Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/November 2006/Mugaliens

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Wikipedian filing request:

• Mugaliens (talk · contribs)

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

• JzG (talk · contribs)
• Dr1819 (talk · contribs)

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

• High-heeled shoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Skirt and dress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Questions:

Have you read the AMA FAQ?

• Answer: Yes. In fact, as a long-time admin on other boards, I'd like to become one of the AMA members. I've successfully resolved many disputes peacefully on other boards

How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)

• Answer: I believe this is partly a personal attack as JzG knows I'm an advocate of fashion freedom, as he clearly mentioned in one of his latest edits. Primarily, however, the issue appears to be that JzG is overzealous in his desire to promote just one fashion stereotype for males, and he uses his power as an admin to do so. In the past, he almost singlehandedly struck down rather good articles which covered various aspects of alternative fashion choices among men (Male Unbifurcated Garments and Men's Fashion Freedom). His comments included rather excessive and violent attacks on another member earlier this year User talk:Dr1819. Through it all, he maintains he's merely keeping peace on the board, but volumes of valid content which accurately reflect a sizeable chunk of male Western civilization has disappeared from the pages of Wikipedia under his knife and power. I supported the other user when he was reported for his poor tone and choice of words (he allowed JzG to goad him into rants). The other issue, however, it's quite obvious that JzG does goad other people, and then hammers them when they respond in anger. This is unacceptable behavior in any admin, whether they feel it's within their rights to act in this manner or not.

What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.

• Answer: I provided commentary on the High-heeled shoe talk page that his overzealous actions weren't appreciated when the content had been there in one form or another for approximately a year. His response was to flex his admin powers, demand that I prove why the content should be there (after he had inaccurately justified why it shouldn't). He end's by threatening me with the following comment: "Do not be surprised if you get whacked with a Wikitrout for describing as "vandelism" a good-faith edit by an admin..." As for his "good faith" comment, I cannot judge, as I do not know his heart. However, when valid content reflecting reality that does not violate Wiki's rules on links is removed by someone with a documented history of removing content because it does fit his personal understanding of reality, and he's obviously unwilling to discuss the issue, instead bullies others (another abuse of admin power), then it's time to request intervention.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

• Answer: If you could talk to JzG and explain to him that not everyone in our society follows a narrow fashion ideal, and that content contrary to his narrow point of view does not automatically make that a target for rip and slash deletions under the guise of "spam." People around the world dress quite differently than JzG, and he needs to learn and understand that pants and a button-down shirt are fashion norms only in Western civilation. The suculture content included in both articles is both limited and unobtrusive, but it's also heavily referenced (or at least was in the Heels article until he removed some of the references. Furthermore, a "norm" is simply the mean. It represents a wide variety of fashion choices, some more popular than others. Fashion choices among men follow a normal distribution curve (the bell curve). Apparently, JzG believe that only the choices closest to the mean, within one standard deviation (approxamately 66%) are "acceptable." Does that relegate the 33% of all fashion choices falling beyond one standard deviation of the mean "unacceptable?" Of course not. Many of his comments on Dr1819's talk page clearly indicate that he rejects fashion choices falling outside one standard deviation from the mean, and his numerous deletions of external links and supporting references further underscore the fact that he uses his admin powers to further his narrow point of view, hiding his narrow POV under the guise that it somehow breaks Wiki's rules (which I've yet to find any evidence that the original content ever did). Ok, I'll stop, as this is very frustrating.

Summary:

I have fallen into the sites of JzG because of his desire to promote a very narrow fashion norm rather than accurately portray fashion variations as they exist in the real world. My posts are being heavily monitored by him, and he's deleting my valid contributions to Wikipedia left and right because of his narrow point of view. I respectfully request intervention so that valid content accurately reflecting reality remains part of Wikipedia.

Discussion:

This is complete bollocks. Dr1819, aka mugaliens, is promoting an agenda, which he has described as "male fashion freedom". He created Male Unbifurcated Garment and added various other content in support of this agenda. This was deleted. As Dr1819 (talk · contribs) he conducted a lenghty campaign of argumentation and edit warring in support of his agenda. All attempts to apply policy re WP:NPOV and WP:NPOV#Undue weight (to say nothign of WP:V) were misrepresented as bias and bigotry. It is the same here. I removed three links from high-heeled shoe as being there predominantly to promote the sites tratehr than offer additional information or sources to the article. I remove links all the time, and it was only when I spotted yet another link to kiltmen.com that I even realised this was the same user. I do not give a toss about what he or anyone else chooses to wear, this is about Wikipedia policy and guidelines and their application. And guess what? We had precisely the same conversation last time as well. And he didn't accept it then, either. He has fallen into my sights not because of my desire to promote any kind of fashion agenda (anyone who knows me would laugh out loud at the idea of me having a fashion agenda), but because his edits violate WP:NPOV and WP:V. Guy 13:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

