User talk:Sunciviclee/Archive 1

Question

Regarding your request for an unblock Sunciviclee—you have no connection to the accounts User:Downtownvanman or User:Srob88? You can be honest because the IP addresses can be checked. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

NO. I am a reporter working on a story about the editing wars taking place on several B.C. politicians' sites. I don't know ANY of these users. I am easily identifiable by my handle online. What I can be accused of is not understanding how to use wikipedia editing very well. But hey, give me a chance and that'll change!

• I have unblocked you. I apologize: I assumed you were connected to the two other editors, who were doing things they should not have, such as "outing" a user on WP. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a good lesson for a newbie on how to be careful what is written on wikipedia.

• My fault. By the way, you can just type responses when you edit, you don't make them into categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:10, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Mailed you

To make things easier for you, I've sent you an email; if you'd looked at my userpage, at left, there's an "email this user" link.....not all users have those e.g. Good Ol'factory doesn't.Skookum1 (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Welcome

Thanks for participating Mr. Lee. Wikipedia can most certainly benefit from experienced writers who rely on facts. Hope the politician bio isn't the only article you are interested in. Canuckle (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. No, politician bios aren't my only interest. I'm a stickler for details, and I have a lot of varied interests. I don't have any political vested interests - I am not a member of any political party and the worst that I can be accused of is being a member of the B.C. Honey Producer's Association (!)

As I become more familiar and comfortable with wiki editing I will contribute more. Sunciviclee (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Given what's been going on lately, I just wanted to fill you in a bit more about how Wikipedia works — because this whole affair quite clearly illustrates one of the core challenges of the project.

The reality is that almost every time any politician of any political ideology gets involved in a media controversy, their article gets swarmed by opposing partisans who demand that our article portray the situation in the most unflattering light possible; for other examples, you can look at the edit histories and talk pages of Rob Ford, Adam Giambrone, Michael Bryant and Anthony Weiner. In fact, it almost always becomes necessary for the article to then get locked down so that regular and anonymous editors can't touch it at all, and more experienced administrators can then sort out the mess to determine what's appropriate and what isn't. (I've actually been involved in some situations that would literally blow your mind off its hinges at just how frustrating and crazymaking the process of maintaining WP:NPOV can be on here.) So all of this may look bad to an outsider, but in reality it's just been the Wikipedia process working exactly the way it's supposed to.

What I will say about Skookum1 is that I've never known him to be a particularly biased or agenda-oriented editor. He does admittedly have a tendency, when engaging in debate or discussion about his or other people's edits, to lapse into an angry, rambling tone that doesn't always communicate his side of the argument as effectively as it could be, but — and I say this as someone who's actually gotten into a few spats with him over the years — I've never, not even once, seen him do anything I could honestly characterize as a violation of Wikipedia policy or a bias issue. His writing tone when he's explaining himself can certainly be off-putting sometimes — but he was entirely correct in characterizing the initial edits as an WP:NPOV violation whose tone and presentation needed to be significantly reviewed and revised, and it is the correct process on Wikipedia that disputed or non-neutral information is removed from an article pending resolution of the dispute.

The real problem here was the initial edits that added the memo controversy in the first place; while the incident should certainly be acknowledged on here in a neutral and objective manner, the form in which the initial contributor presented it was inappropriate, Skookum1 was correct in flagging it as such, and you were not correct in singling him out as the source of the problem the way you did in your article. (Frankly, as far as I'm concerned you actually owe him a grovelling apology for that article, because it was almost completely wrong about both his actions and the situation, but I obviously have no power to force you to do that. I do have the power to block your editing privileges if you make similar accusations about him on here, so I'd strongly advise you to keep that in mind — but when it comes to the article itself all I can really do is ask you to consider that you presented the situation inaccurately and should probably print a followup correction of some kind.)

The problem on Wikipedia, as in so many other places (including the newspaper industry, as you're well aware), is that many people define "objectivity" as anything that agrees with their own view of the matter, even if their own view is actually deeply biased — and thus accuse other people (journalists, Wikipedia editors, etc.) of bias if they don't precisely replicate the same viewpoint, without regard to whether those accused are actually being biased or objective. Skookum1 may not have communicated his position as effectively as he could have, but he was entirely correct in assessing the initial presentation as inappropriately biased, and the accusations that he was acting in a biased manner were entirely offside. The article now includes the information in a much more neutral and objective way, and Skookum1 explicitly stated that he was in favour of including it in a more neutral and objective way right from the very beginning of this whole affair — but the source of the problem was the editors who were presenting it in a biased manner in the first place, not Skookum1 or anybody else "whitewashing" anything, and the resolution was not a matter of anybody "overruling" Skookum, but of the Wikipedia process working exactly the way it's supposed to when something like this blows up.

