted in MUD-hulks, "peopled" by thousands of abandoned user accounts, formerly utilzed by Writers, who no longer visit the once-thriving metropolis of yesteryear. No amount of deception about "how many user accounts exist" will replace the on-the-ground data about daily logins and Builder/Writer-contribution volume. These are the living statistics of any MUD, including Wikipedia, regardless of how many abandoned accounts and user sock-puppets might be used to fortify trumped up statistics about a game that nobody is interested in playing any more.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

responses to essay

Reminds me of User:Moulton. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the similarity. The above comments are thoughtful essays, not disputes with any individuals. As essays, these provide a perspective worthy of contemplation. I've often seen similarities between Wikipedia and the dynamics of MUDs, though I don't have much experience with MUD games so would not have been able to articulate it so clearly. That similarity is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, and it might have no effect on whether or not Wikipedia succeeds in building a great encyclopedia. Either way, whether it's positive or negative, it's helpful when we can learn to understand better the ways in which the community interacts. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Ah, Jim, was there a point in your comparing self-ref to a permanently blocked former account-holder at Wikipedia? I don't know why Moulton was blocked. I am unfamiliar with his writing or the topics he covered. What's your point? (Signed far later, as i forgot to sign it at the time. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Think "thought process". &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 18:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Or think "try to discredit ideas by associating them with a banned user", a popular tactic of some. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, the writing (which as any linguist will tell you often betrays the thought process) is quite similar. Admittedy, there are differences, but ... &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

To Jack-A-Roe: nagasiva (self-ref) has written about MUDs in the past. His essay "Liber MUD: MUDS and Western Mysticism" is a similar exploration of a portion of human experience, as analogized to a MUD. I am a person who has not played these games myself since the long-past days of the text-game Adventure, and yet i find his use of the MUD analogy can often be startingly apt when i am trying to analyze complex social dynamics. MUDs are basically miniature societies, and they seemingly do enact parallels to the rise and fall of nations and cultures. A MUD is to a civilization as a Petri dish is to a barnyard. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 01:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Catherine, I particularly agree with the statement you made above, that "Wikipedia IS a Battleground". Contrary to what some administrators think, that does not justify viciousness, nor or does it justify discouragment; but it certainly does mean that meeting with rough tactics is sometimes unavoidable. My own view is that a frequent re-reading of the Bhagavad Gita (a favorite of Gandhi [8]) should be recommended for Wikipedia editors. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Having read the Bhagavad four times, I'm unclear precisely what your point is. Could you go into a little more detail? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 20:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Jim62sch, to give one example, Gandhi was engaged in struggles for what he considered right his entire adult life, but nevertheless he was able to maintain ahimsa as the keynote of his efforts. I think his study of the Gita was key to his ability to fight without falling into viciousness:

He is the devotee who is jealous of none, who is a fount of mercy, who is without egotism, who is selfless, who treats alike cold and heat, happiness and misery, who is ever forgiving, who is always contented, whose resolutions are firm, who has dedicated mind and soul to God, who causes no dread, who is not afraid of others, who is free from exultation, sorrow and fear, who is pure, who is versed in action and yet remains unaffected by it, who renounces all fruit, good or bad, who treats friend and foe alike, who is untouched by respect or disrespect, who is not puffed up by praise, who does not go under when people speak ill of him who loves silence and solitude, who has a disciplined reason. Such devotion is inconsistent with the existence at the same time of strong attachments. [9]

I do not think the Gita is the only route, and personally I find Stoic philosophy preferable, but the Gita as a beautiful story is more easily accessible. Of course many editors will always think any means, no matter how vicious, justifies the editing results they aim at; but a philosopher can engage without animosity toward those who seem to block their way forward, and without fear of losing. It is not easy, but Wikipedia could use some editors with the characteristics described by Gandhi in this quote. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm, thanks. The Gita, for its relative brevity is a profound book and I was interested in how you were applying it here.

