Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:25, 25 May 2013

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Welcome!

Hello, Apteva, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Darwinek (talk) 08:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Capitalization

Moved from Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (music)#Capitalization

Apteva, you seem to have returned to your campaign to deny that the WP:MOS applies to style in titles. This didn't go well for you before, and continuing this kind of disruption, on the edge of your topic ban, is not likely to make anybody happy going forward. So drop the stick, yes? Dicklyon (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The convention page that you link references the style guidelines relevant to band name and song/album name capitalizatin: MOS:CT and MOS:TM. By requesting the removal of this section, you seem to be testing the boundaries of your newly clarified topic ban, which bans you "from advocating against the MOS being applicable to article titles." If that's not the point of what you're doing here by suggesting removal of the section that directly references the relevant MOS sections, what is your point? Why not drop it? Dicklyon (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

The section recommending removal of a duplication of NCCAPS was created before the addition referring to MOS was added, and the objection is still valid. The only appropriate change is to replace the section with "See WP:NCCAPS for capitalization, or better, just delete the section. Is it your idea that you can just chase me away from any discussion by adding a link to the MOS? Apteva (talk) 19:47, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013 - I have blocked you for one month

You seem to be completely incapable of droping your vendetta against Dicklyon. The AE explicitly did not accept your complaint and yet here were are again at ANI with another fatuous complaint of more of the same and failure to back away. Given your unwillingness to compromise, I see no option but to exclude you from editing for a month to demonstrate that the community will not tolerate any further disruption of this type. I'm confident that you will recieve a much longer break if you insist on repeating this behaviour when you return. Spartaz 17:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

What AE said was that of the six statements, three crossed the line, and as a result, Dicklyon was reminded to not continue. Since then there has been no abatement of the inappropriate behavior that has been going on for many years, although looking back at the last RFC/U, at least Dicklyon has not been calling editors names anymore, so that is a huge improvement, but if on a scale of 1 to 10 name calling is a 1 and a 6 is minimum acceptable behavior, they are making progress, but still not acting appropriately. I recommend either long blocks or yet another RFC/U. In my case, blocks are absurd, because I am not the problem, nor is there anything wrong with any of my edits. In the face of all of the incivility I simply respond professionally and report inappropriate actions to appropriate venues, in this case AE and ANI. It is Dicklyon who has been harassing me, and not in appropriate forums, but in guideline and article discussions. Apteva (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Apteva (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Y the block is in fact not necessary to prevent damage or disruption

Y the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions

Decline reason:

Reviewing the statement you've made, I do not have the necessary confidence to unblock you. You blame the other person for your own misbehavior, and the way you put a limit on your agreement makes me think that as soon as the block would have expired, you would be back to what got us here. As such, I'm going to decline to unblock. SirFozzie (talk) 21:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Acknowledging your email. I have removed the gender specific term as requested. Spartaz 20:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks. That is very important to me, and it needs to be assumed that it might be important to everyone. It is just basic common courtesy today. Also, I was pretty sure that I had mentioned that, so it made me wonder if the thread was even read before closing it: "It is the results that I am looking for, no calling me by gendered pronouns, no calling me you, no talking about me in a discussion about something else."Apteva (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  Also, FYI, this is a shared IP, so removing the IP autoblock would help, and have no affect on me, but having it could affect others. Apteva (talk) 20:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I did not at any time "misbehave" and I am blaming no one for my actions. I was blocked ostensibly to stop me from bringing administrative action against one editor, who has been a problem for a long time, and whom I am willing to avoid during the period of the block. If they are abusing me they are of a certainty abusing others as well and someone else can deal with them, I have no reason to do so. And what ever happened to AGF? It is very clear that if "as soon as the block would have expired, you would be back to what got us here", then what is the point of the block at all? I am not going to return now or ever to "the behavior that got me here", as it was not my behavior that got me here. All we are discussing though, is the period of the block, as what I do after the block expires is not affected by the block, as at that point in time I will be unblocked, and can either choose to self destruct by immediately filing another ANI, etc. and no one is that stupid, not even me. So by declining to unblock, you are categorically saying "I do not believe you", which is the exact opposite of "assume good faith", and extremely poor conduct on the part of any admin. The blocking reason states "Disruptive editing: Complete failure to drop the stick". It is never disruptive to call attention to the inappropriate behavior of another editor. I do a lot of RCP, and no one says, oh I guess vandalism is allowed today, and no one needs to get harassed and say, oh I guess that is acceptable here on Misplaced Pages, and I better not bring it up, because I might get blocked, instead of the offending editor. I really find this an absurd state of affairs for Misplaced Pages to allow. So the choice is lose yet another valuable editor for a month or unblock and allow me to go on being a productive editor. If I ever so much as give any hint of poking the bear, as the expression goes, or initiate any disciplinary actions against this editor during this time period, you and any admin have my full permission to block me as a preventative action. It simply is not going to happen. There are too many things that need to be fixed and too few of us willing to help for me to be willing to let that happen. Apteva (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

TLDR version. I never have done anything inappropriate, and will not give anyone the satisfaction of doing anything that anyone would disapprove of, as there is too much work here that needs to be done. Per WP:AGF it is important to give me the chance to prove that is the case. Apteva (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime I will post below edits that if anyone agrees with them they can make. Per blocking policy, they may only be made if you agree that they are something that you would like to do. Apteva (talk) 23:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit requests

Next steps

Obviously Misplaced Pages does not care about Misplaced Pages. This is completely counterproductive and completely unacceptable. I encourage anyone reading this to contact the two admins who made this deplorable decision to forgo the best interests of Misplaced Pages for what? For nothing, and encourage them to reconsider. Unbelievable, really truly unbelievable. Apteva (talk) 05:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Apteva, but no. WP:STICK, making others waste their time on things they don't want to, facetious complaints about how someone references you, sounds like schoolyard "doesn't play well with others". whatever your valid points and the unfairness & bastardry, you stuck your head up too far too often. Take it on the chin. When you're back, try a different style and we'll all be good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

How is it a waste of time ever to point out that someone else is not playing well with others, in an appropriate forum? Had I not sought action against that editor, they would just keep right on doing that. The problem, though is not that editor, it is how Misplaced Pages deals with incivility, which we are working on in an ongoing RfC (background). As pointed out in 2012 by Arb motion, what we are doing is unacceptable, and frankly, blocking me for not being willing to tolerate unacceptable behavior is just more than bizarre. As noted, WP:STICK does not apply to vandals and incivility. The editor in question has been through two RFC/U's and by reading the second one their behavior probably has improved, but it still is far from acceptable, and they do not even know what to do themself, even though the answer is right after the question. Stop being uncivil, that is the answer. By having WP reject the ANI and block me is simply a classic case of adding insult to injury. I am here to help the project, and blocking me is an extremely counterproductive move, and really needs to be seen as one of Misplaced Pages's stupidest's moves. Apteva (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Apteva (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

*The block did not meet requirements of blocking policy, as it was punitive, not preventative.

*There is no indication that editor will "return to what got them here".

*Editor is well aware that any violation of this trust "will not go well" (a block then would be deserved, as that would be a preventative block, not a punitive block).

All I am saying, is that in the interest of Misplaced Pages, give me a chance to prove that the unblock was warranted. Everyone deserves that much.

Background information: Editor is a content creator, copy editor, and vandal patroller, who filed AE/ANI requests repeatedly asking for civility enforcement actions, all of which were rejected. Editor recognizes that approach was not working and will "drop the stick" with the hope that a miracle will occur, and everyone will miraculously start being civil (stranger things have happened). Seriously, though, there is an ongoing RFC on the issue, and user will wait until it ends (this could be months or years even) and be very careful in following whatever the recommendation is at that time. User will also, and in the meantime, be careful to disengage from any other editor as needed, as a surefire way of avoiding incivility.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Misplaced Pages has no clearly defined policy on how to deal with uncivility, and this deficit is being rectified.<p>*The block did not meet requirements of blocking policy, as it was punitive, not preventative.<p>*There is no indication that editor will "return to what got them here".<p>*Editor is well aware that any violation of this trust "will not go well" (a block then ''would'' be deserved, as that would be a preventative block, not a punitive block).<p>All I am saying, is that in the interest of Misplaced Pages, give me a chance to prove that the unblock was warranted. Everyone deserves that much.<p>Background information: Editor is a content creator, copy editor, and vandal patroller, who filed AE/ANI requests repeatedly asking for civility enforcement actions, all of which were rejected. Editor recognizes that approach was not working and will "drop the stick" with the hope that a miracle will occur, and everyone will miraculously start being civil (stranger things have happened). Seriously, though, there is an ] on the issue, and user will wait until it ends (this could be months or years even) and be very careful in following whatever the recommendation is at that time. User will also, and in the meantime, be careful to disengage from any other editor as needed, as a surefire way of avoiding incivility. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Misplaced Pages has no clearly defined policy on how to deal with uncivility, and this deficit is being rectified.<p>*The block did not meet requirements of blocking policy, as it was punitive, not preventative.<p>*There is no indication that editor will "return to what got them here".<p>*Editor is well aware that any violation of this trust "will not go well" (a block then ''would'' be deserved, as that would be a preventative block, not a punitive block).<p>All I am saying, is that in the interest of Misplaced Pages, give me a chance to prove that the unblock was warranted. Everyone deserves that much.<p>Background information: Editor is a content creator, copy editor, and vandal patroller, who filed AE/ANI requests repeatedly asking for civility enforcement actions, all of which were rejected. Editor recognizes that approach was not working and will "drop the stick" with the hope that a miracle will occur, and everyone will miraculously start being civil (stranger things have happened). Seriously, though, there is an ] on the issue, and user will wait until it ends (this could be months or years even) and be very careful in following whatever the recommendation is at that time. User will also, and in the meantime, be careful to disengage from any other editor as needed, as a surefire way of avoiding incivility. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Misplaced Pages has no clearly defined policy on how to deal with uncivility, and this deficit is being rectified.<p>*The block did not meet requirements of blocking policy, as it was punitive, not preventative.<p>*There is no indication that editor will "return to what got them here".<p>*Editor is well aware that any violation of this trust "will not go well" (a block then ''would'' be deserved, as that would be a preventative block, not a punitive block).<p>All I am saying, is that in the interest of Misplaced Pages, give me a chance to prove that the unblock was warranted. Everyone deserves that much.<p>Background information: Editor is a content creator, copy editor, and vandal patroller, who filed AE/ANI requests repeatedly asking for civility enforcement actions, all of which were rejected. Editor recognizes that approach was not working and will "drop the stick" with the hope that a miracle will occur, and everyone will miraculously start being civil (stranger things have happened). Seriously, though, there is an ] on the issue, and user will wait until it ends (this could be months or years even) and be very careful in following whatever the recommendation is at that time. User will also, and in the meantime, be careful to disengage from any other editor as needed, as a surefire way of avoiding incivility. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Requests for unblock