| Revision as of 14:06, 5 February 2009 editLirazSiri (talk | contribs)595 edits →Stop censoring critical speech on my talk page← Previous edit | Revision as of 14:20, 5 February 2009 edit undoMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 2d) to User talk:JzG/Archives/February 2009.Next edit → | ||
| Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Istria&diff=192329190&oldid=189359747 | http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Istria&diff=192329190&oldid=189359747 | ||
| == Talk:Cold fusion == | |||
| Hey, I was just about to semiprotect ] when you beat me to it. Great minds etc. Anyhow, I was wondering if you'd mind if I backed the protection down to 1-2 weeks, rather than 6 months. Since it's a talk page, it might make sense to go in small increments. I'll take responsibility for re-semiprotecting the page if the usual suspects start disrupting it again after the semiprotection expires. Anyhow, just wanted to check with you. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 21:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * Not especially, but be aware that Jed will be right back as soon as it wears off, from past experience. I'm more than happy to share the load here. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **Yeah, I have no illusions about the degree of persistence here. On the other hand, it'd be nice to balance that with allowing (non-abusive) IPs to edit the talk page. Maybe I'm leaning too far in that direction. Anyhow, I did go ahead and shorten it - I'll keep an eye out for recurrences, and please let me know if I can be of assistance down the line. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Guy, I think that you shouldn't reply to any message on Talk:Cold fusion about Jed's ban. You are just giving an excuse to Abd to keep posting long posts :) --] (]) 20:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * Abd's behaviour baffles me. I have never thought of Abd as anything other than a decent, productive editor - one of the many who often do good by fixing up the junk that the less good leave behind, on occasion - but this apparent denial of Pcarbonn's POV-pushing and Rothwell's status as a disruptive POV-pushing ] is absolutely baffling to me. I have a strong impression that there is some back-story that I am missing. It is hard to understand what room there is for doubt here - everything that applies to Pcarbonn in respect of ], ], ] and so on applies doubly to Rothwell, in fact if anything it is Pcarbonn who is acting for Rothwell not the other way around. The less of these kooks' input we have the more chance there is that the article will eventually claw its way back out of the gutter through normal editorial process, which is all I want. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well, Guy, you might try paying attention to what I've written here on your Talk page! "POV-pushing" of certain kinds isn't contrary to Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines. I'm not convinced that PCarbonn was actually a POV-pusher; his New Energy Times article seems to have been read with a rather jaundiced eye. But he certainly has a different POV from you! And from ScienceApologist. Researching the history of the article, I was appalled. Look, you had at least some kind of reasonable excuse with Rothwell, his Talk page edits, to someone who wasn't paying attention to the ''purpose'' of linkspam policy and to what Rothwell was actually doing, looked like linkspam, even though, if you read the guidelines, they hardly resemble linkspam at all. They aren't widespread, and they aren't links, just his title. But with New Energy Times, what was your excuse? Could it be that you consider New Energy Times a "fringe" "polemic" site? And how do you judge that? I've now had occasion to speak with Krivit. He's a *journalist* who has come to specialize in the field. He follows journalistic ethics and standards. Yet, the on-line magazine has editorials that express opinions, but that's clearly different from the extensive ''reporting'' that's done there. What was the reason for blacklisting NET? Could it be that you believed it wasn't a usable source? But this is an ''editorial'' decision, not an administrative one. You got confused in your roles. You aren't the first and I'm sure you won't be the last. | |||
| ::Yes, I find this sad, because, in fact, I've seen your good work as well, I've seen you as helpful. On the other hand, Rothwell is an abrasive personality, but he's not a "kook." I know the field of cold fusion, I avidly read everything I could about it back in 1989-1990. I had largely chalked it all up to an unfortunate mistake, experimental error. It is still ''possible'' that this is the case, but it's increasingly unlikely if you read the latest research, which I hadn't until I accidentally noticed a reference to the blacklist on Jehochman Talk. It's not like ] and other major goofs. Quite simply, it turned out to be quite difficult to reproduce, but "quite difficult" doesn't mean that Fleischmann was wrong, it meant that finding verification was going to take a lot more time than anyone expected, and the massive -- and premature -- rejection that you know and I know took place made it all the more difficult. Rothwell knows the field possibly as well as anyone in the field, not as a scientist himself, but as a writer and editor. What he writes about the state of research on cold fusion checks out. He's arrogant and irritating, all the more so because he's usually right when he writes about what he knows about. Not necessarily what he doesn't know about, such as Misplaced Pages process. As a COI editor, he is ''expected'' to have a POV and to "push it," but only in Talk, not in articles. I think you got a tad confused about that. Pcarbonn edited articles. Jed stopped doing that quite a while ago. As to copyright violation, you asserted your own opinion on this, over and over, in the face of expert opinion. Too much belief in yourself, Guy, not enough trust in the ''community.'' | |||