First, it's neither "fantasy," as JzG claims on the article's talk page, nor "complete bollocks" as he claims here. These pictures prove otherwise, beyond any rational doubt. His continual claims to the contrary simply underscore his ignorance of this reality and make him look foolish. This link is just one of the five heel meets conducted in the last three years in London, Amsterdam, and New York. Those are just the ones I'm aware of. I believe there are more, and the links can be found on that website. That he continues to claim otherwise in spite of this evidence underscores the fact that he abuses his admin authority by attempting to bully others into accepting his narrow point of view. This is most readily apparent on the talk page of the article referenced above. It's the calling of valid, resourced content, subsequent deletion, and comments like "complete bollocks" without any shred of evidence to back up such a grandiose claims that violates Wiki's WP:NPOV and WP:V rules. Then he turns around, hurtles accusations that the content itself violates WP:NPOV and WP:V rules. This is the very definition of a "double-minded man." JzG has a very sordid history of deleting valid content, including excellent references, simply because it doesn't conform to his narrow point of view with respect to men's fashion. Two other admins did much the same, but backed off when appropriate references were provided. JzG revisited the issue and deleted both the content AND the references, apparently without taking the time to view the references, as had the other admins. He's not interested in educating himself as to what reality is, but instead blindly slashes content that falls outside his narrow point of view. He slanders and bullies editors who disagree with him, and is apparently confused about who I am (Mugaliens, not Dr1819). Furthermore, he's attempting to use his confusion to discredit me. As for his reference to kiltman.org, the "original "Bravehearts Against Trouser Tyranny" page was visited 41,865 times between April 17, 2000, and August 31, 2002" according to the counter on the website. Since then, I'm sure the number of visits is in the hundreds of thousands, if not beyond a million, as the trend has grown to the point where I see other men in a skirt at least once a month, and the number of companies catering to this trend has grown from a handful in 2002 to well over one hundred. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that just because I posted a link which is the same as another member who shared similar interests doesn't mean that I am that member. I am not, yet have conversed with Dr1819 on several occasions outside this forum. In addition, when JzG sets his sites on someone (as he clearly stated he's doing in the paragraph immediately preceeding), he goes after them like a bad cop. This behavior is totally unacceptable for an admin, which should concentrate on the truthfulness of the content, not on deleting valid content to further their own beliefs. I've tried reasoning with JzG, but he's apparently unable to realize the nature of his actions, and remains rabidly fixated that he's somehow justified in his horrid actions. Admins absolutely MUST remain objective yet JzG has failed miserably in this respect on these and similar issues. He ran Dr1819 off the board earlier this year, although Dr1819 had posted some very good, substantiated content and was a valuable Wikipedia contributor in other, non-related areas. Dr1819, however, was unable to keep a cool head, allowing JzG and others to goad him into hot-headed retorts, as I described in his request for arbitration, along with an encouragement for him to refrain from doing so. In fact, I joined Wikipedia because of some of Dr1819's posts on a fashion-related board. Mugaliens 16:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Bottem Line: Wikipedia Policy and Guidelines both allows and desires valid content. Content which reflects reality, as proven by the pics linked above, is valid, and all of JzG's claims to the contrary will never overcome reality nor the links I've provided herein which pictorially prove his claims that it's "fantasy" and "completely bollocks" are totally without merit. The inclusion of links to websites which host numerous, non-commercial resources dealing specifically with the topic at hand are absolutely essential to good Wikipedia content. JzG's deletion of these resources absolutely underscores his severe personal biases. The time to check his powers so that Wikipedia content can continue to improve, objectively, as a reflection of reality instead of his personal bias, is long overdue. The rampant deletion of valid content by anyone, particularly an admin, is totally unacceptable. JzG's attempts at abusing his power as an admin to bully others into submission is grounds for revoking his admin status. Mugaliens 16:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

In addition, JzG, I hope you understand I am not attacking you personally. However, I take very strong objection to the slander you've posted against me and your unsubstantiated claims that valid, pictorially-proven content is somehow "fantasy" when you apparently refused to follow the links which clearly demonstrated otherwise. I really am sorry, as I am by no means after you in any personal way. It's your actions and comments, which directly contradict substantiated evidence to the contrary, which call your judgement as an admin into serious question. I'm sorry if you don't like this, but thankfully, that's why organizations such as Wikipedia have these means for a redress of grievances by third parties. Mugaliens 17:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Clearly your understanding of no original research is as hazy as your understanding of neutral point of view and the link guidelines, despite them all having explained to you in great detail before now. Your relentless determination to interpret this as being about the wearing of heels by men in RL, rather than the stated reason (removal of inappropriate links, removing soapboxing) is a worrying sign. ( Guy 22:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into an arguement with you, so I hope you don't take it this way. However, I have read the links, and studied other examples of some Very Good Articles. From what I read in Wiki's guidelines and the examples, I'm doing it right. So when you say it's wrong, post the links to no original research, neutral point of view, link guidelines, but without being more specific, or citing the actual rule I'm breaking, I become concerned. When I review the guidelines, thoroughly, and can find nothing in them which has been transgressed, I become suspicious as to whether or not you have ulterior motives, particularly after two other admins with whom I was collaborating on the heels and skirts articles and I came to a consensus as to the content before you revisited them. When you insult my integrity and intelligence with comments like "is a worrying sign," of course I find that offensive and just plain rude, and I doubt there's a single editor here who wouldn't find it rude if you made comments of this nature to them. Back to the issue at hand, I've read and re-read the no original research, neutral point of view, link guidelines guidelines several times, and your accusations seem to be without merit. If you could please refrain from attacking me, bullying me, and insulting me, and just provide chapter and verse from those resources where you believe I've erred, I think that approach would be much more constructive. Would you please do that and refrain from the insults? Thank you. Mugaliens 16:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You already are in an argument with me. Nor am I the only one opposing the links and original research you are promoting. Guy 15:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You go right ahead and argue your heart out, Guy. I hope it makes you feel better, somehow, as you certainly seem to love uncooperative and uncollaborative activities rather than working together towards a common good. That sort of behavior doesn't help anyone, including yourself, or any thing. Please think about that, and how others perceive you, what kind of mark you're leaving on the world, what people will remember you for. I've stated my case and it stands as is, so if you want to argue, go ahead, but you'll be doing it alone while I spend my time in more productive endeavors. I've attempted to cooperate with you, engage you in reasonable discussion about the issues, which you're neither stated clearly, nor supported by answering my requests for additional information. Instead, you resorted to taunts, insults, and other attempts to goad me. If you love arguing so much, why don't you go join one of the many forums which are designed to support that instead of polluting Wikipedia? I am a patient man, but I have standards, too, and I'll tolerate your abuse no more. Good-bye. Mugaliens 18:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: I added Skirt and dress to the websites, as well, as Guy is apparently following me around and engaging in his slash and dash tactics, throwing around false accusations (such as his erroneous use of the term "neologism" with respect to the term "unbifurcated," despite the fact that this term is in wide use throughout the male skirt and kilt industries.