I admire both Gandhi and the Gita, and I prefer Platonism (not, however, neo-Platonism) over Stoicism (although I could easily write something in support of Stoicism). And, no, the ends do not generally justify the means, although sometimes (in the real world, not on Wiki) the exigency of realising the ends that will most effectively deal with specific and urgent problems may justify the means. Ah, but now we're back to subjectivity and Realpolitik and materialism, etc. In any case, thanks much for explaining. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

now if only we can get the God character to reveal himself to the hero of the encyclopedia (which editor is that?) and the Pandava Editors could somehow realize through the superb rhetorical style of Arjuna that the battle is wasteful, a collaboration or nonviolent engagement (such as Gandhi sought) far more admirable, efficient.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 04:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

meatballs and muddy boots

cat and self-ref, thanks for your thoughtful essays and hard work during the recent kerffufle.

If you've not seen it before, MeatballWiki (MeatBallWiki), a predecessor of Wikipedia, is a wiki about how people organize in online communities, and in particular, various forms of wiki's; and about the dynamics that happen in those systems. You might be interested in their article titled "GoodBye" that discusses what happens when users depart wiki communities. Their intro for users first arriving there from Wikipedia is on this page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 20:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Retraction requested

As you may have noticed, Hrafn has posted a A statement from retirement at ANI.[10] I've also pointed out some of your errors in the preceding section. To resolve the important issues concerned, please accept that your statements and understanding of policy are incorrect, and completely withdraw your baseless accusations against Hrafn prepared at your ANI proposal,[11] posted at ANI and then moved to the now deleted RfC/Hrafn. Please make a statement to that effect in the section at ANI so that this dispute can end. Thanks for your understanding, I'm sure you're working for the good of Wikipedia and will, on reflection, be able to see where you've been mistaken. . dave souza, talk 09:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a farse. Hrafn is just creating a bunch drama. He's bad seed and doesn't deserve simpathy. Dave souza, the fact that you seem to defend him to me is becoming reprehensible. There are no baseless accussations. Hrafn is really, really bad. The fact that you are saying this Pravda-like bull in his defense and that you are an administrator is unbelievable. Retract nothing. Hrafn obviously is just pretending to be retired to garner sympathy in order to stop people from moving forward on a case that clearly has great merit. This latest post proves that. His attitude remains one that is defiant of at least 2 of the 5 WP:5: WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. --Firefly322 (talk) 18:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Dave, i thought this all ended due to hrafn's retirement, but, having been informed otherwise, i will go to the page you have indicated and see what i can say there that will be sincere and just. I did not pursue Firefly's AN/I or User:Orderinchaos's RfC against hrafn because i was trying to be gracious since hrafn had retired, and i also wanted to be conservative of my time, since i saw that a lot of work would be necessary for the restoral of texts he had deleted, which was my primary goal here.

I agree with you that "imporant issues" of policy are indeed at stake, specifically the question of whether a topic-driven deltionist editor actually has policy on his side when he reduces a B-class article to a stub, or cuts an article by 50% to 75% and then effaces it by redirection -- especially, as can be demonstrated, when such a deletion and redirection takes place in a period of 24 hours, with no consensus by previous page editors.

Hfran's consistent exploitation of what i think are loopholes in Wikipedia policy for the purposes of biased and topic-driven text deletion should be examined and commented upon by the wider community. If topic-driven deletionism is an editorial style that Wikipedia wishes to promote, the writers among us need to know that writing on certain topics will set our work up as targets for deletion by a fanatic with an agenda, and that there is no recourse to be had from biased administrators such as yourself, due to a lack of policy on the matter. A clear policy decision, coming from a higher hierarchical level within Wikipedia, would be beneficial for all, and i will now add a request for same to my "desired outcome" on the old AN/I proposal page.

This all started because i simply wanted to get an editor named hrafn to stop insulting editors and to stop deleting text about the Christian and the secular New Thought Movement, much of which was written by sincere, knowledgeable new editors who wished to expand Wikipedia's knowlege base.