We do, in fact, have an ongoing problem with partisan editors "whitewashing" biographies of politicians to scrub even the most neutral acknowledgement of any controversies, and/or "blackwashing" their opponents to play up any controversy into The Arrival of the Antichrist — but that's a universal problem that hits politicians all over the world, and all the way across the political spectrum from the far left to the far right. It's been seen to hit BC NDPers and BC Liberals, federal Conservatives and Liberals and NDPers and Bloquistes, Republicans and Democrats in the United States, Conservatives and Labour in the UK, and on and so forth. It's a universal problem maintaining NPOV on here, not a BC-specific one, but again what happened in this case is exactly what's supposed to happen. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Bearcat, thanks for taking the time to explain things the way you see them, and for giving me a gentle prod to understand better how Wikipedia works. It is helpful to understand that Wikipedia is, indeed, aware of the challenges of its project.

You should know a couple of things about me: I didn't register on WP just for this story. I actually joined in March after I saw some minor errors on an unrelated story and felt the need to correct them. I also added information to another page that was lacking that data. I expect that is how Wikipedia gains many new contributors. I plan to continue to do that, and to offer up entries and pages on things that may meet Wikipedia's listing criteria. It is, for me, a learning process. Unfortunately, this Adrian Dix thing came up shortly after I joined and I am having to learn through a crash course where what I do and say is viewed through an entirely different lens.

Among your first edits you marked "minor edit" (m) for major changes, including this one on the main BCNDP article which has since been reverted as uncited (what's there can be cited from Terminal City which was actually on-site, I'll ask them for the dates of their coverage/articles, they may be on the T'speten Defenders site). Then you also added to that article with material about Pilarinos, which of course belongs on the Casinogate article once it's written.......Skookum1 (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

One of the things I have become aware of in the course of doing these articles is that Wikipedia is defined by a different set of criteria than what most of us are used to. Let me give you an example. I've been a journalist for more than 35 years. I have written for weeklies, dailies and magazines. I operate under a very defined set of journalistic principles. I am a member of no political party. I don't treat the people I cover differently depending on their political persuasion. I don't run for office (although, after all these years I broke down and became a representative for a beekeeping organization, which I don't think qualifies for getting thrown out of my profession on my ear.) In short, I try to be as neutral as I possibly can be within the context that everyone has a personal opinion about something. I do, however, have a lack of patience for people who go off half-cocked about my profession and industry without having taken the time to understand it.

There is no question, and you won't see me defend them here, that newspaper owners have their own objectives. They're principally business people who provide a forum for news to be reported and that service is paid for through advertising.

But the two sides are historically separated. We don't have the advertising department tell us we shouldn't run a story because it will affect their ability to sell display advertising, and they don't let their client relationships be affected by what we write. The publisher doesn't come down to me and say "Jeff, you're not to write that story because it doesn't meet my political views."

We employ editors whose job it is to, in a professional and egalitarian manner, ensure that what is written is fair and balanced. It is a noble calling, and it requires our staff to check their personal views at the door. We are all expected to keep our opinions out of our stories and to guard against casting unfairly while at the same time being willing to write things most people would be afraid to put into print. ("Hey, don't use my name but have I got a story to tell you.") And try to be as accurate as we can be given enormously challenging deadines and lack of resources in a very fluid industry.

So, when I see Wikipedia editors using partisan language to describe why they have removed important points of fact - and then not fixing the problem by adding in the appropriate NPOV language, which would counter the sting of such action, I could rightly be accused of thinking there is a bias at play.

When I see Wikipedia editors accusing "mainstream" journalists of bias because, naturally, they must be biased because their papers' owners have different views from what they like, I see uninformed people with an axe to grind.

While I am choosing not to name the editor we've been talking about - in deference to your point about singling people out - I am disturbed by the constant attacks on the credibility of journalists who try very hard to abide by rigorous journalistic principles.

