| Revision as of 20:20, 29 November 2006 editMONGO (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers76,644 editsm Protected User talk:MONGO: once again, semi due to trolling ← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:19, 29 November 2006 edit undoCyclePat (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,487 edits Mediation of Sept 11th article. POVNext edit → | ||
| Line 68: | Line 68: | ||
| --] 19:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | --] 19:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :Heh...may have to semi-protect the talkpage if that disruption about "feds" isgoing to continue...maybe best if it does you or someone else puts in a request for semi-protection.--] 19:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | :Heh...may have to semi-protect the talkpage if that disruption about "feds" isgoing to continue...maybe best if it does you or someone else puts in a request for semi-protection.--] 19:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| == Mediation of Sept 11th article. POV == | |||
| As part of the first step of advocating the wiki rights of cplot I am begining the steps towards dispute resolution ]. User cplot has attempted to contact you on numerous occasions regarding alleged hostility on your behalf. | |||
| You then blatantly obfuscate and escalate the situation by being rude You appear to be ignoring the first steps of ]. That is you are failling the "talking to the other parties" via removing communications attempts from cplot on your user page and then by blocking him, according to ], in a contreversial block. It appears that you and cplot are involved in a content dispute. According to ] "Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. If in doubt, report the problem to other admins to act on. (You may be wrong!)" Your aggressive actions (rubing in the face that he has been blocked) and even betting in a gamely fashion on when he'll be back to "disrupt" go against the wikipedia spirit and I would take this as a personal attack! To me it appears as though you blocked him because he added the category on a talk page... which is allegedly by accident. You then, instead of just changing it, asked him to remove it in a rude manner. | |||
| You have even gone to the point of stalking the edits he does on his own user page! You may have had grounds to push a 3RR block in the past for against cplot but the prejucial effect of using this statement in your current 1 week block outweighted the wiki-rules judicial effect. Essentially your blocking him on this latest count is highly prejucial and I put it to you that you did it in anger! Seriously, blocking someone for "ADDING A CATEGORY TO A TALK PAGE! Come ON!" You blocked him because of the escalating uncivility which was occuring inbetween each other. According to ] your actions are not the encouraged. This biased bloking, as suggested cplot, was simply based on my clients past rapport with you and your lack of good faith (as I've demonstrated above) to properly communicate. | |||
| This constant bikering is not only childish but totally disruptive for new commers in this article. I want to relax and read the issues concerning this article not read bikering on secondary... no not even... third degree issues. Though you have both played escalating roles in this revenge, trully Mongo has attempted to give the last hit with a revengeful BLOCK! | |||
| Now go figure, right at the point when cplot appears to receive support and begin a good debate you go and block him from representing his point... not on the article... but in the discussion page so you can resolve the underlining problem. | |||
| Cplot has placed a request for POV template addition to the article. (Which has been added). nevertheless he has been gang up on: with rude comments essentially telling him to fuck off. "...you want to add YOUR POV to the article. Please stop trying that. It is pointless and takes uses time and energy that could be used to improve the article and improve wikipedia. --Regebro 12:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)" Instead of concentrating on trying to suppress cplot perhaps wild conspiracies perhaps you should be a little friendlier in helping him (or in your case disprove) prove how he can add properly cited ] material for building an article which is evenly balanced in POVs. Remember, this goes for you too cplot, ] has a lovely quote, which I added at the start, that indicated every article has POVs! Now lets work on having a well balanced POV article... that would hence be ] according to wiki rules. It is for these reasons I believe we should begin mediation ] if not for the lack of civility then at least for the POV issues within the article (which appear to me to be the route of the problem). | |||
| --] 21:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:19, 29 November 2006
Threat of bodily harm to WP editor on external forum
Hey. Along the lines of "Defend Each Other", Solidpoint (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a threat of bodily harm to editor SWATJester in an external forum (See ANI thread ). It would appear that an indef block on Solidpoint for the threat is called for. I'm dropping this on a few admins talk's to try and resolve quickly, though it's on ANI now. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert 21:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Empty cat
Also added here: Tom Harrison 21:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
What did I do?
Mongo, Did I say something to insult you again? I really never meant to. Please tell what I said that made you feel bad. I really want to know. --Cplot 23:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Seabhcan/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109 23:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
An article in need of your input
The Saddam_Hussein_and_al-Qaeda_timeline article is in serious need of attention. It presents numerous Conspiracy Theories regarding alleged ties between Saddam/Iraq and al Qaeda as fact, when these theories have been refuted, rejected, denied and discounted by the U.S. Government, various U.S. Governmental hearings and commissions, and almost all the respected experts, many of whom are retired U.S. Intelligence. This is a clear case of misusing Wiki to advance fallacious and discredited Conspiracy Theories. Perhaps you could help there. Thanks in advance. - F.A.A.F.A. 00:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia
Looks like a good admin candidate. 14000 edits with 6000 in mainspace. No blocks. Good eye for BS and lots of article cleanup. --Tbeatty 07:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good to me...maybe see if they are interested in becoming an admin.--MONGO 19:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Still no bumper sticker?
