Talk:Miguel Piñero/Archive 1

message: I realize this subject was a hero to some people, but entries like this was are unprofessional. Entries do not refer to first names, but last. Rumors and personal hero worship are not the place here.
:Miguel's parents immigrated to New York from Puerto Rico in the early 1950s when he was 4 years old. Miguel, like many Puerto Ricans of that era, had to come face to face with the hardships of discrimination. His father abandoned the family in 1954 and his mother was forced to move into a basement and to live off of welfare. He started his life of crime at an early age. When he was 11 years old he started stealing and was arrested. He was sent to the Juvenile Detention Center in the Bronx. Miguel joined a street gang called "The Dragons" when he was 13 and when he was 14 he was hustling in the streets. Before Miguel had reached his 20 birthday, he was a drug addict and a hardened criminal.
The italicized is all POV, melodramatic, and like a ssoap opera. Facts must be 
stuck to. Iago Dali 12:41, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Entries

message: I've had a read through both versions, and frankly, I don't see what User:Iago Dali's problem is with User:Marine 69-71's version of it.  Details are encylopedic and are not POV if true.  Just because one does not like the information, or necessarily agree with it, does not make it POV.
Saying that he suffered discrimination like many Puerto Ricans raises two issues.  The first is, "Were/are Puerto Ricans often discriminated against?" There is little academic dispute that they have suffered a great deal of discrimination over the years, so it is clearly a plain fact.  Facts, by definition, are NPOV.  The second issue is whether Piñero himself was a victim of such discrimination.  Not every editor would agree with me, but I lean heavily towards the view that unless contrary evidence can be produced, we can assume that he was, as he would have to be on another planet to have escaped what most of his countrymen had to face at the time.  I agree with User:Mindspillage, however, that to clarify what kind of discrimination he faced would be helpful.
Reading through the comments on both the talk page and in the edit summaries, I would encourage User:Iago Dali to be a little more cooperative.  The "I'm right and that's it" mode of thinking does little to endear people to your ideas.  
Until the situation is resolved, I support the protection of the page, to User:Marine 69-71's version. David Cannon 00:05, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony asked me to take a look at this dispute, and I do not know much about the subject, but I agree with David Cannon. Clearly discrimination against Puerto Ricans did exist, and there should be no dispute about this. Explaining specifically how this discrimination affected Piñero would be useful, of course, but it's not in my opinion necessary for NPOV. Andre (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I disagree with protecting the page and labeling Iago Dali's edits as vandalism. As someone who edits a lot of literary articles, I've been following Iago's work for a while now. He generally does very good edits. Yes, he can be a bit abrupt but he means well and has done a lot of great work. What really bothers me, though, is that Iago Dali e-mailed me and said that User:Marine 69-71 blocked him from Wikipedia for a day b/c of their disagreements on the article. Supposedly this was for violating the 3 revert rule, but as we can see on this article's history, Iago Dali only reverted twice. In addition, there are serious issues raised when an administrator blocks someone b/c of disagreements over the editing of an article that admin works on. There was no vandalism here, just disagreement on edits. Personally, after looking at both version I think that Iago's is prefered b/c it is less POV and more encyclopedic. I hope this issue can be settled here. If not, I will raise it on the dispute resolution page b/c there appears to be abuse of an admin's power. At a minimum, please unblock Iago Dali--Alabamaboy 01:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have unblocked Iago Dali and left a note for Tony about it. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:35, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV? 