It is easy to criticize us for not doing stories that people think should be told, not knowing the fact that we are challenged daily in trying to get as many facts as we can in so short a time. There isn't a journalist I know in my newsroom who wants to ignore an important public service story, and the BC Rail scandal and Casinogate were cases in point. We are not gods, however, and we can't always get all of the story.

So it is entirely offensive for people to suggest that journalists at large newspapers are somehow "bought" or that we shill for one political party or another. Especially when people then hold up a clearly biased source of material as their main citation, and ignore other sources that offer different information.

The internal discussion on Wikipedia about how to verify that Adrian Dix was actually born on April 20 and not April 26 illustrates part of what I am talking about. There was this exchange that argued that my story, in which Dix himself noted his correct birthday, was not a good enough citation because it was coming from a supposedly self-published source. Good lord, Bearcat, it came from the owner of the birth date. If a birth date citation is going to provoke that kind of hand-wringing, what about when someone uses loaded language inside of a talk page to describe why one mainstream source should never be used because it is owned by people the editor disagrees with?

I think it is entirely appropriate and laudable that Wikipedia stick to NPOV. It would appear, however, that even that concept is subject to constant POV commentary. Who is the arbiter? How to you prevent NPOV from becoming used as a weapon or a tool in "whitewashing" or "blackwashing" by those who claim to stand on the right side of some god?

I appreciate the time you put into your comment, and you have given me a lot to think about. I will continue to contribute to Wikipedia.Sunciviclee (talk) 08:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Then you should know to apologize to a fellow editor whom you have wronged in public and also here. And have a retraction printed in your paper about me being a censor/sanitizer and the claim that the POV material was "restored", which it wasn't. And especially for your false claim that I was put on the COI noticeboard, which never happened. What's in the water cooler at the Sun anyway? And there's also a rule around, or a wikiquette principle, not to take things to the press and also not to "out" someone; yes I "outed" myself but that's MINE to do, not yours. Fine if it had been in neutral terms and fair coverage, I suppose, but yours wasn't (and isn't) fair coverage and your misrepresented me grossly, even as you have wheedled above while avoiding naming me so as to avoid Bearcat's note that he will block you if you continue to attack and defame here in Wikipedia. Your track record here, and in print, makes a mockery of your posturing about being a "neutral" reporter and a "reliable source".....Skookum1 (talk) 09:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

And after 35 years as a reporter, how can you be so naive (or disingenuous) to claim that your paper and its team of "journalists" are not biased? I can think of a dozen good reporters who refuse to work there, or were fired for not doing what an editor wanted, and there's several articles out there by them about their experiences with that paper, and other Canwest papers and networks (one wag for whom bragged that there were no "liberal" reporters left west of the Great Lakes, bragging about having gotten rid of them). Skookum1 (talk) 09:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW Bearcat, that's all; I'm just aghast at hearing him rationalize the distortions and the false COI noticeboard claim, with no tone of apology or retraction whatsoever. I'll butt out now, but this matter should be reviewed by the adminship for sure.Skookum1 (talk) 09:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it was only a single editor who argued that Dix's own statement about his birthdate was an ineligible "self-published source" — there's no policy mandating that, and that editor was definitely wrong anyway as Wikipedia does allow a person's own statements to be used as sourcing for basic biographical details like their date and place of birth. But that's one of the challenges on here — not everybody understands the rules in the same way.

Also, just for the record, the original wrong birthdate was sourced to a post on the BC NDP's website for an "Adrian's Birthday Party" membership event last year, which was held on the 26th — obviously the fly in the ointment was the assumption that the event was necessarily happening on his birthday, rather than on a suitable and venue-available date near his birthday, but it does demonstrate why we get stuff wrong here sometimes: we had no source at all for any birthdate for him before that post was cited, and no way to even learn that the first source was wrong until he told you so. So the reason we had it wrong is because the information wasn't even out there on the public record until he put it there by talking to you.

At least in principle, working on here is very much like journalism — because editors on here are certainly supposed to "in a professional and egalitarian manner, ensure that what is written is fair and balanced" and "to check their personal views at the door". The difference here isn't so much in the principle as it is in the execution: because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anybody can edit, unfortunately we can't always ensure that all edits are necessarily always being performed by "anybody" who actually understands and respects and follows those values. Politicians' articles are routinely both "whitewashed" by their supporters and "dirtwashed" by their opponents (there's even one Canadian politician whose article has had to be permanently editprotected, because one person has waged a perennial war, six years long to date and still going, of smearing it with some of the most outrageously OTT libel you've ever heard in your life); people routinely edit Justin Bieber's article to assert that he's actually a girl named Justine Beaver and/or that he's a gay eunuch; I actually had to editprotect Rahim Jaffer's article last year from being used as a platform for an extended argument about whether Ismailis (not just Jaffer himself, but all Ismailis worldwide) are real Muslims or not; we routinely have to revert people who randomly overwrite articles about notable encyclopedic topics with their own résumés or statements about how much they love pie or Kaley Cuoco's rack or other such piffle.