As a non-Christian, who is not a member of any New Thought denomination, i found his campaign to be biased. As a person with a science background myself, i assumed that he would not be so single-minded in his campaign of targeting pages in which "off-spec" ues of the word "science" occur that he would actually try to delete articles about 19th and early 20th century New Thought and self-help writers like Wallace Wattles (who used the word "science" in his 1910 book "The Science of Getting Rich" in the sense of "knowledge" or "gnosis" rather than meaning "a product of the 'scientific method'") I was obviously wrong.

Once i found that New Thought was only the tip of hrafn's deletionism, which was actually based around an ideological war against Christian topics in which the word "science" occured, i did come to agree with you that, as you say, there are "important issues" here. I want to thank you and others for pointing out to me the debates that are ongoing about the putative existence of the so-called IDCab or Intelligent Design Cabal, which reportedly seeks to purge Wikipedia of certain Christian ideas, and which may be allied with another group whose members i have encountered in the past that tags pages on divination, folklore, and folk-magic with the perjorative "pseudoscience" category tag in error, aparently in an attempt to intellectually devalue the topics thus tagged.

Of course, the most important issue is not whether a pseudoskeptic cabal or an anti-Intelligent-Design cabal or an anti-Christian cabal exist at Wikipedia; the real issue is whether hrafn's technique of deletion-by-stubbing-and-redirect should be given a name (describing it is rather complex, as you can see), and whether it should be the subject of a policy statement.

As for errors i have made, i thank you sincerely for pointing them out. I will do my best to correct them. I in no way wish to bing false accusations against anyone; i want this presentation to be the most fair and even-handed it can be, since it is no longer about hrafn per se, but about "important issues" of policy.

To Firefly, thanks for your comments. I value your supportive opinion. Sometimes, when an unexpected attack such as dave's appears on my talk page, i feel quite alone and vulnerable. It is strengthening to realize that other Wikipedians are also following this situation. Like you, i truly do not understand dave's persistent administrative embrace of hrafn and find it to be unusual in its intensity and thus worthy of note.

cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Drop it already

I see a lot of the usual faces are here, particularly Jim62sch and dave souza. Could we just drop the arguments already? Jim, don't you have some military people to bother? Kelly ^hi! 04:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, didn't mean to leave you out, OrangeMarlin. Knock it off. Kelly ^hi! 04:09, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Logged [12]. Cla68 (talk) 04:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Affirmative prayer

Hi cat - I found a bunch of references for Affirmative prayer so I un-redirected it and added the footnotes. If you want to do some writing on that page, I bet you could make it a lot better. --Linda (talk) 06:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that, Linda. I added sourcing on the hoodoo material and i re-made the link to Affirmative prayer from the Affrimation dab page. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's drop the Hrafn matter until he resumes his style of editing

Cat, I suggest that everyone drop the Hrafn matter. It is somewhat moot right now, being that he is no longer editing. I am sure that he will return and then the matter of his style can be brought up again, if necessary. My point is that further discussion amounts to beating a dead horse and right now we all have better things to do. Please delete or close any outstanding matters, particularly the so-called "attack page". Madman (talk) 21:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I've made a proposal at WP:ANI#Can we just drop this matter? which aims to resolve this matter. You are of course welcome to participate if you wish. Madman's suggestion here that you delete or close any outstanding matters, particularly the so-called "attack page", seems sensible to me. If you wish, I could delete any of your user sub-pages on request, or you can request deletion as set out at WP:CSD. . . dave souza, talk 19:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I am out of the loop on this, and do not know what transpired. But I do not understand the rush to get Catherine back down on what has been started. From the look of Hrafn's user page, it seems to me he may have done nothing more than make a tactical retreat, and he/she could easily return as soon as things quiet down. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

There have been many discussions on the matter of Hrafn's editing style, of which I am not a fan. I can post links if you wish. But with his temporary retirement (or "tactical retreat") there would be no action taken against him/her while on the other hand some rather unkind comments (to say the least) were being directed toward Cat and others. So, it would seem time to move along, at least until next time. Madman (talk) 20:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I see that ScienceApologist has just now renominated the Daylight Origins Society article for deletion [13]. This sort of repetitive AfDs seems rather strange. If an editor were allowed to refile an AfD against the same article once every week, it might be possible to find a group of editors (just by random distribution) who would vote to delete even the Mark Twain article. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 00:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

You're awesome, man

You rock 24.184.206.83 (talk) 01:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Tough Times?

