Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:08, 6 January 2008

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

User Page	Talk	Contributions	Sandbox	ToDo	Subpages

Bluemarine RFC

Absolutely - I've moved it to approved. Aatombomb 06:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your request, RfC are generally somehting I support but you didn't really tell me why, what purpose. I know Bluemarine apparantly is Matt Sánchez and he is let's say overly enthusiastic about "his" article, but what's the purpose of the RfC?Cholga 04:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Typingmonkey, I'd be glad to read through the diffs & respond to this RfC as an outside view, but it hasn't been certified! You need to get two signatures from users who attempted to resolve disputes with Bluemarine to sign in the certification section of the RfC within 48 hours of the RfC being initiated. But not there's not even one certification. Aatombom was incorrect in moving it to the "approved" portion of the user-conduct RfC list becuase of that; I've moved it back. You can be one signature to certify, but you will need to find one other editor also involved in disputes with Bluemarine or it will be deleted by an admin when they notice it. -- & then you would have to start it again. --Yksin 18:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall having had any interactions with Bluemarine, but I support your RfC. Corvus cornix 18:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, but it's been a while since I interacted with Bluemarine/Matt, and there seems no shortage of editors commenting in the RFC about his more recent behavior. So I'm going to focus on other things that I think are a better use of my limited time regarding Misplaced Pages. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:15, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC format

I just changed the headers of the NPOV/COI violations evidence you just provided. You had them under "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute." What should be included under this last header is diffs showing how users who have certified the dispute (including you if you've signed as a certifier) have attempted to talk with Bluemarine to get him to amend his ways, such as warnings or discussion on his user talk page, or on the article talk page. See other RfCs (the one's I did were on HanzoHattori & Custerwest) for examples of how people have done this. RfCs can be tough to put together, but it'll be worth it if it helps solve the conflict! BTW, I answered your thanks on my own talk page. --Yksin 22:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The evidence you just provided was of Bluemarine purportedly trying to warn about something you purportedly did wrong -- but the evidence you actually need for that section is of you or other editors cautioning him about his bad behavior, but which he ignored. --Yksin 00:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

On the RfC talk page, a user just mentioned that Bluemarine sometimes uses anon IPs for his less savory comments. I strongly suggest that you & other users who are more familiar with Bluemarine's activities do all you can to document this kind of thing. I did something like that with Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Custerwest (though his use of anon IPs was a little more "innocent" if any such thing could be said of Custerwest), & it's done wonders to help prevent continuation of that kind of abuse. As I said at the RfC talk page, the more that editors who know the case can do to document it with evidence, the more it helps outside editors like User:Into the Fray & me so that we can get up to snuff on the case & a larger consensus for what to do can be created. It'll also come in handy if it's necessary to take this case further up the line to aritration or something. --Yksin 00:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

See reply to your latest message on my talk page. Keep the faith: you're doing good. --Yksin 05:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Adoption

Short answer: Sure! Longer answer: on my talk page. --Yksin 00:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I voted. Thank you for telling me. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 03:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome! Since you voted to delete, I've a question, though - have you run up against many articles in which the sources were controversial? For instance, I don't think democracynow.com should be listed as a source any more than worldnetdaily.com, however, should editors have the burden to fight that discussion battle on each article on which those sources are listed? Typing Monkey - 03:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

An explanation

Sometimes when I intervene in a partisan dispute an action can draw suspicions of partisanship, so to the extent that it's possible I'd like to address that proactively. I've answered probably hundreds of article content requests for comment and this is the first that redirected responses to a conduct RFC. As such, my deletion of the content RFC was purely procedural.

Sometimes when a dispute gets polarized it helps for a third party to step forward and talk neutrally. I've just made that offer to Bluemarine and I'll extend the same to you. You can contact me through the following link: Special:Emailuser/Durova. As I've expressed to Bluemarine, I'll probably recuse myself from actual use of the sysop tools in this dispute but might request review and intervention by uninvolved administrators if that becomes necessary. Durova 01:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I've e-mailed a response.Typing Monkey - 21:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying to you earlier

You would have piqued my interest if I had had time for Misplaced Pages. I am just busy outside of Misplaced Pages, but I will reply shortly to your message(s). Please keep my talk page on your watchlist. — Sebastian 04:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I replied to both your messages on my talk page, please keep the conversation there. — Sebastian 01:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Bluemarine RFA

You may want to weigh in Bluemarine's case, which has now been referred for arbitration. Aatombomb (talk) 07:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)