Links supporting this widespread use and countering the groundless claim that it's neologism:

• Wikipedia's entry
• New York Times article on Male Unbifurcated Garments (MUGs)
• New York Times article on MUGs
• TheOneRing, a JR Tolken website, on MUGs
• of Draped Clothes Newsletter (UK site)
• Age (Australian site)
• Life's website
• of the term MUG
• by a store in Salt Lake City, Utah (USA)

Lots of links, lots of different websites, lots of different authors, lots of different countries. Evidence of widespread use, not neologism.

Others and I have posted links like these before on pages where I've defended the use of this well-used term, but they usually disappear in someone's attempt at furthering what appears to be a personal NPOV vendetta against either the term or the poster. I'm well aware that admins have the permissions to delete content in a way that prevents a history track. That the terms "unbifurcated" and "male unbifurcated garment" and it's acronym, MUG, has been found throughout several continants, on all forms of printed, auditory, and audio-visual media by major publishing companies (such as The New York Times), clothing manufacturers, retailers, and the many blogs of those who wear them absolutely negates any claim of neologism. Yet the rapid, deliberate ignoring of this evidence and the attempts to claim these terms are still neologistic, the stalking-like page-following behavior, the slash and burn of content which has withstood six months to a year of existence on several pages with the support or other admins (such as Zora, who did a wonderful job collaborating with me on the male wear of skirt section) who regularly police the skirt article - all these behaviors raise some serious concerns as to whether or not the admin in question requires intervention, monitoring, censure, or other formal oversight to curb these undesirable and abusive behaviors as clearly seen in his own comments here, on my talk page, and on other requests for assistance and requests for arbitration involving these same subjects. Mugaliens 18:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

As before: much arm-waving, but nothing approaching a reliable source. Which is, of course, why we deleted the articles on the minor neologism "male unbifurcated garment" and "fashion freedom". The fact that some men wear kilts, including modern styles, and the Gaultier skirts, are already mentioned and given coverage proportionate to their significance. Anyone would think you were insecure about your fashion choice... Guy (Help!) 00:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, just my two cents. I've also had contact with Mugaliens (talk · contribs) a.k.a. Dr1819 (talk · contribs) in the same context as JzG and can generally confirm JzG's account and arguments. In fact, I just now notice he seems to have brought an arbitration case against me at some point when the AfDs about his neologisms were going on. The request, of which I was of course not notified, was then apparently ignored and eventually deleted. How amusing. Kudos to JzG for expending the energy to keep a watch on these skirted shenanigans. Sandstein 19:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The only arm-waving and unsubstantiated comments is coming from you two, and I will, here and now, clearly and unambiguously back up my claims with links to your comments and logical fallacies. Moreover, I will refrain from the personal attacks and logical fallacies committed by either of you. - Mugs 17:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