message: I am filing a complaint against an admin named http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Marine_69-71. He has blatantly abused his power and banned me illegally under the three revert rule, even though the history page- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miguel_Pi%C3%B1ero&action=history- clearly shows I violated no rules. In fact, This admin actually reverted thrice. I cleaned up a poorly written and edited article on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Pi%C3%B1ero that the admin wrote. He had a manifest bias toward the subject matter, and blatantly violated NPOV. When i sought to uphold Wiki standards he overstepped his bounds, and banned me simply because he has a personal bias toward the subject matter. Here is the exchange: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Miguel_Pi%C3%B1ero#NPOV.3F
:Here is the heart of my complaint: "However, I feel Marine not only showed bias, but obviously flaunted not only Wiki rules in editing, wikiquette, and the 3 revert rule, for personal gain, but he should be censured somehow, for his actions. I think he should be stripped of his adminship, amnd never allowed to abuse power again. Make him a peon, like mere editors such as myself. What he did was out and out censorship, and censorship is a form of intellectual rape. I've even gotten a barnstar for the many edits I've done, from an admin named V._Molotov. I am no vandal, and resent the page's being frozen on that reason. If it is frozen it should be for abuse of power by an admin."
Also, when someone is banned, there needs to be some recourse. As I state there: "And for the record, I think it stinks that there is little recourse when banned. I went looking for other admins to contact and could not. When banned, for real or bad (as in this case) reasons, the page that comes up should have pages accessible for the bannee to protest and state their case. It's bad enough Marine banned me for personal reasons, but all of Wikipedia abandoned me. I had to find a few contacts I could to make my case." I believe that stripping Marine of his adminship will send a message to admins who abuse their power for bias and personal gain. Again: "The worst part of the Marine's actions is that such selfishness has the effect of driving away good editors from Wiki. I have seen many edit wars played out on talk pages, and the pattern seems to be too much personal bias is driving articles." If I must repeat myself at least it's verbatim.
I challenge any competent editor to look at Marine's and my versions of the edit and not say mine was the far superior one. But, that's not the issue I protest. Marine has clearly shown bias in the article, and in abusing his powers. Please let me know if there is a more formal way to protest his abuses. Thank you, and I shall crosspost this on the subjects talk page. Iago Dali 12:37, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Complaint against ADMIN ABUSE OF POWER

message: It's clichéd, but both sides have good points to make up thataway (*points*).  If Tony's version is good, and Iago's version is good, just imagine how awesome it'd be if the two of you tried to work on this together.  Hey, it's the wiki way!  If I could just make some suggestions ...
If'n you two are willing to work together, some sort of mutual trust is going to be necessary.  After all, WP:AGF isn't working: Iago's calling Tony a POV-pusher, and Tony's calling Iago a vandal!  The first step is probably to remove adminship from the equation.  We're all equal editors here, right?  If either of yers does anything block- or protect-worthy, I'm sure you can rely on a neutral admin to act appropriately.  Given the passions flying around this talkpage, it's probably best if you confront the issue as just another user, Tony, and not as an admin.  Now, Iago is clearly not a vandal.  He's a user involved in an edit war, and no different from any other user involved in an edit war.  Edit wars are unqualified Bad Things, but they aren't vandalism.  Can we get that straight right away?  Nobody likes being called a "vandal".  It tends to upset them.  But, equally, I can see how accusing another of "intellectual rape" (whatever that is) might be just as upsetting.  It's probably best not to refer to one's opponents as rapists, Iago, intellectual or otherwise.
Can we agree to that?  Admin tools aren't necessary, and nobody involved is a vandal or rapist?  I reckon that'd be a nice start.  The next step, of course, is to unprotect the page.  There's no vandalism going on, just edit warring, and you're both on the talkpage now, which is an essential step in Not Being An Edit Warrior.  If a page is protected, this means only admins can edit – not exactly useful for open Wiki editing, is it? --fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:49, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  if I could make some suggestions ... 

message: Dali, I know that you are well intentioned and by looking at your contributions, a hard working editor who is an asset to Wikipedia.  When I blocked you, it was because I truly believed that you violated the three revert rule and not for personal reasons.  I asked User:Mindspillage to mediate because she is the type of person who will tell you (me) things to your face like it or not.  My block was improper and I publicly recognized it as my dumb mistake and thanked Mindspillage for unblocking you.  I believed that you constently vandalized the article by deleting certain facts, however I did come to  the conclution that you did have a point and made some changes to eliminate anything that may be considered POV.  Sure, things got a little heated up and I felt insulted by the term "Hero Worshiping" and of being accused of being a poor writer and you felt the sameway about being called a "Vandel".  However, I think with the article as it now looks, we can put this dispute to an end.  Therefore, I extend my hand to you in Wilipedian friendship.  Tony the Marine 18:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Dali

message: I was quite concerned to see that this page had been protected without any history of vandalism - page protection is absolutely a last resort to deal with persistent vandalism, and I've unprotected it for this reason.  I'm especially concerned that the protection was carried out by Tony the Marine, who had written much of the article.  There always needs to be a very good reason for a page to be protected, and I can't see any such reason here - frankly, I think Tony has some explaining to do.  Enchanter 21:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection of this page 

message: "Piñero's ashes were scattered across the Lower East Side of Manhattan as he asked in the 1985 "Lower East Side Poem."
Worth mentioning, but I'm not sure this qualifies as 'a case of life imitating art'. Edjack 10:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment