Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:50, 4 January 2007

Personal non attacks

Continuing disagreements over the PRT article still need to be resolved. Some time ago, I asked for your most likely candidate for inclusion. If you and JzG can have some constructive experiences together, it might help you to get onto the same wavelength, which would be an added bonus. Stephen B Streater 21:26, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Light rail

I've done a first pass of Light rail. The mood there seems constructive. I noticed the references at the bottom - perhaps these contain the references missing from elsewhere. I'll read them all to check. Stephen B Streater 09:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

stephan

Hey, Thanks for the heads up, i'll keep my eye out. Fresheneesz 19:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA message

		My RfA video message
		Stephen B Streater 08:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Username change

Your request has been fulfilled. Regards — Dan | talk 22:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

arbitration

Hey, didn't realize it was you at first. I am bringing up an arbitration case at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and I would really appreciate your input. Its about some talk page vandalism and general wikigang behavior around a couple guideline pages. I'm deeply ashamed of wikipedia right now. Fresheneesz 04:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Btw, thanks for defending me. Its nice to have friends. Fresheneesz 05:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, just keep a cool head. I know it's frustrating, but sometimes it's better to just take a step back and let things cool down a bit before you say or do something you regret. You've given me similar advice in the past, so I thought I'd pass it back to you. :-) ATren 23:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Beat

"Have you stopped beating your wife" is not a personal attack, but rather a common response to people who ask loaded questions. Based on your reactions to both this and the comment about ulterior motives, it would seem that you take offense at things more than is necessary, and I would advise some restraint against accusing people in the future. >Radiant< 11:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

(note: I originally posted the following response on Radiant's page, but Radiant removed it, so I am reposting it here)

I would advise you to link the "beat" reference next time so there is no confusion; for someone who never heard of that reference, this could only be interpreted as a personal attack, and a link to the page explaining the reference would have eliminated any confusion. If I were a suspicious person, I might think you intentionally didn't link the reference, in order to bait me into over-reacting. But I am not a suspicious person so I didn't over-react, and I now consider the matter closed.

But let's not cloud the bigger issue here - you were the one who was asking for action against Fresheneesz. I found an instance of aggressive behavior on your part (I'll stop using the "v" word, even though it absolutely was) that inflamed the situation, and I pointed it out. I think you are the one who is taking undue offense to what I am saying. I would therefore similarly advise you show some restraint in the future. ATren 14:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, -- Drini 22:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

From WP:VAND

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." Says so almost at the top of the page. >Radiant< 13:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Deleting the comments of other users from Talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism." This seems pretty clear cut. Note, I'm not calling you a vandal (I've said that before) but I do believe you stepped over the line in this case. I also believe you've been overzealous with the guideline tag on Notability and DDV - at least six other editors reverted your changes on DDV but you still claimed there was consensus. But all that is up to the arbitrators to decide, I'm just presenting evidence. ATren 14:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you're presenting conjecture. You're assuming that I used DDV as a justification, whereas in fact I was only pointing you to some additional reading material (hence my words "see also", as opposed to "and this was based upon such-and-such policy"). Also, you're giving a one-sided view of the situation by only mentioning the six editors who opposed me on DDV, and omitting the twelve that supported me. >Radiant< 14:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You cited DDV while claiming that removing a poll was justified. That, to me, implied that DDV justified the poll blanking (at least partially). But that's for the arbitrator to decide.

When I refer to the six editors who opposed, I'm talking about those who reverted your change to "guidline" or removal of "disputed". There were one or two other editors who reverted to "guideline" in the very beginning, but they didn't edit-war the tag. You persisted in reverting at least six other editors in re-applying "guideline" and/or removing "disputed". Aside from the edit warring with six other editors, there is the question of consensus - clearly, consensus had not been gained if six others were reverting you. Again, the arbitration committee is the ultimate judge on these issues. ATren 14:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• So what you're saying, basically, is that instead of offering evidence, you are offering your own assumptions on what happened, in the hope that the arbiters agree with them. By definition, an assumption is not evidence. >Radiant< 14:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just let the arbitration committee decide? ATren 14:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop imputing motives to me and making accusations of bad faith. Frankly it looks like you are trolling on the RfA page. I really don't want this to descend into the gutter. I'm going to give you fair warning that if you continue in this vein I will add your actions to the RfAr, and invite the arbitors to take a look at your civility and 'helpfulness' to this case. By all means contribute, but let's all assume good faith and stick to the issues.--Doc 01:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFAr

Wow, I'm looking at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability/Proposed decision and it looks like it's not going well. Apparently Radiant! did nothing wrong (despite provoking Fresh) and Fresh fundamentally misunderstands policy or something. Wikipedians need to learn that people do stupid things when mad or provoked. I read your comments and wholly agreed, and thought discussion.. would be a fun way to porcrastinate! -- Chrissperanza! chat edits 19:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little disappointed in the direction of this arbitration, but not entirely surprised. Misplaced Pages is, in my mind, hopelessly oligarchical: admins and arbiters act as the ruling class, and very seldom rule against each other in support of an outsider. And once you get on the bad side of one admin, you are pretty much guaranteed to be at odds with all of them. I admire Fresheneesz's spirit in trying to break this oligarchy (or "cabal", as some like to call it) and for a time I was hopeful that maybe he could do it... but I'm not at all surprised at the result.

This is why my focus on Misplaced Pages has always been to protect, not to enhance. I originally got involved because of a single dispute in which a single editor on a crusade was trying to use Misplaced Pages to advance his political agenda (see this) and I figured it would be easy enough to convince the powers-that-be that his agenda had little to do with fact. But he got an admin on his side (JzG, who was a fan of this guy's cartoon work) and the battle turned out to be an all out war. It didn't matter that my side of the argument was supported by 3 other reasonable editors (including Fresheneesz) and based in verifiable fact - JzG accused us all of being POV pushers and essentially took ownership of the article, pushing it to an unjustified level of skepticism that was just a notch less extreme than the crusading editor's version. He justified his version in part using notability arguments.

After months of fighting, we finally got it to a more balanced, verifiable state. It was after this debacle that Fresheneesz moved on to Non-notability in an effort to prevent this kind of abuse of notability in the future. He took the idealistic approach: he was going to try to change Misplaced Pages to prevent editors from using notability to push a POV. The rest of us were not so idealistic: I largely gave up on Misplaced Pages, choosing to just linger and protect some pages from abuse; Skybum also largely gave up on Misplaced Pages; JJLatWiki continues to edit, but with a detectably cynical approach. These are four reasonable editors who were so disgusted by this debate that they reacted in extreme ways: two abandoning the project entirely and one spending all his efforts to fix the notability mess (and getting repremanded for his efforts). For JzG's part, he still continues to mis-represent that debate, even in this arbitration where he accuses Fresheneesz of pursuing non-notability just because his article was deleted (an extreme mis-characterization of what really happened over there - but other admins believe him implicitly because he's on the inside).

So, basically, this arbitration is nothing short of what I'd expect from the Misplaced Pages cabal: a decision in support of its admins and admonishing an upstart who has the gall to question authority. For me, it only confirms the exact reasons why I've largely abandoned the project in the first place. ATren 07:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

This is hilarious, thanks for cheering up my morning! No wonder you have problems if you suffer this badly from m:MPOV! The article is, of course, pretty much as I left it, what I did was simply to remove the egregious puffery added by fans of this hypothetical transportation mode and the months of fighting were over tiny details, largely related to precisely how many times a particular fan of PRT should be quoted, how to represent the arm-waving hypothetical cost calculations advanced by proponents, and what to do about the profound lack of sources other than proponents. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox, after all, and I cited policy and guidelines at every turn and and as I pointed out numerous times if you thought that my interpretation of policy was at fault then you were at all times free to start an RfC. Fresh has a positive genius for arguing even when he admits that you are right! Guy (Help!) 10:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually responded to this at length on JzG's talk page, but I just wanted to add one more point: from the m:MPOV article, one of the signs that you are megalomaniacal:

• "Upon reading this list, you are convinced that most of the people you deal with are suffering from MPOV."

May I be so bold to suggest to you, Dr. Guy: heal thyself? ATren 18:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, a belly laugh. ArbCom indeed! I wish you had. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad the insiders can have a good hearty laugh at the inherent corruption of Misplaced Pages. But you miss my point in all of this: I don't care! I know how it works now, I know about the cabal, and I know how to defend against future POV attacks like the one you and Avidor tried on the PRT article. That's all I care about. I do feel a little bad for Fresheneesz, an idealist who thought he could change things and was spanked for his audacity. But I think he's learned his lesson by now: don't challenge the authority of the oligarchy.

For me, my only concern was defending the PRT article against Avidorization by you, and I did that. My work here is basically done.