Seems like you've been gathering some criticism from some Wikipedia users over at ANI, just don't worry about it, shake the criticism off. I've seen some of your work; it's really good. Please continue to make good contributions to Wikipedia.

I wish you a good day.

The Man in the Rock (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Echoing previous comments, Cat

Cat, I must echo the previous posters' comments. You have made significant and excellent contributions to Wikipedia, particularly your and self-ref's essays on the meta-view.
Please continue to make your contributions to Wikipedia. Madman (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:ANI

I've raised an issue about you on ANI. I hope you will not misunderstand my intentions; I am merely trying to wrap my mind around what you've been doing. Feel free to comment, but try to be concise. - Zero1328 _Talk? 14:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Zero1328, you wrote, addressing Catherine, "I am merely trying to wrap my mind around what you've been doing". Zero1328, I have no idea what you mean by that. What do you think she has been doing? What is it that bothers you? I read what you wrote on the Administrators noticeboard, and that also fails to explain. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Zero1328, i see by your user page that you are young, but not inexperienced here, so i wonder why you started an ANI on me, in an attempt to "wrap your mind around" my work here. That's not what ANI reports are for. They are to report incidents -- that is, events that have happened -- and in order for administrators to look into these incidents, the person who makes the report is supposed to accompany it with diffs, examples, and a desired outcome. I'd like to "wrap my mind around" your thinking too, but reporting my desire to understand your motivation as an Administrative Noticeboard Incident would not be appropriate, since all i would be reporting is that i am curious about your motives, and that is not an incident. If you have any further questions about me, just ask on my talk page -- i often have time to chat. catherine yronwode

Looking back on it, I have no idea on what I was supposed to be talking about. I was quite tired when I wrote that, and I usually don't edit at that hour. I was feeling equally confused in the morning when I tried to add to what I meant... So it was indeed a bad misjudgement on my part. I think I said "wrap my mind around" to make sure I wasn't misunderstood, but I guess I failed there. I still feel muddled up when I try to think about what happened, so I'll just point to Wikipedia:Wikipedia essays as an idea to where to write stuff, and tell you that being concise is also fairly important as well. Being short, simple, and straight to the point will get more people to read, as the inverse turns people away. You're more familiar with Wikipedia so perhaps you watch over what User:Self-ref (your husband?) does, and pass this advice on. - Zero1328 _Talk? 02:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

we're married and completely separate people. occasionally we chat about the issues in Wikipedia, where catherine spends more time than i (i'm more involved with non-wikipedia wiki projects that don't have the agenda or principles this project does). so far, my attempts to engage you on your talk page were met with silence. why is it that you feel compelled to take an issue with me to catherine? I suggest that you merely post to my talk page in clear and concise ways to offer your advice or issue your opinions about my writing. thanks.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 04:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

my comment

I refactored my comment at an/i -it came out a little wrong. DGG (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Modeling yourself after Hrafn?

I see you've been busy tagging unsourced articles. Odd considering your complaints against Hrafn. Did you change your mind? Aunt Entropy (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me for jumping in, but my concern (I should only speak for myself) was not the tagging per se bur the pattern of behaviour of You Know Who. I myself recently added a "refimprove" tag to a New Thought author William Walker Atkinson. Thanks for listening, Madman (talk) 02:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, today and yesterday i've been busy writing on the White Rabbit Creamy Candy article, Aunt Entropy. That's the measurable difference between a writer and an editor, you know: writers actually write articles, while editors only edit. At Wikipedia, editing can be defined as copy-editing and also as deleting "unverifiable" claims. To your question: i have tagged a few "unverified" claims in widely variant fields (toy collectibles, celebrities, etc.) because i am interested in understanding the fundamental difference between "unverified" and "unverifiable" as those terms are used in the contxt of Wikipedia. I am curious to see where Wikiedia itself draws the line. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 02:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Bully for you in your "actual" writing. I hope your editor who "only" edits shows you the deference you feel you deserve for that. Aunt Entropy (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Your claim to know what i "feel [i] deserve" leads me to speculate that you are a sideshow mentalist. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

