Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:30, 24 February 2009

For new users

If you are new here, welcome. The page Misplaced Pages:Welcome, newcomers has links to a tutorial, and answers to frequently-asked questions.

Archives

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Pentagon

Hi. Well, it wasn't me who's undone one's version WITHOUT any explaination or argumentation. Next time you or any of your overzealous collegues undo my version, please write some argumentation at least, but most of all, please familiarize with the evidence depicted in the videos I've linked. Cheers.

Alex Jones & Your User Page Vandalized

Yet again this day I vandalized Alex Jones. Yet a very short time latter I noticed you indeed not only kept my vandalism of your user page but added a neat-o image of Saint Barbara. Since you seemed to take my "personal attack" is such good sportsmanship I have reverted my last un-constructive edit to Alex Jones. 142.161.185.16 (talk) 11:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Some.Canadian.IP.Address.and.Troll

I figured by my comment you would realize I left Alex Jones alone, and stopped editing him. Anyway I don't know how many time he's been protected in the past, see Encyclopedia Dramatica's article on him to find out where all this vandalism started. 142.161.143.218 (talk) 01:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC) Some.Canadian.IP.Address.and.Troll

Page protection for Ancient Egyptian race controversy

Your protection is totally premature. Zara escalated the conflict, but neither party involved (neither she nor I) violated 3RR, and I clearly opted not to respond to her edit warring with a revert and, instead, took the matter to the discussion page. There was, and is, no need to protect the page at this point. For chrissake, at least give participating editors the opportunity to discuss, debate and come to some kind of consensus without stepping in unnecessarily to abort the editing process! Heated disagreement on a topic like this is to be expected. We haven't begun to reach the point where such precipitous intervention is called for. deeceevoice (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the protection, under the remedy at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, is appropriate. You can all discuss, debate, and work out a consensus on the talk page. As you say, heated disagreement is to expected. I hope everyone will help keep the heat down by avoiding inflammatory language. Tom Harrison 15:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, with Dbachmann on board, you can pretty much forget about that. ;) What we need here is room to disagree without an admin hovering over us like a mother hen. If and when we reach an impasse and edit warring begins, then, it seems to me, protection is called for -- but, it seems to me, not until. Such a measure is an extreme one and should be used only when things have gotten out of hand. You've clearly jumped the gun. deeceevoice (talk) 15:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I echo Deeceevoice's sentiments here: I would suggest that if you feel you must protect the article, that you 1)put up the appropriate template and 2)make this a definite-term protection (protect it for x number of days) rather than some indefinite protection. I would also challenge your interpretation that the article's subject should be construed as being within the scope of Pseudoscience without the proper clarificationfrom ArbComm.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to request clarification from arbcom. I will of course go with whatever they decide. Tom Harrison 15:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

"Lighter weight option" as opposed to what? The better/best option would have been to leave it be and let us continue to try to work things out, and then proceed with building a better article. So far, no 3RR's, no impasse. Page protection was/is completely unwarranted. Period. I'm done. deeceevoice (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ditto to what Ramdrake said. deeceevoice (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Why Tom, have you assumed that the article contains pseudoscience. That does not seem neutral. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Banning

And you've banned me on what basis? deeceevoice (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:General sanctions#Imposed by the Committee, Articles relating to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted. Again, you can appeal this to arbcom. Tom Harrison 19:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I got that. I'm not appealing anything at the moment. I just want information. I visited the page, but saw nothing pertinent. Perhaps you can point me to the applicable language. Thanks. :) deeceevoice (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think I can tell you anything you would find persuasive or useful. Tom Harrison 19:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Tom, I don't understand too why you have placed a ban on Deeceevoice. I haven't seen anything said that is innappropriate. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I disagree, Tom. I think what you might have to say could be very useful. It's a simple request. I mean if you're going to content-ban someone for -- what -- however many months, the least you can do is point me to the relevant governing language. Again, it's a simple -- and civil -- request. Just show me the relevant language, so I can determine if your ban is warranted/justifiable -- in which case I won't waste the ArbCom's time. Thanks -- again. :) deeceevoice (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Because you repeatedly and seriously failed to adhere to the purpose of the project, and its expected standards of behavior. You've been persistently and disruptively uncivil, routinely attacked anyone who disagrees with you, and are trying to slant Ancient Egyptian race controversy toward a fringe viewpoint. I guess that would be uncivil pov pushing. Tom Harrison 20:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

If you won't explain, I'll request the demand be removed; Tom, you are obliged to explain or recant. --jpgordon 19:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I don't think anyone has demanded I recant before. "Eppur si muove!" doesn't seem to be the right reply. Maybe someone knows the Italian for "He's still a disruptive pov pusher." Tom Harrison 20:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You and I know I've done nothing of the sort. Your explanation appears little more than a throwaway excuse. In fact, I've spent the last couple of days trying to build some sort of consensus on the rewriting of the lead paragraph in wholly value-neutral language that, from the looks of it, is likely to succeed -- and nothing more. If you have evidence of POV pushing -- rather difficult, seeing as how the article has been locked down over the past few days -- where is it? deeceevoice (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, let me explain. The article Ancient Egyptian race controversy is placed on probation. There was some discussion on the talk page and a rough consensus was achieved to add some more material. This particular user did then not actually add the material that was roughly agreed on in the discussion, but completely changed the lead of the article. Although some other editors did not object to this, I objected to it, and I reverted as soon as I discovered the changes. Take note that this was not any article, but an article with a notice of article probation on the talk page. Quote:

"This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, making sure to supply full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information."

