| Revision as of 18:24, 30 July 2011 view sourceRd232 (talk | contribs)54,863 edits →July 2011: ( )← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 21:35, 18 October 2023 view source WOSlinker (talk | contribs)Administrators854,740 editsm Fix lint errors | ||
| (17 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == ] closed == | |||
| {{info|To all inexperienced editors who may stumble onto this page, this is a warning. Do not waste your time on this site. If you persist here, it will steal your time, it will steal your energy, it will steal your very soul. This site is run on nothing but false pretences. The rules and guidelines here, while eminently sensible as written, are ultimately worthless. The admins charged with the task of ensuring they are followed, in the majority, simply will not do anything about disputes unless its a very easy task they can resolve in 5 minutes, and in the minority, will do much much worse, either through their arrogance, their ignorance, or any of the other human flaws that with some of these people while eminently obvious, are not discovered in the selection process. And it's a job for life, so there's no point pointing them out after they're made admin. The majority of editors here who you will get into disputes with if you are remotely normal, are on the whole, total self-interested hypocrites, and that's just the people who generally edit here as a hobby, never mind all those who have more dubious motives for being here. If you get into a dispute with someone here that is not resolve-able in 5 minutes, and the outcome is still not satisfactory according to your right thinking mind, then forget it, you've already lost. If you can handle that, fine, carry on here. If you can't, then leave now. On no account should you labour under the false impression that on Misplaced Pages there is any time or patience to sort out long running or difficult disputes, except in the crudest possible ways. There are people here who have been doing the same thing, the exact same thing, for years now. A classic example. What would you say if I told you a single editor is allowed to systematically search for and edit the use of a particular term either through replacement or indeed complete removal, to ensure all Misplaced Pages pages, every single one that used it, matches his world view, which is very much a minority outside his tiny country of origin. Does that surprise you as something that would be tolerated on a site that has thousands of editors who are all apparently collaborating to build an international encyclopedia? No? Well, get used to it. What he does isn't technically block-able on a 5 minute reading, and all other options fully resemble talking to a brick wall, while the aforementioned admins do their stuff, or rather, just don't. That's why he's still here, still doing it, after all these years. He gets away with it not because he's smart, but just because he's simply learnt through trial and error that if he doesn't slip up and do something that on a 5 minute exam is seen as block-able, he's never going to be bothered, except of course by the thousands of people, including all the hundreds who chose to use the term in their own contribution to the mass theft that is this site, who quite rightly object to what he does because it's a disgusting abuse on several levels, but who are not suitably versed in the general complexities of wikilaw, and will invariably either fall foul of the 5 minute rule, or just walk away. Because one thing's for certain, he's not going anywhere, and he will wait years if necessary before re-attempting a change he previously couldn't quite pull off the 1st, 2nd, even 3rd time previously. It's a Golden Ticket, a free pass to personally influence the world's 8th biggest website on a massive scale. Who's going to pass up that opportunity? I guarantee that the Dalai Lama himself would not succeed in making any progress in that dispute. And there are other examples. So many in fact, that for this site to ever be advertised as a successful project, is a bit of a joke. The truly sad thing is, you have to waste 4 years of your life to be able to see it. Don't presume that the values and beliefs you hold, such as logic, fairness, neutrality or even basic respect, are shared by anyone who is already well established here, not least the people elected to the highest venue of dispute resolution. I've just been through their process, and their 17 man body has expended barely 100 words on it in public. Many of their errors are just obvious from the position of someone who, as the person being examined, knows the story behind each and every cited dispute, each and every critic's own tale of woe. Many other errors are suspected, and despite me seeking clarification, remain unanswered. I've seen people put more words into a discussion about what background colour to give a certain table than they have put into this process. If the intention was a deliberate insult, a calculated slap in the face of someone who has given so much to this project, then it worked. I sincerely hope they did more in private, but wikileaks aside, when there's no summary of that put out there, then it's worthless. Certainly to me, and definitely to you. All this on the back of the most recent outrage, finding out that its considered perfectly fine to compare hard working editors who've never damaged an article in their lives, to members of the Westboro Baptist Church. If you're disgusted at that thought, good, it means you're still a decent human being, and have not yet been corrupted by this site's perverse sense of morality. I've learnt all this through nearly 4 years here, I'm giving you the benefit of my experience free of charge in the spirit of humanity. 4 years is a long time to waste, there's a hell of a lot of things you can do with that time to actually improve the world, or even just your own life, rather than waste it here on the general two-faced self-serving fakery that passes for civil discussion on this site. If you carry on and don't heed it, and don't have the sort of temperament which barely 5% of the world's population would possess, then don't say I didn't warn you. I say all of this as someone who passionately believes in the site, its rules and guidelines, ''as written''.}} | |||