| ::This ready dismissal of "POV pushers" is a serious problem; the fact is that few are able to truly avoid POV pushing while actually working to improve the project. I see your edits to Cold fusion as POV pushing; just a different POV. To me, no single individual determines NPOV; NPOV is actually best measured by consensus; when good-faith, reasonable editors with all POVs agree on text, it is almost certainly NPOV. ''We need editors or advisors (i.e., experts in the field like Rothwell or, on the other side, Shanahan, for example) with strong POVs in order to detect bias.'' And we prevent these POVs from taking over by insisting on consensus process, with all the policies governing editorial behavior; and a crucial part of this is that administrators do not determine content using their tools, with few exceptions. Rather, they police editors to make sure that behavioral guidelines are followed. And, in this, it's crucial that administrators not use their tools when involved, and your edits show, clearly, that you were involved. Please read what response you got to the RfAr, and not just the casual, what's the big deal just ban them response that you got at first. ArbComm is quite different from an administrative noticeboard; it's not the first comments that count, but the sober, cautiously deliberated result, and ArbComm, quite properly, declined to start up that process because it is very time-consuming. Dispute resolution should start right here. If I have a dispute with you, we should attempt to work it out. If we can't agree, then we get help, one step at a time. Let's do it, Guy. If you don't agree with what I've been saying, don't just blow it off. Suggest a mediator, I'm willing to try informally with anyone. If you suggest someone who will just knee-jerk agree with you, well, you'll be wasting your time, my time, and the mediator's time. Once upon a time, I'd have suggested Carcharoth, but as an arbitrator, that could be tricky. Any ideas? --] (]) 05:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Hi. As it would appear that you haven't yet been informed, a thread on this topic has been opened at ] in which you were raised. - ] (]) 11:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Well, JzG was mentioned, but I didn't consider his removal of Talk material, in the specific example involved, to be a problem. I simply reverted it. What happened next would be more of a problem, but not JzG's problem, for sure.... I haven't seen what's been said at AN/I yet. --] (]) 14:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Why? Why? Why? == | |||
| Why did you delete ']'? Was a redirect '''that''' offensive for you to delete it? It was just a redirect to ], where the 'PINGAS' phrase comes from. Is that 'pure vandalism'? ] (]) 01:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * I'm just the janitor here. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 10:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| **You like to use that metaphor, but the janitor at the building where I work doesn't go digging through drawers, shelves, and filing cabinets throwing out papers that, in their opinion, should be trashed; they merely empty the trash that others have decided to throw out. They also lack the power to fire or suspend other workers from their jobs, unlike admins here who can administer blocks and bans. ] (]) 19:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::To be fair, the people getting blocked and banned ("thrown out") are usually the workplace equivalent of people wandering in off the street. You know the type - proselytizers, graffiti artists, dodgy marketers putting up posters, and escapees from the local asylum. They should be blocked at the door by security guards, but since there aren't any, they occassionally make it up to the offices where good folks are trying to work. Fortunately our buffed janitor is around to unceremoniously throw them out and tear down their posters. ''Un''fortunately, this leads to some wailing, gnashing of teeth and rocking of windows by those unceremoniously attended to, and complaints from that prissy lady in accounts that no one likes, that all the noise is annoying her, and gosh darn it, if he just treated folks proper like Jesus taught, then none of this trouble would exist. | |||
| ::I'm all out of analogies. How bout you? ] (]) 20:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: A more apt analogy here might be that he empties the trash even though some people have occasionally been known to throw out something by accident. I assumed good faith of the speedy tagger, who appeared to know more about the subject than I do. When ] fills up, along come the janitors and empty it. And sometimes people bitch and moan. But Dan is just being a gadfly as usual. He loves to assume bad faith and chastise me for doing what anybody else would have done. Here's the peerless prose which Dan is objecting to us nuking: | |||
| {{quotation|Pingas means penis pretty much however it is spelled and prounounces PINGAS because in ] the villan ] says SnooPING AS usual i see and awsome people on youtube cut out PING and AS to make PINGAS|{{la|PINGAS}}, and why it was nuked}} | |||
| :::Anybody think that's worth the time already spent on it? No? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == John Bambenek DRV == | == John Bambenek DRV == | ||
Revision as of 14:20, 5 February 2009
|
This user is a member of the Misplaced Pages Ultra Secret Inner Inner Cabal, a cabal so secret that not only am I not allowed to know who the other members are, I am not even allowed to know if there are any other members, and if I ever did find out that anyone else was a member I would have to kill them immediately.