I wrote long entries on the discussion page, specifying my objection to the changed lead. The discussion already started out polemical and it rather soon came to personal attacks, although you have to read it yourself if you want to know the details. If we just look at the patter of reverts: One substantial change (without prior discussion) would have been justified in accordance with wp:brd if this hadn't been an article on probation, but then also would have been the partial revert. A second revert, restoring the substantial change, while this substantial change was heavily disputed on the talk page, can't be justified at all. And that is what happened. Zara1709 (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me like this is just a misapplication of one ArbCom sanction when another one would have been more appropriate. "Pseudoscience" isn't the issue here, but the article is under probation via Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann, and so the restriction is legitimate (whether or not I agree with it -- the loathesome "any admin" sanctions apply here, and would have been correctly executed if correctly attributed.) --jpgordon 20:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting (mis?)characterization of events, Zara. You see, the problem is I can't tell if you're writing of my purported actions and exaggerating them, or of yours and wildly understating them. If you're doing the latter, then, gee, it looks like you forgot to add how you slapped an "in use" tag on the article and then proceeded to block revert and massively rewrite the article without consulting the other editors -- which raised several objections on the article talk page.  ;) deeceevoice (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Hello. At this stage I'm not going so far as to ask for a "recant" as much as a more complete timeline, and maybe some diffs. My view (from only a very short exposure) was that DCV was working to build consensus and had engaged in meaningful dialog on the same. Admitedly (and I believe that she'd say the same thing) she has some strong opinions and is not afraid to voice them. But (again, happy to be pointed to specifics where I'm wrong) I had not seen behaviours outside the norm for contentious topics.

I'm going to make a request for Arbitration comment, (again) not because I'm asking you to recant but because there is currently ambiguity on the consequences of how we should proceed. I'd already expressed that I thought that exactly this situation was a risk of the current motions/etc. As I understand it:

• You've made a warning and placed DVC on a topic ban. BUT
• That's not actually an admin action, per the committee. THUS
• I can say she's not banned and I won't fall foul of the "wheel war at your peril!" clause. BUT
• What happens if you go ahead and block? Does that block then have the extra staying power of an ArbCom enforcement or not?

Not that any of that has actually happened yet, of course. Thanks for your continued patience on this, brenneman 23:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose what is acceptable behavior for the page is a judgement call. This exchange with Paul Barlow is typical, as is . A more complete timeline and maybe some diffs? No, sorry. I'm not going to spend the evening collecting diffs, or putting together an arbitration packet. There's an appeal procedure that deeceevoice can follow. The arbs (or you, if you like) can investigate and satisfy themselves one way or the other, or someone can ask the arbcom to clarify. Of course I won't block unless deeceevoice violates the ban. Tom Harrison 23:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So, if I get this straight, you have banned Deeceevoice at least in part for voicing her protest against your locking the article? Because that's one of the prominent parts of this diff. I don't have to tell you what that looks like. --Ramdrake (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that wasn't part of the reason. Still, good thing there's an appeal procedure. Have I mentioned the appeal procedure? 'Cause there is one. You can appeal to arbcom. Tom Harrison 23:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahhh, Meow? Anyhew, Now at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Topic_Ban_of_User:Deeceevoice. I hope that I'm reading the tone of the above wrong, and that you're not at all taking this as anything other than a good-faith attempt to understand a situation. - brenneman 00:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

My brusque reply was to Ramdrake's suggestion that I banned Deeceevoice for objecting to my locking the article. I welcome your good-faith look at the situation, and anyone else's review of my admin actions. Tom Harrison 03:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

OK Tom, so maybe I let sarcasm get the better of me. I did insinuate something I shouldn't have. For this, I apologize. However, several editors have come to your page, asking you to either reconsider or better make your grounds for Deeccevoice's banning. I'm counting 4 or 5 of them at this point, in just over 12 hours. That should be enough to tell you it may be a bad ban. Aaron opened a subject at WP:ANI about what it should take to get such a ban reversed and consensus so far seems to say community consensus is sufficient. From this, I'd say it's only a matter of time before someone actually opens an ANI discussion to get the ban reviewed and either confirmed or reverted. I believe it would look better if you asked for a review yourself; I know that's what I'd do in such a situation. In any case, apology given, and advice too. You're free to follow or ignore my advice, though, of course.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

