Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:54, 14 May 2008

For older history, check as well as the archives.

Haha!

I must say, this is the first time I've gotten more than three lulz out of a proposed decision page... :D dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Glad I could be of assistance! --jpgordon 15:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Admin: "If you don't stop doing XYZ, I'll have to block you." Bad user: "You're a steaming pile of crap. Look, I just did it again." Admin: "Oh, I can't block you now." - LOL!! :) But yeah, it is unfortunate that there are people that exploit these sort of loopholes. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Block

I noticed that AIV says that you blocked User:Shake2221 (diff) but the block log doesn't say so at all. What happened? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 20:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hm? Looks like I blocked him for sockpuppetry -- part of the 4.164.64.0/18 sockfarm. --jpgordon 20:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Huh. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 21:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Which log was failing to show it? --jpgordon 21:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• The regular ol' block log. Anyway, you might want to lock the talk page too (diff). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 21:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Good looking Out!

Just wanted to say thanks. Have a wonderful evening. Master Redyva (talk) 21:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision

Just wanted to remind you (or in case you didn't see it yet, to inform you) that the Tango case has a 5.1 principle proposed by Uninvited Co. Would request your vote on it, as well as on Fof 3. Please also note that FloNight is reconsidering her votes on the remedies after checking the talk page - it may be eye-opening. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)  Done

• It's quite interesting how people's behavior during an arbitration case can change our positions on those cases. Many people don't quite understand that saying less is more sometimes. --jpgordon 15:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but I think it also means (and such changes demonstrate that) we're well-informed of the actual case. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bother you again. There is also a 9.1 principle proposed by Kirill - the modified Meatball principle. Would request your vote on it too. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)  Done

I just noticed what you said there: "Too broad. Admin: "If you don't stop doing XYZ, I'll have to block you." Bad user: "You're a steaming pile of crap. Look, I just did it again." Admin: "Oh, I can't block you now."" - that's not true. If XYZ was a 3RR breach (say), and the bad user did it again and also insulted the admin at the same time, the admin can still block for the second 3RR breach. The bad user might try and claim that the block was in retaliation for the "steaming pile of crap" comment, but it should be clear that the block was for the second 3RR breach. What the admin shouldn't block for is the "steaming pile of crap" comment. The admin should ignore the "steaming pile of crap" comment (to head off accusations that the block was retaliatory), or let others deal with it. This case is slightly more tricky, in that the warning was for incivility in general, followed by an example of incivility against the admin. Technically, that could be followed up by a block by another admin, but a better response would be for the initial admin to rise above all that and merely repeat the warning. Carcharoth (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure. But my statement applies to the absolutist principle, not the particular case. --jpgordon 21:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

• It appears that you have voted with 2 'second choices' for remedy 1 - I think one of these is meant to be 'third choice'? Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)  Done
  • You can leave me links to make these reminders easier! Assume I'm lazy as all hell. --jpgordon 18:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Lol, I can't stop grinning now :D Though you've striked most of the text for the support vote, it is still numbered as if there is a support vote and an oppose vote. I'd have got rid of it myself with an edit-summary saying "formatting", if I wasn't afraid I'd be told off by an admin for daring to even think of touching the page lol. Ok, a very slight exaggeration :) Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Oh, don't worry about that. Edits with comments like "fix broken formatting", especially in obvious cases like that, are OK. Changing any content would be more questionable (like, for example, changing the heading levels on the remedies.) --jpgordon 19:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom

I am a bit confused about how Arbcom works. Mediation on the use of "quotes in citations" was accepted for arbitration, now the case has devolved into a half dozen other things, none of which concerns quotations. Should I delete my 1,000 words on the use of quotations in citations, and use my 1,000 words to join the brawl on the half dozen other topics? What are the rules for changing the focus of an Arbcom case once it is accepted for arbitration? I don't know of any other legal proceeding that can be empaneled to decide a contract dispute, and end up deciding issues on patent law. Can a case be accepted and transform into anything? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Well, it's not really a legal proceeding; it's a lot more free-form, and it's not all that uncommon for a case to come before us that on its surface is about some equivalent of a contract dispute, and then for evidence to develop during the case that shifts the focus to patent law. For example, in the middle of a case last year, it turned out that several of the parties were actually the same person; you can guess how that changed the results. A hard part of our job is to sift through the evidence and weed out the inevitable irrelevancies that arise there. As far as the 1000 words is concerned, if you think you've made your point well, stick with it; if you feel a need to respond to evidence others have presented, that's OK, but I'd recommend terseness everywhere; an ArbCom proceeding is quite certainly one of those places where less is more -- us volunteers are more likely to respond well to a short argument than one that goes on and on and on. (Some of our eyes glaze pretty quickly. I'm probably the arbitrator with the least patience for massive amounts of material. I already think my own comment here is too long.) Most importantly, though: it is ArbCom who determines the focus of the case, not the people contributing on the workshop and evidence pages. We'll consider those, but most often we stick with the original issue. We don't like piling on, no we don't. --jpgordon 05:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, its good that I can see how angry some people are. I had no idea that there was lingering resentment over old issues. It will make me more sensitive to people's feelings. Have you been following the German print edition? Ambitious plans. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope! I haven't really looked deeply into your case at all yet, either. --jpgordon 22:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Lothar of the Hill People