These things are the latest fashion: ArbCom bumper stickers
—Doug Bell 08:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah...I think I'll not advertise...but thanks though. If I did, I'd have tank or or toilet plunger as my pics.--MONGO 09:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I really wasn't seriously suggesting that you do. I find them a bit silly. Anyway, I replaced the individual links above with the category I created for them so that your talk page won't show up on the "What links here" for the images. —Doug Bell 09:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, I didn't mean to be dismissive. Thanks again though.--MONGO 09:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- I really wasn't seriously suggesting that you do. I find them a bit silly. Anyway, I replaced the individual links above with the category I created for them so that your talk page won't show up on the "What links here" for the images. —Doug Bell 09:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Sockpuppet watch
User:67.37.179.61 - Chicago
User:70.8.49.7 - Chicago
User:70.8.151.103 - Chicago
User:68.30.26.171 - Chicago
--Tbeatty 19:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Heh...may have to semi-protect the talkpage if that disruption about "feds" isgoing to continue...maybe best if it does you or someone else puts in a request for semi-protection.--MONGO 19:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Mediation of Sept 11th article. POV
As part of the first step of advocating the wiki rights of cplot I am begining the steps towards dispute resolution WP:DR. User cplot has attempted to contact you on numerous occasions regarding alleged hostility on your behalf. You then blatantly obfuscate and escalate the situation by being rude You appear to be ignoring the first steps of WP:DR. That is you are failling the "talking to the other parties" via removing communications attempts from cplot on your user page and then by blocking him, according to WP:Block, in a contreversial block. It appears that you and cplot are involved in a content dispute. According to WP:Block "Blocking to gain an advantage in a content dispute is strictly prohibited. Sysops must not block editors with whom they are currently engaged in a content dispute. If in doubt, report the problem to other admins to act on. (You may be wrong!)" Your aggressive actions (rubing in the face that he has been blocked) and even betting in a gamely fashion on when he'll be back to "disrupt" go against the wikipedia spirit and I would take this as a personal attack! To me it appears as though you blocked him because he added the category on a talk page... which is allegedly by accident. You then, instead of just changing it, asked him to remove it in a rude manner.
You have even gone to the point of stalking the edits he does on his own user page! You may have had grounds to push a 3RR block in the past for against cplot but the prejucial effect of using this statement in your current 1 week block outweighted the wiki-rules judicial effect. Essentially your blocking him on this latest count is highly prejucial and I put it to you that you did it in anger! Seriously, blocking someone for "ADDING A CATEGORY TO A TALK PAGE! Come ON!" You blocked him because of the escalating uncivility which was occuring inbetween each other. According to WP:Block your actions are not the encouraged. This biased bloking, as suggested cplot, was simply based on my clients past rapport with you and your lack of good faith (as I've demonstrated above) to properly communicate.
This constant bikering is not only childish but totally disruptive for new commers in this article. I want to relax and read the issues concerning this article not read bikering on secondary... no not even... third degree issues. Though you have both played escalating roles in this revenge, trully Mongo has attempted to give the last hit with a revengeful BLOCK!
Now go figure, right at the point when cplot appears to receive support and begin a good debate you go and block him from representing his point... not on the article... but in the discussion page so you can resolve the underlining problem.
Cplot has placed a request for POV template addition to the article. (Which has been added). nevertheless he has been gang up on: with rude comments essentially telling him to fuck off. "...you want to add YOUR POV to the article. Please stop trying that. It is pointless and takes uses time and energy that could be used to improve the article and improve wikipedia. --Regebro 12:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)" Instead of concentrating on trying to suppress cplot perhaps wild conspiracies perhaps you should be a little friendlier in helping him (or in your case disprove) prove how he can add properly cited WP:CITE material for building an article which is evenly balanced in POVs. Remember, this goes for you too cplot, WP:POV has a lovely quote, which I added at the start, that indicated every article has POVs! Now lets work on having a well balanced POV article... that would hence be WP:NPOV according to wiki rules. It is for these reasons I believe we should begin mediation WP:RFM if not for the lack of civility then at least for the POV issues within the article (which appear to me to be the route of the problem). --CyclePat 21:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)