First, neither of you have provided any justification, proof, etc. for your comments. Evidence includes the two paragraphs immediately preceeding. You simply repeat your comments, unsubstantiated, and when I respond with your request to post substantiating information to my own comments, instead of refuting the evidence itself, you employ numerous logical fallacies in your attempts to diminish the evidence. First, you associate me with another member of this board. This logical fallacy is called a genetic fallacy. Dr1819 was a hothead, a point I made on his RfC page several weeks after I registered. I was nicer to him on his talk page. Second, you claim, again without any substantiation or justification whatsoever, that my substantiation is worthless. That's a generalization, an appeal, and is in itself, utterly worthless. When that fails, you employ to force, dropping not so subtle hints about your admin status and what you will do with those who disagree with you. You did this both to Dr1819 on his talk page, and to a much lesser extent, on my own [User talk:Mugaliens|talk] page. Similarly, to tradition don't work, either. Comments such as "men in the Western world don't wear skirts" fails the moment two or more pictures are referenced showing men in the western world wearing skirts. It may be a tradition that, in general, we don't wear skirts. However, one cannot overgeneralize and imply that no men in the West wears skirts. - Mugs 17:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Mainly, however, you skirt the issue (pardon the pun) by ignoring the evidence itself and throwing around terms like "arm-waiving," "neologism" like you were extras in a pie-throwing contest. Again, neither of you back up those sweeping generalizations with any sort of evidence or logical discourse to the contrary. Apparently, both of you believe that just by saying it somehow makes you right, while I'm constantly receiving e-mail from others who follow this on other boards who see right through this approach. When that doesn't work, you both resort to personal, ad hominem attacks with your use of terms like "shenanigans" and "insecure." Failing that, you resort to theto popularity approach, citing "googlehits" or the lack thereof, which is also a logical fallacy. Both of you, as does everyone else, here, know full well the prevalence of many ong-standing Wikipedia articles that would be hard-pressed to achieve 100 Google hits. Additionally, from ignorance have been flooding these issues on Wikipedia, most notably Zora's edit on Skirts in which she claimed, "There is NO evidence" for what I posted. I can't help that she's unaware of the evidence. So, in response to her comment, I posted links to that evidence, namely, the news articles which specifically mentioned and described in great detail what I'd mentioned in the skirt article, thereby countering her claim. Saying "that's not true!" is never a substantive arguement. It never will be, as providing just one piece of evidence negates it, as I've done so on numerous occasions with numerous others here who believed otherwise. - Mugs 17:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Most people understand this, and when presented with the evidence, they either agree, or at the very least, leave things alone. Sandstein, while I applaud your support for your comrade, I don't think we have any beef between us. It's Guy who's done all the slash and burning, undermined my character, and committed countless illogical attempts to bully his way through these issues. Zora has never engaged in these fallacies of logic. I believe her only issue is that she believes because she's never encountered it, that it doesn't exist. Please understand this as I proceed, as I'm merely defending the accusations hurled at me. I am an adult and will refrain from any personal attacks or committing the fallacious logic I've witnessed and described in abundance to date. - Mugs 17:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

As for my being Dr1819, apparently, both you and Guy hold the same mistaken belief that having similar interests renders two separate individuals one and the same. One of my roomates in college (see my talk page) shared our enjoyment of kilts, Bible, Fellowship of Christian Atheletes, ultimate frisbee and flying. We even liked the same kind of music. He too was an engineer, and we even has the same address - imagine that, roommates having the same address and similar interestes... Hmmm... We MUST have been the same person! Rubbish. Or as Guy is fond of saying, bollocks. It's common knowledge that people with similar interests flock together, and nothing has made this more prevalent than the Internet. It was because of dr1819's posts on other websites that I found the sections here in the first place. Fathom that. Using your line of reasoning, because both Sandstein and Guy hold the same rabid anti-MUG mentality and commit the same logical fallacies, I could conclude that they're one and the same, as well. Besides that, I note that both of you are interested in bicycling, work in information technology, and are both Wiki admins. Hmmm... You MUST be the same person! Not so fast - let's look at the differences. You live in different countries. Whereas one works primarily in IT, the other works primarily in Law. One's a lieutenant in the Swiss Army, while the other provides no evidence of ever having been in the military, and resides in the UK. The biggest difference is that Guy's [User talk:JzG|talk] page is horrendously polluted with people who strongly disagree with his slash and burn techniqes. Furthermore, given his voluminous posts, edits, responses, and involvement with Wikipedia, it's become apparent that Guy has no time for a job, that Wikipedia consumes all his time. Sandstein, I get the impression you're a *bit* more laid back than Guy. - Mugs 17:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

In conclusion, my fight is with neither of you. My only contention is against illogical and unsubstantiated attempts made by anyone remold reality into their own image by abusing or negating information, sound reasoning, and logical discourse. People do this all the time, but there are those of us who fight against it. I really hate to see it here on Wikipedia. The good news is that out of hundreds of thousands of editors, only one has rapidly attacked my content, only one more has supported him, and only a third has disagreed with my posts. - Mugs 17:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I find that rather telling, folks, that this really isn't about the truth, but about what some people want to suppress. I saw the same phenomena with respect to men wearing earrings on bulletin boards in the late 80s, but the practice is rather ubiquitous, now. It's a little difficult to argue that it's neither right nor prevalent when so many people are doing it. The fact is, far more men are wearing unbifurcated clothing than Guy or possibly Sandstein are willing to admit, and rather than examine the facts, they resort to illogical arguements. That's just wrong, and is a gross waste of my time. So, rather that waste any further time, I'm off to continue writing clear, accurate, and substantiated content as a contribution to Wikispace. - Mugs 17:58, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right enough that it's not about the truth - the truth that your neologism has strictly limited currency and was removed by consensus does not seem to have impinged on your consciousness at all. As has been pointed out to you many times, this is not about your absurd allegations of bias and suppression of information that for some reaosn we're not supposed to like, it's about your tendentious editing. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Quite a sharp departure from your previous statement, namely, "Dr1819... ...is promoting an agenda, which he has described as "male fashion freedom"." Naturally, you're still wrong on both accounts. What edits I do, I do in good faith, complete with references. I've addressed the Dr1819 issue before, and your allegations otherwise remain totally unsubstantiated. I know you really can't accept this, but it's your own actions, Guy, you calling valid references "inconsequential" which underscores your own personal bias and narrow point of view. They're not my allegations at all, but rather the conclusions any reasonable, rational individual would reach after reading your diatribe. But please - do tell more, as you're simply helping me hammer my points home. - Mugs 12:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again you assert bias in others while steadfastly refusing to acknowledge bias in yourself. One of us is a single-issue editor, the other is not. Where does that suggest the bias is more likely to lie? Guy (Help!) 12:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Input from Bishonen

