3 ms·

I do not think I side steped the issue. Of the three issues the OP originally brought up, he only stated that one of those issues were resolved by the Wikipedia

I do not think I side steped the issue. Of the three issues the OP originally brought up, he only stated that one of those issues were resolved by the Wikipedia (and he quoted Reddit instead of a more direct source, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Dozens%2CThousands_upon_thousands_of_unnecessary_redirects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Neelix_active_again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no... or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive906#Neelix-created_redirects,_yet_again https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no... ). While the post was quite heated and it’s hard to separate facts from expressions of anger, to me he strongly implied the other two haven’t been dealt with or resolved, while, in fact, all the issues are resolved or are being discussed, in Wikipedia’s typical style of discussing things to death (I remember when discussing whether to host pro-pedophile advocacy was a thing on Wikipedia, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pedophile_movement/Archive_13 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pedophile_movement/Archiv... ) I brought up Reddit because the OP brought up Reddit; I agree they are horribly inaccurate, and if something I read on Reddit makes me angry, I check other sources to make sure I’m not getting worked up over a lie.

leephillips 5y ago
I believe you did. In rvba’s item 2A, he is clear that the issue was addressed, after “an incredible amount of time”. Your reply provides the information that the articles no longer exist on the platform, as if it were a refutation of rvba’s point. This is what I am calling disingenuous, and I think my characterization is warranted. EDIT: But perhaps I am wrong or confused. Wouldn’t be the first time. In that case, please clarify what, exactly, was the purpose of your citations that began “Those articles aren’t on the Wikipedia:”.
- strenholme 5y ago
  Thank you for the discussion. I have edited my parent posts to better clarify my position. For the record, I am no fan of Wikipedia’s “Deletionist” movement, and didn’t edit there for years because I did not approve of their wide spread deletions.
- strenholme 5y ago
  I was, when pointing out the articles are not on the Wikipedia, answering the direct question “please explain to me why "Constructions of the b—by", or "Atrophy of the ti—ies" are things that should be on Wikipedia?” (I have gone to the bother of bowdlerizing the cuss words) where the answer is “they haven’t been on the Wikipedia since 2015”. That poster was being, to say the least, quite disingenuous asking me that question: They were making a direct personal insult against me, and they were stating that I advocated a position that I do not advocate. In other words, they were asking me a “are you still beating your wife?” type of question, and they worded their question as if those redirects are still on the Wikipedia. Indeed, a point you missed they never stated the redirects went away. Let’s look at what they actually said: >>>What is more sad in this case, is that every other admin knew very well that thousands of such pages were created, but nobody did anything. This is the usual situation when the clique will never go against one of their own. It took them an incredible amount of time to do anything with that rogue admin and at the end I think he wasn't even removed from his role and banned, he simply stepped down on his own.<<< Did this poster state the pages were removed? No, they did not. The poster only stated they they “[did] anything” with the admin, inaccurately stated he wasn’t banned (he was topic banned, which is a pretty serious punishment on the Wikipedia), and the OP never said what happened with the redirects. A reasonable person reading what the OP wrote would not be given the impression the redirects were removed. Now, back to me: I merely stated that the Wikipedia is a little more loose about redirects than about articles (“if you can make a redirect to something, it’s usually good to do so, even if the redirect uses a term which is not politically correct”); I agree that the particular redirects the OP incorrectly accused me of supporting go beyond the pale, and are examples of why I said “usually good” and not always good. The Wikipedia community agrees they went beyond the pale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Dozens%2CThousands_upon_thousands_of_unnecessary_redirects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no... It would be like if someone asked me “Why is it that pro-pedophile advocacy should be on the Wikipedia?”; it is in no way “disingenuous” to answer “that hasn’t been on the Wikipedia since 2007”, even if they previously pointed out that the Wikipedia did “something” about pedophilia a while ago, and even if I previously said that Wikipedia errs on the side of supporting free speech. Personally, I think it’s pretty disingenuous to defend someone who was flaming me so hard, @dang had to intervene, and to incorrectly imply they OP said something they never actually said when falsely claiming I was being “disingenuous”. But that’s just my opinion.

leephillips 5y ago

I believe you did. In rvba’s item 2A, he is clear that the issue was addressed, after “an incredible amount of time”. Your reply provides the information that the articles no longer exist on the platform, as if it were a refutation of rvba’s point. This is what I am calling disingenuous, and I think my characterization is warranted. EDIT: But perhaps I am wrong or confused. Wouldn’t be the first time. In that case, please clarify what, exactly, was the purpose of your citations that began “Those articles aren’t on the Wikipedia:”.

strenholme 5y ago
Thank you for the discussion. I have edited my parent posts to better clarify my position. For the record, I am no fan of Wikipedia’s “Deletionist” movement, and didn’t edit there for years because I did not approve of their wide spread deletions.
strenholme 5y ago
I was, when pointing out the articles are not on the Wikipedia, answering the direct question “please explain to me why "Constructions of the b—by", or "Atrophy of the ti—ies" are things that should be on Wikipedia?” (I have gone to the bother of bowdlerizing the cuss words) where the answer is “they haven’t been on the Wikipedia since 2015”. That poster was being, to say the least, quite disingenuous asking me that question: They were making a direct personal insult against me, and they were stating that I advocated a position that I do not advocate. In other words, they were asking me a “are you still beating your wife?” type of question, and they worded their question as if those redirects are still on the Wikipedia. Indeed, a point you missed they never stated the redirects went away. Let’s look at what they actually said: >>>What is more sad in this case, is that every other admin knew very well that thousands of such pages were created, but nobody did anything. This is the usual situation when the clique will never go against one of their own. It took them an incredible amount of time to do anything with that rogue admin and at the end I think he wasn't even removed from his role and banned, he simply stepped down on his own.<<< Did this poster state the pages were removed? No, they did not. The poster only stated they they “[did] anything” with the admin, inaccurately stated he wasn’t banned (he was topic banned, which is a pretty serious punishment on the Wikipedia), and the OP never said what happened with the redirects. A reasonable person reading what the OP wrote would not be given the impression the redirects were removed. Now, back to me: I merely stated that the Wikipedia is a little more loose about redirects than about articles (“if you can make a redirect to something, it’s usually good to do so, even if the redirect uses a term which is not politically correct”); I agree that the particular redirects the OP incorrectly accused me of supporting go beyond the pale, and are examples of why I said “usually good” and not always good. The Wikipedia community agrees they went beyond the pale: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive904#Dozens%2CThousands_upon_thousands_of_unnecessary_redirects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_no... It would be like if someone asked me “Why is it that pro-pedophile advocacy should be on the Wikipedia?”; it is in no way “disingenuous” to answer “that hasn’t been on the Wikipedia since 2007”, even if they previously pointed out that the Wikipedia did “something” about pedophilia a while ago, and even if I previously said that Wikipedia errs on the side of supporting free speech. Personally, I think it’s pretty disingenuous to defend someone who was flaming me so hard, @dang had to intervene, and to incorrectly imply they OP said something they never actually said when falsely claiming I was being “disingenuous”. But that’s just my opinion.