COI banner

I agree wholeheartedly - it is a concern I've had for a while after running into a number of them (seemingly being overused where notable wikipedians and NPOV would be a better option). I have left a note on the talk page with my proposal for a solution: Talk:Catherine Yronwode#Removing the COI banner. Hopefully, it should help resolve the issue. (Emperor (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC))

OK it has all been sorted out and the banner removed following a review and general consensus. Thanks for the contributions as they have actually helped improve the article. (Emperor (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC))

Editors using someone as a stick to beat you with

It's an unwarranted leap to think that you might be modeling yourself after what's his or her name. Anyway, since other editors won't this person or persons go, even though we have tried. I think there's something very fishy about that account. I suspect multiple editors were using it. If that's the case, then probably many of the editors who are complaining about legitimate cocerns with Hrafn's account are in fact editors who were operating his or her account. This isn't a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet, i don't think, I think it might be something as yet unnamed. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think editing to make a POINT against someone who is gone is "letting things go." And if you have accusations to make, you better have some proof. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What on earth do u mean by better have? Were u a user of Hrafn account, Aunt Entropy? What proof do you and the other editors have to make these accusations against Catherine? --Firefly322 (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What the hell? Firefly, I've had about enough of your unwarrented wholesale attacks. Keep a civil tongue in your head, and stop trying to pick fights with people over unbelievable accusations. You have disrupted this project enough; indeed you have caused enough hurt feelings and ill will and spread enough general hostility around to have hit even my "enough" meter. Be done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Firefly, your theories are interesting but you suply no proof and i am unwilling to let my talk page be used as the launching pad for your accusations, unless you back them up with Checkuser statistics. KillerChihuahua, your imperatives and directives are equally unwelcome on my talk page. I will leave what both of you wrote here as a testimony to the tensions rippling through Wikipedia. These tensions are real, and in many ways are more central to the current culture of Wikipedia than the quantity or quality of text that is accruing. This is a social experiement as well as an intellectual research project, and in posts like the two of you have made, we can take a reading on the current sociability level of the work in progress. As for me, i am currently wondering what it would take to build some nice, neutral bots to run the whole thing. Catherineyronwode (talk) 11:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Catherine, I appreciate your unahppiness, but this is not your home in the same sense that is usual on other sites. As an administrator, I must warn those who violate policy, and although I certainly could have posted on Firefly's talk page and linked here, I took the simpler approach and placed the warning where the transgression occured. I will try to remember your preferences and in the future will warn on the editor's talk page, and link here, when transgressions occur here. I sincerely hope that will be satisfactory, and that (knowing I tend to forget these things) you will AGF and forgive me if I forget, and simply remind me. Will that work for you? Thanks, KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello

You are my hero. Good job[14]! Thanks for your perseverance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by My dog rocky (talk • contribs) 05:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Beloved

According to User talk:Boboroshi that user has invoked the right to disappear. To avoid confusion, perhaps you should change your user page to link 'Beloved' to user:Self-ref. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Why, thank you. I had not noticed that. I shall do so! cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 10:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Your subpage

Catherine, I suggest you blank this page and request deletion. Time has passed and it appears it is not going to be reworked into a non-attack page for Rfc or any other legitimate purpose. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please keep

Hi Cat, I just caught up with your efforts and can hardly believe Hrafn has actually gor-ne. I feel it's important to keep your ANI page since it does serve a purpose and is a document in itself. My eyes popped to see the extent of Hrafn's efforts (since I am probably not allowed to call it "mania") and I felt somehow helped by finding it wasn't just my editing efforts that were systematically trashed. I didn't get much help from Madman all in all – after pointing to someone I had a bad experience with earlier who was a guard dog for a particular guru article – I had no oomph left for another aggressive type who liked stalking as well. I will have to read your records in chunks cause I lost track of the saga back there. Please accept hero status for your superhuman perseverance and for giving the pedia a breath of fresher air. Good work, Julia Rossi (talk) 09:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. Verbal chat 11:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. I apologise unreservedly for this slip in my own morale and hereby strike out the offending text. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Essay on my user page

I've read this essay. And I think these ideas of yours and you yourself are pretty amazing Catherine. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Cat, you're a kindred spirit. I've been busy of late and not been on WP much. I see you've been busy! Don't give up the fight, carry on undaunted, conquer the evil with the good! DannyMuse (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a shout from "Missouri" Kcor. Kcor53 (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn back at it.