I too have experience of Mugaliens' technique of attrition by changing the subject from when he was a newbie (at least, I thought he was, not knowing about Dr1819); it wore me out rather quickly. As can be seen in the early history of Mugaliens' talkpage, I started by trying to get him to stop attacking Sandstein, the user who welcomed him to Wikipedia and who a matter of hours later was the subject of his request for arbitration. (Hello, Mugaliens, I can't believe you still think Sandstein is an admin! That really takes me back. [1]) The Clueless Aggressive Newbie Syndrome, CANS, from which Mugaliens greeted me in August[2] is a well-known and much-tolerated phenomenon on Wikipedia, but I feel quite frustrated to see it perpetuated far beyond newbiedom in Mugaliens' debating technique on this page, where he unleashes a flurry of unspecific personal attacks in preference to addressing anything to do with editing actual articles, undue weight, original research, reliable sources, or other such encyclopedic matters. Congratulations to Guy for coolly putting up with the "overzealous", the "slander", "bully", "rip and slash deletion", "sordid history", "rabid fixation", "personal bias", "rampant deletion" and generally overpowering suspiciousness (of low but unspecified motives) and assumption of bad faith still emanating from Mugaliens. It seems to me that a mentor with some clout might possibly help: somebody who can bring Mugaliens to face that this conflict isn't about everybody being biased in favor of the trousers and button-down shirt, or whether or not there are pictures of men wearing skirts on the Internet, but about the amount of weight male skirtwearing is to be given in Wikipedia articles. It sounds simple, but apparently is not. Bishonen | talk 16:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC).

Huh? You make a lot of accusations and insinuations, here, with no examples whatsoever. It's a straw man arguement from the start. You're apparently both as biased as Guy and as unable to provide any resources to back up your claims. I wouldn't be surprised to find "Bishonen" was Guy's sock puppet, particularly given his 100% endorsement support of Guy's slander and his 100% ignoring my comments towards Guy. Objective? Absolutely not. As for Sanstein, he may not be an admin - he just comes across like one - I'm sorry I've forgotten that he's not an admin. My bad. I won't forget that fact in the future. - Mugs 19:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there someone out there who's willing to back up their claims with reliable evidence and at least some measure of objectivity rather than the pedantic rhetoric that's been posted in response to this issue? Seriously - please quit papering white space with claims and accusations and start producing something of substance that back them up - this goes for all of you. This is not an election, so stop treating it as such. Thanks. By the way, this isn't about what men wear - it's about Guy's slash and burn editing, including the deletion of sound references, as he attempts to further his own narrow point of view while utterly destroying any and all evidence that disagrees with his narrow point of view. - Mugs 19:07, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

You are now straying over the line between tendentious editing and incivil argumentation, and into the realms of personal attacks. If you are seriously intending to start going around accusing admins of being sockpuppets or sockpuppeteers then no amount of advocacy is going to help you. As it is the claim is merely risible, if pursued it will very likely get you blocked. Just so you know. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Please go back and re-read my comments. I made no such accusation. It was a tongue-in-cheek response towards your ridiculous assertions that I'm dr1819, and any intelligent objective reader should have been able to discern it as such. Your response to the contrary continues to proove my claims that you're either unobjective or are on some kind of personal vendetta against me. I repeat - you continue assessing various claims (including your sockpuppetry accusation) but have yet to provide a shred of evidence for them. Where's your proof, Guy? Where's your proof???? I've given mine, but you either ignore it or dismiss it outright and without any substantiation whatsoever. It's time we start hearing from some objective outsiders on this issue. Let's start with your deletion of perfectly valid content, here, thereby attempting to diminuate the issue, namely that kilts aren't just ceremonial costume worn by Gaelics, but are routinely (daily) worn by others, particularly in the US, and that a number of manufacturers who make skirts for men. Guy's pathetic attempts to suppress these facts by deleting the links to news articles reviewing these trends again highlights his lack of objectivity and possible vendetta. And Guy, don't take this personal, because it's not. I've nothing against you personally. Reality simply is, and for some reason, you keep deleting objective, verifiable, third-party content. It would be no different if you were to delete or minimize a major, valid section on WAAS. I'm just calling you on it. That is all. - Mugs 13:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

For values of objective that include proselytising and spamming, of course. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Input from Bunchofgrapes

I have had no former interaction with Mugaliens that I can recall. I have been examining the history of the articles he lists and am forced to conclude that he edits with a narrow agenda, rather than with a spirit of open intellectual curiosity appropriate to an editor here.

This edit is instructive. Its edit summary is "Do not delete valid content without a better excuse than narrow point of view" (immediately violating WP:AGF, I note in passing). The edit consists of the insertion or restoration of three entries in High-heeled shoe's external links section. All three fail tests mentioned in WP:EL. The first is to a web forum for the high-heel community. Wikipedia isn't a web directory and external link guidelines are very much opposed to linking to such forums. The second (which Mugaliens did remove in the next edit) is to a defunct web site. The third is to a advertising-heavy page with links to sites selling larger-sized heeled shoes. Linking to this third is a gross violation of our policies against promotional links. Any long-time editor who examined and didn't remove such a link would be malfeasant.

