Misplaced Pages

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Guidelines for my talk page: Please include your comments at the bottom of any existing discussion. Be civil at all times; Fix any mistakes I make; Give me at least 24 hours to a few days to respond. I edit Misplaced Pages sporadically. Please do not put substituted warnings on my talk page - I have edited Misplaced Pages for years, mostly as an unregistered user. Such warnings are condescending and will be removed. Any messages should be in English, and as clear and as legible as possible. As long as I know what you're saying to me, it's okay. If you have a request for me, please be aware that, unless dictated by policy or behavioural guideline, a member of the Arbitration Committee or Wikimedia Foundation (either paid employee or advisory board), or Jimbo Wales, I am not bound by your request, but will take it into consideration. I reserve the right to remove any threads or revert any edits that I percieve to be in bad faith. Violations of these guidelines may result in your post being removed or ignored.

"Controlling" IAR?

Zenwhat, I'd like to point out some history to you. I've edited the page WP:IAR thirteen times ever.

1. 10/19/06 Removing what was either a question about spelling or a dry editorial remark - revert
2. 12/12/06 moving some boxes around to make the page render better - not a revert
3. 12/31/06 Adding the actual text of the policy when it had gone missing - not a revert
4. 1/02/07 boldly trying something, in the midst of a collaborative session - not a revert
5. 4/22/07 Editing, rather than deleting, a bunch of text that some user had added (it was later deleted by someone) - not a revert
6. 4/22/07 Catching something I'd missed on the previous edit - not a revert
7. 4/24/07 Unprotecting the page so people could edit it - not a revert, not even technically an edit
8. 5/18/07 Working with yet another version of the page, adding a link suggested by someone else on the talk page - not a revert
9. 7/07/07 Adding an interwiki link while the page was protected - not a revert
10. 7/07/07 Adjusting formatting per another talk page request while page was protected - not a revert
11. 7/12/07 Again, working collaboratively with someone's new wording, rather than reverting to some previous version - not a revert
12. 7/14/07 More collaborative editing, in the same vein as the previous edit - not a revert
13. 1/21/08 Adding a bullet that had gone missing in the "See also" section - revert

See? I've made two reversions on that page in the last 30 months, and they were both edits anybody would make (anybody familiar with MoS, anyway). My edits are mostly characterized by helping get the page edited when it's protected, unprotecting the page, trying to improve rather than revert others' bold edits, and occasionally making a bold edit of my own. I don't know how you have come to think of me as someone who wants to keep that page from being edited, but I am not the guy you're looking for. I support editing IAR, just as I always have.-GTBacchus 04:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

GTBacchus, that's really evidence to support my claim. You're not really the main guy, though, no. I did some statistics collecting. See my recent post to Misplaced Pages talk:Ignore all rules. Also, I put in an RFC yesterday, but nobody responded because nobody cares. Also, I put the RFC template in, incorrectly, because WP:RFC is confusing and attempts to ask questions about it on the talkpage didn't get answered, and attempts to clarify it were reverted. Also, look at this nonsense. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 14:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

How is that evidence to support your thesis that I try to control the page? I don't revert to previous versions of IAR. I just don't do it. I encourage innovation and boldness there. You are simply wrong about my history. I dare you to provide coherent evidence that I control IAR. You can not.

As for your "There is no credential policy" page, I see you going the same way as others who figured they'd just show up and rewrite policy. You seem to think that you understand Misplaced Pages a lot better than those with more experience than yourself. Such hubris will not lead you anywhere good or useful. Again - I support editing IAR, and you habitually refuse to put your money where your mouth is. I hope you're enjoying all the attention you're getting.

If you can't get others to defend your edits when you bring more eyes to the discussion, then it's likely that your edits aren't very good. If you put in an RfC one day ago, then it's premature to complain that nobody cares. If it's true that nobody cares, then your point must be pretty unimportant. -GTBacchus 16:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would not worry GT, these accusations are not based in fact, and are not being given credibility by anyone. _{(1 == 2)} 16:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not exactly "worried". Maybe it's better if I just walk away, but I find it difficult to refrain from replying. I did find it interesting to learn about my contribution stats when compiling that list. I also wonder what we could do with the policy to prevent others from misunderstanding it in the way that Zenwhat is doing. -GTBacchus 17:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your candor

I appreciate your candor and level head, and totally sympathize, having done much worse myself. Also, if not too much trouble for you, I would welcome that you consider adding that article to your watch list. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:53, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Doubtful. I can't really see me or anyone accomplishing much on that article, heh. It's too political and with too many people watching it. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Other account

Could you please give me the name of your old account? Obviously if there's privacy concerns then I understand, it's just abundantly clear from your contributions that this is not your first. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Nathyn. I lost the password and changed my e-mail address since then (and can no longer access the e-mail account registered with it). ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

German wikipedia.

