Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:16, 20 November 2008

Archive of certain discussions before November 19, 2008

The dubious block that was the straw-breaking-the-camel's-back and led to my retirement

As clearly stated above, and in multiple edit summaries by others, linking to dates is generally not acceptable per WP:MOS#Dates and MOS:UNLINKDATES. Furthermore, overlinking on multiple articles is not acceptable, either. Further reverts on any of these changes with little to no discussion, and a continuation of your edit warring post-block, will lead to lengthier blocks. seicer | talk | contribs 14:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As I and many editors have noted many times on the MOS discussion pages and at WP:Tennis, there has never been and is not now a consensus to eliminate existing date links, regardless of whether there is consensus to add new date links. (Regrettably, you apparently do not understand this concept as you have not actively participated in those discussions.) See, for example, denial to use Cleanbot to remove existing date links, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this. And as has been proven, there is certainly no consensus within the tennis project to eliminate date links for tennis articles. Regardless of whether there is consensus in the MOS guidelines (not a policy) to eliminate those links, English-language Misplaced Pages precedent is clear that a more specific consensus (for tennis articles) prevails over a more general consensus (in the MOS). See, for example, this discussion. I have simply been preserving the status quo in the face of tag-team disruptive editing (see this and this), after canvassing and without consensus by: (1) the single-purpose account Datedelinker; (2) Lightmouse, who has made thousands of controversial date delinking edits using AWB despite the policy that prohibits AWB from being used to do anything "controversial"; (3) Tony1, who often engages in blind reverts of my edits and whose legendary incivility and disruption includes, among many other things, accusing me on various discussion pages of having a mental illness and being a pig; (4) Skywalker, who often engages in blind reverts of everything I do, regardless of the nature of my edits; (5) The Rambling Man on tour, whose incivility, hostility, and false accusations continue unabated and who often engages in blind reverts of my work; (6) Closedmouth, who has done thousands of script-based and AWB edits on this issue despite being asked to stop; (7) 2008Olympian, who has done hundreds of script-based edits on this issue; (8) Dabomb87, who has done hundreds of script-based edits on this issue, ignored requests to stop doing so, and edit warred to enforce his date-delinking agenda (e.g., five reverts in three days, five reverts in three days); and, (9) Colonies Chris, who has done thousands of AWB-based edits on this issue. All of the preceding editors have done multiple reversions of the articles in question and should be blocked under the same (dubious) rationale. By the way, there is no editor on English-language Misplaced Pages who has done more to improve tennis biographies than myself (check out my tens-of-thousands of edits). And there are few editors besides myself who would try to uphold the core policy of Misplaced Pages concerning consensus in the face of so much hostility and incivility from the preceding editors and a few others, despite my never being hostile or incivil to them in return. This block proves that none of that matters; therefore, I am retiring from Misplaced Pages, effective immediately. But before I go, it's worth noting that the blocking administrator himself (assuming gender here) is making disruptively blind reverts of my edits, too. See, for example, Margaret Osborne duPont, Jimmy Evert, Lawson Duncan, Fred Hagist, Gigi Fernandez, Pat DuPre, Brian Dunn, Herb Fitzgibbon, and Herbert Flam. Perhaps he should be blocked.... Tennis expert (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ohconfucius, the owner of the single-purpose sockpuppet Datedelinker, said on the administrators' noticeboard that, "I believe that edits of mine which rendered dates in a consistent dmy or mdy format have also been reverted, in blatant contempt of the guideline." That is completely false. I have been very careful to preserve the correct formats and have corrected them wherever I have found errors. Ohconfucius also said, "I am aware that TE ... been aggressively fighting application of WP:MOSNUM notably in relation to deprecation of date-autoformatting." That is also completely false, as I have merely been trying to preserve the existing consensus until there is a new consensus to delete existing date links. It is these kinds of intentional or grossly negligent misrepresentation of facts that has contributed to my decision to retire. Tennis expert (talk) 21:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Seicer has refused to fix the unfortunate consequences of his blind reverts of the articles I listed above. That says a lot about his character, in my opinion. He also said at the administrators noticeboard, "Take this to the policy talk pages and have the policy overwritten." Obviously, he doesn't understand the issue, which is that there is no policy to eliminate existing date links. Despite there not being a policy to eliminate existing date links, the editors I listed above have employed automated and semi-automated means to implement their misguided conception of the MOS. He also has made negligently false allegations against me here: (1) "Tennis Expert, from what I can infer from his contributions, has engaged in mass reverts over dozens of pages hundreds of times over." Do the math. Let's assume "500" = "hundreds of times over". Let's also assume that "36" = dozens of pages. 500 divided by 36 yields approximately 14 reverts per article. I challenge this administrator to find even one article that I even remotely reverted that much. This administrator obviously didn't bother to do his homework before slandering me. (2) "... simply remove any discussions that may be worth reading such as here...." This is the problem that inevitably results when a lazy administrator, semiretired no less, hastily and rashly blocks without bothering to determine the facts. I have discussed the date delinking issues over-and-over-and-over-and-over, both on the MOS discussion pages and at WP:TENNIS. I also have said why I have no intention of engaging in yet another dialogue about the exact same issues with editors such as Rambling Man on Tour (RMOT), who are routinely hostile and incivil to me. See this. RMOT was aware of my intentions but continued to pointlessly harrass me on my discussion page, which is why his posts were deleted there. See WP:HUSH and WP:UP#CMT. Of course, Seicer wouldn't know about that because he didn't bother to ask. Drive-by, "I can't be bothered by the facts" blocking was his solution. Tennis expert (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Seicer has said at the administrators noticeboard, "Tennis Expert has not been the only one edit warring, and although it would be a tad late to block other users over this, if I see it continue on by other editors, you can be guaranteed that more blocks will be given out." Yet, Seicer has literally invited two editors to engage in the very edit warring that Seicer has promised will result in a block. See this post by Seicer on Ohconfuscius's talk page and this post by Seicer on 2008Olympian's talk page. How strange. Tennis expert (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Seicer also has issued a general invitation to engage in the type of edit warring that he has promised will result in a block. I wonder if it is permissible for an administrator to block an editor, such as Tim Vickers, for behavior that the administrator is actively soliciting. Tennis expert (talk) 03:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Dude. What a totally pointless issue to retire over. Don't be a diva. MickMacNee (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, though I wouldn't put it quite like MMN did. Tennis expert, I'd strongly encourage you not to retire. GlassCobra 21:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed x2. Your contributions to Misplaced Pages are valuable IMO, and your continued assistance in undoing the damage done by editors such as Ohconfuscious, Dabomb87 and Tony1 are appreciated. I do hope you'll reconsider. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but that effort is futile now that administrators are willing to block our attempts to fix the damage and are unwilling to do anything to prevent AWB and scripts from being used to date-delink hundreds of thousands of Misplaced Pages articles before there is any consensus to do so. (Have a look at Lightmouse's recent contribution history.) The damage is irreperable. Tennis expert (talk) 22:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Your costume has arrived. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Give WP:NPA a read sometime, you might find yourself blocked someday if you continue making personal attacks. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Were you hoping you'd be missed? I don't think anyone even believes you'll leave, and expressions of regret will be few and far between given your problems with WP:OWNership of articles. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Hardly as bad as the editors (as far as date linking go anyways) who seem to think they own Misplaced Pages. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly which articles have I attempted to exercise WP:OWNership over? Tennis expert (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)