Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:13, 19 September 2006

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, vfd comments

Misplaced Pages is hell

And the admins allow it to be such. I'm taking no more messages from anyone until the admins end their "blame the victim" attack on me and stop the harassment. -- LGagnon 22:49, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

AOluwatoyin isn't the only problem. His sock puppet anon has been harassing me, and nobody has done anything about him. I've tried PAIN as usual, but my entry was deleted by an admin immediately. I'm told to use DR, but I've got even less results from them. Then there's arbitration, which I trust even less. I don't want to go to them because I'm pretty sure they'll get a direct order from Jimbo to have me banned without anything close to a fair trial or good excuse (it's his encyclopedia, and his cult under the microscope; why wouldn't he want to ban a person who wants to expose the ugly history of the cult he follows). -- LGagnon 13:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The above comments go beyond what can be tolerated in this forum, and I've posted them to Jimbo's talk page. It is clear that LGagnon is continuing to indulge in the most foul personal attacks with regard to everyone, even Misplaced Pages admins, referring to the latter as "vandal-coddling", and now our esteemed founder. He never backs up his unthinking assertions. He simply asserts. Also his revert of everything on his talk page, and what is now written there, is very much against the spirit of Misplaced Pages. I realise you're buddy buddy with this user, but enough is enough. Time for a fairly substantial block so the user gets the message that this type of behaviour can no longer be allowed to continue. --207.161.2.112 19:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

I wanted to thank you, now that I'm temporarily around again, for protecting anarchism and keeping a closer eye on it. Also, I would like to thank you for helping to deal with User:Whiskey Rebellion/User:Thewolfstar. I know that we have disagreed in the past, but I sincerely feel that you're trying to do the right thing, so keep it up. --AaronS 01:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted. :) I know that you were acting in good faith, so no harm done. Like I said, you're doing a good job, and I'm sure that you'll continue to do so. --AaronS 03:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet?

So, User:LGagnon calls me a sockpuppet, then, when I post a message defending myself on his talk, he can just revert it and call it harrassment? Is it against Misplaced Pages standards to revert his talk page to include my defense of myself? Normally, I wouldn't do such a thing (and I have no intention of doing so if it is against Misplaced Pages standards), but I have a problem with allowing his baseless accusations to stand uncorrected. LaszloWalrus 05:39, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of socks, would you mind imposing a semi-protect on the Category:Objectivism? Banned User:Alienus has been reverting my edits without comment using anon socks usually merely summarizing his edits as "rv v." Thanks. LaszloWalrus 05:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. LaszloWalrus 13:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism

Do you think it might be time to unprotect the anarchism page now that whiskey's gone. Might as well get as much productive editing in now as possible before another sock shows up. Ungovernable Force 06:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Cool. BTW, it looks like Tony turned down Aaron's request to reopen his case (hard to tell for sure if that's what is meant or not). I just posted a message there in his defence. I don't know for sure what your feelings are on the probation, but I'd appreciate it if you offered your thoughts. Thanks. RfAR/Intangible Ungovernable Force 06:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Civility Issue

Hi, I saw that you mentioned something to another editor that gave the impression that reverting other people's comments is generally a not acceptable. Someone has deleted my comments which is not only uncivil in and of itself, but is also apparently an attempt to hide his other uncivil behavior.

When I mentioned his incivility on his talk page, he first responded trying to make people think I was infinitely more uncivil than him, which is simply not the case. He then deleted the entire section, even though I did not say anything to warrant this reversion. Everything that even hinted at his uncivil behavior was removed. I was wondering if you would mind taking a look at what he rolled back, as well as a comment he put on my talk page and tell me what you think/take action if necessary.

I thank you greatly for reading this section, and any help or advice you could give would be much appreciated.

• Reversion of comments that address his uncivil behavior
• Comment he made on my talk page

Markovich292 03:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

User Markovich has been filing bogus reports on users, first on user:Thuran X and now on me. The one being uncivil all along was Markovich himself. Btw, he fails to mention he deleted my comments on his user-page. Deleting irrelevant bad faith comments like Markovich is doing is allowed. I've removed this section, and the whole talk is being disucssed at one place, not twice - which is unproductive. Amoruso 15:24, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

look at his audacity : unbelievable. Amoruso 15:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I hate to bother you again, but I just don't know what to do. Amoruso is continuing to be uncivil. As you can see, he keeps saying that I am being uncivil, all while making snide comments himself. He didn't even handle your comment on his userpage in a civil manner.

Beyond that, he wrote these later:

Also, I was wondering if you could give your opinion on the diff that Amoruso provided above. As it says within the new material, I removed it as a personal attack, and now Amoruso is using that as an excuse to blank out my completely civil messages.

Just so you know all of the details, here is the so-called "bogus" "harassment" in connection to his comments on ThuranX. Other admins have agreed that it is probably uncivil at the very least.

Thank you for all of your time and help in this matter, Markovich292 22:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

MY God you're just unbelievable Markovich. Is there anyone in the world that HAS being civil to you ? You're way too touchy you should have that checked out before going around accusing everyone in wikipedia. Just leave me alone, don't personal attack me - these accusations in adminstrators' pages constitute extreme personal attacks , don't vandalize my page, and relax. Amoruso 22:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

There's nothing "UNCIVIL" in what I wrote not here not on my page and not anywhere. It's all in your head. Btw, your contiuing filing and complaing to adminstrators is extremely worrying. If you read the wikipedia guidelines, you'd see that handling "personal attacks" this way are only the last resort after continuous harsh personal attacks. Nothing not by me not by anyone else towards you even came close to that threshold. You're violating wikipedia policy and indeed you're harrassing me. This is closing to wikihate and wikistalking and you should cease immediately. Amoruso 22:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly, Markovich has now even blamed the mediator of AM case as being uncivil. (!) This I'm afraid is somewhat of an obsession by now. Amoruso 23:05, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is why that is: Markovich292 23:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

This is even more worrying to me since Markovich has been extremely uncivil in the original page and instead of looking at the mirror, goes on a spree blaming the whole world. Comments like ":Did you even bother to read the source assosciated with that quote?" are not civil. but were said by Markovich. Accusing other of "off topic rambling" is not civil either, and "If you don't understand that, I'm not going to take the time to explain it further." not either but markovich said them freely. "Maybe if you actually answer my question I will do the same for yours." is pretty snappy as well. Telling someone "You were, and still are, the one who is acting in bad faith." is wrong too, climaxing in things like "Either way, your hyperbole is both unfounded and childish. Markovich292 03:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)". It seems Markovich feels wikipedia is simply his turf. Amoruso 23:15, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

For the record:

• In the first example, what Amoruso fails to mention is that I asked him to read a source, and all he did was respond to WikiQuote.
• He previously stated that I have a "one-man-vendetta" and said "it's more arrogant than anything. And these attempts of yours to change the discussion are not serious." Those comments obviously are not related to the issue and therefore off topic rambling.
• That is quite civil and totally within policy to say considering you have clearly made comments that were not assuming good faith. Markovich292 01:27, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
• The "unfounded hyperbole" comment was to ThuranX because he said "Listen, genius, I couldn't change your mind with a bone saw and an icecream scoop." Markovich292 01:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You two both need to take a break from each other. --Woohookitty 01:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

We actually had such a break. Here is the second thing Amoruso said when he returned: Markovich292 01:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I asked him to leave me alone and take a break from me. I don't even care about the MA anymore, I just want him to leave me. Btw, the hyocrisy continues : he removed all my post and warning in his page : can you actually believe that ? He comes to you complaining that it's not ok to delete comments of pages, and then he does it himself violently and rudely. Unbelievable. Amoruso 02:10, 17 September 2006 (UTC) Anyway, since he's obviously endorsing this now, I'm deleting his whole section from my talk page and putting it behind me, hopefully he can do the same and stop harrassing me. He should find other victims to harrass such as Thuran X or the mediator or whoever he wants. Amoruso 02:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

If you'll notice, I removed the retaliatory warning that you made after you removed my original warning. Since you wouldn't keep my legitimate civility warning, why should I keep yours that was only made to retaliate? All of your other legetimate comments were left intact, so you can't use that as a justification to delete my comments at will. You especially can't delete the warning given by Woohookitty.

I would never think to delete posts by Woohookitty, or by Mantanmoreland (main comment) there who laregely refuted your bogus allegations. Only bad faith comments were deleted. Amoruso 06:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You have falsely accused me of lying on more than one occasion, so I have no reservation about calling you on your blatant lie above: "he removed all my post and warning in his page." Go ahead and refer to the diff you yourself provided above. Markovich292 04:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Tut. Take it off this lovely man's talk page, if you want my opinion. HawkerTyphoon 02:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to apologize for this issue spilling over onto your talk page. All I wanted to do was get your opinion and/or assistance in sorting this out, but I should have seen it coming that Amoruso would turn this into some kind of battleground. Markovich292 04:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

How lovely, personal attacking again in a disguise of an apology... Amoruso 06:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually it is a sincere apology, followed by reasoning why I first made a comment here, followed by me pointing out that it was not I that caused this situation on his talk page. I refer you to and , the comments by you that caused this. Now, you can take your own advice and stop this behavior, and stop using this page for your tirades. Markovich292 06:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to apologise to me for your personal attacks and look at all the trouble you've caused instead of keeping inventing blames. You're personal attacking me and falsely accusing me of being uncivil on this page and then say I'm to blame because I refuted your allegations against me ? Unbelievable indeed. Next time I'll just let you create blood libels on anybody you like. Amoruso 07:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

First, it is not a personal attack just because I point out poor behavior on your part. Second, I'm pretty sure that any neutral observer, including Woohookitty, can plainly see that I am not falsely accusing you of incivility. It is quite clear for example, that you are indeed to blame for bringing your incivility here, because you were not just trying to "refute my allegations" by saying things like:

• "MY God you're just unbelievable Markovich.
• "Just leave me alone"
• "It's all in your head"

I now realize that you are going to continue this incivil behavoir whenever you can, and attempt to pass yourself off as blameless. Even when I say something completely civil, you respond with incivil behavior and I will not take part in this anymore. It is time for me to be the bigger man; whatever lies you concoct, whatever false accusaions you make, and whatever incivil comment you add here, I am not going to respond. Markovich292 07:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Get away from each other. I am very close to blocking you both for incivility. --Woohookitty 11:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

'Cult' Issues

Hi! I was wondering if you could excersise your judgment at this article? Newly created users and the like are removing all references to the church being a 'cult', which AFAIK are legitimate references. HawkerTyphoon 12:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK, It's all coming from one IP in Polandish (Wroclaw?), belonging to a University or the like. I suspect it's a sockpuppet, as they use the same edit summary a fair bit, and they are all single-use accounts. I've tagged User:Andala as the master - hope that helps. HawkerTyphoon 13:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism (again)

You might want to take a look, there's a new edit war going on. A new "anarcho"-capitalist is trying to make wholesale changes (surprise, surprise). Donnacha 18:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sock-oh-rama (again)

You've seen this, right? Bishonen | talk 11:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC).

Removal of prod tags

You recently removed the prod tags from the following articles: Bosworth Commuity College and Bradbury School citing the reason "does actually exist". I never asserted that they did not exist, I only asserted that they were not notable, and certainly no assertion of any notability existed (or exists) in those articles. I would not have thought the existance of an entity sufficient for its inclusion in wikipedia. There are many, many things which exist. I won't contest your removal of these tags if you sincerely believe these schools to be that notable, but I am concerned that wikipedia should not become a directory for every school/church/shop/bar etc. I have, of course, looked at WP:SCHOOL and see nothing there which suggests that these schools could be considered notable. Robotforaday 12:21, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, while I'm keen to see wikipedia avoid becoming a dumping ground, I'm not so keen as to become bogged down any more in the kind of wikipolitics that dominate afd discussions, so I'll stick to using my time editing and let the chaff pile up. Robotforaday 18:12, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism and Globalization

Can you express your opinion on reliability of these Donnachadelong sources, i.e. are they in accordance with Misplaced Pages policies? -- Vision Thing -- 18:50, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Why

Please, explain to me why I am being punished by the admins. Why am I subjected to harassment without anything being done to stop it. I have no trust for the admins anymore after the way they have treated me, and the fact that they allow others to harass me has only made me hate them. Now, my talk page is no longer allowed to be a civil place; now, by decree of the admins' absolute power, I am forced to put up with harassment from anyone who wants to harass me. Misplaced Pages is looking more and more pathetic with each passing moment of editor abuse. -- LGagnon 02:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Incivility/Personal Attack

I sincerely hope this does not turn into a situation on your page like it did before, but Amoruso has again made an incivil and completely untrue accusation. I will not sit idly by and let Amoruso get by with this kind of hostility that can easily be classified as a personal attack. There is not even a single sentence about the issue on wikipedia, it is all spiteful remarks directed at me.

Thank you for your past input and any help you may provide here. I hope this can be resolved justly and fairly. Markovich292 02:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not a personal attack Markovich. It's based on what user:Humus_Sapiens exposed about your behaviour and it made in a civil manner - also pointing out your blatant personal attack against Humus Sapiens (coming after similar behaviour against Thuran X, me, the mediator and others...) I really do think you're facing the possibility of long term ban for distrupting wikipedia and throwing accusations around and distrupting adminstrator's pages. You are abusing the WP:No personal attacks policy. Amoruso 02:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Pointing out than an actual personal attack was just recently made by you against me, and was acknowledged as such by Adminstrator user:Avraham here : . So please stop as I do not appreciate your attacks against me and your false allegations. Amoruso 02:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

In the interest of having all the data, here is the rest of the comments on that issue that Amoruso omitted: As the rest of the discussion points out, it was certainly not a personal attack and is irrelevant to this issue.

I would also like to ask about wikistalking and harassment. One such behavior that I am wondering about is him following me to this page last time just to make inflammatory comments (, ). Amoruso also continues to maintain that I made racist remarks (), which is completely untrue.

Further incivility:

Your comments are so non factual and baseless that they're not worth a response even. You really need some amazing amount of arrogance for someone like you who constantly harrassed me to complain that my response refuting your claims and showing your bad faith behaviour and lies on this page is harrassment or wikistalking (!) unbelievable. The only one wikistalking is you, like explained before. Stop with your flames, false allegations and trash talking other wikipedia users. You have been extremely offensive to a number of users on this issue. Enough is enough. Your comments above show your own incivility and bad faith behaviour. You can't tell people around what to do. Your behaviour is negative. And your remarks were interpreted as racism very justly by Thuran X. "You people" comment was obvious like he explained. Amoruso 03:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Good catch!

Kitty's got claws! Nice work on that "Jackie Spratt" block. Bit of a POV rant, no? Anyway, thought I'd scratch you behind the ears for that. Take care! - Lucky 6.9 07:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and before I forget...

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your best efforts in keeping Misplaced Pages attack- and vandal-free... keep your finger on that delete button! :)

...one well-deserved Barnstar. - Lucky 6.9 07:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Ain't it the truth? The concept exists; people need to learn to live with it. There are articles on a gazillion subjects that I find distasteful...and every one of them has a place here. My pleasure to take time out to recognize your efforts. - Lucky 6.9 07:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Fun with Halle Berry/Storm/Controversy section

Just a heads up--the page isn't even on my watchlist, but I check it periodically. User:207.68.239.252 may be Penny. Croctotheface 10:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Monarch articles

Could I direct you to Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Monarchical titles. I believe the moving you are executing is a mistake. :) Inge 10:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. This needs more discussion. If you are going to go against a agreed convention you should have more than three voices of support. You should have moved William I of England first to find out if the moves are justified. Thank you. Inge 10:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think 3 voices consists a consensus. Remember the survey is not really a vote. You can go against a majority in a survey. In addition an overall consensus has been reached on wikipedia dictating how monarch articles are to be named (linked to above) and if you are to go against that you certainly need more than three voices. Inge 10:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm so sorry! I didn't mean to discourage you. I think you are doing a good job. Being eager to get things done is a good quality. Sometimes things move slower in the less core articles, therefore discussions and surveys need more time to settle before action is taken. Inge 10:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought I could do them for you so the work wouldn't be too much. Inge 11:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the issue is still open so I might be proven wrong in the end :). Don't be afraid to be bold and do stuff you might not be 100% sure about. If we all went around being afraid of making mistakes nothing would get done. We can always undo things and I think you handled this situation very well (and I don't mean because I got my way) :) Inge 11:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Orkney situation

I have been observing this for a while and I think it is time for someone to intervene. I have posted an entry on Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/History and geography about it. It seems one or more users from Orkney is trying to convey a special Orkney identity in articles relevant to that island group and one user is doing his very best to keep any such information out. That has been going on for quite a while and on many articles, but it seems to be culminating now. It seems to me both/all user have stepped over some lines, but my general consern is that this topic is so marginal that this might go on and on without any administrators noticing. The articles might get one-sided and we might loose the few contributors from Orkney. What do you think? Inge 12:10, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

That is ridiculous. I have never attacked Bdean. On the other hand, he has already e-mailed me 3 times only promoting disturbing political spams and treats. He has also going around Misplaced Pages mocking at the fact that I got banned (highlighting the word "Messhermit got banned" ) . Messhermit 12:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that if you read the conversation that you have posted on my talk page; you will realize that I did not engage in any type of flame war/insults to Bdean. However, Bdean is the one that is attempting to make me look as the "bad" element on this dispute. To go around wikipedia posting "T-shirts" for sale (as far as I know) is not neutral. Making false statements and hide himself as an IP to accuse me is rather suspicious. Do I have to e-mail you what he e-mailed to me? Messhermit 12:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

If possible, I request an answer. Messhermit 12:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• That is because one of the 3 e-mails was a treat with my own ArbCon.
• If you look closely to the dates, he did not bother to answer me even after I tried to contact him before this whole mess started.
• He was using loaded terms as "Dictator" and "Crisis of the Peruvian State" (just to name a few).
• He was using Misplaced Pages for commercial purposes (the "T-shirt issue")
• He was using his own personal opinion, backed with his own personal investigation (Bdean1963 using Bartolomew Dean's publications)
• Asking for sources when he feels like and removing things that do not suit his POV.

With the things that I have mentioned above, it is more than clear that he was also incivil to me. He is clearly pushing a POV (calling me "Fujimorista"). I have not invented this details. That is the work of Bdean1963. Answer me as soon as possible. Messhermit 13:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The situation

Thanks for your support. I'm not mad at you for not being available all the time; I understand you can't be. My problem is that, when you or some other unbiased admin are not available, I'm stuck with admins who seem to have a vendetta against me as my only hope. By the way, I didn't recieve any e-mail from you; it may be a bit delayed (that happens now and then). -- LGagnon 12:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN

I agree with your comment on WP:AN, Woohookitty. You've got a good point there.... --LiverpoolCommander 14:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Axam

Hello, I had reported User:Axam on the Misplaced Pages:Personal attack intervention noticeboard, and you had noted that he had already been blocked (for a 3RR, and not for personal attacks), and moved him to the "open cases". After returning from the block he has blanked his talk page warnings, and posed "what a great nerd you are" . -- Jeff3000 14:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The personal attacks have gone very far at this point. First of all I'm a Baha'i living in Canada, and this user has made reference to Hojjatieh, a very anti-Baha'i organization in Iran that has persecuted the Baha'is in Iran. He first wrote "Say, do you know about the Hojjatieh Jeff?" , he then wrote: "How's Canada? is it a good country? I should visit sometimes." , and then "There shouldn't be too many Baha'i'communities in Canada, in a few cities perhaps, like Toronto, Ontario, or in Nova Scotia. Must not be hard to find people." and finally "::::I sense fear in your tone. Your action is more uncivilized than any of my tone. Provocative and coward. Hidding behind friends to make a stupid illogical point. I will be visiting Canada Jeff. Trust me it's easy to find people." . This is a direct personal attack, not only in terms of words, which I can easily forget, but much more. You can check my words to him on his talk page, all civilized, but he has continued his attacks. What can be done about this. -- Jeff3000 15:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks?

Thanks, your comment would have been much more meaningful if that was still on my page, but it was deleted a while ago. But thanks for trying. :) --Thankyoubaby 15:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Abuse of Position

You are abusing your position and allowing your close friendship with another editor to interfere with your duty as an administrator to act in an impartial manner. You cannot ban user AOluwaytoyin simply because fair commentary in defence of him has been written on your and another editor's talk page. Demonstrate exactly where a personal attack has been made. It is User:LGagnon who has made continual attacks against Misplaced Pages admins and even the President (in fact you warned him yourself not to write in such a hostile manner and not to threaten to revert comments on the talk pages of other editors) yet you have never seriously considered that he be banned? Are you prepared to provide an explanation for this? About the legal threat accusation. By my count AOluwaytoyin made one threat and in my view had a right to be angry after wrongfully being accused of using sock puppets. You ought to read Misplaced Pages's policy on legal threats. The policy is that after careful consideration and in view of all the circumstances an editor may be suspended, and he already has for 10 days. For you to suggest that you intend to unilaterally ban him indefinitely is an absolute abuse of the authority that you have as an administrator. You should do the honourable thing and resign your position effective immediately. --209.115.235.79 17:13, 19 September 2006 (UTC)