I am not completely convinced that the German wikipedia is doing better. de:Misplaced Pages:Wikipedistik/Wachstumsprognose implies a linear growth rate, which is fundamentlly different from any considered for the English. WP:NOTFAIL points to de to shows a wiki where FA proportion is not decreasing. FA growth on en. is apparantly linear, so it's portion of wikipedia will be decreasing during times when article growth on en. can be approximated with exponential models. Taemyr (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

A perspective

Maybe it would help to explain my take on this by analogy. Someday an editor may come to Misplaced Pages who consistently writes good articles and featured articles about sex scandals connected to the Catholic Church. Is that POV-pushing? Not really, if the community approves each of the articles as neutral and balanced. Some Catholic editors might be unhappy, but the way to resolve that is to raise the quality of other material. There's a wikiproject whose whole purpose is to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of saints' biographies. That's really not much different from my offer, except that one religion is older and more established than another. Durova 00:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If that's all they do, then they are a single-purpose account. People that do that are generally emotional nutcases who could never compromise on anything or follow policy when it leads to edits they don't like, and I can't think of any example otherwise. They may sometimes be forced to compromise out of the fear of being blocked, but their whole modus operandi is to skirt policy in any way that they can in order push a particular point-of-view.

For an idea of my perspective on Misplaced Pages, see M:Conflict-driven view of wiki, M:Factionalism, M:Wikindividualism, and WP:FAIL. Also, see my essays WP:WIARRM and WP:Zombies. If any of that makes you think I'm "anti-Wiki", there is a satirical essay at WP:Anti-Wikipedianism. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

ghthesoap.com

It is just my opinion. To me the blacklist is not a form of censorship but a method of preventing current disruption. If you disagree then the blacklist page is the place to air your views - others may agree. Thanks --Herby 08:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That does not appear to answer my questions. I do not know how to use anti-spam tools. Is it possible to look into the edit history surrounding that link to find if it has been added, removed, and re-added several times? It was originally added as linkfarming. If it was removed, then re-added multiple times, this would be "disruption," and removing it would not be "censorship." ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you take this discussion to the request you made. Others may well have views and I will be off line shortly. To me the disruption was mostly in 2005 - I can see nothing more recent and - personally - I will not list the site if it is not currently disrupting wikipedia. If you have links showing current disruption that would be good but it would be best to involve others. Thanks --Herby 08:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Know you're busy, but if you need some monetary policy of the USA action....

...There's some absurd stuff masquerading as reliable sources. This is really outrageous. Not karmaisking outrageous, but still.--Gregalton (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Because of some pretty idiotic stuff I've dealt with on policy pages, I mostly focus on reforming policy, WP:RSN, and WP:FTN. If you know of any specific articles, though, yeah, point them out and I'll take a look.

If you ever get frustrated and feel like blowing up over it, I suggest doing the same thing. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

maybe parts of this article violate WP:SYN(for example money creation part)? --Doopdoop (talk) 22:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

your sig

hello Zenwhat -- here is just a friendly observation: I am not sure it is a good idea to link to article space from your sig: it will seriously clutter "what links here" for the article linked (viz, inundate it with links to every talkpage you ever left a comment on). Not a big deal. regards, dab (𒁳) 21:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Links from talkpages can generally be ignored because if something isn't linked from article-space, who cares? When doing searches on User:Zenwhat/Greylist, I filter them out precisely for this reason. I appreciate the comment, though! ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Didn't get that

