Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:11, 23 December 2014

Template:Merry Christmas Banner

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

“	I order you to be truthful, for indeed truthfulness leads to righteousness, and indeed righteousness leads to Paradise. A man continues to be truthful and strives for truthfulness until he is written as a truthful person with God. And beware of falsehood, for indeed falsehood leads to sinning, and indeed sinning leads to the Fire. A man continues to tell lies and strives upon falsehood until he is written as a liar with God	”
— Saheeh Muslim

“	In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same	”
— Albert Einstein

WP:TALK#USE: "Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity.."

WP:CIVIL

P-123 as you know I take exception to your use of anti-ISIL terminology at this point as a sort of call to arms for editors to fly into any level of unresearched argument that you seem to advocate. Again you are using the arguments of discrimination with use of "anti-ISIL" to, I think, push according to your own POV priorities. Its comments like this and comments as you have added to the already prejudiced thread "Ham fisted lead" that seem to me to be aimed at a rounding up of support. I have already raised issue on this so forgive the directness. GregKaye ✍♪ 18:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 With what within my content do you disagree. Your thread at Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Pro-ISIL_and_anti-ISIL showed your preference to generally go along with the claims of one rebel group despite a world of protestation. Please consider the appropriateness of what I consider to be a call to arms. Take a look at your text.

• "Do you mean editors who are anti-ISIL are spoiling the article? ... Remember you can add your voice to the Talk page discussions on anything and if you do not agree with what is said there you must speak up. It doesn't matter if you have not followed all the discussion, your opinion will be as valuable as any other editor's."

Which editors are you talking about? GregKaye ✍♪ 19:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Ownership

You have gradually been showing WP:OWN in ISIS. You have been able to as there is not much editorial interest any more in the more serious aspects of editing ISIS. I have not mentioned this before as I did not want to inflame matters further. My reasons for saying this? Your beating off criticism wherever it comes from. You simply cannot take criticism, can you? You and Legacypac are the same and both try to beat off criticism wherever it comes from. (See my comment in the collapsed thread.) Felino123, Technophant, Signedzzz, WheelsofSteel0, and now P-123. I do not always see the imaginary consensuses that you and Legacypac note in your edit summaries when reverting. Do you not realise how serious a problem this objection to criticism has become? Another aspect of WP:OWN is collapsing editors' comments. Collapsing criticism, whether it is off-topic or not, is a form of censorship. Who are you to decide what should be removed from view on the Talk page? You are not an administrator. I suspect the removal was just as much about my criticism as it was about it being off-topic or infringing WP:CIVIL (which is always a matter of interpretation). You need to toughen up and stop not just objecting to criticism, but laying down the law about how other editors behave. I may take up this behaviour with admins after the Christmas break. I suspected your olive branch would not last long. P-123 (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Make your criticisms but please, please, cite or otherwise reference them. I will absolutely ignore your unsubstantiated accusations. Please see WP:ASPERSIONS. You promised that this behaviour would stop with your earlier "of course" comment. Live up to your promise and we will be fine. Again I ask please do not edit within my edits. I find it humourous that you can talk about OWN yet you don't even respect this. GregKaye ✍♪ 16:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Cuts both ways, m8. It was on condition that you (a) remained civil and (b) stopped the harassment. I have seen neither. P-123 (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • P-123 It does not cut both ways. Your scattering of WP:ASPERSIONS has to stop as you agreed. If you have an issue relating to civil or harassment. Then make it clearly. State your case. What wording do you object to and why do you think it is unjustified. It's not complicated.

You talk about OWN and controlling editors. You have frequently initiated with editors for them to take other editors to admin noticeboards. As you know this action was very much against my nature yet you pushed me to take one editor who I then thought was responding to written comment to administration. I presented a less that vehement case and your criticism was, "you got him off." How is this not controlling?

On your talk page you still display the text (edited here) "Do you mean editors who are anti-ISIL are spoiling the article? In my opinion at the moment the article is not always spoken in a neutral voice,.. if you do not agree with what is said there you must speak up. It doesn't matter if you have not followed all the discussion" and found in full here. You present a pre-judgement of anti-ISIL views before editors may even get to the article.

On the article talk page you have initiated a string of threads (so to speak) or of suggestions presented on user pages that have either been based on what I consider to be your n-NPOV or which I consider to have been poorly thought through. These have frequently been a considerable waste of time and I know that Legacypac, who has frequently shown notable tact in many editing situations, has occasionally lost patience as have I.

