Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:49, 1 February 2011

Please sign (~~~~) before you save. Beware SineBot!

Status: Unknown

Not a good comment...

This at least suggests bad faith. I suggest you remove it before it escalates. (And no, I don't follow you around - I have MastCell's talk page on my watchlist). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Struck per your concerns. Are you involved with "Deletion harassment"? It appear that you have been a substantive influence with WMC to having my contributions struck and/or deleted.Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not involved with any kind of harassment. WMC sometimes listen to some things I say, and sometimes not. That said, there is no right of editors that their contributions remain anywhere but in the history. In particular, it's both normal and desirable that changes that decrease the quality of the project are removed. I have no opinion on the particular edit in question, having not checked it yet. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you agree to clarification on this ... specifically editors have a right to enjoy making contributions without someone taking a seemingly hounding deletion approach to them?Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Your repeated descriptions of normal, good faith, editing behavior by other editors as "deletion harassment" and "hounding" is evidence of an "ownership" attitude on your part and is a gross assumption of bad faith and personal attack toward other editors. I suggest you read about "ownership" of edits. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No, not really. "Seemingly hounding" is to vague to be useful, and nobody but you can reliably know what you enjoy or don't enjoy. I'd certainly agree that edits (except in the case of banned/blocked editors) shouldn't be removed just because of their author, but I see no evidence for that here. Having now looked at your edit, there are ample reasons for disputing it. You yourself called it "bold", implicitly inviting a WP:BRD cycle. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I tried. I've objected to harassment, did you see that? You claim you aren't involved in "deletion harassment" and don't wish me to seek clarification on this with others. Would you reconsider? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but either you misunderstand me or vice versa. If you want to object to harassment, do so directly, specifying exactly what your complaint is. Don't make vague allusions. I see no evidence for harassment so far. I don't think I've said or done anything that could lead you to validly conclude that I "don't wish to seek clarification on this with others". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It must have been that part when you said "No". All ok now, thanks. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

My "no" referred to your question "Do you agree..." - which I don't. I hope that's clear now. Have a good evening (or whatever time of day your time zone supports) - I'm on my bike and off to dinner. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Have fun. Thanks for stopping by. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)

Continuing, this isn't great either. strike per team concerns doesn't suggest good faith on your part, and looks like an attack directed against Stephan Schulz William M. Connolley (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would you say that? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Civility

No offense, but you don't appear to be responding to the comments and concerns that are being brought up here. It's as if you simply don't understand what others are saying, you aren't interested in supporting your own edit, or you want to use the talk page for some other discussion whose topic you've yet to make clear. If you don't understand others' comments, please ask questions so others can attempt to clarify their positions. If you're not interested in supporting your own edit, then there's really no point in the discussion, is there? If you want to discuss something else, please attempt to clearly state what it is you want to discuss. --Ronz (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I want to amend the content for inclusion, please help with that there. Thanks. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Then start by making a clear statement about what you want and why you want it.

After that, address the concerns that have been brought up. --Ronz (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ronz, have you noticed how ZP5's behavior and comments are disturbingly similar to the behavior of User:QuackGuru? That's not a good omen. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

No offense, but my impression is that perhaps ZuluPapa5 has difficulties understanding English, so he rarely responds to directly others' comments. Instead, he appears to be constantly trying to redirect discussions to personal issues. This appears defensive - an attempt to give some sort of response when he doesn't understand what's being said in enough detail to respond in any other manner.

ZuluPapa5, do you feel you have a good understanding of others' English here on Misplaced Pages? --Ronz (talk) 18:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I understand that harassment is a personal issue. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That's exactly the type of response that I'm concerned about: It's a defensive reaction that shows no understanding whatsoever for what was said.

ZuluPapa5, I'm sorry that these discussions are upsetting you. If you don't want to answer my question, that's fine. --Ronz (talk) 19:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, your right. Now why, do you guess, am I being so defensive about this issue? see: User:ZuluPapa5/Deletion_HarassmentZulu Papa 5 * (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What is that userpage supposed to show? It lists some articles and a talk page. --Ronz (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

As the title suggests, the page will show deletion harassment evidence. By editors intentionally interfering with my right to enjoy creating content, as well as my topic ban instructions to do such. It is intended for consented dispute resolution, may possibly result in a warning or interaction ban. It could just be frivolous distraction, and spun into battleground rubbish. Who knows. However, I am very concerned. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't show any harassment evidence right now, it simply lists some articles and a talk page. --Ronz (talk) 21:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, trying to avoid inflaming the issues, before a fair hearing. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

So you're defensive because you feel harassed, and you're in the process of putting together evidence of this harassment.