You can contact WUSIIC on #wikipedia-ultra-secret-inner-inner-cabal on Freenode. As a courtesy you are requested to kill yourself afterwards. |
If you are going to be a dick, please be a giant dick, so we can ban you quickly and save time. Thank you so much.
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
|
I check in most evenings, and occasionally some days during the day. I am on UK time (I can see Greenwich Royal Observatory from my office). If you post a reply at 8pm EST and get no reply by 10pm, it's likely because I'm asleep. My wiki interests at the moment are limited. I still handle some OTRS tickets. You can find me on facebook: my profile. Please include your WP username if sending a friend request.
Dispute resolution, Bible style - and actually an excellent model on Misplaced Pages as well.
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.
But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that 'every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.'
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
— Matthew 18:15
Please do not try to provoke me to anger, it's not difficult to do, so it's not in the least bit clever, and experience indicates that some at least who deliberately make my life more miserable than it needs to be, have been banned and stayed that way. Make an effort to assume good faith and let's see if we can't get along. Guy (Help!) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
- Please see User:JzG/Harassment links.
the internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers
- Bored? Looking for something to do? Try User:Eagle 101/problem BLPs.
- Really bored? Visit my website: http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
- Misplaced Pages:Civil POV pushing - read it now.
Note to self
http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Istria&diff=192329190&oldid=189359747
John Bambenek DRV
When I saw yesterday that JB was once more at DRV, I came to your talk page to entreat you not to close it speedily or, at the very least, not to partake of the (relatively light-hearted, I admit) sarcasm with which you have closed at least two previous DRVs, but I concluded that you would refrain from such dickishness and so offered no note; I was distressed, then, to see that you had to go down that road again. Your comment was, as ever, gratuitous, and I continue to be surprised at your willingness to deride a living person (or to speculate about the nominator's being that person), your being so often situated on the hardline extreme of BLP construction. Even if it is reasonable, AGF's not being a suicide pact, for us to assume that a user whose first edits are to DRV is a single-purpose editor who has some interest in JB's having an article, we needn't to be obnoxious in dismissing that user, particularly where he/she, whatever his/her motives, is willing to make an effort to offer us a draft that means to comply with our guidelines (we don't, after all, refuse an article simply because we do not like its creator or because we think him/her to be interested only in self-aggrandizement; we not infrequently keep articles that began as self-promoting biographies where there exist sufficient sources toward notability). Your brusque style is prized by many in the community, to be sure, but your desire to be clueful and sensible needn't to lead you to be sarcastic; at the very least I hope you will hold back the unnecessary "Bye, John"-type comment when next the issue arrives at DRV. Joe 20:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- The guy is playing a game. We know who it is, he knows we know. The sockpuppet is tagged, as many of his sockpuppets are. If he cared, I'm sure he would write to OTRS, but actually he makes it so blindingly obvious that I'm absolutely sure he is sharing the joke. And I am quite serious about that. "Bye, John" is absolutely not an attack or anything else, it's a friendly wave to a long-standing "adversary" whose efforts these days lack any evidence of the earlier malice. It's also a low-key reminder that we have not forgotten. If you want to look for problems, look at the banned users list, where he is listed by full name. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
you need to warn an editor
Hello, you put a resolved tag on the request to put an user under WP:PSEUDOSCIENCE discretionary sanctions at Mucoid plaque . Howeverm you didn't add anything to User_talk:Heelop. You should leave him the Template:Pseudoscience enforcement standard message (the arbcom case requires that such a warning is given) and tell him what sanction you are placing (topic ban, whatever). --Enric Naval (talk) 22:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Fair point. I left a note. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. I also added an entry to the log of notifications, as it appears to be required. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Quick explanation
You recently endorsed an AFD close for Assyrian Christian Stele. I'm obviously not understanding something, so hopefully you can help. Why does a lack of sources not matter in this case? Someone basically made a name for an object that no published source has ever used, and yet that doesn't seem to matter. Why does WP:RS and WP:OR not apply (or why do some people just seem to not care about it)? I'm not trying to be a dick with this, I honestly don't understand how something that is without question an OR violation gets continually overlooked and/or approved by people. Otebig (talk) 23:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- Good question. The reason was that the AfD debate was correctly (IMO) interpreted by the closer. I share your concern about the lack of sources, but redirects are cheap so the only bar they usually need to pass is being a likely search term and not being obviously crass, offensive or demeaning to the subject. I hope this is reasonably consistent with policy. After a few weeks, when the dust has settled, the redirect can be considered in isolation, but what the AfD delivered was not to have the article at Assyrian_Christian_Stele which I think is correct and addressed the concerns at nomination, at least to a first approximation. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Conflict of interest
I see above that you admit you are a developer of TurnKey Linux. We have a policy on conflict of interest and we really don't like self-promotion. If you continue to make waves about your article about your product, you may be blocked fomr editing for disruption. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I will continue to express my opinions and advocate for what I believe in despite your threats to censor me for "making waves". Threatening language is abusive and counter-productive to the well-being of the project, especially when it comes from someone that has been granted additional privileges.
