Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:15, 21 June 2015

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

WP:Don't template the regulars

Templating regulars with user warnings that are unwarranted is an abuse of their intended use, and may be construed as WP:Uncivil or WP:harassment. It is always better to WP:AGF and write a polite warning advising that editor of the problem. Templates are not a requirement for blocking disruptive behavior. It is also not wise to use templates or written warnings, polite or otherwise, as a ploy to game the system in an effort to distract from your own noncompliance with WP:PAG, such as WP:edit warring or WP:OWN behavior. Sticking to "did you know we had a policy here" mentality tends to be counter-productive in resolving the issue, as it can be construed as being patronising and uncivil. Atsme

Actually for stuff like edit warring templates are prefered as they are standardized and reduce confusion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes they might avoid confusion, but they can be very scary to receive until you know what is going on. Some editors use these deliberately to harass others, a behaviour which I believe should be prevented somehow.DrChrissy 11:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting Doc. Of course the real answer is to avoid behaviour that leads to templating in the first place. You and Atsme both know this. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 12:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing noncompliant material is not edit warring. The editor who starts reverting the work of others with invalid edit summaries is the one who is edit warring. Instead, we're seeing one editor being ganged up on which actually stems from WP:OWN behavior at an article where a particular POV is being pushed and information is being suppressed. NPOV is one of our core content policies and the passage I removed and expanded had been disputed as noncompliant with NPOV and MEDRS. No RfC was called to keep the noncompliant material, therefore, since it was disputed as noncompliant, I had every right to remove it and make the lede compliant. Any editor who wanted to restore the disputed noncompliant material must do so via consensus. Each time my edit was reverted, it was to remove compliant material and restore disputed noncompliant material. That is edit warring. The onus to replace noncompliant material is on the editor who wants to restore it. Read the PAGs. I agree that we know what edit warring is, but it appears you don't. Atsme 17:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

In case you're wondering....

The laptop is back in the shop and I am once again confined to the very limited iPad (original). Ugh. --Atsme 12:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Sunshine

Here's an alternate Sun.

-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Atsme, I told you that zit would get bigger! -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 22:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Lol but it's not red and inflamed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

LOL. Rox, it wasn't a zit that got bigger, it was the beautiful sun and now the clouds are gone. It actually looks alot like the Inca sun pendant I acquired during my month long adventure into the Andes Mountains. Thank you, Serialjoepsycho. Atsme 22:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals). Legobot (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kombucha. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ca2james (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I consider this warning to be a violation of WP:CIVILITY and it also appears to be associated with patterned behavior and group harassment by the same editors who have repeatedly reverted my edits and/or demonstrated ill-will toward me, both recently as well as in the past. I am preparing a case for ARBCOM. Atsme 14:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm saddened, but not surprised, that you feel this way. You appear to think that any editor who disagrees with you is demonstrating ill-will. I have been nothing but civil towards you and it is perfectly acceptable to provide notice that you were edit-warring. Clearly you believe otherwise, but your beliefs are unsupported by policies and guidelines. Good luck with your arbcom filing. Ca2james (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I am saddened even more by your behavior, and somewhat disappointed in myself for not being wise to your polite disruptions which are even more disconcerting because I consider them deceitful of one's true intentions. Yours passive aggressive behavior toward me has become quite noticeable and now that I am aware and can evidence your patterned behaviors with diffs that span several months, I intend to move forward with the DR process without further delay. I also want you to stop stalking me, stop the gang-like harassment of me with your tag-team members, and stop commenting on my TP unless it is a 'warranted notice unlike the notice you posted above. I have grown weary of your harassment, so consider yourself warned of incivility. Atsme 16:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Article ban from Kombucha (you may still edit the talk page and are encouraged to do so) until 23:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You have been sanctioned as this is second time you have edit warred on the article in the past week so this sanction will stop the edit warring and encourage discussion.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015 Part 2

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Kombucha, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

• If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
• If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. You appear to be linking to illicit copies of Elsevier's copyrighted material. Alexbrn (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn posting this template is a violation of WP:CIVILITY and may be considered harassment along with your 3 prior template warnings on my TP. If you are certain there is a copyvio regarding the url I cited at Kombucha, and you know full well I cannot edit that article because of the above sanction, then you are in violation of copyvio and harassment of a sanctioned editor. You posted the above template after Callanecc unjustly imposed an article sanction against me. These recent events have clearly gone over the top, and as soon as I pick up my laptop tomorrow, I intend to prepare a case for ARBCOM. You have demonstrated a pattern of disruptive behavior and harassment of me, and have now stepped over the line for what any reasonable editor can be expected to tolerate. Atsme 15:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The violation has been fixed. Your appeal to civility misses the point: to quote the template: "Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously". That means you should too. Alexbrn (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, well how are we supposed to know that? Show me how you found out so I and others who stalk my TP will know in the future. And stop templating me, especially if you cannot provide verifiable evidence of a copyvio. It also doesn't erase the fact that you did it after the unwarranted sanction was imposed. If ARBCOM takes my case, you explain your actions to them, too. Atsme 16:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It's the other way around, Atsme: if you find someone republishing someone else's material, you need to assume that it's a copyright violation unless you can find evidence of licensing. Copyright is the default state under modern law: creators are no longer required to register them. Instead, if they want the material to be shareable, they have to explicitly say so.—Kww(talk) 16:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, the template is not a punishment but a request & a warning. It begins "When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Kombucha, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright." Please do as it says. By and large if you come across copyrighted material from a major publisher on a file-sharing site like scribd.com, and the publisher is charging $41.95 for individual access to it then it's not rocket science to work out it's a ripped-off copy. I find it astonishing and worrying you'd think otherwise. Alexbrn (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: shouldn't the revision be deleted?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment

I looked back through the history, and as far as I can see, the only admin who has edited recently was Doc Watson. Neither the admin who topic blocked you nor the the admin who protected it has edited the page at all AFAIK. If you feel that either has a conflict of interest, you should raise it at ANI. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)