"If any of you have any examples" at WT:WikiProject Robotics...I don't follow what you're saying. I repeat that I have read your userpage and seen your contributions many places (I've only been hanging around WP about 2 months, but I'm a fast reader), and I have enormous respect for your viewpoints and your contributions to WP. But I'm not entirely sure you get my point...it has nothing to do with robots, per se. It's about improving the quality of robotics articles on WP, and about not offending the people who have the talent to do the work, so that they stop cloistering in their own users groups and come over here and brave the WP-and-sister-sites culture. You may or may not have been calling me a dork for thinking this, I couldn't tell (which is certainly true sometimes.) When I talk in any forum where roboticists can hear me, I attempt to represent their views...partly because I think they don't do that great a job of representing their own views, they tend to simply withdraw, and I'm trying to lead by example. In other forums (like here), I'm more open to different viewpoints. Possibly I might even exhibit a sense of humor. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you're not a dork. Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. Your attempt may or may not be successful:

• It might be totally unsuccessful, because good editors do not have greater authority on Misplaced Pages than fairly irrational mobs, provided that the mobs aren't blatantly silly and follow the rules.
• It might be partially successful, because good editors can sometimes have small wins, here and there, and from what I understand the first person to write an article generally has the most power.
• It might be successful since, to be honest, I can't really see there being that many mobs gathering around anti-technology or anti-robot POVs.

On that last point, though, it certainly is possible and if it happens, I'd like to see diffs. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

RfC possibility

Hey Zenwhat, thank you for your support--it's very much appreciated! I do not like Addhoc's actions here at all, and I do think they are out of line, especially for an administrator. Unfortunately he is allowed to remove content from his own Talk Page, but his WQA actions are definitely not OK. For the time being I'm going to leave it alone, but if the situation continues or another WQA like that is filed, it will definitely be an option to seriously consider. And if an RfC is filed against him by anyone else at any point I will be bringing this up.

At my Talk Page, Iamunknown also brought up the possibility of bringing this issue to Third Opinion--I thought that might be a good option, but after looking at the description on that project page, I don't know if it fits. It seems as though this would be a conduct dispute more than a straight-up editing conflict. So I don't know if it's worth it to file a dispute there. Best, DanielEng (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing comments

I've noticed that you have been reverting the deletion of comments on User talk:Addhoc by User:Addhoc. Please note that WP:TALK explicitly allows a user to remove comments from their own talk page. As such, your reversions of these entirely proper removals by the user are contrary to policy, and constitute vandalism. In the spirit of WP:AGF I assume that you were previously unaware of this policy, and trust that you will desist from restoring comments on user talk pages now that you are aware of this policy. Mayalld (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please, your accusation of "vandalism" is absurd and absolutely false. "Vandalism" applies ONLY edits made with the deliberate intent to HARM Misplaced Pages. Restoring comments because they were not properly discussed does NOT harm Misplaced Pages and so is NOT vandalism. --Iamunknown 23:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please, do not use WP:AGF to accuse me of ignorance of policy. I am aware of policy and your accusation seems patently absurd, considering how my userpage looks, which includes a number of essays on policy.

What WP:TALK literally says cannot be used to contradict WP:Trifecta:

• Remain neutral
• Ignore all rules
• Don't be a dick

In the spirit of WP:Talk, what Addhoc did here was blatantly inappropriate. A clerk from WP:WQA brought some seemingly genuine concerns to him and he removed the comments, apparently on assumptions of bad faith, and when I tried to restore his comments and even ask him to stop removing them, he engaged in an edit-war. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

They were not duplicates. DanielEng made a comment here that you removed. It was never re-posted on User talk:DanielEng. When you removed my comment here , again, there was never any copy of that remark anywhere else when you removed it. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, the comments were duplicates, the conversation was on the other editor's talk page. Of course, you are entirely free to delete this message if you want. Addhoc (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The conversation was. However, not every comment was. You deleted his first comment without copying it to his talkpage. And you then edit-warred over it. You did not engage in this same behavior regarding other comments on your talkpage (all the other threads there, currently visible and archived). Why this one when it's involving a policy matter, specifically involving you?

If people don't keep full copies of conversations on both talkpages of all parties involved, it can make archives a mess, since looking up an old conversation requires digging through the histories of all users and having to reconstruct the conversations. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:TALK is explicit that users are permitted to remove content from their talk pages. It doesn't come much more simple than that. I'm sorry that you take my assumption of good faith in the way that you have, but even experienced editors are sometimes unaware of certain aspects of policy. Far better to AGF than to assume that you were fully aware of WP:TALK and chose to go against it.

