Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:52, 9 February 2015

This administrator has volunteered for an administrator review. You may comment on his or her administrative actions at Misplaced Pages:Administrator review/TParis 2.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Image

Please restore the link and first sentence of my comment removed at . It is part of my comment: It is the first sentence. It is not a polemical statement meant to piss people off. There is no comparison with drunk driving. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 04:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ. It is a major ad campaign against drunk driving and you've tailored it to COI editing.--v/r - TP 04:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I've tailored a major ad campaign to COI editing? That's impossible—I've never seen this ad campaign. Maybe it is major in some locales, but not in mine. Please return my comment, or let me return my comment, to the state I left it as per WP:TPO. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

You've never seen it? It's been a major ad campaign since 1983. Well now you know. I'm sure now that you know, the idea of writing anything that associates COI editing to drunk driving and killing people should be reprehensible to you.--v/r - TP 05:08, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I have not seen it. May I return my comment to its original state now? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 05:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Why don't you come up with some other clever insult that isn't related to drunk driving and use that instead with your picture?--v/r - TP 05:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Misplaced Pages talk:Conflict of interest comment regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:19, 21 July 2014 (UTC) 06:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

30 year old campaign and still running.

So. Fucking. What.

Please explain to me what prevents Atethnekos from coming up with some other non-drunken-child-killing insult, which violates WP:NPA anyway, to use against COI editors and why this particular insult is needed

Please explain to me how you overlooked the following: "...a thirty-year-old phrasal construction -- imitated, parodied, and reused countless times of the last three decades -- automatically implies that the user meant the thirty-year-distant original reference?" Please also explain how you managed to draw that direct connection to conjure up your imaginary comparison when there is not the slightest context that even hints at such a thing,

And to repeat, since you probably missed this, too: " I don't know about "too young", but there's someone in this conversation in need of growing up -- and it's not User:Atethnekos. If you want to be taken seriously, try to not pretend to be upset at imaginary slights. --Calton | Talk 13:02, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me if I don't find your insults persuasive. That phrase has a root and the root isn't thirty years old - it is still used in commercials today. If you want to address my question, then address it. Try a DH3 argument at the very least. Your insults say much more about you than me.--v/r - TP 13:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I think the "friends don't let friends" thing has gone through a cultural osmosis. Its a meme used in many contexts now - I grew up with the drunk driving version, but I don't think ive seen in anywhere in years or decades. One of the more common takes on it I see these days is friends don't let friends skip leg day, but there are many many more I agree with you on many things TP, but I think you may have taken a wrong turn on this one. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Your comment here