But just so you know, whenever you try to mis-characterize what happened in your PRT POV push, I'm going to set the record straight. You can count on that. ATren 23:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

ROFL! For some values of straight, of course... Guy (Help!) 23:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

So you doubt whether my version is "straight"? Would you like me to post the hard evidence of your abuses? I have all the diffs... it would be easy enough. Multiple violations of WP:OWN and WP:AGF. Multiple threats to block a good faith editor for daring to oppose you in a content dispute. Not to mention repeatedly acting at the behest of a proven POV pusher and link spammer, while defending him just because you happened to be a fan of his cartoon (see this piece of fancruft you created and defended) - and not recusing yourself from mediation even when it was clear your affection for said editor was affecting your judgement. Even if I don't go to arb com, I can still post my whole case and refer to it whenever you try to twist the facts of that debate. Now that would be my version of "straight"... ATren 23:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, dear ATren, it is always the case that everybody else is biased! Guy (Help!) 23:56, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the one who owned PRT for a month. I'm not the one who abused admin powers in a content dispute. Maybe it's time I posted all that evidence, so I can just point to it every time you try to twist the truth. ATren 00:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Er, if you two have issues, i'd suggest a WP:RFAr be filed. -- Chris is me 00:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I won't go the RFAr route at this point; for one thing, most of the evidence in the dispute is old (from March and April). The only reason it all flared up again was Fresheneesz's arbitration and the arb com elections - both of which compelled me to dig up all the old evidence. I'm sure it will die down again soon. (another reason I won't go to arbitration - did you see what happened when Fresheneesz took on a respected admin?) ATren 06:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

XPLANE deletion review

ATren, Would you mind weighing in on the deletion review for XPLANE at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 24? Your comments/opinions are much appreciated.Dgray xplane 15:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

JzG

While I do think you make a valid point, it should be noted that the identity of Fys is not that guarded a secret. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 03:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that; but nevertheless Fys obviously did not want the link there, because he removed it soon after JzG posted it. JzG should have respected that, but instead he re-inserted the links. I could understand JzG linking it once, but re-linking after Fys removed it and explicitly requested that he not re-insert it... well, as an anonymous editor I found this distressing. ATren 04:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

My RfA

I would like to take the time to thank you for voting in my unsuccessful RFA. YYour comments and Support vote inspired me greatly. Have a nice day! (By the way, if you think JzG is an abusive admin, you should open an RFC)-- Chris is me 13:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm sorry it didn't work out. ATren 22:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikidata

Hey, someone messaged me a while ago in response to the wikidata blurb I have on my user page. They set up a site to start the project out - its basically a place for experimental data, primary sources, and original research. Let me know if you're interested - Nkayesmith set up http://www.primary.formationos.net/ as a starter. Cya around. Fresheneesz 22:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop

This business with JzG has become disruptive. Please take it to dispute resolution if anything further is needed. Tom Harrison 04:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Whats his^ deal? As for the arbitration, I think Tom harrison may be right - dispute resolution first. I dunno if that killed the arbitration I had, but it seems like the arbitration didn't really think very hard about the case. After their apparent lack of consideration - I'm not so sure I trust the arbcom to make decisions that make sense. It really seems to me like some people have forgotten about the "Misplaced Pages is not a beauracracy" part of WP:NOT. People that focus on making policy aren't the people focused on building wikipedia - and its hurting us. Neither policy nor that arbitration is based on consensus at all at this point - I had thought I had a decent amount of support.. but apparently the comittee didn't think so. I think I'm going to avoid jerkasses like JzG and Radiant as much as possible for now on - most of the stuff I edit has absolutely no verifiability (or "notability") problems anyway. Fresheneesz 10:47, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If JzG is continuously throwing out personal attacks, then its probably something to go to dispute resolution about. Perhaps their less... jugmental .. over at DR. Fresheneesz 20:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't go down the DR, but try to keep away from each another, my advice is to try to occasionaly follow WP:TEA and write something nice about the other person - commend him on a good article or handling of some situation or such. It's hard to bury the hatchet, especially if one or more of the persons involved are hot tempered and quick to use some words - and other is more than sensitive to them - but with good faith, lots of problems can be patched. In the end, most of us share the same goal here. Unfortunatly there are times when no amount of good faith can help - but there are very few, in my career - almost three years here - I have found three at most, so it's not so bad (if you have a stomach, check the newest oneI am involved in...). But remember - this is an exception, 99% of wiki is a nice place - just write a WP:DYKable article and you will fill better :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  12:31, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't Destroy

I've started an essay called Don't Destroy. Thought you might like to look at it. Fresheneesz 00:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Enough

Sure, I'll drop it if you will. I don't like hatchets to begin with. HAND. >Radiant< 10:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop it.

Do not drag your disputes with users to other disputes those users are having. This is a violation of basic civility. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)