Wow, Catherine. All I can say is, WOW. I can sympathize with the challenge you have had trying to deal with Hrafn.

I have not experienced a person like Hrafn on Wikipedia up until now. His antics on Strengths and weaknesses of evolution are astounding. He apparently thinks HE makes the rules and is the sole arbiter of what is and is not allowed on Wikipedia. His latest: Evolution is the only valid science, therefore anything which questions it cannot be mentioned on Wikipedia, and any statement that ven hints at neutrality on the subject can be deleted on sight. dave souza is of course right there as his attack dog, defending his actions tooth and nail. WOW. WOW and WOW. And, I am not a Creationist, I will have you know. I believe in the science of evolution 100%. But I am not a fascist who thinks that all others must be censored if they don't agree with me. This kind of arrogance - which is apparently Wikipwdia policy - is astounding.24.21.105.252 (talk) 20:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

WOW. WOW and WOW sounds barking mad, in my opinion. </joke> More to the point, Wikipedia core policies require verification of claims, and exclude original research. This IP has repeatedly failed to respond to polite requests, and the misrepresentation above amounts to a personal attack. An early improvement in behaviour is overdue. . dave souza, talk 20:41, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, look. There's hrafn's attack dog now. </joke> 24.21.105.252 (talk) 21:11, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the talk pages at Strengths and weaknesses of evolution and there would appear to me to be a legitimate cause for a complaint about Hrafn's behavior. I tried to get the two sides cooperating, but Hrafn appears to be entrenched and in a "repel all boarders" mentality which regards any slight disagreement as something to be viciously attacked. There is more than enough cause for a major WP:Ownership question regarding Hrafn and that article. I am not going to make the complaint, however. If someone wants to make the complaint, I will second it. After a good faith and civil try at making peace over there, all I got was my head chewed off. The hostility and obstructionism is over the top. Good Luck. 72.11.124.226 (talk) 01:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

These are personal attacks. Retract them now. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume that you are addressing 24.21.105.252, and you just put your comment under mine as the next comment in the thread. (Because suggesting a user's behavior is worthy of review is not a personal attack). Thanks. 72.11.124.226 (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What's all this about "a "repel all boarders" mentality which regards any slight disagreement as something to be viciously attacked" – you seem to regard any straightforward response to unsourced ramblings which contravene WP:TALK as "hostility and obstructionism [which] is over the top". If you want to make such assertions, check out the earlier discussion and note how the IP concerned was repeatedly and politely asked to provide sources for the arguments that the IP introduced into the article as original research. While I'm sure you've tried in good faith to welcome the IP and encourage properly sourced discussion, you must also assume good faith in those trying straightforwardly to educate a persistent IP on essential policy requirements. . dave souza, talk 09:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh fun. Dave Souza and Orange Marlin are holding a mad tea party on my talk page. Catherineyronwode (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please refactor your personal attack right now. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Patrolling my talk page to make attacks againt the otherwise unknown people who happen to leave comments for me is evidence of a disfiguring social obsession. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, of my 25,000 edits (give or take), my 10 or so edits here is certainly an obsession. Now, please refactor your second personal attack. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 03:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

No. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 03:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Catherine, may I suggest unless there is some compelling reason to leaving it here that either blanking this section or enclosing it in {{hat}} ... {{hab}} tags might be a strong step in keeping the peace? --B (talk) 04:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Archiving. Catherineyronwode (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Catherine, it seems that you are not around right now, and the argument is over anyhow, but here is a link [15] to a recent discussion on WP:Wikiquette alerts. I am not sure that the link will still work after the discussion goes into the archives. Hope all is well. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)