Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:36, 29 September 2007

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/COFS

The above arbitration case has recently concluded. COFS (now Shutterbug) is asked to refrain from recruiting editors whose editing interests are limited to Scientology-related topics. Anynobody is prohibited from harassing Justanother, and Justanother is urged to avoid interesting himself in Anynobody's actions. All Scientology-related articles are placed on article probation. For the Arbitration Committee, Cbrown1023 talk 03:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. As you may know, there was a proposal made that you be banned from editing Misplaced Pages for 30 days as a result of allegedly problematic editing, which had been accepted at one point by a majority of the arbitrators. (I am not an arbitrator myself, so I didn't vote, or investigate whether the allegations had merit or not.) As the case dragged on longer and longer, I made the point on the talkpage that the remedy proposal had become stale, in that banning you for October based on edits you did in May would not be appropriate. Enough arbitrators agreed with me that the proposed ban wound up not being adopted, but I thought you ought to know that it was being considered. I assume you know all this, but just wanted to make sure. I hope that in the future your editing will conform with all our policies so that no further issues will arise. Regards, Newyorkbrad 20:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for the note. No, I was no aware of the outcome of the discussion. Thanks for pointing out the 30-day ban irregularity. I'll try to stick to the rules as much as possible but would wish that those are enforced on everybody, also those whose only contribution to WP is provoking others. Shutterbug 17:57, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Anynobody has been warned thoroughly, and we're watching others. Please hold yourself to the highest standards. If you are provoked, keep your cool. You can see how I handled such a situation myself. Look at WP:ANI#Ongoing Harassment by Matt57. - Jehochman 18:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"We", who's that? Jehochman, as long as individuals like F451 or like.liberation are not remotely touched by Admins it is really hard to believe any assurances or that "article probation" is more than a tag on the talk page. Shutterbug 18:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've been watching a variety of people, as have other people involved in the case. If you see problems, file a nice calm report, or ask me for help. - Jehochman 18:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

"vandalism"

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't identify my good faith and constructive edits as vandalism. I know you disagree with me (although as of yet I'm not quite sure why) but it is not helpful to call my edits vandalism - it implies I myself am a vandal, something that could be considered a personal attack. --Krsont 04:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism is an attack on the integrity of WP (you might want to read up on it), a more diplomatic form of saying that someone is messing around with WP. Which is what you are doing, violating basic, basic Misplaced Pages policy. Shutterbug 04:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism is an deliberate attack on the integrity of WP. You might believe my edits harm the project, but I most certainly do not, and find the implication offensive. --Krsont 05:06, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Calm down. But what of your attack is not deliberate? Shutterbug 05:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have made no attack. I have made what I consider to be constructive additions, and I have done so deliberately. It is your own opinion that these additions constitute attacks. If this allegation were true, I assure you, such an "attack" would be entirely a non-deliberate accident on my part, because I, as I have said, am under the impression that my edits are constructive. Unless of course, you really are claiming my edits are wilfully an attack on the integrity of the project, in which case you are making a personal attack by claiming I am a vandal. --Krsont 05:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack if it's true. If false, then Shutterbug will apologize. Please supply diffs and I will give you my opinion, if you want it. - Jehochman 05:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

My edits were identified as vandalism in the following edit summaries: , , , --Krsont 05:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Now what? Shutterbug 05:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

This is easy. Shutterbug, when using Twinkle, don't hit the red link. If you revert, use the blue rollback link. That provides an edit summary that doesn't use the V word. The edits definitely weren't vandalism. To avoid violating the article probation, please don't do any more reverts like these. This is a content dispute, not vandalism. Vandalism involves massive blanking, or inserting rude words like "POOP" in the middle of a sentence. Is that clear? I suggest you apologize. For content disputes, head to Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. For this, I recommend a simple process like mediation or WP:3O to begin. - Jehochman 05:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, vandalism might sound too strong, but he is trying to do changes with no grounding in Misplaced Pages policy, confuses readers who rely on WP integrity and on top of all is know-best about it. It's not AGF either, isn't it. Shutterbug 05:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Then step back and let him do it. If he does something wrong, you can always ask an administrator for help and say, "I don't want to edit war, so can you help me." That usually gets an excellent response! Next time you can go to the administrator below who just blocked the both of you. - Jehochman 18:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Block for breach of article probation

I have blocked both you and Krsont for 24 hours for disruptive reverting on Template:ScientologySeries under the article probation rules. Each of you has three reverts in a short space of time, has previously been involved in revert warring, and should know better. Sam Blacketer 11:07, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you can fill me in what the "breach of the article probation rules" exactly is. The article probation page does not list rules nor anything to breach. Feels extremely arbitrary. Please fill me in, Sam Blacketer. Shutterbug 00:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if Sam is watching, but the relevant "code" is "Editors of such articles should be ESPECIALLY mindful of content policies, such as WP:NPOV, etc. and interaction policies, like WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, and WP:POINT." I strongly advise you to join the Misplaced Pages:Harmonious editing club and never revert more than once. This will keep you out of trouble in many situations. - Jehochman 01:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Does the code exist in writing somewhere? Shutterbug 01:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Article probation - Jehochman 06:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, there, Shutterbug

Oh, gosh Shutterbug I'm sorry. I created an adoption page for one of my adoptees in your userspace (your names looked similar, but wow, that was stupid). I've marked it with {{db-author}} and blanked the page, so an admin should come along and delete it soon. Again, I'm so sorry, ARkY // ¡HaBLaR! 18:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't see the problem here. So you mixed me up with "Shmooshkums", ok. Shutterbug 00:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

If anyone is interested the article Psychiatric abuse is slated for deletion. If you have time and are inclined, please read the article and vote.S. M. Sullivan 19:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)