It appears to me that in your irritation with User:Addhoc you ignored WP:Trifecta yourself! If a user wishes to remove comments from his talkpage, let him. If that user was being a WP:DICK (and I offer no view on that point) it surely come back to bite him. No sense in being a WP:DICK yourself, by reverting his legitimate removals just because you don't like them.Mayalld (talk) 09:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that is your opinion. You just re-stated it and I can't add anything other than, "I think you are wrong." ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 09:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If you continue to revert deletions by other editors that are specifically allowed by guidelines, you are ignoring consensus, and that is disruptive editing. Disruptive editing leads to editors being blocked. This is not a matter of one person's opinion versus another, it's a matter of your taking a position that you disagree with a guideline, and are not going to follow it. That's unacceptable. You either follow the rules here, or you leave, voluntarily or via being blocked.

And, by the way - the reason I stopped by this page originally - you don't seem to understand the rules for indentation of talk page comments. You might want to read this essay, as well as look at the guidelines cited by that page. Proper indentation is a courtesy to other editors, as well as an indication that you've read and understand guidelines. Some editors take the opinions of those who follow rules more seriously than those of editors who don't read or care about following rules. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 16:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

People are allowed to remove stuff from their talk page Zenwhat, please respect that or propose a change at WT:USER. _(1 == 2) 16:27, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

People are allowed to -- according to the literal wording of existing policy. Please, stop citing policy as law and address the fact that a wikiquette clerk, in good-faith, brought a concern to a SysOp, and they removed the remarks without copying them elsewhere and edit-warred when others attempted to put them back. And they did this in this case, but not in every case. Ignore policy entirely and consider what a dickish thing that is to do. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

People are allowed to according to the intent of the policy. There has been considerable debate on the very subject of people being able to remove content from their user pages and consensus was that it was allowed. _(1 == 2) 17:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The intent of the policy on talkpages is to encourage collaboration. If you're wiping remarks from your talkpage which are critical of your administrative actions, you're not acting appropriately. "Consensus" is not defined by the majority. There are a fair amount of folks supporting administrative accountability that would agree that what he did above was absolutely absurd. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 17:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's distinguish between any very unusual case and the guideline in general. The question is whether you accept the guideline - that an editor is allowed to remove content from his/her user page , and that it is disruptive to put it back - or not. You say If you're wiping remarks from your talkpage which are critical of your administrative actions, you're not acting appropriately. That implies that you reject the guideline. If that's the case, you need to build consensus for changing it, and follow it until/unless it changes.

In fact, there have been numerous discussions about this. At the risk of boring other editors who have already been through this, let me mention a couple: (1) A good editor never relies on a user talk page to see what warnings have been posted; rather, the history of the user talk page is checked; (2) While we normally think about (a) bad editors removing warnings from good editors, the reverse is also possible - (b) good editors often remove postings - including bogus warnings - from bad editors. If the guideline is changed, then good editors will be forced to keep - or archive - bogus warnings, personal attacks, and so on, or to risk being held in contempt of the guideline. And of course it is impossible to distinguish (a) from (b) without setting up some sort of specialized committee for appeals, etc. - a bureaucratic nightmare. (3) While editors are encouraged to archive talk page sections rather than delete them, some inexperienced editors don't know that. So changing the guideline would mean starting to enforce what may seem to many newer editors yet another arbitrary rule - they can't delete, but must learn how to archive and do that consistently.

I also note that you still don't seem to be grokking how to properly indent your talk page comments.

