Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:57, 18 November 2008

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Re: WP:AGF and defenestrations

Thanks for the heads-up, I'm already on it: . I'm still formulating the post, but it will appear soon.

Cheers and thanks again! pedro gonnet - talk - 01.02.2008 09:05

Ta-da! pedro gonnet - talk - 01.02.2008 09:27

Arb case

Hi, I was going to respond to a previous comment of yours, but it's been deleted already, so I'm just starting a new thread. In regards the scope of Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories, despite the name of the case, it is still applicable here. When the ArbCom handed down their decision, they said, "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted)" So though the case may have just been about conspiracy theories, the arbs used it as a vehicle to authorize sanctions in a much wider topic area. They've done similar things in other areas too. For example, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren is used to authorize sanctions on any articles in the Eastern European topic area, and so forth. Just wanted to clear that up, --Elonka 22:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough - I didn't read the whole case page, just scanned what the original filing party said, which kicked off with this phrase: "This case centers around the prospects of adding of pro-conspiracy theory language to articles related to the September 11, 2001 attacks". Anyway, it's not going to be a problem, as I really don't do much on most Sept 11th articles, and I don't of course spend my time here waiting for the opportunity to be offensive, disruptive or whatever. In fact in my view I'm far too accomodating most of the time to people who do act in that way, and generally indulge them by debating points with them until everyone is going round in circles. In reality I'd happily ignore most of the more contentious articles here, but sometimes I just see what I think is seriously awful content in them and try to deal with it occasionally. The problem often is that a lot of them are dominated by people with a pretty fixed world view one way or the other, rather than people who are at least trying to edit with some element of objective detachment. What should be simple common sense edits then become the cause of voluminous talk page debate, which very occasionally becomes a little fractious. As I've said I can only think of two comments on my part that were even approaching being out of line in all the time I've been here (and I very definitely do not include the one at issue here). Furthermore I never go running to an administrator each time I feel I've taken a knock from someone else, which happens far more often. --Nickhh (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

ps: I'm really not being smug at all (honest!) but I am pleased to note that my insistence that the al-Durrah conditions could be removed without a descent into chaos has more than been vindicated.

Yes, I too am very pleased that that article has stabilized.  :) --Elonka 14:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ariobarza

I don't know if you've had a chance yet to review Ariobarza's latest response on the Battle of the Tigris AfD, but it seems to be yet another personal attack against myself and other editors (including you, I guess) who have !voted to delete the article. This seems to be a habit of his. Having reviewed his edits systematically, I believe there are significant concerns about him that need to be addressed. I have raised this issue at WP:AN/I#User:Ariobarza. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll pop something in - not sure it will add much to what I've said already at the AFD. --Nickhh (talk) 21:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh please read my message on the ANI page, and reframe from make more absurd and escalating comments on my ANI page, my personal attack was not against you in the first place, and I hope that you see all ChrisO wants is to gain support for blocking me, and eventually banning me. Ever since he has come here, disputes have begun. Please do not make things worse by involving yourself in this HYPOCRITICAL ANI (meaning Chriso has been here more than 3 times more than me, and has done what he is acccusing me of doing, plus he had gotten banned once), I am getting really tired of this.--Ariobarza (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza

I did read your message (and managed to understand most of it). In turn please read what I have said on the ANI & other pages - your personal attacks, such as they are, are the least of the problems with what you get up to here. Your mainspace contributions here are mostly, to be quite honest, shoddy and incompetent. You insist on boring people with your extensive amateur analysis on talk pages, with the effect of diverting good editors from doing anything constructive with their time. You have also ignored all the helpful and generous advice you have received in your eight months of extensive editing, and even now show no intention of acknowledging any of the utterly legitimate issues people are raising. I and others are simply pointing out what the problems are. Your slightly bizarre rants, here and elsewhere, won't change the fact that those problems exist, or stop people from continuing to highlight them. --Nickhh (talk) 17:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, hi, I'm taking a look at Ariobarza's actions. In the meantime, could I ask you to please consider what you're saying, in an effort towards de-escalating the dispute? Accusing someone of fraud is a very serious statement, and per WP:NLT, you might want to consider refactoring your comment. Thanks, --Elonka 00:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that removing content from someone else's post, on two separate occasions, so that anyone who goes to the current version of the page cannot see it, is fraud as simply defined, one would assume? I'd be more than pleased to hear an explanation as to why this might not be the case. --Nickhh (talk) 00:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh and I've just gone to and actually read WP:NLT. Posting that on my talk page seems a little OTT, surely. --Nickhh (talk) 01:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to defend what Ariobarza is doing, but please, could you find other terms to use than "Fraud"? It's such a strong word, and I am not seeing any indication that that's what's going on here. More likely it's the case that Ariobarza is not a native English speaker, and the language difficulty is causing further difficulty with understanding of Misplaced Pages procedures. Which still may not be acceptable for Misplaced Pages, but it's a long way away from outright fraud. --Elonka 02:52, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Fraud as broadly construed simply suggests deceit for some form of advantage. Removing details from a case which is being made against you, especially in such a way that the removal would not be immediately obvious to a third party subsequently reviewing that case, seems to me to fit that description. This is a general observation, nothing to do with any WP procedures or any unique rules relating to ANI. I can change it to "tampering with the evidence" if you'd prefer .. --Nickhh (talk) 10:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, why continue to make it sound legalistic? There's no need to make it sound worse than it actually is, so why not just state what happened, "inappropriate tampering with other editors' posts". --Elonka 14:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

"Fraud" is not exclusively a legal term. The point I was trying to make above of course - after you raised the allegation -was that my language could have been even more legalistic, given the circumstances. --Nickhh (talk) 15:29, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:STALK

Nick, I make your appearance at Pat's talk page the third place you've followed me to. That you misrepresented the number and nature of my edits does not make me any gladder to have you tagging along after me. I'd like to ask you -- very, very firmly -- to stop. Okay? IronDuke 19:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Stalking you, where? I believe our paths crossed most recently on Second Intifada, an article I have been involved in from time to time in the past. You of course turned up on the talk page after me, not before me, as clear from this section. Subsequently I came across your attempts to insert the Dershowitz stuff into the Cynthia McKinney article. The reason I came across that was because, yes, I was having a bit of a trawl round for an especially egregious example of WP:UNDUE material, based on limited sources, being shoved into I-P pages or those with vague links to them, which I could use as a diff in a more general debate elsewhere. I commented on the talk page itself a day later I think, but did not become involved in editing the page itself. Then naturally, when I saw you had posted a 3RR complaint against another editor on account of the dispute there, but had not notified them, I did (ie yes, I did go to their talk page, but in fact precisely because you had NOT gone there to inform them, as procedure asks that you should - I take a poor view of editors who try to go behind others' backs and try to get them blocked).

As for misrepresenting the number of your edits on the McKinney page (which you have now accused me of twice), I'd advise you to review them. Four edits, all returning material removed by others, between 1704 & 1926 (my time) on the 4th. This one, this one and this one all involved the return of the Dershowitz quote (this is the earlier one, making four in total). I said "Iron Duke has also performed 4 reverts in 24 hours himself, 2 of which were of the Dershowitz material", which you are right was incorrect, I apologise. It was 4, with 3 of them involving the Dershowitz material

Cheers, you're a funny guy. You can't read, you can't count, and you're rude with it. --Nickhh (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, now you're just making this easy, aren't you? Check your diffs again. Your first and fourth diffs are part of the same edit I was making. That does not count as two reverts. There was no intervening edit. Are you telling me you really don't understand this? (I note alos that you split up those edits which occurred right next to each other, making it harder for someone to see you were wrong. Possibly you did not intend to do this.) Looking at Second Intifada, it appears I was there before you (on talk), but please do check me on that. The other article I was referring to was Urban Outfitters, an article you barged into having -- by your own admission -- no idea what you were talking about. You showed up very shortly after I did. That, combined with your recent behavior, suggests to me that you have an unhealthy fascination with my editing. And as for rudeness, you just got blocked a few weeks ago for incivility, no? But I've not been rude here at all. So again: willing to stay away? IronDuke 20:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Easy for myself, yes:

