Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/To do/Awbrey articles

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy‎ | To do

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Arthur Quark (talk | contribs) at 16:24, 14 November 2007 (→‎Preliminaries: trying to get organized ...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

These articles were started by banned editor User:Jon Awbrey. Awbrey has asserted that they are original research and has blanked them. Most have few if any contributions other than by Awbrey and his many sockpuppets, which would normally qualify as {{db-user}} but the blanking was clearly intended as WP:POINT disruption. However, there is a long-standing issue with the Awbrey's original research in Charles Peirce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), to whom these are all, I think, related, and none seem to have proper reference to independent sources (a "bibliography" without inline citations in this case may be indicative of novel synthesis), so I believe we need to assess the articles, see if they are independently significant, merge, verify (and source) or delete them as appropriate.

Please review these articles, as I lack the specialist knowledge to assess whether this problematic author's claim of original research has merit. Thanks Guy (Help!) 15:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 iontegrity 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]

Preliminaries

Mr. Guy, I have a couple of questions and an observation. Arthur Quark 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questions. (1) Can you show us where Mr. Awbrey asserts that these articles are his original research? (2) Can you show us evidence that Mr. Awbrey has blanked these articles? Arthur Quark 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Observation. A big subset of these articles and much of the material in the rest appears to belong more under the purview of the math project. So maybe their notices should be re-listed or at least dual-listed there. Arthur Quark 00:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • You'll see it in the edit histories; a blocked sockpuppet blanked the article claiming them to be original research by the banned user. The more eyes the better, do please feel free to bring this to their attention as well. Guy (Help!) 15:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Guy, that is what puzzles me. I read the reason that was given by the editor who got blocked after blanking the pages and it says, wait let me check, ..., "(Removing Jon Awbrey's Original Research By Order Of Guy Chapman)". This person seems to be saying that he or she is removing Mr. Awbrey's contributions because Guy Chapman says that they are original research. That seems to raise another question: (3) Did Guy Chapman say anything that would lead anyone to believe that Jon Awbrey was guilty of inserting his original research into Wikipedia? Arthur Quark 15:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, it's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point - the policy on banned users says that edits made by banned users while banned should be reverted, Awbrey is trying to apply that retrospectively, and at the same time claiming it's original research, which was the problem with much of his editing before he was banned. I found the idea that it's OR sufficiently credible as to merit at least a review by better-informed people (I know little of this subject). I am, in short, just the janitor. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Guy, I just now read your last post in the above section, and you do seem to be saying the following things: (4) charging Mr. Awbrey with contributing a lot of his original research to Wikipedia, in violation of the WP:NOR policy, (5) saying that Mr. Awbrey was very insistent in doing that, and (6) saying that Mr. Awbrey was banned from Wikipedia for doing this. Arthur Quark 16:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting a little confusing, so maybe you could point us to some concrete evidence for each of the various assertions that you have made. By way of trying to clear things up a lttle, I will repeat the outstanding charges below, and suggest that it would help if you append some concrte evidence to each one: Arthur Quark 16:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Mr. Awbrey asserts that these articles are his original research.
  2. Mr. Awbrey has blanked these articles.
  3. Guy Chapman said something that would lead someone to believe that Mr. Awbrey was guilty of inserting his original research into Wikipedia. (If Guy = Guy Chapman, then this point is covered.)
  4. Mr. Awbrey contributed a lot of his original research to Wikipedia, in violation of the WP:NOR policy.
  5. Mr. Awbrey was very insistent about inserting his orginal research into Wikipedia articles.
  6. Mr. Awbrey was banned from Wikipedia for inserting his orginal research into Wikipedia articles.

Thanks in advance, this would help us assess the situation. Arthur Quark 16:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Philosophy/To_do/Awbrey_articles&oldid=171455683"