If Mugaliens does not have the capacity to distinguish such unreliable and promotional links from the sort of material that is appropriate in Wikipedia, then he should learn to do so before leveling unjust accusations at the editors who are unfortunate enough to have to follow after him cleaning up his messes. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 19:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"I have had no former interaction with Mugaliens that I can recall." Correct - you haven't. - Mugs 19:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

More claims, like "All three fail tests mentioned in WP:EL." I highly commend you for actually providing some indication as to why you think they fail, as this action has been notably absent in other responses. However, let's take a closer look at that. But first, you should know that after reviewing WP:EL I agree with you the third link (to tallwoman.org) is indeed unsuitable, and one person commented as such on the discussions page because it's a collection of advertisements. Personally, I believe that while linking to a single advertiser is bias, linking to a large collection is objective and should be allowed. However, that's not what the Wiki rules state, and I go strictly by the rules, not by my personal opinion. Therefore, I haven't pursued the issue with that link since I read their comment.

Have you really had the "full" list? I believe you've had a very abbreviated list, as the vast majority of the references I've listed in various articles have been deleted by Sandstein, Zora, Guy, and others in their attempts at restructuring reality. - Mugs 19:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Please let me know if you'd like the complete list of those articles - I'd be happy to provide them in a forum (e-mail, PM, third-party bulletin board, etc. ''your choice'') that's beyond their reach.

The link to the high-heel community, on the other hand, meets the following "Sites to be included" criterion: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." Certainly, no rational person could argue that a website devoted to high heels is irrelevant in an article about high heels. That's like deleting the [The Apollo Project] external link on the [Project_Apollo] article (which is misnamed, by the way).

Thank you for acknowleding the fact that I removed it. I'm not here to clutter up Wiki. In fact, if I weren't so busy defending valid content against unfounded personally-biased slash and burn editing, I've have more time to make meaningful contributions in more of my areas of expertise, the vast majority of which have nothing to do with fashion!

Now - let's take a look at the 13 "Links normally to be avoided" so that we can discover how the high heel forum fails to fall into each of these categories:

"Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain once it becomes a Featured article." A message forum discussing high heels is certainly a unique resource, particularly since it's fairly rare (some copycats, but this one site towers above the rest - no pun intended)

"Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources." Possibly, but it's very difficult to argue that the combined opinions of thousands of people who have considerable experience with all aspects of high heel wear are somehow inaccaurate.

"Links mainly intended to promote a website." It was mainly intended as a resource for the readers, not to promote that website. In fact, the website has many links to other websites.

"Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources." This goes back to my comment about my personal believe that a link to a large number of advertisers should be included, as Wiki does not currently have such a system as they do with the ISBN system. Regardless, irrelevant, as the website in question has nothing to do with ISBN numbers or publishing books.

"Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising." To the best of my knowledge, that website has an extremely minimal amount of advertising, if any.

"Links to sites that require payment to view the relevant content." - N/A - no payment required. Anyone can join.

"Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser." N/A - website is totally accessible to the top four browsers (IE, Netscape, Firefox, Opera) which cover more than 99% of the population.

"Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media. If you do link to such material make a note of what application is required." N/A - no such content.

Links to search engine results pages." N/A - it's a website, not a search engine result page. However, I've been guilty of this in the past by linking to google searches, so I'll definately keep this in mind. I'm always learning! However, several claims (mainly by Guy) have been made for irrelevancy due to a lack of Googlehits. I would think that should be as irrelevant as they both reference the results of search engines.

"Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET."

Bingo. Finally something one can sink their teeth into. Cudos (at least I'm honest with the rules as presented!) However, I have to contrast this with the fact that on the same website in question, there are articles and links that point to a lot of history and current activity with respect to the high-heeled shoe, and I also have to weigh this with the "Sites to be included" criterion: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." If three or more disinterested admins (those not contacted by Guy, Zora, Sandstein, or others who've indicated their gross opposition to my content) reply with comments indicating that they consider the ban on "discussion forums" to overrule "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews," then please make it so. No subversiveness. And I do mean make it clear. Unsubstantiated claims will continue to be called into question!

"Links to personal websites, including blogs and anonymous websites or webpages, except those allowed by policy (see WP:V)" N/A - not a personal website, blog, or anonymous.

"Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." N/A.

"Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the articles subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked to from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site." N/A - it's a foregone conclusion that a Wikipedia article about a "High Heeled Shoe" and a website which discusses "High Heels" at length are by no means "indirectly related," and that their interrelation is highly substantial. Affronts along this line deserve the "DOAH!" award. - Mugs 19:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Has it not occurred to you that every single admin who has come to this dispute, form whatever source, under either of your account names, has said exactly the same thing? Presumably your definition of a disinterested admin is one who agrees with you; past experience tells us that you may have some toruble finding one using that yardstick. Guy (Help!) 13:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Input from Zora

I have clashed with Mugaliens numerous times at Skirt and dress. He seems to want to turn the article into a soapbox for his pro-male-skirts stance, and attributes any resistance to his agenda as prejudice against guys in skirts. Hey, I think guys in skirts can be hot! Nathan Fillion in a leather kilt, woo-hoo! But I know that only the few and the brave wear skirts -- in the West. It's completely different in the rest of the world, which is noted in the article.

