| Revision as of 12:58, 24 September 2014 editLithistman (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers4,072 edits →To EDBF & others: Flyer← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:02, 24 September 2014 edit undoLithistman (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers4,072 edits forum shoppingNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{wikibreak|Lithistman|'''''after the problem of admin overreach is dealt with. Until it is, I can no longer deal with this project. Drmies forum-shopped until he found a forum to get me blocked. Mission accomplished, Drmies. Congratulations.'''''}} | {{wikibreak|Lithistman|'''''after the problem of admin overreach is dealt with. Until it is, I can no longer deal with this project. Drmies forum-shopped (at ANI and with a deceptive page-protect request) until he found a forum to get me blocked. Mission accomplished, Drmies. Congratulations.'''''}} | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| |algo = old(7d) | |algo = old(7d) | ||
Revision as of 13:02, 24 September 2014
 | Lithistman is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages after the problem of admin overreach is dealt with. Until it is, I can no longer deal with this project. Drmies forum-shopped (at ANI and with a deceptive page-protect request) until he found a forum to get me blocked. Mission accomplished, Drmies. Congratulations. |
| ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Edit warring by admins
Two examples of edit warring by the same admin in two different articles spread apart by one week. See for example this report. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Nothing ever happens to admins who misbehave, unless it's just so egregious that they are stripped of their tools. That's why I quit editing the article where Drmies called his bald revert "admin intervention": I knew once he did that, that there was a greater-than-zero chance I'd be blocked if I kept working on improving that article. LHM 02:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Quitting is certainly one solution, but not always the best solution. Looking at the most recent dispute, you failed to immediately stop edit warring and to warn Drmies on his talk page. If you look at the diffs of the last dispute I had with Drmies, you'll notice that I did not revert a single time, yet I still ended up blocked. The best thing you can do is immediately document the dispute on the relevant noticeboards. When enough reports pile up over time, the community will take a closer look. I notice that Drmies attempted his patronizing shtick with you as well, talking down to you and giving you a veiled threat in his position as an admin. He did the same thing with me as well, accusing me of being a "youngster" (I'm not) and threatening me with false accusations. You need to document this bad behavior whenever it occurs, without fear or intimidation. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- The thing about that page is, I'm just not interested enough in Landmark to put myself through the kind of nonsense that goes on there. Once Drmies started stomping around "waving the badge", I just decided to focus on work I find more interesting on this project. I have a long list of things I want to get done for the various WikiProjects I'm in, so I'm focusing on that. I will say, though, that if he (and that awful Landmark article) are ever brought before Arbcom, I will definitely present evidence. LHM 02:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, believe me, I understand your position. You and I are here to write articles, share what we know, and learn from others. But a lot of these admin types aren't here for that reason. They are here to play games, and to use Misplaced Pages to advance their own personal goals. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- If someone offered me the tools right now, I'd turn them down. As much as I'd like to be able to use a couple of them (particularly the non-controversial delete, as well as the move and history merge ones), I just don't have the desire to play politics as I see far too many administrators doing on here. I like to write and learn new things, period. That's why I'm here. LHM 02:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, believe me, I understand your position. You and I are here to write articles, share what we know, and learn from others. But a lot of these admin types aren't here for that reason. They are here to play games, and to use Misplaced Pages to advance their own personal goals. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- The thing about that page is, I'm just not interested enough in Landmark to put myself through the kind of nonsense that goes on there. Once Drmies started stomping around "waving the badge", I just decided to focus on work I find more interesting on this project. I have a long list of things I want to get done for the various WikiProjects I'm in, so I'm focusing on that. I will say, though, that if he (and that awful Landmark article) are ever brought before Arbcom, I will definitely present evidence. LHM 02:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Quitting is certainly one solution, but not always the best solution. Looking at the most recent dispute, you failed to immediately stop edit warring and to warn Drmies on his talk page. If you look at the diffs of the last dispute I had with Drmies, you'll notice that I did not revert a single time, yet I still ended up blocked. The best thing you can do is immediately document the dispute on the relevant noticeboards. When enough reports pile up over time, the community will take a closer look. I notice that Drmies attempted his patronizing shtick with you as well, talking down to you and giving you a veiled threat in his position as an admin. He did the same thing with me as well, accusing me of being a "youngster" (I'm not) and threatening me with false accusations. You need to document this bad behavior whenever it occurs, without fear or intimidation. Viriditas (talk) 02:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Note: I have started a new discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:Edit_warring#Edit_warring_and_advanced_permissions. I would like to modify the edit warring policy to make it clear to admins that the policy applies to them as much as it does regular editors. Please participate. Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
- Apparently, your having posted to my talkpage earlier in the day makes us some sort of collaborators or something, and disqualifies me from commenting on the edit warring policy--at least according to Spartaz. LHM 16:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Testilying
I checked out Chillum's talkpage after the user commented on User talk:Boeing720#Last warning. I saw the dispute you were having and followed the links you provided. No collusion, just agreeing that "police perjury" was simpler and more encyclopedic language. The last interaction before this was a Mediation Cabal case back in 2007. So we're not exactly allies. Just wanted to inform you.
Peter 17:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the note. It simply looked sort of suspicious to me that two editors I'd never met--and who'd never edited the Blue Code page previously--showed up to support Chillum's first edit--a bald reversion of me after we previously disagreed strongly on a policy page. I had no proof, other than suspicions, which is why I worded my suspicions obliquely, instead of making a direct accusation. I am sure you're a great editor, though. LHM 18:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you
Dear Lithistman,
Thank you for your comment on my talk page. I do have some questions, and I hope I'm putting this message in the right place. At 115ash's suggestion, I created a new section on the Andrew R Heinze talk page, and (as I said on 115ash's talk section), I feel bad about messing up the Andrew R Heinze Wiki article because it didn't have flags on it before I added the new citations (because an article with flags on it looks bad.) So now I want to take my mistakes one by one and correct each one, but I'm not sure what was wrong with them. EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- @EastDimeBoxFrank: I will take a look at that article and try to figure out what the issue is. One thing you can do to make it easier for people to navigate to articles you're talking about is to wikilink them, like this: Apple. You do that by typing ], when you compose your message. LHM 20:06, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, Lithistman. I will do that. So here it is: Andrew R. Heinze is.EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- No problem @EastDimeBoxFrank:. At a first glance, there are serious issues with the sourcing, and much of the article may have to be trimmed/cut, so that it can be built back up again on the back of good sourcing. LHM 20:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you so much, Lithistman. I will do that. So here it is: Andrew R. Heinze is.EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- The info in the article was already there, and I just added some sources to try to improve it. Could you give me an example of where the sources are bad? For instance, when it comes to degrees from schools, I thought that a CV which was posted on the professor's university's own site would be perfect legitimate source. What would be better?EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- There are so many sources, some of which are not web-accessible, that it's going to take me awhile to sift through them. LHM 20:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for taking time with this. One thing that confused me is that I looked up a bunch of people's Wiki pages (so I could see what's wrong with my sources), and I could see that a lot of those Wiki pages have sources that are all over the map (and a lot of them go to dead links). I guess that I can't use them as models. For instance, I looked on the Austin Pendleton Wiki page, and there were only two sources on the "References" list (in a pretty long article), and both of those links seemed to be dead (there were also four sources on the "External Link" list), and yet the Wiki editors seemed to have no problem with it. Also, on that page, I saw that there were two kinds of sources, "External links" and "References", whereas on the Andrew R. Heinze page, the sources were all under, "Notes." What is going on with that? EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- There are so many sources, some of which are not web-accessible, that it's going to take me awhile to sift through them. LHM 20:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- The info in the article was already there, and I just added some sources to try to improve it. Could you give me an example of where the sources are bad? For instance, when it comes to degrees from schools, I thought that a CV which was posted on the professor's university's own site would be perfect legitimate source. What would be better?EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- Right now I am improving a bunch of the sources on Andrew R. Heinze... including sources that came from other people. They were probably good once, but when I looked, they were dead. EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 22:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- I noticed that as well. As this discussion has now turned exclusively to the article, let's take it to article talkpage. LHM 22:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- I see you on the article talkpage now, so I will follow you there. And thanks again. EastDimeBoxFrank (talk) 22:58, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Eh
| Collapsing more harassment. LHM 21:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
LHM, you must think I'm just fucking around here. First you accuse me of not practicing due diligence in the AfD, and now you doubt what I say in the article itself. Well, what you keep reinstating is a copyright violation, which is what I indicated in the edit summary. Why would you doubt that? Don't you think I'd ask the experts? Your lack of AGF, coupled with what appears to be a lack of, well, common sense, is somewhat troubling. You can't link to a "reprint" of something unless that reprint has been allowed by the copyright holder, in this case a French magazine. And can I just point out that you aren't even able to provide proper bibliographic information for the article (date, page numbers, byline), and that you won't find it on the NO website since it's not in their archives? Drmies (talk) 02:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
|
A barnstar for you!-Cassianto
|
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
| Thank you for your kind words during a recent conflict which I have been involved in. I would've perhaps continued if it wasn't for your helpful advice. Thank you. Cassianto 18:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC) |
- btw, do you like reading books on America by any chance? User boxes are helpful in understanding the real life, interests, opinions and thoughts of a user, wouldn't you say? Cassianto 18:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- First, thanks for the Barnstar! Second, I love reading books on America, Kansas, the Old West, and many other topics--thanks for asking! :) LHM 18:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!-Viriditas
|
The Barnstar of Diligence |
| Thanks for contributing to several discussions with your insight and wisdom. It's good to know there are helpful editors like yourself around who will stand up to nonsense when they see it and tell it like it is. Viriditas (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC) |
- Thanks--I'm doing my best! LHM 01:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
| Collapsing harassing notes.LHM 21:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Section reserved
for when John (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) finds someone on IRC or through email to block me for implementing the consensus at John Barrowman. LHM 20:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
- Figured this would be a good place to put a link to the ANI thread Drmies (who was recruited by John) started trying to get me blocked/sanctioned/I'm not sure what. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attacks_and_false_accusations. It's really quite odd. LHM 21:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
| More harassment. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Notice
Please let this ping (@Drmies:) serve as notice that I prefer to not interact with you any further. You've threatened me with blocking, accused me of personal attacks, and now started a frivolous thread at ANI about me. I'm done dealing with you, other than if you happen to be editing an article I'm also working on. LHM 21:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC) And let this ping (@John: serve as notice of the same for Johm. I've no interest in interacting with admins who reach for their "badges" and wave their protect/block buttons around whn in the midst of content discussions/disputes. LHM 22:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
September 2014
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Lithistman (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
There is clear consensus for the material in question at the talkpage. It's not even close. Ask any of the other editors involved. You should have looked much deeper into this before blocking.LHM 22:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=There is ''clear'' consensus for the material in question at the talkpage. It's not even close. Ask any of the other editors involved. You should have looked ''much'' deeper into this before blocking.''']'''<sup>'']''</sup> 22:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=There is ''clear'' consensus for the material in question at the talkpage. It's not even close. Ask any of the other editors involved. You should have looked ''much'' deeper into this before blocking.''']'''<sup>'']''</sup> 22:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=There is ''clear'' consensus for the material in question at the talkpage. It's not even close. Ask any of the other editors involved. You should have looked ''much'' deeper into this before blocking.''']'''<sup>'']''</sup> 22:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
- Note
Any of the following editors can give you the context at that page. You should have checked before blocking an established contributor. 22:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC) @Viriditas:; @Ritchie333:; @Jusdafax:; @Mark Miller:; @Peter Gulutzan:; @Loriendrew: @A Quest For Knowledge:
- @HJ Mitchell:Perhaps you missed it, but this has been discussed and the overwhelming consensus (if not unanimity) of editors is that this source is a reliable source in this context. Please see the following diff. Can you please self-revert this block? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Drmies started a thread at ANI about me, that I refused to participate in because he was just being vindictive. This block seems to be a direct result of that thread. LHM 22:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Lithistman, I am happy to start an arbcom case, however the arbs will have to approve it, which is not always the case. I am at work right now, but I will consider writing the arbcom proposal when I get home. I'm very sorry you were blocked. There was a clear consensus on the talk page to include the material, and discussion had occurred multiple times already. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell: Have you self-reverted this block? I can accept on good faith that you made an honest mistake, but I don't understand what's taking you so long to undo this mistake. Please respond. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell: 9 editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- John has been the definition of contentious throughout the process, as has Drmies, employing little other than the WP:IDHT "argument", and then fishing for a forum to get me blocked when I enforced the talkpage consensus. It's really quite a shabby state of affairs for admins to act this way.LHM 12:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell: 9 editors. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- @HJ Mitchell: Have you self-reverted this block? I can accept on good faith that you made an honest mistake, but I don't understand what's taking you so long to undo this mistake. Please respond. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Lithistman, I am happy to start an arbcom case, however the arbs will have to approve it, which is not always the case. I am at work right now, but I will consider writing the arbcom proposal when I get home. I'm very sorry you were blocked. There was a clear consensus on the talk page to include the material, and discussion had occurred multiple times already. Viriditas (talk) 22:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Drmies started a thread at ANI about me, that I refused to participate in because he was just being vindictive. This block seems to be a direct result of that thread. LHM 22:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
To EDBF & others
The experience of editing Misplaced Pages that I've had since making my first edit to the Landmark article, combined with how Drmies, John, and now HJ Mitchell have misused their administrator tools, has removed almost all pleasure I took in editing this project. One of the only really enjoyable aspects of the project for me the last little while has been my recent interaction with @EastDimeBoxFrank:. It's been fun seeing you grow as an editor over the last week or two, EDBF, but I'm taking my leave now. I may return at some point, but until I do, maybe @Astynax: might be willing to step into the role I'd been playing in helping you out. One piece of advice I'd give you is this: as much as possible, just try to stay out of the way of administrators. Dealing with people who can get you blocked from editing, or protect non-consensus versions of articles using their extra tools, is no fun at all. If you cross them, just let them have their way, and find another article you are interested in to edit. Best regards, LHM 22:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Justice delayed is justice denied. The more editors that leave and fail to tackle the problem directly, the more it will continue. Please consider staying so that we can address this unpopular problem with admins in the appropriate venue. You were unfairly blocked by admins protecting other admins, and I think arbcom will take that into consideration when they see that John has a history of this kind of disruption. Retiring now, before I propose the case, is not helpful. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- I see @The Devil's Advocate: and I have a mutual... umm... friend... <rollseyes> LHM 03:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- @Flyer22: Thanks for the supportive note at your talkpage. I have no wish to cause you any consternation, so if you're not comfortable directly challenging what these members of the admin corps have done in my case, I completely understand. Happy editing, Flyer! LHM 12:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)