I was looking up this user up and noticed you blocked him as a sockpuppet of User:Example. Isn't that a dummy account? There seems to be a number of users in Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Example though, so I'm a little confused. -- Kendrick7 21:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• The name has been courtesy blanked, for reasons I disagree with. --jpgordon 21:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed decision - Prem Rawat

Just wanted to remind you (or in case you didn't see it yet, to inform you) that this case requires your vote on the 2.1 remedy, so that the case is ready to close. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)  Done

Also, you may wish to make a vote on Fof 1.1 for the record - Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)  Done

• By the way, I find these little nudges quite helpful. Thanks. --jpgordon 03:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your note (especially because it got rid of a small doubt I had about them) :) You're most welcome. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy case

Would request you check the "Motions and requests" section in the workshop for this case - I would particularly like some clarification from all ArbCom members on the 2nd request by me - Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Historical revisionism (revisionist historians)

I think you were mistaken in your deletion. Also, I put up a hangon tag. And it's just a List With 2 sentences of what these people subscribe to. Please explain why you deleted it? Also, please consider un-deleting. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I respect your work protecting Misplaced Pages against Vandalism, Crankism, & and Crack potism. But I think you were mistake in deleting the most complete list of Historical revisionists. Also, I quoted exactly what the say and stand for. So I think I produced a useful and important list for Misplaced Pages. Please re-consider your Good faith deletion. Also, I had a Hangon Tag on it. So that's another reason it did not qualify for a Speedy deletion. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Also, look at our Articles: Historical revisionism and Historical revisionism (negationism). The List I created specifies exactly who the proponents of this -ism(s) are. So please reconsider your Good faith deletion. I think you made a mistake. --Ludvikus (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• You don't get to cut-and-paste lists or anything else from other sites. Period. --jpgordon 17:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That cite itself is just a list. And Cut & Paste is just a way we use computers The important thing is the end result. And in the end there is no Copyright violation because what I put up was (1) an alphabetized list of members in a movement. Do I have to leave someone out in order for me not to violate a copyright principle? Also, I quoted the equivalent of a mission statement of the organization. Do I have to paraprase a mission statement to coply with what is considered a rule of Misplaced Pages?
  • What if I just keep the list of names? Will you tolerate that? And do you want me to put it in another order? I can do that. I can order the list by First name, instead of Last. Would that be OK? --Ludvikus (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Lists are copyrightable information as well. Besides, we already have such a list, in the Holocaust denial article. --jpgordon 21:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• (1) This list is not. You cannot copyright a list of members of an organization. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• (2) We do not have a WP:List. Naming individuals in an article is not such a list. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• (3) Also - by the logic you use in (1) you would have to delete that list too, no? You just said it's copyrighted. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
• Help me out on this one - you know who I am - you've reverted to my versions in the Protocols of Zion. You must know by now that I know what I'm talking about. Thanx for your consideration. --Ludvikus (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I know you know what you're talking about as far as information is concerned, but you often don't quite understand what Misplaced Pages expects and requires in articles. If you want to make such a list, start by getting consensus to split out the one from the Holocaust Denial article. Then you'll need to provide reliable sources that each person on it is indeed a holocaust denier -- right now it's lacking that, but sorely needs one. Regarding copyright, you're missing the point; you're not allowed to copy someone else's collection of data and call it Misplaced Pages's. The list in the HD article was built piecewise by Misplaced Pages editors; it's not a copy of someone else's work. --jpgordon 22:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Thank you very much. That's extremely helpful. You explained the matter now very clearly. And I will study these points carefully and respond appropriately. Thanks again. (I suspected I could count on you for clarification!) --Ludvikus (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		It is with sincere pleasure that I award you this Barnstar for teaching me about Misplaced Pages by your good faith demonstraion when you acknowledge that (1) "I know that you know what you're talking about", but (2) "you don't know how Misplaced Pages works." That inspired to study WP workings more. Thanx cowby.