Imagine, if you will that instead of just having people pull you aside to try to sell you on a dubious or not newsworthy or ideologically torqued or completely nonsensical story lead, every one of those "Hey, don't use my name but have I got a story to tell you" people could just directly access the paper's website and publish their story themselves under the Sun's imprimatur — that's the real difference between journalism and Wikipedia. And trust me, even as one of the most active contributors to Wikipedia I think that's a major flaw of the project which I am not happy with — because instead of just being able to contribute to Wikipedia, editors like me who have more experience and more journalistic sense frequently end up having to mediate between competing versions of an article to arrive at a properly neutral and balanced result (and even then we still sometimes get backlash from biased editors for not favouring their particular bias.) But again, our basic values and principles aren't that different from yours as a journalist — it's just that because the project is structured differently, we end up having to use a very different process to get there. Bearcat (talk) 07:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Bearcat, thank you again for your comments, and for your explanation of some of the challenges Wikipedia faces. One thing has become clear as a result of my doing that story: the project is populated and governed by a lot of people who have its best interests at heart. That's reassuring when I see actions that I, after a long career as a journalist, interpret to be bias in a place that should have no bias.

You are right about the difference between "real journalism" and Wikipedia is how material is researched and published. We don't have people with vested interests publishing their own screed under The Sun's imprimatur - at least without us labelling them as editorialists, columnists or letter-writers whose work passes through a set of editors' eyes.

But I also have come to understand that within the Wikipedia community there are some pretty savvy and fierce editors who also try hard to deal with the project's NPOV policy. I've taken this as a good lesson in also trying to contribute to the project.

I have no regrets about the story; the fact is that Dix's biography was becoming a turf war and that made it a story, especially going into an election. That it illustrated a backside of Wikipedia not a lot of people know about is also helpful.

I'm moving on from that, and I'll turn my attentions as a Wikipedia editor to other issues.

One thing you can help me with in understanding: I've read the COI rules, and I see changes that need to be made in The Sun's list of reporters and editors who are no longer there (having died or retired). But if I edit them, I expose myself to allegations I am in a conflict because I also work there.

What is the best way of making changes to that page?Sunciviclee (talk) 15:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

For a strictly factual edit such as the names of people who are or aren't working there, you're allowed to just go ahead and make the edit. Our COI rules don't mean you can never touch the article at all — they would prevent you from making major content changes without consensus, but you're still allowed to make strictly factual changes or corrections about easily verified things like who is or isn't currently on staff. However, if and when you do want to make an edit that might actually run afoul of our COI rules — or if you just want to be cautious and avoid the perception of COI even on a relatively minor edit — then your alternative would be to make a post to the talk page requesting an edit, and then somebody else will review it and either apply it or explain to you why they can't.

For the record, I'm not taking issue with the existence of your story — what I'm concerned about is the fact that you effectively smeared a guy who, even if he's not exactly endearing himself to you with all of his followup comments, wasn't actually the root of the original problem that you blamed him for — but rather he was simply trying to make a good faith attempt to fix a problem initiated by other people, in full compliance with our accepted processes for fixing a problem. Skookum1's edits might not have looked good to an outsider who isn't familiar with the Wikipedia process — but they weren't wrong within the framework of Wikipedia's actual processes, and he didn't particularly deserve to be tarred and feathered for them. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Or subjected to criminal libels as happened in the Sun comments section, and which I had to get FB to remove because the Sun's "moderators" took no action......ah yes, the Liberal/Con side of the spectrum has such class....Skookum1 (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