• McKinney - As usual, read what I said above. I said four edits (I have also referred to them as reverts). There are four edits, all of which are going back to a previous version of the page, even if the 1st and 2nd follow on directly from each other and therefore do not technically count as separate reverts for 3RR. I never accused you of a 3RR violation. Btw I split the 1st and 4th diffs above simply so that I would be highlighting all the Dershowitz reverts first, and then added the 1st at the end as an afterthought, since you asked.
• Second Intifada - I have checked; you either have not or have been misreading again. Prior to my October 30th comments here in response to points made by Nishidani & NoCal100, and here in response to Michael Safyan, your last appearance seems to have been way back on the 5th August. So perhaps delayed reaction stalking, who knows. However you then suddenly reappeared in the midst of one of the above discussions, to selectively quote the Mitchell report and to make a not-so-subtle (and misplaced as it happens) dig at one of my earlier observations
• Urban Outfitters - er, it was way back in May when our paths crossed there, so another 3 months previously. Nor do I recall admitting that I had "no idea what I was talking about", not that has any relevance to charges of stalking (and it would perhaps reflect better on you to be a bit more gracious when bringing up the fact that six months ago someone did accept some of your points on a talk page).
• Rudeness - you told me here that I needed to be "educated" and that you could point me in the direction of some books to read. That's kind of rude by any normal standard when all I did was raise a source/BLP query. And yes I was no-warning blocked recently for making one single mildly sarcastic but non-offensive remark in response to an editor who was accusing me of disruptive editing, and swiftly unblocked as well.

I come across other editors on a far more regular basis than I do you, and I'm not stalking them either. I'm adding paranoia to the list of problems - unless of course you edit here with more than one account, and I come across you more often than I realise. Post on my page again and I'm deleting it as trolling. --Nickhh (talk) 22:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, please do not use the word "troll" towards other editors. And IronDuke, you may wish to read WP:BLANKING. And please, both of you read WP:MASTODON? :) Thanks, --Elonka 23:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think repeatedly accusing me - on my own talk page - of stalking, on account of having edited or talked on a couple of the same articles, months apart; while also repeatedly telling me I've said things I haven't said (and when I point out that I haven't said or done them, I get accused of lying more or less) is at least getting close to trolling, which I'm either going to respond to and rebut, or delete aren't I? And it's not as if I didn't say that any more of it would be treated with the latter option. It may not look like it at the moment, but my own talk page really is my least favourite place here ... --Nickhh (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Nickhh, with all due respect, I think you may have been misinformed about what trolling is. It's not the same as "disruption" or "vandalism", it's actually something quite different. There's some info at WP:TROLL, though the best description I ever saw was in this NYT article. --Elonka 23:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

'Fraid not, I know exactly what trolling is, and that first link was a very helpful reminder. Especially this short section. Sums up the problem here perfectly --Nickhh (talk) 00:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Also (and I've noted this on your talk page Elonka) I find it a little odd that you quite happily let pass the fact that ID posted a thread on my talk page entitled WP:STALK and then accused me of being a stalker for no discernible reason. Yet when they post twice repeating their rather bizarre points, I warn them that I will delete the next one as trolling and then do exactly as promised after they post again anyway, you suddenly find it within yourself to get excited about my use of the word "troll". --Nickhh (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Reference note to self and any passing reader

Re "stalking", or "wiki-hounding" as I believe it's now known at least among more polite editors. My sum total of interactions with IronDuke in the 18 months of so I've been around, were at the time of the original accusation, limited to a total of 5 pages in a 7 month period (2 of which were directly related pages). As follows -