And finally, your saying "Consensus" is not defined by the majority is curious. If you don't accept the existing practices regarding consensus here, then what are you doing to change them? -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you describing accepted practise regarding the removal of warnings? Neither DanielEng's nor Zenwhat's comments on Addhoc's page were "warnings" (standard or otherwise), they were legitimate remarks regarding Addhoc's edits. While I am (personally) somewhat in agreement with not restoring comments to others' talk pages, solely because of the disruption that inevitably ensues (as can be seen here and elsewhere), I think it is a bit of a non sequitur to conclude from the general practise regarding restoring warnings that restoring legitimate remarks is unacceptable. --Iamunknown 21:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The general principle is that the user talk page is for leaving messages for the user. These messages need remain there only for so long as the user in question has use for them. That may be some time if the user chooses to engage in discussion, or it may be a very brief time if the user reads the comments, and has no further need to refer to them. If User:Addhoc had taken all actions that he intended to take in respect of these comments, and didn't wish to discuss them, he was perfectly OK to remove them. Mayalld (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, clearly, he had no use for Danieleng's remarks. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:AGF it would be wrong of you to draw any such conclusion. It would be fair to conclude that he had no further use for the remarks, and in truth there are many cases where a message is left on a talk page that, having been read, is of no further use. Your repeated attempts to draw adverse inferences from it are hardly in keeping with WP:AGF. Mayalld (talk) 22:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the inevitable citation of WP:AGF ... but isn't the assumption that Zenwhat was not assuming good faith, in itself an assumption of bad faith? (BTW, I'll post a more remark later, when I've investigated some.)  :) --Iamunknown 22:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF doesn't apply when there's evidence to the contrary. He has not engaged in this behavior on all other threads in the past, he edit-warred when I tried to restore the comments, and when I created a thread asking him to stop, he removed my thread without responding on my talkpage. With all due respect, sir, that is pretty belligerent and requires no speculations of malintent to be established. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't have to do it to all threads. He is allowed to decide which threads he keeps, and which he deletes. That is the policy, and whether you like it or not, you can't go round giving people grief simply because they won't play according to what you think the policy should be.

His edit deleting content was in line with policy, yours restoring it was NOT. Live with it. You reverted a legitimate edit. That is distruptive editing by you, and remarkable restraint by him (he could have warned you for vandalism).

Mayalld (talk) 22:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, Mayalld, no he could not have. Would you please see my response to your initial comment above and also Misplaced Pages:Vandalism? What you define as "vandalism" is most decidedly NOT vandalism. --Iamunknown 22:25, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Mayalld, thanks for your comments, however, while Zenwhat's conduct was unhelpful, it wasn't vandalism. Based on other editor's comments about Zenwhat behavior, a user conduct RfC could be a possibility. Addhoc (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha. So, now I'm a vandal and could've been warned for "vandalism" for one talkpage revert, and one new thread on removing comments, both done in good-faith? This conversation is over, Myalld. I'll let this stuff stay up and I will let you have the last word if you want it. Iamunknown or anyone else: I don't mind if you continue this conversation here, but since I'm no longer interesting in commenting on the matter or reading any future discussion on it, please discuss this in person. Hopefully, Mayalld will let you discuss it on his talkpage? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

More remarks - mostly trying to sort through the situation at hand

I am aware that above Zenwhat states that s/he is finished with this issue. I began this comment earlier today and, now that it is finished, feel it may help to clarify some issues which remain relevant, so I am going to post it nonetheless.
(Note that this comment, especially the stricken-out part, began as a reply to Mayalld's 21:37, 2 February 2008 (UTC) comment.)

Except that he clearly had use for them, as he continued engaging DanielEng in discussion, only not on his talk page. He had not taken all actions that he intended to take in respect of these comments, and yet removed them.
I was just about to post the above , but then decided to investigate further. It was really confusing, and I think a lot of this discussion the stems from the confusion.

• Firstly, I think that this discussion of Zenwhat's restoration of comments on Addhoc's talk page is an aside to the original issue, which was Addhoc's transfer of BigK_Hex's comments (diff) from the administrators' noticeboard to the wikiquette alerts without noting that it was he who transferred it.
• Secondly, after an initial comment by DanielEng and a bit of back-and-forth between Zenwhat and BigK (available in the history (link)), DanielEng noted that Addhoc had transferred BigK's comments to the Wikiquette alerts page, that BigK was not forum shopping and that he planned to leave a note to Addhoc (diff).
• Then, Addhoc left a note to DanielEng on Daniel's talk page (diff), to which Daniel replied (diff) and then left the same note on Addhoc's talk page (diff), which Addhoc removed (diff).
• Addhoc continued discussion on DanielEng's talk page (diff), to which Daniel replied on his (diff) and Addhoc's (diff) talk page, which Addhoc removed again (diff).
• This is where Zenwhat came in. S/he restored Daniel's remarks on Addhoc's talk page (diff), was reverted by Addhoc (diff), reverted him/her (diff) and then was reverted again (diff). (About sixteen minutes after Zenwhat's final revert, Mayalld left his/her initial note to Zenwhat at Zenwhat's talk page (diff).)
• There are a few more edits in between, but it is difficult to write a narrative about it, so I trust that interested editors will investigate for themselves.