[post edit conflict] ::You have no regrets about falsely claiming I am/was on the COI Noticeboard? You have no regrets that your article says material was "restored" that was blocked, and doesn't explain that what is there now is new material and very pointedly NPOV as opposed to rabidly POV? You have no regrets that you not only exposed another Wikipedian you blamed a fictional "scandal" on him and misrepresented his actions even after talking to him; the upshot of your story is it gave legs to the memo issue that was what the SPAs here wanted, as well as a way to draw me out and come at me. No regrets huh? I came back to Wikipedia to get the Idle No More and Theresa Spence article purged of political meddling, and took stuff out as well as made sure other stuff was kept in; you impugn my motives, fictionalize an COI ANI about me, and blame the whole matter on me, with a second headline that says it all centres around Dix, and rewrites that make my motives and character sound suspect (to say nothing of the incredibly vulgar personal attack that came at me and which has since been reported and blocked). YOu have no regrets huh? Must have left your conscience on vacation somewhere, and your manners too........ignoring me after defaming me and publishing materials critical to another Wikipedian that isn't even CORRECT. And you have no regrets. Nice, I'm impressed. Very professional of you. You've done the work of the SPAs, still stick by your false story, and now ask to work on your own paper's article; the way you do that, as a definitely COI person, is to write that list on the talkpage and consult with other editors; or cite a source of some kind beyond yourself........you do realize that that article of yours was attempted to be inserted on the Dix article today as an extension of the memo issue, using your article as a cite and talking about it.......as a Wikipedian, no matter what you think about me, you are obliged to correct the situation as to the state of the story and the falsehoods done in it and the problems it (you) have caused. But you won't, because you have no regrets, right? Essentially you have libelled me sir, and also talked falsely about a Wikipiedia noticeboard event that never happened....unless like the SPAs your agenda is to provoke me enough so that I will be banned and silenced. It was observed to me last night that the truths I have been bringing forward about various articles and in news forums has made me, er, what's the phrase, "an enemy of the people" (a la Tides Canada and Forest Ethics) and any old slander will do......that defending truth and opposing trollery and info-thugs has brought the wrath of Con upon me....do you not see what you have done was wrong? REALLY? "I have no regrets" about slandering another editor, is what you're saying.......and misrepresenting how Wikipedia works and also the FACT that the material was NOT restored....and that I have NO Connection to Dix and am not even very impressed by his party. But I"m much less impressed by the lies and the gross insults and deceptive methods of the Liberals and their allies; your articles treated memogate as if it was the issue, instead of the introduction of American-style attack ads as the norm, which is the real issue. Now after saying I'm on the COI noticeboard when I am most expressly not, you have the gall to presume to become completely COI about the Sun's own article, while not even acknowledging that your article was false and to me in league with the POVites whose cause your article (and your editors) so clearly support. See WP:DUCKSkookum1 (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I have been trying very hard to not react to Skookum1's continual attacks on my own talk page. I have also been communicating with other editors here about the point of the article and the fact I understand the stresses and inherent difficulties Wikipedia has in trying to keep biographies of living people from becoming battlegrounds for the biased, those with agendas, the ill-informed or vandals. I am also trying hard to observe, as a new Wikipedia editor, the guidelines the project sets down (noting that it also says [Rules are Principles].) But Skookum1 continues to feel aggrieved at my reporting in the Sun of his actions, and his postings continue to be fairly over the top. He seems to be focussed on this particular paragraph in my story:

A number of users have complained about (Skookum1) to Wikipedia's conflict of interest board, and have criticized him in posts on the site. The user whose Dix notations (Skookum1) repeatedly removed tried but failed to have him banned by Wikipedia.

An earlier version of that DID say "a complaint on the COI noticeboard", can't find it now; instead of a retraction the Sun' simply appears to have removed it. Unlike Wikipedia where we can review the article history, that is not possible at the Sun. It was in the article. That you didn't understand what noticeboards are at the time of writing is beside the point; that you went looking for complaints about me (see below) at the same time as calling POV SPAs "Wikipedia users" (who were blocked for their activity and insults) is highly questionable and not a little bit like stalking.Skookum1 (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that I am a newbie and my understanding of Wikipedia's administrative policy was rudimentary when I first wrote the story, I used the term "conflict of interest board". In fact, the information I used came from the "[| administrator's board]". No other factual error was committed, and it was not done to mislead anyone. In fact, a number of users have complained about Skookum1) (see [here] and [here] and [here) and the user whose Dix notations he repeated removed tried but failed to have him banned (by Skookum1's own words) [here]. I did not include in my story the fact that Skookum1 had been [blocked] for actions and attitudes he took in the Stephen Harper conflict, but that also figured into my reporting. I do not plan or wish to carry on this debate any further, and do not intend to respond any more to his baiting. I would wish that Skookum1 carry on the editing for which he has been rightfully praised, but would also hope that he would take note of the controversies in which he has been involved and just tone down his rhetoric. If he still feels aggrieved at what was published in The Sun, he's entitled to the same recourse that every reader is: write a letter to the editor of The Sun. I have always counselled people to exercise that right, and I do so now. Sunciviclee (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Oh, gee, one of those ANIs was from a highly POV and contentious editor re the [Chinaman]] and related articles, another was from User:Donteatyellowsnow, another highly POV SPA who, as I recall, has also been blocked. The Harper article(s) controversy is an ugly incident which led to my long boycott of Wikipedia after the temporary and, to me, partisan block (many of those participating in that discussion confessed to right-wing preferences and were from Australia and Virginia and other places....supposedly). Once again, you are trying to make an issue of me instead of showing any sign of remorse or apology, and have taken time to go hunting for complaints against me; two of them from people who were blocked (User:Hong Qi Gong was, at least temporarily, don't know now; partly for his accusations and insults to me. Your defense of your partisan-biased articles and those which made my personal name and career part of the public exposure (as an actor and musician/songwriter I've kept my blogging persona separate for career reasons; my mistake for not realizing that you would turn my self-identification into the comments section of your article into targeting/blaming me

in very negative terms on the subsequent "follow-up" ("dig it deeper") articles here and here. Why didn't you do an article on the POV garbage that had to be expunged from Idle No More and Theresa Spence articles? If you were looking into my history as assiduously as you have been, you surely would have noted why I returned to Wikipedia. Scapegoating another user when you didn't understand what was going on is more than questionable; you can say I outed myself, i.e. Skookum1=Mike Cleven, but that's my business, not yours to propagate in the course of scapegoating me and painting me negatively in public (again, without remorse and now with a stalking-type review of my history here). To me your citation of two ANIs, one of them from a SPA, another from a user whose behaviour was worse than mine, is a demonstration that you're only looking for trouble/accusations and not showing any sign at all of understanding how you have violated your role as a Wikipedian. Don't demand respect of me that you don't show yourself.Skookum1 (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

By the look of other responses here, it seems you may help achieve what the SPA "users" (abusers) wanted, having me banned and silenced......you complain about my 'personal attacks' on you, but your articles in the Sun are BLATANTLY personal attacks, and your refusal to admit you were in error (while coming up with all kinds of "gee, I didn't know" rationalizations is just so much hot air. But enough hot air to get others chiming in and chastising me when it is you who have done wrong, including stalking me and dredging up ancient complaints that have no bearing on this matter, or on your conduct.Skookum1 (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I really don't know how you've kept your cool Lee with all the nonsense! This is why all our new editors are driven away...

@Bearcat: Though I respect your opinion, I really think you're being a bit hard on Lee. Have you looked closely at the history of the article? To suggest that Skookum wasn't part of the root of the problem really isn't accurate. This addition by Downtownvanman seems to me to clearly be a WP:GOODFAITH and mostly WP:NPOV description of the situation. (It's essentially just a quotation from The Province.) Skookum's response was to immediately revert, WP:PA the editor, and demand that everyone be blocked. If Sookum had problems with the phrasing of this text, the appropriate response would have been to either WP:FIXIT by rewording the sentence to address his concerns. (In fact this option was even suggested by Downtownvanman.) Given Skookum's boasts of how fast he can type, surely this would have taken no more than a couple of minutes, tops. Instead, he chose to WP:EW to keep the content out of the article entirely and turned an extremely minor issue into a weeks worth of drama. And after all that, the article essentially says the same thing today as Downtownvanman's version did. I really don't think it's fair to characterize Skookum's response as "entirely correct in characterizing the initial edits as an WP:NPOV violation" or "good faith attempt to fix a problem initiated by other people, in full compliance with our accepted processes for fixing a problem." (And Skookum's description of Downtownvanman's edits as "rabidly POV" is just plain silly.) At the very least he made the problem much worse.