Misplaced Pages:The Missing Manual

FYI: I authored the above recently, after I bought the book. Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to read it yet. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical revisionism vs. Revisionist Historians

I'd like to bring this to your attention first: Look at The source very, very, carefully: http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/2003/0309/0309pre1.cfm

• It appears these characters pulled a hoax on us. If you look really carefully you will see that James McPherson never uses the expression Historical Revisionism. Assuming good faith, it appears Misplaced Pages has been hoodwinked. I've been trying for a while - unsuccessful as you should know - to bring to the attention of our community - that there has been not a single reference showing a legitimate (scholarly) use of the expression. Any legitimate historian in the United States would be insulted if he were called a 'historical revisionist. However, Revisionist historian (which McPherson uses) is a horse of a different color. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
• I would like very much like to see the look on your face when you acknowledge that I'm right at least on this one. --Ludvikus (talk)
• However, I will enjoy very much - with delight - seeing how you handle that observation. For reason that must be obvious to you, I pass the ball to you. And observing how you handle this matter will be a great lesson for me on how Misplaced Pages works. Cheers. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Right about what? And by the way, please stop signing every sentence in your messages? Once will really suffice. Note what everyone else does in that regard and do the same thing. --jpgordon 22:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

OK. The term McPherson uses is "Revisionist Historians." That does not mean the same thing as "Historical Revisionism." So there is no evidence for a legitimate subject under the latter term. The whole article is based on that quote from McPherson's. He's President of the American Historical Association. The quote comes from that 2003 article he wrote. He is talking about Revisionist Historians. They belong to a legitimate school of history. OK? --Ludvikus (talk) 23:01, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

And what does that have to do with the list of mostly (perhaps entirely, but I've not researched each one of them) holocaust deniers that you were trying to put into that now-deleted article? --jpgordon 00:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

(1) That's not an article - it never was - it's just a blank space. (2) It's related to all the confusion. If we first establish that only Historical Revisionism exists, it will make our work much easier. (3) I'm asking for your opinion regarding what to do with the so-call "nice" Historical revisionism article. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Gordon, I'm now only talking to you about the article named above. Not about any list. You said that there is only one kind of Historical Revisionism - of the Holocaust denial kind. I agree. So click on the article above and see what they say there. --Ludvikus (talk) 01:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
• Why? I'm not particularly interested in that discussion. --jpgordon 02:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
  • OK. Thanks anyway. --Ludvikus (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Protection on Book of Concord

The user:DumbBOT removed the protection on Book of Concord because it expired. I guess, then, we should wait and see whether McCain comes out of the woodwork again and tries to edit it, right? or should the protection be renewed? Maybe he will stay away.--Drboisclair (talk) 11:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

McCain is back again. He is editing two articles The Lutheran Hymnal and Book of Concord: he must have been biding his time.--Drboisclair (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Which edits? --jpgordon 03:17, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The ones with IP address 75.8.89.241, which I traced to St. Louis, Missouri. He was reverted on Book of Concord by me and on The Lutheran Hymnal by MisfitToys. There were 3 edits on the Book of Concord and 2 on the hymnal. I guess we can always revert him, but the Book of Concord is the article he most wants to edit.--Drboisclair (talk) 06:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests page

The requests page has been recently getting clogged up, particularly from clarifications/appeals. So, to archive some of them sooner with more certainty, I'm going to ask/remind you of some cases that need your attention. Once it's less clogged up, then that's that. :)

First request needing attention is an appeal of a topic ban imposed on Thomas Baseboll under the 9/11 ArbCom decision allowing discretionary sanctions - here-is-the-link-to-the-statements. So far, there has only been one arbitrator view of "I see Raul654's actions here as being in line with the AC's decision, and support them." but Thomas feels that this does not directly address whether his ban may be appealed. He would like a couple more views, and would like some reasons.

I can leave a neutral, but more detailed summary of the statements/evidence if you wish. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)