You have set a number of errands for me. I am not complaining but, if you are talking about ownership, its worth noting that the requests have not been going the other way.

Were many of these things at all on your mind when you placed your comments here? You take a very legislative approach to accusation. I consider the reactions that are required to defend against your baseless allegations to be a phenomenal waste of time. "Twisting the tail" may be fun for you. For me what is beginning to feel like an endless tirade of accusation, it is not fun at all. I am meant to be getting on with other things in my life. In cases I have cited and in the recent article thread, Ham fisted lead, your editing practice seems to me to reach "ignore all rules" levels of infringement. It began to feel relentless and, again, a huge waste of time.

In return I have placed good will messages on your talk page and took time to put together information that I thought might be of relevant interest to you. All have been deleted. At the moment it seems to me that you may be obsessed with tearing me down. GregKaye ✍♪ 18:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleting content

When cleaning up my userpages just now I found this. This must be against WP policy. You made no request to do this and did not inform me of this removal. You need to give an explanation. P-123 (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 This was in a time in which we were still relatively good friends. You had content that meant that your user name was spamming, I counted, 22 category pages. I don't know why Misplaced Pages allows User pages to get listed but it was clearly disruptively included content. GregKaye ✍♪ 16:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. It was disrespectful and probably against WP policy to go over the head of an editor and alter their userpage without permission or explanation. It fits in with your other attempts to control editors, which have been much in evidence lately. It seems you may be one of those editors admins have to keep under surveillance. I feel like I never knew you until recently. P-123 (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I have called editors to contribute in accordance with WP:POLICY and I have cited clear infringement. I also spoke candidly to you in a situation in which you edited against a consensus that you had personally pushed for. I cannot think of any other time that I have edited content like that and, on what seemed to me to be an absolute no brainer issue, I edited the content knowing that the system should notify you of the change and not wanting to bother you further. When you saw the ping it would be easy to revert and I left an explanatory note. You still have the option to AGF. I have been the same person as you have always known. I stand for policy, against misrepresentation and against manipulative arguments. I keep and protect confidences, I edit directly without spin and I present myself as I am. When you say "other attempts to control editors which have been much in evidence lately", please cite. You are making serious allegations. GregKaye ✍♪ 17:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Had no ping, never received an explanatory note. That I "push" for consensus is petty misrepresentation.
I see as attempts to control editors (all within the past few months):

• Closing down discussion by collapsing discussion mid-flow as today on main Talk page.
• Remonstrating with editors who disagree with you by quoting policy at them and trying to bring them to heel.
• Telling editors who disagree with you how they should behave (Felino, Technophant, WheelsofSteel0, P-123).
• Blackening of editors' reputations with scurrilous charges of manipulation and misrepresentation. These are attempts to control and bring editors to heel. (Editors see through this and walk away. Unfortunately for you I did not; I am not a pushover. T. would have had an IBAN imposed on you had he not been banned himself.) You are the same person but not fully revealed until now. Drop it now, please. P-123 (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 I did not ask you to list those four points. Regarding pushed, you were the one initiating with me to ensure consensus against Felino. I do not want anything to have to reply to but still you persist.

• Collapsing a discussion that was way off topic and which continued regardless under the hat. As I made the collapse I also added a thread on Lor's talk page to ask for advise about the thread. I am open to guidance. You added further content out of the hat and then moved your content inside. This was your choice.
• Remonstrating, when? how? in what way was my content wrong? What is wrong with quoting policy? This is something that you do yourself. Should it be disregarded?
• Requesting that editors behave according to WP:GUIDELINES. Show instances where this was not the case. I think that editors, myself included, should behave. With regard to Technophant you said that you did not understand why he was acting to me as he was and I think that was in thread Guido in the archive of ALL my talk page content. With WheelsofSteel0 you said that s/he was full of PA.
• Blackening, Please see all of the above. You are mud slinging without providing justification. It does not feel good. From my perspective I have been aware of the need to tread on eggshells with you for too long. I may have lacked subtlety but everything later was done and said with good intention. There came a limit where I was not prepared to tolerate your constant stream of unsubstantiated aspersion. I also chose to engage with you privately on other matters of infringement of policy so as to minimise your potential embarrassment on more public talk pages. The points that I raised were proven to be right time and again but the debates that ensued were a phenomenal waste of time. As time went by, with various other issues also being raised, I have lost patience. Even now you seem to me to be relentless. Please justify the things you say. GregKaye ✍♪ 18:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)