Mugaliens seems to be a one-issue editor who brooks no opposition. I'd say that he was a WP:DE disruptive editor myself. Zora 13:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, come off it, Zora - we haven't clashed "numerous times in the past." Just examine the discussions. While we may have disagreed, you'll also see that we worked together to turn out a viable Men in Skirts section. Why would you refute that now when a simple perusing of the History proves otherwise? - Mugs 19:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As for your comment that "I know that only the few and the brave wear skirts -- in the West," I think it's time you took a visit to the West, as skirtwear among males is appearing in droves compared to the onesies and twosies I witnessed a decade ago. I can't go to a club in LA, Vegas, London, or Frankfurt where several males aren't wearing skirts, and articles about guys wearing skirts to everyday work continue to increase, as have my own sights of them around town.

You can't continue to sweep reality under a rug, folks, hoping it'll go away! Reality is, not as you define it. When will you begin to realize that despite your prejudices to the contrary, this trend is real (having actually existed throughout many countries for tens of thousands of years or more), continues to grow, and that it will never obey a very small handful of Wiki editor's desires' to make it disappear? Life is, people! Personally, I could care less whether or not you wish to bury your head in the sand, but please, for God's sake, detail reality responsibly, rather than trying to mold it into merely wishful thinking on your part with respect to what you believe reality ought to be. The evidence has been abundantly provided. Countless websites, links, articles from newspapers around the world, hundreds, but only a handful, which I've provided herein. Hopefully, those opposed haven't deleted alll of them. If they have, please let me know, and I'll happily re-post them, as they're quite plentiful. - Mugs 19:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Mugaliens, all your evidence of a wave of male skirt-wearing sweeping the West is purely anecdotal. The rest of us have the evidence of our eyes -- if we live in the West, we don't see men in skirts on the streets. Well, I do, very occasionally, here in Honolulu, but when I do, other clues point to the wearer being a Fijian, Tongan, or Samoan wearing what makes him comfortable. I don't see non-Polynesians in skirts. If I attended science-fiction cons I would probably see a few guys in kilts. I would also see guys in Wookie costumes, Mike Lowrey all in orange, and the guy (on whose name I'm blanking) who wears the loudest printed shirts and plaid sportcoats he can find, seeking the pefect combination that will sear the viewer's retinas. Not exactly mainstream fashion trends. Zora 19:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Response from Mugs

Thank you for taking time and effort to respond with thought, Zora - I appreciate it! I would ask you to consider something - sailors who stayed North of a certain line of latitude never saw the Southern Cross. To them, it was legend, lore, heresay, or blasphemy, depending upon one's background. To Southern sailors, however, it was as faithful a guide as the Northern Star and the Big Dipper were to Northern sailors. Artifacts have been uncovered from thousands of years ago which unmistakably demonstrate that scholars in some areas knew the Earth was round, and a planet revolving around the sun. For example, a clock was recently uncovered dating closer to year 0 which actually, and accurately, tracked planetary motions. Yet 1500 years later, Copernicus, and a century after that, Galileo, were labeled by some as heretics for their heliocentric views of the solar system.

My point is that just because one person, or even many people, in several areas don't observe something, doesn't mean that it's not happening. I rarely see men in skirts in the daytime. At night I see them on occasion, but I go clubbing on a fairly regular basis, and in places you and others might not. At one daytime event (a local community fair in the US), the American Samoan Club were selling sarongs left and right to the men who were attending the festivities. Nearly all the guys were married, most with kids, but many of them went to change, and ramained saronged for the rest of the evening. I've surfed the North Shore in Hawaii a couple of times, and I've seen other surfers (the Caucasian kind) wearing sarongs, surfing kilts, or the braver of them simply said, "yeah, it's a skirt - so what?" Quite a few of the attendees at Jean-Paul Galtier's Men in Skirts exhibit were married men wearing skirts, kilts, and other unbifurcated garments. If you haven't seen this, the only thing this means is that you and I don't hang out in the same circles. That's all. However, since I see men in skirts fairly often, and am a member of many boards (none of the mine), each of which have hundreds (a few have thousands) of members, I know it's not "merely anecdotal," but real.

I'm sorry you haven't seen this. You're probably not sorry! However, getting back to the Southern Cross, just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not there. I've never been to Matchu Pictu (sp?), but I've no doubt it exists as I've seen pictures, read articles. The pictures and articles I've given as evidence that this isn't something someone made up are every bit as real as the evidence for Matchu Pictu, and while not as prevalent, it's still prevalent. Man's skirt = 652 Google Hits (gh). His skirt = 48,200 gh. He wore a skirt = 111 gh. Male skirt = 3,820 gh. Male Unbifurcated Garments = 484 gh. Each of the linked examples is but one of the first five of the hundreds, if not thousands, or tens of thousands, of hits. There's perhaps a hundred more variations, and dozens of overlaps.

A third point - there is absolutely no possible way I've written the many hundreds of articles or created the many thousands of websites, forums, blogs, etc., on which tens of thousands of Western, English-speaking, skirt-wearing men from around the globe discuss these issues and post pics of themselves, usually in public, occasionally with their families, and sometimes with their office co-workers, every single day. To be perfectly honest, Zora, this really isn't my fight. No one has confronted me on the streets and said anything negative. I just don't like it when others who have never encountered it, either due to their lifestyle, religious beliefs, personal affiliations, or simply their location, continue to claim that it either doesn't exist or that it's not noteworthy. It's certainly far more noteworthy than many of the 200-person towns listed on Wikipedia, articles which have probably been visited by less than 500 people, or articles which contain lots of scientific information about some process but to which less than a handful have ever viewed.