"maybe I let sarcasm get the better of me" - no problem, I'm as prone to that as anyone. Tom Harrison 14:11, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Tom, I've looked in more detail at this, and I've reached the same conclusion as Jpgordon, that is your ban of Deeceevoice isn't valid. You have tried to ban Deeceevoice under the pseudoscience discretionary sanctions, however these clearly aren't applicable in this instance. I've moved your log of the ban from the pseudoscience case page to the talk page. Obviously, an edit war would be unseemly, so if you disagree, I suggest you gain clarification directly from the Arbitration Committee. PhilKnight (talk) 13:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Noted, thanks for letting me know. Tom Harrison 14:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Was Deeceevoice ever formally notified about the Pseudoscience case? I'm not seeing her name on the "list of notifications" at the case page. In order to impose a ban, there's a requirement that before banning, the editor is clearly notified of the case (there's a template that can be used), and the editor must also be given clear instructions on what they can do to avoid any future sanctions. I scanned Deeceevoice's talkpage, and the only message I'm seeing from you (Tom) is the notification of the ban. Was there a warning from some other admin that I missed? --Elonka 16:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

On 18:01, 29 January 2009, and in some subsequent interchanges on the article talk page. Tom Harrison 16:28, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it's not enough to simply announce the case at an article talkpage. There needs to be a formal notification to the user's talkpage, and this then needs to be posted, with a diff of the notification, to the case page. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Log of notifications. So the steps are: (1) The user must be clearly notified on their talkpage about the case; (2) The notification must be logged to the case page; (3) (sometimes combined with #1) the user "should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.. Then if and only if the editor still continues with disruption, should a ban be imposed. My recommendation at this point is to wipe the slate clean. If Deeceevoice is still disruptive, post a formal notification, and if the disruption continues, then proceed to a ban. Trust me, the formal notification itself is often as good as a ban, because it's a clear wakeup call. Even without a formal case notification, just posting a clear and unambiguous warning from an administrator on a user's talkpage, is pretty powerful. So I recommend keeping the notification "card" in your hand, and only playing it when other steps don't work. Ditto with bans, because they're so controversial, it's better to refrain from using them until it's clear that other methods (talkpage warnings and notification) have not worked. --Elonka 16:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, thanks, I look forward to you (or whoever) handling it better. The whole business has satisfied my appetite for racial pseudoscience and bureaucracy, and I wash my hands of it. Best wishes, Tom Harrison 16:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It actually highlights the need for better training on how to use arbitration enforcement, which is probably worth bringing up at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Arbitration enforcement. There's no use making a mistake, if we can't learn something from it.  :) So the question I'd ask here, is where would we put such a guide? If you would have been looking for an "administrator guide to AE", where do you think you would have looked? --Elonka 17:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no interest in any training opportunities like that. In no circumstances will I look for an "administrator's guide to AE." If I want to involve myself with that kind of thing I'll go hang out at the water cooler outside HR. Tom Harrison 17:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Elonka, that assumes Harrison was acting in good faith. Even if I'd been notified of the pseudoscience matter, my case could not reasonably have been shoehorned to fit its parameters -- and Harrison must know that. From where I sit, he simply did not act competently/knowledgeably as an admin; he didn't even act in simple good faith. There's no way I credibly could have been charged with pushing pseudoscience for my actions in this matter.

Thanks to all of those who became constructively involved in this matter. Since Harrison won't apologize, I will. I'm sorry that one admin's precipitous and ill-conceived decisions/actions wasted the time and consumed the efforts of so many.

Harrison, thanks for the notification that the ban is no longer in effect and that you intend to have nothing more to do with the article. I'd be lying if I said you'll be missed. deeceevoice (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Antisemitism

You've reverted without any real explanation. The terse statement "it's not really a good fit" certainly qualifies as an opinion, but without actual substance vis-a-vis an argument, your edit, while destructive, is also exactly useless. We Wikipedians can't give it any serious value, unless you follow tedious tradition and explain yourself. -Stevertigo 17:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Disruption

Please avoid using disruptive edit summaries, to gain attention, as you did here. You should know better. Prodego 21:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm learning better. Politely asking for enforcement wasn't doing any good. Tom Harrison 21:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Are we to understand that you will repeat these tactics in the future? --Golbez (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

No, of course not. I'm deeply sorry for my behavior, and I'll never do it again. Thanks for taking time to set me straight. Tom Harrison 21:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ask me if you need something enforced. Jehochman 21:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

You are about one stupid move away from a block for disruption, per the foolish thread on Jimbo's talk page. Go away, calm down, come back later when you're going to help. If it helps, this is a formal warning not to disrupt Misplaced Pages. Pedro :  Chat  21:24, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your forbearance. I'll take a break, and try to do better when I return. Tom Harrison 21:26, 24 February 2009 (UTC)