Now that I have sorted through the diffs, time for some editorialising:

• Addhoc's initial edit to the Wikiquette Alerts page (moving BigK's complaint from ANI), without noting that it was he who was moving it, as opposed to BigK adding it him/herself, caused a lot of confusion. It would be wise to note when a comment is being moved from fora to fora.
• The comments made by DanielEng to his talk page and to Addhoc's talk page were (I think) almost identical. It took me a while, however, to realise this (as noted in my above striken comment, which I wrote initially), and I am sympathetic to the fact that Zenwhat may not have realised it initially.
• It would be have been wise for Addhoc to communicate with Zenwhat in a manner more conducive to communcation than edit summaries. If he had noted that DanielEng's comments which he removed were actually on DanielEng's talk page, I think a lot of confusion and disruption would have been averted.
• Now that I have reviewed a lot of edits, I don't think that a user conduct RfC for any involved editors is necessary, at least at this time. Of course, a third opinion is always a good thing to get, so I won't recommend against it.  :)

Those are all of the editorialising comments I can think of right now.  :) Anyways, from my point of view, it looks like there was a lot of confusion and miscommunication, so let's all just promise to communicate more in the future.  :)
If I've mistaken any edits, mischaracterised something, missed some new development (I don't think I have...), should add something, etc., feel free to tell me so here or on my talk page (I'll strike it out, change it, whatever). --Iamunknown 00:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion about possible COI of editors

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:United_States_presidential_election%2C_2008#Possible_COI_of_two_editors --70.11.142.4 (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

bot?

You appear to be using your content as a bot, in violation of WP:BOT. Please, stop using your main account as a bot until it is approved.

If your bot is approved, please make sure it is flagged as a bot and listed on Misplaced Pages:Bots/Status. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't quite get the message you put on my talk page. I can assure you that I'm not a bot, and that I don't use automation tools for my edits (except AWB for minor things, replacements etc.). Markussep 10:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That's difficult for me to believe, considering your contributions list. First, you've only made edits on the very narrow subjects of European athletes and European geography, and your edits often follow certain patterns:

i.e.

You're generating full articles of content at an astounding speed and you aren't involved in that much actual discussion. So far, you've made roughly 1,500 comments on talkpages, while making roughly 42,000. Even if you're doing this manually, please stop. By flooding Misplaced Pages with so much content without discussion, you don't give users a chance to collaborate to dispute whether certain European athletes or European geography is notable.

And if you're not using an automation tool, then where are you copying this material from? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 10:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If a tool is fully supervised then it is considered assisted editing, not a bot and does not need approval. Lots of people do it, it is fine. It appears to me this used is just helping the backlog at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Austria/Cities/Upper Austria, this is a good thing. _(1 == 2) 16:29, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be irrelevant, since he claims he isn't engaged in automated editing and his actions aren't supervised by anybody. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

If the edits are supervised by him, then they are not considered automatic. Anyone can review his contribs. This is common and allowed, the bot policy explicitly mentions the use of using tools for assisted editing without approval. _(1 == 2) 17:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

He's making substantial additions and revisions to the mainspace. WP:BOT says on assisted editing:

"Assisted editing" covers the use of tools which assist with repetitive tasks, but do not alter Misplaced Pages's content without some human interaction.

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You've been mentioned on AN/I

You've been mentioned in a complaint on WP:AN/I. If you would like to comment, please do so here. --Bobblehead 19:46, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Zenwhat. I have a few comments which I thought would be better for you on your talk page than at the incidents noticeboard. Firstly, I think it that the characterisation of your interaction with BigK_HeX as "civility" is quite ludicrous - but, then again, I regularly think that characterisations of "incivility" are ludicrous.

I would, however, recommend reconsidering your comment (diff) characterising BigK_HeX's comment (diff). Whilst I can understand your frustration with BigK_HeX (his/her editing simply confuses me), I think that your characterisation of his comment is tenuous, at best. I do not believe that his comment, "So, if you truly belive that I am pushing a fringe opinion with undue weight, then the guidelines suggest that ...", is an acknowledgement of misuse of sources, but is instead a rhetorical device to suggest a correct course of action (cited from WP:DISRUPT) (in his/her opinion) given your belief that he is misusing sources. Does that make sense? --Iamunknown 20:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)