Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy/To do/Awbrey articles

This content was created by Jon, who is an acknowledged expert in this content, before he was banned. So far as I know, at no point before he was banned did Jon add any article content was that not accurate. Some people felt there were biases/undue-weight issues in some of his contributions to articles like Truth and claimed his edits were original research. At the original research policy he was mistreated and he responded in kind. He refused to behave and we had to ban him. He now asserts that Wikipedia is evil and he causes immense mischief with his socks. Guy asserted that banned is banned and anything they write at wikipedia should be deleted, which is nonsense. Jon pointed out what a nonsense that is by deleting these articles (the first article vandalism that I have seen from Jon). Guy mis-characterizes this with a half-truth when he says "Awbrey has asserted that they are original research". In my opinion, there is no special reason to believe that the content of these articles is problematic. Guy is angry at Jon. Jon is angry at Guy. WAS 4.250 21:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jon claims to be an expert, I am not sure about anything else, other than that his repeated insertion of original research and insistence that his view as an "expert" be allowed to prevail was eventually decided to be so disruptive as to merit a ban; existing policy on banned users states that their contributions should be reverted regardless of merit (I did not write that policy I merely quoted it), but that only applies to edits after banning. If you look at the edit summaries, though, Awbrey says: Removing Jon Awbrey's Original Research By Order Of Guy Chapman in the edit summary. And he's blanked them many times. I don't see a problem with taking that at face value, especially given that Awbrey did have a long standing problem with original research and although as an admin I could have simply nuked them per {{db-author}}, I chose instead to bring them to the notice of what I hope is the appropriate Wikiproject, for a review by people who can judge, hopefully impartially. I fail to see how this is bad. I am sure that it was not your intention to give the impression of assuming bad faith on my part, but that is how it came across. This is a good faith attempt to ensure that the integrity of the project is not compromised, and should be treated as such. Perhaps you have a better idea of how to deal with Awbrey's continued disruption and vandalism? Guy (Help!) 15:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is an expert. He has contributed good material to Wikipedia. I have never seen him add inaccurate data to an article. And he was not banned for any article related problem. I was there dealing with him (with others) when we all agreed he had to be banned. He was repeatedly disrupting the WP:NOR policy talk page. That was the final straw that caused him to be banned. Prior disagreements on the talk pages of articles created bad feeling; but were not the sort we ban over. It makes perfect sense to simply revert any and all edits by people banned for POV pushing. Jon was banned for disruption; not adding OR to articles; not POV pushing. He continues to disrupt but deleting perfectly good edits to articles is stupid. His edits on Pierce are reverted as a stupid "own" war on both sides with Jon refusing to compromise and editors in good standing here mindlessly reverting him just because it is Jon. I know you are doing what you think is best for wikipedia, but deleting edits that make wikipedia better does not help wikipedia - that simply assists him in disruption. I would recommend ignoring him, other than undoing anything that he does that is believed by someone to make wikipedia worse. DENY is a rule too. Surely we have admins that can read math/logic? Let them respond to Jon's edits of math/logic articles. I think the key thing here is your assertion on the mailing list that we ban because people POV push and thus any edit they make is suspect. Please be aware that we ban for other things too; and people like Jon who are banned because they are incapable of playing well with others can none-the-less make article edits that are positive - they just shouldn't be allowed to engaged in disruptive discussion. We ban to make wikipedia better, not carry on a holy war. Please don't delete edits that make wikipedia better. WAS 4.250 17:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it, but it changes nothing. By which I mean: Awbrey is banned; Awbrey is using sockpuppets for disruption; Awbrey has been accused by others of OR (the root of the NOR conflict, as far as I can see); Awbrey states that these articles are OR; in as much as others have looked at the at all it seems that merging may well be appropriate for some or all. And actually this argument completely misses the point, which is to ask people if they wouldn't mind having a look over these articles. If you want to start an ArbCom case asking for Awbrey to be allowed back under some kind of parole then you are more than welcome. Guy (Help!) 18:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do as you see fit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Bare+In+Mind WAS 4.250 18:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the talk page. Guy is mad at Jon and Jon is mad at Guy. Jon does not assert that they are original research. Guy, Jon is being disruptive, is banned, and deserves to be banned. Why make up stuff in addition to that? What's the point? WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This belongs on talk. I am not making things up, simply taking his edit summary at face value. I don't see why you have such a problem with that. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Guy, his edit summaries say that you are labeling them as original research. And he is therefore using wikipedia rules as a tool against wikipedia to try to get them deleted, thus hurting wikipedia; which is his aim. And you are helping him hurt wikipedia by blindly following rules he is using to game the situation. Don't help him to hurt wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's how you read it. I read it differently. And it doesn't actually make any difference: the articles still need reviewing. It's quite possible that Awbrey's excessive fondness for Peirce is evident in many of them, and that some or all should be merged or in some other way fixed up. 15:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)