Also, Skookum you really need to read WP:NLT. Please stop accusing Lee of "criminal libel" and retract these statements, or else you may well be blocked for implying legal threats. Also, demanding an apology from Lee for personal attacks, while you've been attacking him over-and-over again, really isn't the best way to resolve the dispute. It's time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this issue. TDL (talk) 19:26, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

More misrepresentation; take a look at Downtownmanvan's earlier edits, and at his highly POV and accusatory edit comments and also talkpage comments........and this isn't any personal attack, re Lee's articles, this is one where one Wikipedian took another to task in the press; Downtownmanvan was blocked by User:MastCell for good reason, and no, what's there now does not resemble the Undue weight given this incident nor is it written with such a POV tone, nor using a selective quote from the Province as if that made it OK. It's not me that's the problem here, but it seems that "somebody" wants me to be the problem so that I can be further vilified in defense of blocking the attempts to create a whole section repeating the content of the attack ad campaign; I"m fine with what's there now and have no objections to it; I do have a big issue with people trying to target me and provoke me by stonewalling on regrets and retractions, and calling my insistence on them a "personal attack" when it's personal attacks against me that were part of the POV/SPA campaign and also on Lee's article(s) which echoed/replicated their content/purpose as if they were regular Wikipedians, which they were not. Persecuting me here is just doing the dirty work for the SPAS and whoever is behind them (probably many of those who have insulted me in the Sun comments section)......but that's not surprising, since the articles presented their viewpoint and agenda, and weren't based in anything else other than trying to make something a scandal that isn't; which is the Sun's agenda; only they and the Liberal Party regard the memo incident as significant, it hasn't made a dint in the public polity whatsoever.....other than seeing hordes of trolls show up waving torches and pitchforks, including here on Wikipedia.Skookum1 (talk) 05:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

It's time for Jeff Lee to print a retraction of his defamation of me and his false claims that I am on the COI noticeboard (which IMO he should be). He says he "has no regrets" and makes no sign of an apology for his mischaracterization of me in his newspaper article, it's not in court that that apology is due, it's here in Wikipedia, to all of Wikipedia not just me, while the onus is on him to correct the matter which he so wrongly took public in the manner he did. No legal threats are implied, and it's not me who should be disciplined for defending myself. "I have no regrets" is his response about what he published....that calls into question his role and conduct here on Wikipedia BIG TIME.Skookum1 (talk) 04:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Those legal threats you impugn I'm making do not have to do with Wikipedia, they have to do with the Sun's tolerance of hate speech and defamatory libels in its comments section; I can't be bothered sueing trolls, that's not in the offing; I won't relay here what the criminal libel was, it's since been deleted by FB (Sun's comments are FB-enabled), I can email you what was said and I think you'll see what I mean by "criminal libel".........Skookum1 (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Changing the content of other editor's posts

is not a great idea, as outlined here: WP:TPO. If you find an error in another's post, simply make a post pointing it out. On another note, I strongly advise against continuing this interpersonal dispute with Skookum1 on the pages of Wikipedia. If you aren't here to edit, please don't bother logging in here at all. The Interior (Talk) 17:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks The Interior for the note. I am certainly not trying to make anything interpersonal, although I am at a loss to understand why his language in talk pages is not considered personal, and why no one seems to be calling him on that. However, your point is taken.

Perhaps, however, you can help me as a new contributor. Are you saying that editing article pages (not talk pages) is appropriate, but that if there are errors in an editor's talk commentary, one should post a note to them and not correct their grammar? This is meant as a NPOV comment, trying to navigate Wikipedia's system. It seems there is not a lot of patience for people as they learn the ropes. If editing someone's talk posts is not to be done, thank you for telling me that.