I fail to see harassment towards you on any of the pages you link, though I might be overlooking something. Certainly, you have a history with William M. Connolley. In the case of WP:CIVIL and it's talk page, there's very little to review, so I'm fairly certain that there's nothing there that could be construed as harassment toward you. --Ronz (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What would demonstrate "deletion harassment" to you? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Harassment is something that clearly violates WP:HA. There's nothing there about "deletion harassment." --Ronz (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well what about Section 1.1 WP:HOUND, where an editor stalks your contributions, goes to articles they have never had an interest, and selectively deletes your content. Not to mention editors who go out of there way, to nominate articles you created for deletion based on their POV, and no prior concerns or discussions about the articles with others, except their single POV. Nor even good faith attempts to make a NPOV. This would seem like a bad faith nomination request, would you agree? I mean where an editor makes no attempt to reach a NPOV, that is just poor faith deletion or even speedy deletion abuse. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:22, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Not in the slightest from what I see. Certainly not in the discussions on Talk:Civil. --Ronz (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, you might not have the complete and fair picture. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

....or, ZP5, you might not understand what is allowed and normal behavior here. We use watchlists to keep track of articles and other editors. Many editors are disruptive to this project and need watching. It is not harassment or hounding when they are provided with instruction designed to improve their behavior, or when their edits are altered or deleted. That's how Misplaced Pages editing works.

When an editor does something problematic or controversial on an article or in a discussion with another editor, that raises red flags and we start noticing what that editor is doing elsewhere that might also be problematic. That's all perfectly normal and legitimate here, and which is enabled by using our watchlists. For example, I currently "have 5,272 pages on your watchlist (excluding talk pages)." The chances of me noticing your activities, even if I wasn't interested in if you were still up to something detrimental here, are pretty good.

So far I haven't seen you doing anything constructive, but certainly causing lots of disruption and controversy. I suggest you stop impugning the motives of other editors and recognize that when you are properly approached by other editors you have no right to be left alone and respond improperly. You must AGF and place the best possible interpretation on their actions and words.

Neither do your edits have a right to be left alone. You do not own them. You are not an island and all your activities here are public, accessible to others, and are subject to being altered by others. This is not your private blog.

You are required to act in a collaborative manner here, and that includes replying politely to questions and requests. Your treatment of MastCell, for example, was above and beyond abominable. I have rarely seen such behavior. He did nothing wrong, was far more polite (and amazingly patient with you!!!) than the situation and your reaction called for, and yet you still think he did something wrong. Neither has WMC done anything wrong.

The problem here isn't that we "might not have the complete and fair picture", as you put it above, but that YOU really don't get it. When EVERYONE ELSE says you're doing something wrong, maybe you really are! Have you thought of that possibility? -- Brangifer (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Civility means have a little faith friend, even when you or others my be abusive. Best regards. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 02:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yet another unhelpful response that carries the seed of an accusation ("when you or others my be abusive") within a fist disguised with a "civility" glove. Not very nice. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

How can I help you (have faith) today? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)

It would help a lot if you began to show that you understood the problem. You keep blaming others, talking about being harassed and hounded, not wanting to interact with others, etc.. You even have an "evidence" page, which doesn't even have any evidence that would be considered legitimate here. We know what interactions you have with others and no one has been harassing you. Misplaced Pages is a very open place, and it's supposed to be that way. If you can't handle someone looking over your shoulder all the time, this isn't the place for you. You have no right to privacy here. Such an open environment demands honesty on your part. All of us editors can't work together here if we can't trust each other and are certain that each other has the same goal....to create a better encyclopedia. That's why we're here.

It would also help if we saw you actually doing something constructive in the way of editing articles, rather than leaving cryptic messages, making statements, complaining, etc. on talk pages. Start producing some actual work in the form of improving articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

"Ok, you might not have the complete and fair picture."