- There is no conflict of interest since both my contributions to Misplaced Pages and my contributions to TurnKey Linux serve the free software community, not myself personally. This is not self promotion, as I am not promoting myself. I am advocating for a free software project I contribute to, much as I contribute to Misplaced Pages and the Open Directory Project. I also contribute to Ubuntu, so does that mean I can't contribute to Ubuntu articles on Misplaced Pages? Or to articles about ODP? - LirazSiri (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Justification for deleting private cache of TurnKey Linux
I just noticed you deleted User:LirazSiri/TurnKey Linux. I moved the entry there to facilitate the ongoing discussion. You have no business deleting entries in my personal user space that do not violate copyright. This kind of censorship is an abuse of your administrator privileges and we both know it. Please undelete the entry and let someone else weigh in on this. Cool down, is this really worth damaging your reputation as a neutral party? I've been around Misplaced Pages long enough to know where to take my grievances. - LirazSiri (talk) 12:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- What ongoing discussion? You withdrew the request, and Misplaced Pages is not a free web host or venue for self-publicity. Guy (Help!) 12:57, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- There is still an on-going discussion at the village pump on the larger issue of the notability of free software projects. Please restore the page so that editors without administrator privileges can see for themselves if the system worked or not in this case. I regard the entry on TurnKey Linux as the canary in the coal mine. There are hundreds of other entries that could easily succumb to the same fate if we let your brand of deletionism run amok. -LirazSiri (talk) 13:13, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- What you mean is you have found another venue where you think you might get some traction for your article on your software project. Sorry, no. WP:COI, WP:LAWYER and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT cover this issue in its entirety. Guy (Help!) 14:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Trash
Thanks for trying to keep WP from being a venue for hate speech.--Elvey (talk) 21:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- No problem, not one of the more obvious or blatant ones, but insidious I think. Guy (Help!) 22:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Stop censoring critical speech on my talk page
You have no business reverting a critical comment directed against you on someone else's talk page . You are obviously not neutral here. Let someone else do the reverting if they think it is warranted. I think you started out with good intentions but crossed a line somewhere and became a bully. Due to the inflammatory nature of your behavior I am in fact considering seeking arbitration in my ongoing dispute with you. I'm not rushing it because I am eager to assume good faith. I still haven't totally given up on you despite your focused personal attacks, eagerness to assume bad faith, name calling and a general pattern of counter-productive, abrasive behavior. Maybe you're not really a bully but just had a really bad day. Maybe you are acting out of of a misguided overzealousness rather than outright malice. We'll see. LirazSiri (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Did I mention that "censorship" ranks alongside "suppression" as a reliable indicator of someone who Just Doesn't Get It? This was not "critical speech" it was simple trolling. But hey, thinking about it, you're absolutely right in one important respect: Rfwoolf is a perfect role model for you. He reposted a validly-deleted article, argued the toss about the resoundingly endorsed deletion of his repost, personalised the dispute, forum shopped it to everywhere he could find, consistently missed the point in favour of assuming bad faith, and now bears a massive grudge as a result of the fact that he failed to get any traction at all with it. So feel free to make him your mentor. I'm done here. Guy (Help!) 12:51, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
- Guy, thank you for stepping down and walking away. I know disputes on Misplaced Pages can get heated and a little personal at times. It's too bad you assumed I was acting in bad faith from the get go and used derisive language and personal attacks to make your point. I know its hard for you to believe, but we're all on the same side here. Personally, I tend to be more of an inclusionist. I really do appreciate the argument for verifiability, especially in regards to people living or dead. Reputations are at stake, and there are laws against libel and such. Standards for encyclopedic notability OTOH, I find to be more of a grey area with quite of bit of room for interpretation. The point is I think we both love Misplaced Pages and honestly if you would just have been a little nicer and less hostile the tone of the discussion could have been much more pleasant. I wouldn't have raised hell if the deletion of the article I created had gone through the normal process. What happened was an abuse of process and it's important that you be capable of admitting that. Anyhow, I've tired of all this arguing and bickering. I've decided not to persue this any further, but please try to be more civil in the future. A friendlier outlook would have served us all better. Best regards. LirazSiri (talk) 14:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)