• Hamas - March 2008: I was involved in debates and edits over wording in the lead on and off for a few weeks. I believe ID was there before me, as were plenty of other editors. I no more "followed" him there than I followed anyone else there. Then over 50 of my edits later, on a range of other articles ....
• Urban Outfitters - May 2008: I reverted what I saw as an OTT edit by ID and discussed it on talk page for about one day. The page was left more or less as he preferred it, because I accepted some of his points and couldn't be bothered to fight over the rest of them. Then, 5 months later ...
• Second Intifada - October 2008: I was participating in a talk page discussion with at least three other editors when ID suddenly turned up out of nowhere (having not been active on the article for months), referring specifically to comments of mine. So if anyone followed anyone here, he followed me of course. Then, a couple of days later, on the day of the US election ...
• Cynthia McKinney - November 2008: I noticed an edit (by ID) inserting a controversial quote into the article on this candidate. I did not become involved immediately, but did use the diff in a separate general discussion at WP:IPCOLL. However I did then return the following day to make the specific point on the article talk page that I thought the material was unsuitable, but did not edit it out at any stage. At this point, there were back and forth reverts going on between ID & another editor over the edit, and ID filed what I thought was a poor 3RR note against the other editor, and without telling them they had done it. I then did inform that editor on their talk page that the issue had been raised there. I did not go to the 3RR board itself. ID seems to count that page as one of those I am stalking him to.

And that's it. I mean, you do come across the same editors from time to time on different pages. Sometimes one or other of them is there "first". Neither editor is necessarily "stalking" the other. (nb: this is NOT intended to start a new sub-thread)--Nickhh (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Persian problems

You recently contributed to an AfD discussion on an article about ancient Persian history. I have been reviewing the contributions of the editors who have been involved in these and other related articles, and have found a considerable number of issues - bad writing, original research, lack of sourcing or citations, and POV problems. I have posted the results of my review at User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems (it's a work in progress, as I'm still going through the contributions). Please feel free to add to it as you see fit and leave any comments at User talk:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems. I would be interested in any feedback that you might have. Thanks in advance.

I've already had a quick scan, but will look again. I'll add any comments or whatever if they come to me .. not sure how helpful I'll be, as i) it takes a while for the amateur reviewer and/or part-time editor to spot some of the problems - which of course is why it's all so insidious; plus ii) I'm a little exhausted by all the BS above (enough to put you off from doing anything much really). But, if everyone does their little bit, we may get there eventually .... --Nickhh (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you a 'Hezbollah' operative?

It seems to me that you are determined to hide the truth about the terrorist organization 'Hezbollah'. You have been unfairly tracking my activities and removing information and links that I add to WP. Please cease and desist and let others be involved in determining whether my contributions have merits or not. You certainly have sympathy for terror entities and thugs. Fastabbas (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC).

Since you asked, no. I saw you had added links to fringey-bloggish articles of dubious provenance to, I think, two separate article, and removed them both. You can always go and read WP:EL, or more specifically point 2 at WP:ELNO if you have a couple of minutes. Please note as well that editors who come to my talk page telling me what "the truth" is, or claiming that I am trying to suppress it, are banned from my talk page (not in any formal WP sense, just according to my preference). Thanks --Nickhh (talk) 09:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Comment: While Fastabbas' comment is inapropriate, I noticed a few comments by established editors that should have been avoided. I'm hoping that WP:CIV would be maintained in the future though. WP:BITE is a policy that comes to mind as well. Jaakobou 20:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Heyo Nickhh,

I can understand your concern regarding stalk headers but it might be good to still change the title to give a good example of how COI and STALK concerns should be addressed. I would suggest you rephrase the title to something that would have been less provocative. As for the merit of stalk concerns, it might be an issue to which you should follow my recent suggestion to Tundrabuggy.

Cordially, Jaakobou 21:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Civility

Nickhh: If you and IronDuke want to arm-wrestle on each other's talkpages, that's one thing, but when it starts overflowing into mainspace, that's when I (or some other admin) is going to have to wade in. This edit summary was neither civil nor helpful. Now please, can we get back to article work without the rhetoric? Thanks, --Elonka 01:33, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Was it his complaint that brought you here (again)? And where is your response to my complaint about the WP:STALK thread? --Nickhh (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I haven't followed all the back and forth and who said what to whom and "Mommmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, he's touching me!" stuff. So what I'd really like is if everyone could just wipe the slate clean, and find a way to move forward? :) --Elonka 02:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

More than happy to --Nickhh (talk) 02:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Concerns regarding possible continued Wiki-stalking

It would seem that you have followed my contributions page yet again. We've been over this a couple times and I request that you desist from this conduct. Jaakobou 08:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC) p.s. please note that there are currently three editors on your page who raise similar concerns (IronDuke, Fastabbas, Jaakobou). Jaakobou 08:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)