If you cannot provide any evidence whatsoever for your claims of harassment, then it's extremely hard to see those claims as anything civil or otherwise appropriate for Misplaced Pages. I suggest you delete User:ZuluPapa5/Deletion_Harassment.

Ronz (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Who or what says I can't provide evidence and wants to delete this? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 01:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

It's you. We're not talking about anyone but you. You're claiming you're being harassed. You need to provide some evidence of this.

There's no harassment going on at WP:CIVIL directed at you. What is the purpose of claiming otherwise? --Ronz (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly! ZP5, you have been interpreting normal activities here as harassment. That's not very nice. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What would demonstrate to you there may be others attempting or actually harassing me? Maybe, I should just ask for an interaction ban and take it from there? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

If someone has been harassing you off-wiki, we might not know about it. We do know that you haven't been harassed here at Misplaced Pages. All the contacts which you have labeled harassment have been legitimate and civil contacts. You have reacted very poorly to them. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You've already asked this question in this discussion (22:17, 27 January 2011) and I've answered it.

If you want a request for an interaction ban to be taken seriously, and not hurt your own credibility, then you need to provide evidence. --Ronz (talk) 04:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would you suggest I delete my evidence page then? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Its very existence is evidence of bad faith on your part. You are proving that you are paranoid and think others are harassing you. If there were actually evidence of harassment there it would be a slightly different matter, but there isn't. What you have there is an odd collection of links, many of which really make no sense, and some of which actually show you reacting poorly. You're shooting yourself in the foot by having that page. When subpages of that type aren't factual they are actually forbidden here. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you show me the evidence please? What type do you mean?Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Notification

I regard your conduct here, as well as at User talk:MastCell and other venues, to be recurrences of the battlefield conduct for which you were sanctioned in WP:ARBCC. I am drafting an enforcement request in my user space and intend to submit it within 24 hours (at the moment I am traveling and can only edit sporadically). If in the meantime you disengage and begin to follow the sanctions imposed on you I will take that into account. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would you want to continue the said "battle"? Seek peace my friend. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

ZP5, that reply is obtuse and refuses to recognize that others see YOUR behavior (including denials, obtuse replies, ownership attitude, and accusations of "deletion harassment" and "hounding" (see my comment above)) as evidence of YOUR battlefield mentality, and they are calling you on it and want YOU to stop. They are not trying to "continue" it. That's an unhelpful reply to SBHB's comment. You can't just deny you've been doing it and try to walk away as if you're innocent. We need to see that you really understand the problems you've been creating, learn from the comments and criticisms you have received, and truly repent. You must admit it, apologize, and THEN walk away from doing it anymore.

Your behavior and comments are disturbingly similar to the behavior of User:QuackGuru and that's not a good omen. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:34, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What are you implying by your association? I would like to address your specific concerns. I have no experiences with QuackGuru, that I can recall, except you raising an issue. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I checked the sanction, how are you going to convince folks that my user space content is in the scope of my sanctioned articles? It was originated from deleted content, hence not in the realm of the sanction. I realize this is a fine line, that's why I stayed out of the content; however, seems like you will have to establish that this content is relevant to my ban, and the my actions were substantial related to sanctioned content. I assure you, my concerns have been in the realm of harassment. Really want to save you wasting folks time on a frivolous issue. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:ZuluPapa5/Opinions on Climate Change

User:ZuluPapa5/Opinions on Climate Change, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:ZuluPapa5/Opinions on Climate Change and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:ZuluPapa5/Opinions on Climate Change during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. MastCell  22:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Asshole, this is malicious harassment. I am not allowed to participate in this topic. PLEASE STOP NOW AND DO NOT RETURN TO MY USER PAGES. YOU ARE NOT WELCOME HERE!! Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:ZuluPapa5/Opinions on Climate Change ‎, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 02:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Who did I insult? I must make an apology. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Writing ASSHOLE wasn't very smart. You decide who you need to apologize to. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Misplaced Pages, I wasn't very smart. Please forgive me. Zulu Papa 5 * (talk)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:ZuluPapa5/Deletion Harassment

Please do not make statements attacking people or groups of people. Misplaced Pages has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Misplaced Pages and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 02:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, this page is evidence. Who is it attacking? Zulu Papa 5 * (talk) 03:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)