User talk:Tom harrison/admin

Tom,

Your comments in Talk:Christian Reconstruction call into question why anyone should believe any Wikipedia article on any controversial topic.

If interpretation of "primary sources" is not allowed, the only means to correct ignorant and biased comments from critics only answered by primary sources is to create a huge quote farm.

Christian Reconstructionism (CR) has hundreds of books written by men with Ph.Ds in their field. Their critics are regularly shown to be ignorant on the specific points of their criticism, or merely expressing personal opinions.

Relying on the standard of someone with a lack of specialist knowledge is another major problem. It values the opinion of those without knowledge over those with knowledge.

For example, your edit of "active homosexuals" versus "homosexual sodomy" in relation to what Reconstructionists would define as a capital crime. The first makes being a homosexual a capital crime, which is not correct. The second makes the act of homosexual sodomy subject to capital punishment, if this is enacted as a law, the act seen by at least two witnesses who testify in court, etc. Reconstructionist sources are clear that only homosexual ACTS are subject to punishment, and not persons with a particular sexual preference. (There are many detailed legal requirements for any penalty and covenant arguments against several forms of capital punishment, too.) Your opinion meets Wiki standards in spite of being technically wrong and misleading.

If the nature of Wikipedia makes it incompetent to discuss some controversial topics to arrive at a NPOV article, then perhaps such articles need to be deleted.

Without some workable procedure to keep controversial topics NPOV, the only option may be to use major blogs to publicize this total failure of Wikipedia on blogs and other media.

Any suggestions?

Reconguy

These are the policies under which we have chosen to work. You can try to change those policies, but I expect most of us would not support that. Wikipedia is just an encyclopedia, and not the best place to publish everything. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Tom

The difference between capital punishment for "active homosexuals" (persons with a preference) versus "homosexual sodomy" (persons who commit a specific act that is witnessed, and are convicted under laws already in effect) is significant, and understandable by persons who lack specialized knowledge. My edit was not to insult anyone, but to accurately describe the scope of capital punishment. If I show sources on this, will you remove the error you inserted into the article on this point?

An encyclopedia is generally assumed to have reliable information, and no policy stops you from revising your edit. I can accept that Wikipedia will not produce the best work, but clear errors can be fixed.

I assume there are some limits to the rule of ignorance and suppressed evidence enshrined at Wikipedia. Please do not prove me wrong. Reconguy 03:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree that "active homosexuals" is incorrect, but that and other changes to the article should be discussed on Talk:Christian Reconstructionism. Tom Harrison ^Talk 10:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism by 92.43.64.80

Hi,

I noticed you reverted some instances of vandalism by the IP address 92.43.64.80. I have been keeping an eye on that address for some time now and he has vandalized articles about 60 times since March quite regularly (usually 5-10 edits at a time, at intervals of a few days). I have tried to report this IP address to get it blocked, but my request was denied last time (apparently he hasn't made enough edits yet to be worth investigating). Since you are an administrator, maybe you could help look into how we might get this address blocked or at least have a warning sent to the host of the address (it seems to be a workplace).

Thanks, Politizer (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've lengthened the block; we'll see if that helps. Thanks for letting me know, Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Verbal

I am trying to avoid formal mediation for now. I understand that you and verbal have experience working together, I hope that you will be able to bring him around to discussing his edits. Unomi (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Mediation is not something I'd support. Anyway, Wikipedia:Requests for comment would be the next step, or maybe Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement since there are active general sanctions in this area. Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

NedaNet: fmt?

I am unfamiliar with the notation "fmt." NedaNet has already generated some 3O and AfD discussion as to its notability and the validity of its citations, so I'm curious about this new acronym. Thanks! kencf0618 (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)