It would be nice if Wiki had both page and section counts, to determine how often they have been viewed by others, by the most recent week, month, and year, and statistical standings (stanines) with respect to all articles on Wiki, adjusted for the actual distributions of visits, of course, and also adjusted by how long each article has been in existence or how often it's been edited. The math is actually quite easy (for some) to implement in a website such as this. That would certainly provide a more objective assessment than one editor or admin's opinion based upon whether or not they've witnessed something given their rather varied travels and experiences both in the US and abroad.

Well, that's my twenty cents. I thank you again for taking the time to post a thoughtful, non-confrontational response. That's very much appreciated, particular after what I've been through from others in recent weeks. I hope you consider my response in the same spirit. Again, Thank You! - Mugs 19:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

• You assert that male skirt-wearing is increasingly common in the West, and our failure to observe this is due to - what? the fact that we don't live in the West? But we do. I live less than 500 miles from Scotland, much closer to Wales and Ireland. I have dozens of Scottish friends. I used to work frequently in Scotland. You know something? They don't generally wear the kilt, except for weddings and other formal occasions. And that's where it's considered traditional. I was in London a couple of days back, a very cosmopolitan city. How many men do you think I saw wearing kilts, skirts, dhotis or anything else other than trousers? I'll give you a clue: the answer is slightly less than one. What you offer is anecdote and exceptions that prove the rule, without any supporting evidence other than fomr people who are promoting the same idea - maybe you do see some men wearing skirts where you live, but then someone who lives in, say, Greenwich Village would see all kinds of things that would be considered startling if seen elsewhere. If male skirt-wearing was common, do you not think the press would have made rather less of the fad in the late 90s? Do you not think they would be somewhat less inclined to comment on each of the (very few) male celebrities who appears in public wearing one? You are also ignoring the fact that skirts for men are already mentioned in the article on skirt and dress to an extent which is held to be appropriate by everybody other than you. Which is precisely what happened last time around - you were in a minority of one. So now it is time to get off your soapbox. All your rhetoric thus far has proven spectacularly unpersuasive; sometimes, in the end, when everybody tells you that you are wrong, it is because you are wrong. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Key responses: "...the fact that we don't live in the West? But we do." Technically, yes. Practically, no, by a distance of 4,649 miles, and add an additional 8,000 miles until your longitude begins reading east! It's there that skirt wear among men is the most prevalent. "I live less than 500 miles from Scotland, much closer to Wales and Ireland." Please let me know when you've visited some place more than 600 miles from home, where it was, and what you found. "I have dozens of Scottish friends." Bonnie! So do I, and the amazing thing is that I've never been to Scotland, despite being 1/4 Scottish! "How many men do you think I saw wearing kilts, skirts, dhotis or anything else other than trousers? I'll give you a clue: the answer is slightly less than one." A psychology professor at a major university once had another student rob the class with a bananna to prove a point about human perception, namely, that most people see only what they want to see. More than 2/3 of the class reported that the "robber" brandished a metallic gun, rather than the bananna he was actually holding. "What you offer is anecdote..." and your observations within your tiny 600-mile radius of home is what, somehow not anecdote? "...maybe you do see some men wearing skirts where you live..." Uh, Thanks! I'm surprised that you allowed this, but at least it's a start! "..but then someone who lives in, say, Greenwich Village would see all kinds of things..." Actually, I live in a fairly conservative village in Germany, not Greenwich Village. "If male skirt-wearing was common, do you not think the press would have made rather less of the fad in the late 90s?" The 90's? What are you talking about? Nearly all of the article's to which I've provided links were written since 2003. "...you were in a minority of one." So how do you explain the more than two dozen supporters on the various talk and discussion pages? "...in the end, when everybody tells you that you are wrong, it is because you are wrong. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)" Guy, might I recommend you look in the mirror when you make such grandiose and unsupported accusations? - Mugs 15:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Stop spitting in my soup. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• • • (Sigh) Please lead the way, Guy - please be the example by not spitting in mine. I see you've made great progress by your lack of a counter-arguement - Thanks. Are we both at the point where we can agree to disagree and leave one another alone, trusting others (and other administrators) to take care of any issues which might arise? - Mugs 22:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• There are two parties to this dispute, one of whom has a couple of years on the project with many thousands of edits to their name, the other has drawn criticism from pretty much every other editor they have encountered in relation to this issue. All the counter-arguments in the world are utterly wasted on you, because anything that does not match your agenda is simply discounted. There b eing no advocate in evidence here, I propose to have it deleted. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

All three of you, right? You, Zora, and (pardon, but it's been so long ago that I've forgotten). Just checking, as the other several hundred editors (thousands?) at Wiki have been rather silent... Rather telling.... - Mugs 15:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Followup:

When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?

• Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?

• Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?

• Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?

• Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?

• Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?

• Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?

• Answer:

AMA Information

Case Status: open

Advocate Status:

• This one looks interesting.--Amerique ^dialectics 01:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.