Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:44, 2 August 2012

This is DangerousPanda's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15Auto-archiving period: 15 days

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

A follow up on Krizpo

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Qwyrxian and I tried to teach Krizpo how to be a decent editor. At Talk:Religion_in_Africa#Religions_in_Africa we explained that blogs, wikis, self-published websites, personal website, etc, etc are not reliable sources and are not used in article. We explained that we do not give undue weight to topics. At User_talk:Krizpo#Appropriate_sources, I explained what sort of sources are considered reliable, and he "agreed" do to so. He then went on and cited blogs, self-published website, etc, etc anyway. At User_talk:Krizpo#Regarding_your_edits_to_Religion_in_Africa I pointed out the various problems with his edits (including his continuing problem of citing sources for claims the sources do not even begin to make). He then restored a great deal of it, making fringe claims like portraying Buddhism as having been continually present in Africa since Ashoka sent a few missionaries to Egypt, using different sources. Qwyrxian reverted most of it, and is going to revert more of it later if Krizpo does not justify his edits on the talk page. I removed some more, particularly the presentation of all Indian religions having had a notable presence in the whole Africa since Ashoka sent a few Buddhist missionaries to Egypt. Qwyrxian left a message on Krizpo's page asking him to justify his edits on the article's talk page. Krizpo simply restored the contested material without any discussion, citing sources we had already explained repeatedly are not reliable and are not to be used. I reverted and left a message asking him to take it to the talk page. He simply restored it and continues to be the useless, edit-warring, POV-pusher he was identified as being over a week ago.

He does not pay attention to WP:RS, only when other editors point to individual sources and say "do not use that one." He still refuses to listen to any editor saying "do not make claims not supported by sources." All he has to say for himself, after editors have wasted so much time explaining things and all but editing for him is "Dude, you are messing up the page. It actually looked good after my edit."

As it was your idea to see if things would improve once he started talking, rather than make an apparently difficult block, I thought you might want to know. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:44, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Your statements above include non-AGF against me, and a complete misunderstanding of the whole original ANI related to Krizpo. Unbelievable - however, I of course followed your newer ANI. dangerouspanda 00:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where I made any statement about you... The original ANI ended without Krizpo being blocked on the basis that he might improve (if that possibility was not acknowledged, then there was no reason to leave Krizpo unblocked and prevent good editors from working on the articles he messed with). Now, where did I mention you? Ian.thomson (talk) 00:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"As it was your idea to see if things would improve once he started talking, rather than make an apparently difficult block" - that's a poor, non-AGF statement about me. When I'm acting as an admin, I'm marked as an admin who will make difficult blocks, and make many of them. Blocking Krizpo at the time would have not been difficult - it would have been stupid. He was given some WP:ROPE, and used it well. dangerouspanda 00:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So wait, a comment I directed at Bwilkins (who has the difficult blocks tag, btw), is about you? I bet you think this song is about you. Pointing out what one believes to be a mistake does not violate AGF ("assume good faith," not "assume others are incapable of mistakes and agree with all their actions"). Accusing others of bad faith does violate AGF. 00:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Please do spell my name correctly - Bwilkins - seeing as I my administrator account does use my real name  :-) dangerouspanda 09:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not pretending to be away. I am away from performing administrative functions using my admin account, so I am using my alternative account that has no admin capabilities. dangerouspanda 20:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So, I updated you about Krizpo's behavior, to which you responded by referring to yourself as a completely different person, pointing out that "they're" away and "cannot" make the block (even though there was nothing stopping you from logging in), and then accuse me of bad faith for pointing out that Krizpo didn't improve and needed to be blocked... This is being responsible admin behavior, is it? Ian.thomson (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

At the time I posted on your talkpage, I was being harassed, as per the legal and Misplaced Pages definition. The accounts were not linked, and as a responsible admin, I advised you to take the concern to someone else for action. NO, I am not logging into the Bwilkins account, and there's very commonly-known reasons for such. Take your additional bad faith accusations elsewhere, as I'll be reverting any additional attempts at such dangerouspanda 20:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

See here. Yes, yes, you're away, but I still feel it only proper to notify you. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

:-) dangerouspanda 00:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)