You will see that my tracking in the last while has been to add, where possible, citations for facts that require them. One of my strengths is that I do have access to published material that may not now be online but which are on the public record (ie, newspaper and magazine archives).Sunciviclee (talk) 17:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The Interior, thanks for the pointer to WP:TPO. I see what you mean. Noted and accepted. Sunciviclee (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I have almost infinite patience for helping new users who want to edit content. If that's what you want to do here, you'll have my help with whatever problems you run into. Please feel free to post to my "Talk" page (linked after my signature) whenever you're unsure of something. In regards to Skookum 1's posts, sometimes they do get too forum-y for my liking, and for others as well. He has been approached about this before. However, the fact that he is a prolific contributor of content means he gets a little leeway on this. The same will be extended to you, if you contribute content. Looking at your contribs, I see you have made some valuable additions - thank you for that. I was quite happy to see you join the community - journalists have many of the specific skills (appreciation of neutrality, research abilities, the ability to gauge source quality) we look for in editors. But many editors get pulled into talk page morasses, and start treating WP as a forum discussion site. I just wanted to warn you of that pitfall, and I apologize for the shortness of my original post. The Interior (Talk) 17:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I especially appreciate edits like these [1]; there is still loads of work to be done on BC geographical and historical content (building on a foundation largely built by user:Skookum 1, who has been beavering away at it for much longer than I) The Interior (Talk) 17:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Just to comment that the bit in the Sun article imputing that I spend my time on political articles as if "only" is such a shallow bit of research/description it's a bit demeaning; most regular Wikipedians know the breadth of my work; with BC materials it also includes huge amounts of work on {{NorthAmNative}} related materials, including indexing and creating at least stub articles for all BC FN bands and languages and working in that area, and also for WA/OR/AK/YT articles in the same field; I also have worked on world history and geography articles; to be painted as a one-trick pony by a one-trick pony when my contributions are so much vaster and to paint me (in public) as having an agenda, when you clearly have an agenda of your own (i.e. an agenda concerning me, which is to misportray me and make me some kind of scapegoat) requires an apology and a retraction, not a complaint that I'm being personal to you when you have done so much personal harm to me.Skookum1 (talk) 03:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm going to be largely offline for the next two weeks on combined vacation/work. I'll check in occasionally but for now am more inclined to pick up a beer than a pen.Sunciviclee (talk) 18:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

How is your defamation and misrepresentation of me on the Sun not personal? Or your criticisms of me here, which repeat the same lies? Time for that retraction, mister......and for you to stop stalking my work. Learn your wikiquette before messing around here much, and consider your own COI when altering citations..... and altering articles to conform to the 'official' line, as with your rewording of the passage about BCTV showing up for the raid; you took out the term "media circus" though that is very citable as a term in relation to this matter; and as for "it was never clear" about why, yes it's come out who and why.....but your paper wouldn't report on this. As with so much else. Also with your rewording of the passage on Gustafsen Lake (another place you changed a spelling within my posts, and yes, it was a misspelling but it's not for you to fix my posts. Learn the rules before you pontificate on them, and be advised that you have also been personal with me, though couched in "civil" language and avoiding my name. That you blamed me in print personally for allegedly censoring when really I was just doing my wiki-thing is also much in need of redress still. When you are here you are a Wikipedian, you are not a Sun staffer and your "duties" as a reporter are not part of the playing field here.....somewhere there's rules about journalists as wiki-editors, you should look into that, as will I......Skookum1 (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

it's about time you removed this, as you just did

Finally. I didn't pursue an WP:ANI against you for misrepresenting and outing me as you did in your various articles, or for misrepresenting Wikipedia as you did, or what was going on; you sounded just like the rabble who were trying to get me blocked so they could have their way. Better to let sleeping dogs lie, but I highly recommend you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and etiquette/conduct standards in future and keep your "journalistic" editorializing next time you write about Wikipedia (which is, um, against the rules). That the Sun allowed certain comments against me to stand, but prevented me from commenting on the scribd.com repetition of its lies is noxious to me, and a clear demonstration of why I and others do not believe the mainstream media to be "reliable sources", when they publish such drivel and then when confronted about its inaccuracies presume to "stand by it" instead of make a retraction and apologize.

That similar fly-by-night no-name "editors" were at the same time screwing with other political bios, and in the past with the Erik Bornmann and Mark Marrissen and BC Legislature Raids articles completely escaped your notice in your public efforts to crucify me and paint Wikipedia in a bad light. According to policy, if enforced, you should have been blocked completely; had I taken it to ANI you probably would have been. That the tone and content of your Sun articles aped the hysterics and distortions and accusations of those trying to POVize the Dix article was not incidental to this. I suggest strongly that if you want to work on Wikipedia, you stay away from content that is WP:COI in any way, and beware of WP:POV and more things you should read before launching into print something as noxious as you did.

Given my good-natured phone discussions with you, I would have liked to have a friendly, cooperative relationship with you and guide you as an editor; but until there is a public retraction of your "standing by" your violation of my wiki-identity and the distortions of our content and policies that you indulged in, that will be hard to do. Your removal of the 'Adrian Dix Wiki Wars' content on your userpage is a start, but an apology and retraction would go a long ways to practical cooperation in the wiki-world.Skookum1 (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1, I am sorry that after all this time you are still unhappy. I am trying hard to move on and I don't wish to engage with you. I am here to edit pages and provide assistance, and I am not interested in reopening any old debates. Sunciviclee (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)