• What I'm more concerned about is that you appear to have just recused yourself from any admin action, ever, involving politics. I have a great amount of respect for you, but was that wise? Black Kite (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't see that. If anything, it makes him more human, rather than someone pretending to be neutral and never sharing an opinion. While I disagree with his point, it is still a valid point, and I don't see how it could impact his admin duties. Today is a special day because TParis has stood up for the civility policy while many admins continue to remain silent or refuse to enforce it. TParis has let the community know where he stands on this, and that makes him a better admin and someone I can more fully trust, even though I disagree with his opinion on some topics. Which brings us back to point of derailment, yet again. Why, Black Kite, did you bring up something he said about politics in a thread about civility? Viriditas (talk) 01:30, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, I meant to put it in as separate section. But to answer your question, because I worry it could be brought back to haunt him by other editors. I totally agree on the civility issue, but by posting things like that, if in future TP blocks someone on the "left"/"liberal"/whatever side of a dispute, they're not going to have the authority that they would have had otherwise. If someone of ArbCom had posted that diff, they'd have had to recuse from every politics-based case that came up. It's not a criticism, I just think it's unwise. Black Kite (talk) 01:38, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I accept your POV but it's still derailing from this thread.. In any case, I think TParis' comments were pretty tame, as they were more rhetorical than anything else. I much prefer my admins to speak their mind than to hold their tongue. Like I said, even though I disagree with him, I feel I can trust him more because he's not afraid to let people know how he feels on a topic. And frankly, while I disagree with his opinion, he is certainly representing a significant POV that feels Misplaced Pages has a liberal bias. Now, as you may know, I have spent the last decade fighting against this POV, and I believe it is entirely wrong. But, that doesn't mean people can't hold wrong opinions, and if we are going to live in free societies, we must be able to share our ideas without filtering and self-censorship. This is why I support TParis's right to speak freely. I've seen him block liberal and conservative editors in equal measure, so my faith in his neutrality as an admin remains as strong as ever. And that's an opinion coming from someone who does not identify as a conservative. I like my admins to be human, not unfeeling robots who pretend to be neutral. Good admins recognize their bias and act neutrally in spite of it. That's the real measure of excellence. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, don't get me wrong, I totally agree with you. However, I'm sure you'll realise that as soon as you "reveal" your worldview here, it can be used against you. And that can be especially problematic for an admin. Anyway, this probably isn't helping build the encyclopedia, so I'll leave it there. Goodnight. Black Kite (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Black Kite - I'm in the middle of drafting a retirement speech which will address your concern specifically. In my speech, I am not waving vague accusations of neutrality violations, I'm going to back it up and show an inconsistency with BLP articles and negative information during election years. However, in regards to your question, I believe it's quite clear that I'm on the out. I've barely used the tools in about a year and less so in the last 2 months. My last block, however, was actually of a right-wing anti-abortion conservative. I'm not a conservative, or at least I don't self define as one. I believe I appear conservative because I am to the right of the general Misplaced Pages populace. However, isidewith.com has me center-left. I personally identify as a libertarian and I've blocked other libertarians (MilesMoney was the most notable, I believe). I disagree strongly with conservatives on social issues like LGBT-rights, abortion, ect. Either way, we won't see another Congressional election nor a general election for almost two years. By then, I'll be a memory and folks will be saying "hey, remember that one guy". That said, understand that my politics are not what they appear to be. I generally speak up when I see injustice and unfairness. I'm speaking up now because, having patrolled political articles since the 2012 election, I've personally witnessed from the outside the kind of double standards regarding UNDUE and IRS. I've already detailed them on this page to our mutual friend Gamaliel and his response wasn't what I hoped for but it was, nontheless, respectable. He said that he could find similar anecdotes proving the opposite. I believe that Misplaced Pages has widespread biases in all sorts of directions on all sorts of topics. Conservative bias on religion, western bias on the Cold War and Pearl Harbor, white-male bias on most articles, ect. With regard to politics, outside of economics, I see a widespread liberal bias. On economics articles there is generally a socialist-libertarian battle that has deadlocked. Either way, my main concern is BLPs and the misuse of UNDUE and IRS to both whitewash liberal politicians while simultaneously trashing conservatives. And Baseball Bugs' open hostility toward conservatives should prove the point. Concern that he could be condemned for openly hostile remarks against conservatives doesn't even enter his mind because it is accepted behavior here.--v/r - TP 04:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)First, I'm here to change your opinion. I understand that you refuse to change your opinion unless my own opinion is available for change as well. It is. I would rather that you take an undeclared break (no "I'm retiring if..." drama) than make any move that has you affirmatively "leaving". WP needs editors and admins that are "right" of the majority. It's not about fighting every fight (I know), but it is about trimming the rudder. Without relatively level heads like yours, things are only going left-er. We don't need that. I (and you, and many others) have spent man-years editing this thing. Ultimately, it will go the way of myspace. Before then, it would be fulfilling (for selfish me) if it at least stayed somewhere near the middle. I hope you change your opinion, and I hope you write a retirement speech and give it to someone else. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 04:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'll read this later because I'm on my way downstairs to play video games. But just one note: my retirement has been planned for quite some months and I've been writing my going-away speech for a few weeks. I'm certainly not starting any "I'm retiring if..." kind of stuff.--v/r - TP 04:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, and enjoy! --Tgeairn (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

TParis, would you consider the possibility that you misread Baseball Bugs comments? I don't think he was displaying "open hostility to conservatives" at all. He was making a stereotypical joke about Texas. Now, because you are from Texas (I think), you might not find that funny. But, let's assume Bugs is from NYC (I think). Then, you can begin to see why he thinks this is funny. So, this has more to do with stereotypes, comedy, and regional rivalry than it does with politics. Now, let's be perfectly clear. In any academic discussion about racism in the United States, Texas comes somewhere near the top of the list. That's what Baseball Bugs was pointing to, not politics. Now, if you're from Texas, you might find that insulting. And as you know, because of direct flights, we have a lot of Texans in Hawaii, and they're a mighty fine and upstanding people. So, it's perfectly understandable that his comment would upset you. But this isn't about politics. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There is always the possibility that I am wrong. And the possibility is always quite large no matter the subject. I've seen Baseball Bugs making bigoted comments himself about trans people so who knows.--v/r - TP 18:11, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

To make my point another way, if I was from Texas, I would probably have had a similar reaction. The implication of the joke is that everyone from Texas is racist. But, you and I know that isn't true. Still, it is a trope found in the comedic lexicon. Doesn't mean it's right. It's like joking that everyone from San Francisco is gay or liberal. Viriditas (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: AfC Helper Script access

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Valuable Info

I have provided two instances in the last two days that LB has been less then open and honest about the situation. If you notice since our previous conversation here and at the ani I have completely left her alone. I have not been to her page, I have not brought her to any noticeboards. I noticed severe canvasing on quite a few peoples pages including people on my watchlist, I commented once off wiki, and then again when it was taken (by another editor) to mfd. I responded to someone not lightbreather and explained my rationales. I read your little box on the edit pafe and I agree to be willing to consider your view. My faults include being stubborn, easy to pop off at the mouth and a determination to follow things through, my faults however is my strengths. I certainly am willing to extend good faith to any editor who actually improves their behavior, case in point I had a bitter conflict with Tarc that resulted in the banning policy case, but if you notice ] and I've even done that for LB ] when the evidence was extremely flimsy. Now when you look at ] this is after ] which added a substantial amount of evidence. I choose to comment for two reasons, LB has a history of socking and denial and more importantly we had two users that had been drug to a SPI by an anon ip. So it would stop that anon person poking at LB and by extension the other newer editors and on the chance that it was LB hey she was caught dead to rights. It would stop either situation from happening again. When you say once a liar is always a liar is a NPA, a better phrase could have been trust but verify, those who forget history are doomed to repeat it, and good faith isn't a suicide pact. With Hell in a Bucket removed from the picture, did I cause her to sock and lie? No. Did I cause her to relentlessly forum shop everyone she can to create a discrimiatory page or continue her crusade against Eric Corbett? No. Will removing me from that picture do anything but silence a critic of Lightbreathers....yes it will reinforce the victim mindset she has been allowed to maintain for far too long. Personal accountability is zero, there was none for the inappropriate socking, none for the misrepresentations of facts, none for the outing of Sue Rangell or the attempted outing of every other IP in the GGTF, none for the off wiki site she maintains to harass other editors. If you believe what Lightbreather has posted in essence she is the poor victim that everyone picks on and currently because I state the obvious which isn't convenient for this victim narrative she wants to tell. I briefly considered sending this through email but since I believe in owning up to what I do. I posted this here in public. Feel free to email me any response you wish if you would like to have a private conversation without having to be within guidelines. You have my word that anything you state to me regardless of what it is will not be shared by me on this site. I am not a liar and my credibility means much more to me then it does to others so if I put it here you can take it to the bank that is what will happen. And if nothing else blah blah blah TL:DR ;) Hell in a Bucket (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

What you could say is "I feel, in regards to Lightbreather, we need to trust but verify." That's fine. But it is not the same thing as saying that someone will always be a liar. But regardless, I don't see why you don't want an IBAN. Is it a stigma thing? Are you concerned about the negativity that is attached to an IBAN? Because, in your shoes, I'd be begging for an IBAN. Whatever dispute is between you two, and irregardless of how much you think you've contributed to it, it is wasting your time and it is wasting her time and it is wasting Arbcom's time. Take the IBAN and be done with each other.--v/r - TP 17:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Those are good points, can how I phrase things be better, probably. What do I have against an interaction ban? Yes the stigma, we're dealing with an individual who has shown she will not present a correct picture or a full picture even when it is shoved under their nose and even then the WP:COMPETENCE is not there to accept these things. Do I think I'm the sole wielder of the sword, not one bit. what I think is the part that bugs me is that a IBAN will be used as a blunt force trauma to accomplish the ends Lightbreather is trying to accomplish. I think that TKOP and Rich F, really nail the nail on the head, Lightbreeather is trying to end run around the community and manipulate the situation to her goals. I have no such agenda, I saw mass canvassing 11 separate pages alone on 01/22 to different pages aimed only at women and not the community at large, 22 edits separate on 01/17 including at least 3 I have on my watchlist, is that wiki hounding? It is if you believe Lightbreather. The second part of this conversation I would prefer to have in a private forum with you because I don't want that part twisted and manipulated. I am sending that part by email. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

UTRS backlog drive now

Wanna hop on IRC so we can coordinate? A few of the older appeals could be closed as expired but they aren't reserved to me so I can't. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been offline sick since mid last week. I'll pop on later today to help with the backlog.--Jezebel's Ponyo 17:23, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It isn't too bad. The oldest unresponded ticket is roughly a week old. There's a few two-three weeks old tickets that were awaiting user reply but that could be closed as expired by the reserving admin. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hehe, I got back on last night and completely cleared it. When I was done, there was a single ticket left.--v/r - TP 17:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

That's incredible! I logged in briefly yesterday (or maybe it was Wednesday?) to search for an old ticket related to an SPI I was working on. There must have been 25-30 tickets in the queue. Colour me impressed Mr. TParis.--Jezebel's Ponyo 19:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It was a joint effort between Salvidrim and I.--v/r - TP 20:04, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Well then, I salute you both :) --Jezebel's Ponyo 20:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

You owe us no salutes. You don't get half the credit you should get for your own work on UTRS.--v/r - TP 20:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Reply

To answer your question in the now closed discussion: No. I asked a question. I did not misrepresent anything. As for the rest of your statement, it's irrelevant to the motion that was at issue (HAIB wasn't the subject of the motion) and unproven (not to mention containing bad faith assumptions). Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The proof is in the links, unless you expect an admission from GorillaWarfare. You asked, I provided you may not like or agree with my findings but that is the evidence and I'd sure like to see something that would make this seem otherwise. I'll be happy to go back and apologize. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I looked at your links and I could not tell what they had to do with the motion. Now that I have Tparis take on what you were saying, my question is, the proof of what is in the links? That she is biased, or that she considers comments you have made to be sexist? Those are two different things. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the conversation on TKOP page, I state being a feminist doesn't disqualify her from arbing. I asked her to be mindful of her potential bias when judging me and others. I do think that some of her actions, decisions and statement might mean she is having a conflict with her values and wikipedia values and distinguishing between them. I think it's useful for people to know when considering her opinion why she is making those decisions and the behaviors behind. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 01:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

So, your contention is that her being a feminist raises a "potential bias" in judging you and others? Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes it can raise a potential bias in considering the basis of a case. That's why we see judges recuse themselves and why there is a recuse column. If you notice I have not raised the claim in my defense at least to my recollection but that of another user. A site ban is an extreme thing. I'm hoping to end the madness and accept that an Iban is likely a topic ban or board ban possible. Ionly used that rationale in the reason why not to site ban rather then follow the escalating block process as is standard. I have tried several times to show GorillaWarfare that I am not sexist and I have tried to show several comments of mine where I have clearly outlined and shown my opinions on gender. I have also defending at times women from discrimination. I'm truly sorry if there is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise. What else would you want from me? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

(e/c)I'm only not convinced of its relevance, it seems like a circumstantial fallacy (eg. 'So and so must be wrong because they are X') arbitrators have all kinds of isms no doubt - they still look at comments and they judge them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

AlanScottWalker: You apparently expect an explicit statement about whether GorillaWarfare considers herself biased or not to determine whether or not she is biased. However, your standard of evidence appears to be well below that, only requiring an accusation, that Hell in a Bucket is sexist. Why is that? Can you explain your contradictory standards of evidence? Whether or not GorillaWarfare is biased when voting on a proposed decision is clear - she sets aside her personal beliefs and Arbitrates based on Misplaced Pages policy. However, when not voting as an Arb, she has made statements that are not influenced on the merits of this case alone. I asked her during the GGTF case and the Manning case to recuse based on this and both times she declined - but her final votes were respectable and so I ended up regretting even asking her. But I wish she wouldn't say things like this because the implication is that the rest of us all have our heads too far up our asses to know what equality is and we must hate it. When you jump in with comments like this, what you are implying is that Hell in a Bucket hates feminists and must hate equality. Perhaps in the future, you could make a better attempt to understand where someone is coming from before saying this in a way that can be implied so negatively.--v/r - TP 02:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

No. I am not implying that in the least. No. I have no opinion on HIAB's sexism. I did not jump in, I was asking about his reply to me because his links talked about feminism. I am perfectly willing to grant others their opinions on how they judge a comment he might make, including Gorilla Warfare having her opinion. As for the rest, I would suggest that you have too thin a skin, if you take that kind of offense from that GW comment (but you are entitled to that, too). Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:47, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Apparent attempts to bait an editor

Dear TP, back in Aug. 2012 you informed me the community consensus was to impose a broadly-construed TB on me. Your comments are here, here, and here. It now appears two highly disruptive editors, mongo and Earl King JR., may be attempting to bait me into violating the terms of the ban so that I would be blocked. Could you please provide your perspectives? Thanks and regards, IjonTichy (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Earl King Jr. (EKJ)'s comments in the AN/I discussion: EKJ has not contributed to the American Sniper (film) article or its talk page, the 'American Sniper (film) controversies' article or its talk page, or the AfD discussion of the controversies article, which resulted in a community to consensus to merge the two articles. EKJ made an appearance on the AN/I discussion only to defend his close collaborator mongo, with whom EKG has been disruptive editing on numerous articles (unrelated to 'Sniper' AFAIK), by deliberately mis-characterizing my contributions to the project. EKJ conveniently neglected to clarify my topic ban was on an entirely unrelated area (mongo, to his credit, clarified my TB was unrelated the first time mongo mentioned my TB on the film article talk page; mongo mentioned my TB twice on the talk page of the film). EKJ, and mongo, neglected to clarify the TB was imposed almost 3 years ago. I was blocked for one month in Nov 2012 for violating the terms of the TB, but from Dec 2012 to date, I've not violated the terms of the TB, I've contributed almost 5,000 non-trivial edits to almost 1,000 articles, including several controversial articles, and I've edited trouble-free. (Only one complaint was filed against me, in summer 2014 for allegedly violating 1RR, I explained to the community this was the first time I edited an 1RR article and did not fully understand all the nuances of the 1RR rule, I quickly accepted the kind offer by an understanding admin to self revert, and the complaint was quickly closed with no sanctions or warnings against me. Since that time I have edited several 1RR articles trouble free.) In contrast, many complaints have been filed against EKJ for disruptive behavior on various admin boards in the last 12 months by numerous experienced members of the community (not by me, and entirely unrelated to 'Sniper' as far as I know). EKJ always manages to evade being blocked or banned, partly because mongo always comes to EKJ's aid and votes against sanctioning EKJ. Most importantly, it is my understanding your TB post on my user talk page forbids anyone from discussing the TB, and thus the fact that mongo and EKJ violated that restriction can be seen as an attempt to bait me into violating the terms of the TB so that I would be blocked. Regards, IjonTichy (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hum...the point of mentioning your topic ban is because your behavior there which led to that ban is being repeated again in an unrelated area. I suggest TParis examine the ongoing discussion at AN/I with your name subheaded and the section above it.--MONGO 17:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I'm ready to break this down. First off, full disclosure, I am an American active duty airman. I'm not in the Army, I've never been deployed, but whatever conflicts you think I may have I want to make clear now. I strongly support Chris Kyle, and I am aware of some of the racist comments he has made in his autobiography but I still think overall his career, before and after the Army, was no less than heroic and amazing. Now, my perspectives on this dispute:

• Mongo: I've reviewed the ANI case, the article talk page, and the AfD and I don't see any of the behaviors that led to the topic ban. In fact, I think IjonTichy is behaving exactly like everyone else in the dispute and I think that you, and EKJ, bringing up the topic ban is a red herring meant to distract from IjonTichy's argument and also to discredit him. I think you should drop it. Regarding the criticism section, while I do not think that it should be a copy/paste from the fork, and while I similarly don't think the appeals to authority are neccessary either, there appears to be plenty of sources available to support, and I think the article is sufficiently long enough to support the weight of, at least another paragraph similar in size to the one that exists in this edit but only half as long as the article in its protected state currently.
• IjonTichy: You're running afoul of one of our content policies and also a logical fallacy. You are committing an appeal to authority by including great details about who the critics are to make their opinions carry more weight. If Stephen Hawking said that the world was flat and the sun rotated around the earth, that wouldn't change reality no matter what his credentials are. Appeals to authority are actually counter-intuitive in academics because it signals that you don't feel confident enough in the opinion by itself and it needs supporting material outside the merits of the comment itself. Regarding weight, the movie was widely well received. Sure, there were some controversies. But that has to be balanced with the overall topic. The size of each section of the article must be in line with the importance of each section on the topic itself. The controversies were mostly focused around Seth Rogan, Michael Moore, Jesse Ventura, and a few comments on his book. However, there was even more controversy about those three people making their comments than on the topic itself.
• The other thing, IjonTichy, you're making a lot of accusations of personal attacks. Calling material undue, calling an article a coatrack, and calling an edit disruptive orPOV pushing are not personal attacks. They are comments on your edits, not on you. WP:NPA specifically states in its second sentence, "Comment on content, not on the contributor." That is what Mongo has done.

All of you need to make efforts to deescalate. It appears to me that conservatives are rallying around their hero and liberals are targeting their villain with laser beams of darkness. How about we all just be editors trying to follow policies like WP:WEIGHT, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS?--v/r - TP 17:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to drop the obvious...as I have worked both on the Zeitgeist and this set of articles and seen first hand Ijon behaving identically in each arena, then those that have dealt with it are best qualified to make that assessment. For the record, I am not a conservative overall. If I was a conservative I would embrace Michelle Obama's praise of the movie and not be arguing to have the quotes from her removed.--MONGO 18:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The topic ban from ZM is a red herring. Has nothing to do with what is happening now. Keep it up if you want, but I'm not convinced by the argument and I don't think anyone else should be either.--v/r - TP 18:17, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It's the same behavior that he was topic banned over before. Repeated postings of long rants, edit warring, attempts to filibuster talkpages, misusing pages for advocacy and POV pushing. Those are the exact same things that led to his previous topic ban and block.--MONGO 18:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Except I read all of his comments and I don't see any long rants. In fact, the message on my talk page is the longest out of everything I've seen on ANI, the AFD, and the article talk. Regarding edit warring, I don't see Ijontichy edit warring at all. In fact, since Jan 31st, I see 5 reverts from you, 4 reverts from DHeyward, and 2 from IjonTichy. Regarding filibustering, most of Ijontichy's edits on the talk page have to do with collecting sources for this section, which is good and appropriate behavior. You, on the other hand, have completely dominated the conversation in this section. Nearly every other comment is you or DHeyward. From an outside perspective (mine), I think you are giving an underemphasis to your own part in this dispute and an overemphasis on a topic ban that has nothing to do with this topic.--v/r - TP 18:48, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You and are done. This is last time I'm going to bother trusting you with any decision making process. I never said that old topic ban had a thing to do with this topic....I said his behavior is the same. Accusing me of some malfeasance here is a ridiculous and borders on a personal attack. Ludicrous.--MONGO 19:29, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry you are upset, but I haven't accused you of anything at all. In fact, you've made quite a few accusations about IjonTichy here and your response to my poking holes in your accusations appears to be quite personal. Hope you can calm down and we can remain friends. By now, though, you should know that I try to set personal relationships aside when sorting through what I consider to be the facts.--v/r - TP 19:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Not upset at all...disappointed you're enforcing bad behavior by a POV pusher whose sole purpose is exactly as I stated. Someone needs to wack you with a clue bat, TParis. Wake up.--MONGO 20:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

As I gathered the evidence to show - no, that's not the case. He may be a POV pusher, but the other accusations are not supported by the article history. And tagging him with an edit war template after a single revert in over 24 hours doesn't reenforce your claim. The diffs are available for public viewing. As I said, your perception of this event appears to have greater emphasis on Ijon than is warranted by the article histories.--v/r - TP 20:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)