| An arbitration case regarding {{User|MickMacNee}} has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted: | |||
| #MickMacNee is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of no less than one year. After this minimum time has elapsed, MickMacNee will remain banned indefinitely, until such time as he demonstrates to the Committee that he is no longer a threat to the collaborative nature of the project. | |||
| #{{user|Δ}} is admonished for engaging in hostile and uncollegial conduct, and warned that the Committee may impose additional sanctions by motion if such conduct reoccurs. | |||
| For the Arbitration Committee, ] (]) 12:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == July 2011 == | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''24 hours''' for crosses the line of personal attacks, even in the circumstances of your impending Arbcom-mandated exit where allowances have been made for the various things you are saying.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the ] first. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | |||
| ==MfD nomination of ]== | |||
| :Oh it had to be you didn't it. And there was me right in the middle of drafting a reply to your post below that. I think the only way this would have been a more corrupt block was if Sandstein had been the blocker. Anyhooo....the time for thinking people would react to these sorts of blatant abuses is well and truly over. For the record, my reply was thus: | |||
| ], a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for ]. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at ] and please be sure to ] with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>). You are free to edit the content of ] during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.<!-- Template:MFDWarning --> ···]<sup>]</sup> · <small>] · ] · ]!</small> 01:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| {{Quote|:I wouldn't say the wikileaks were all bad, it certainly explained why the committee weren't bothered about how this case came about, not about your outrageous behaviour at the ANI thread which had died multiple deaths after neutral and impartial review, before each time being desperately revived by you, using a technique extraordinarily similar to that other abusive admin Sandstein albeit without the attempted unilateral ban at the end, as in your case there was that nutty sock watching who just came along once you'd flipped out and self-blocked, to incorporate it in whatever that sick game it is that he's playing that he seems to get some enjoyment out of here. Yep. "Who is Chester Markel?" What a damn incivil editor I really am eh. The rest as they say is history, once my betters like DeCausa became aware of the golden opportunity that had just landed right in their lap, happy as larry to be able to take advantage of that no lose situation.}} | |||
| :] (]) 18:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Uk driving license listed at ] == | |||
| ::Bye Mick. World will have to wait for someone else to create ]. ] (]) 18:20, 30 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ] | |||
| :::Don't do that (bait people, that is). ] <sup>]</sup> 18:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
| An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Please participate in ] if you have not already done so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> –]<sup>]</sup> 16:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, well someone had to cap the well. As poor as your behaviour too frequently is in normal circumstances, in these circumstances of impending Arbcom ban, whatever restraint you were exercising seems to have gone. ] <sup>]</sup> 18:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 21:35, 18 October 2023
Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MickMacNee closed
An arbitration case regarding MickMacNee (talk · contribs) has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:
- MickMacNee is banned from Misplaced Pages for a period of no less than one year. After this minimum time has elapsed, MickMacNee will remain banned indefinitely, until such time as he demonstrates to the Committee that he is no longer a threat to the collaborative nature of the project.
- Δ (talk · contribs) is admonished for engaging in hostile and uncollegial conduct, and warned that the Committee may impose additional sanctions by motion if such conduct reoccurs.
For the Arbitration Committee, Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:18, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
MfD nomination of Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 15/Change in consensus on Northern Ireland
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 15/Change in consensus on Northern Ireland, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 15/Change in consensus on Northern Ireland and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 15/Change in consensus on Northern Ireland during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:39, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
Uk driving license listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Uk driving license. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. –Davey2010 16:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)