Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:39, 4 March 2009

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Possible sock?

I notice that you were the blocking admin here. I have left a comment and diffs on Elonka's talk you might find interesting. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem

Hi, re your note, I have no problem abiding by these guidlines, although I have had difficulties with certain editors. Would it be possible to get some neutral arbitration on some articles to avoid the need for edit wars? In particular the Dunmanway Massacre, which is still a work in progress.

Thanks.

Jdorney (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I already did ask for a Third Opinion but got accused of 'canvassing'. . Without wanting to get into something that might be contstrued as a personal attack, I just haven't been able to find any common ground with one editor in particular. However I think this article should work itself out over the next few days. And if not I'll ask for mediation. Cheers Jdorney (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Chinese Philosophy and cartoonists

Anyone ever read Zhuangzi Speaks: The music of nature, by this guy?: --Tznkai (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

CU\OS Ineligibility

WHAT?! I am ineligible to vote simply because I haven't made 150 edits?! This is crazy! Aren't my opinions as valuable as everyone else's? Does the fact that I'm new here determine that I have less ability to choose the right CheckUser? This is absolutely ridiculous and ludicrous. I refer you to WP:DONTBITE. E. Novachek (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Imagine that the United States had refused to allow people to vote unless that they had improved the nation 150 times. Wait, that would be a good thing, because then Barack Obama wouldn't be President. This is unthinkably ridiculous. My opinions and I are just as important as the Wikipedians who have been here "forever." Let's stand up and change this discriminatory, unbelievable rule. Huck2012 E. Novachek (talk) 00:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

BigDunc blocks

There's an ANI thread ( ) on the blocks of BigDunc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I'm notifying both Deacon and Tznkai ...

In my opinion, the reblocking for longer time period violated existing policy that we let blockees vent on their user talk page. I agree that what he posted in the talk page and edit summary was indefensibly rude and uncivil. However, the duration and degree was short and moderate, not extended and extreme. If he'd kept it up for days or made more vicious or more personal attacks on individual admins then the situation would be different, but what happened so far does not to me justify the extended block.

I am all for making Misplaced Pages more polite, and I deplore BigDunc's conduct here. But we have to be realistic - people object to being blocked, and vent about that. Reblocking people who vent leads to a vicious circle where a single minor incident spirals out of control into destroying someone's relationship with Misplaced Pages. That violates the intent and policy behind blocking.

Administrators need to be sensitive to not abusing people in the process of enforcing policy, particularly blocks. I believe that, well intentioned as the reblocks may have been from a civility standpoint, they were ultimately a mistake and counterproductive.

I propose to reduce BigDunc's block to the original 48-hr duration later tonight, after discussion on ANI. I am notifying both of the admins who reblocked him (Deacon and Tznkai) to allow discussion and get your input prior to any action being taken.

Please contribute your comments to the ANI thread to keep things centralized...

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Per discussion on ANI - I have reduced the block term to the original 48 hrs from initial blocking, and unlocked his ability to edit his talk page. I will continue to monitor it for excessive responses etc, in case he escalates beyond what he's done so far. If you feel that he gets significantly worse I recommend reporting it on the ANI thread but leaving it alone yourself... Someone else who wasn't involved so far can make a less conflicted determination if the abuse escalates and justifies another response. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to see this; you'd handled the AE thread quite well I thought, and I'd hoped you would continue to do so in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Essay

I think I will take you up on your idea to write an essay about punishment with regard to blocks on Misplaced Pages. The proposal I created is going to fail, and the reasons people keep giving for opposition continue to state the same fallacies I've had to repeatedly explain. I think a detailed essay covering all of the issues might be better. Thanks for the advice. Chicken Wing (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Your comments

I have raised comments you made in a past discussion here. To insure that I did not misrepresent you and your opinions, could you please look them over, and if you consider them inappropriate please let me know and I’ll strike them from my post. Thanks --Domer48_'fenian' 19:53, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi

I'm just messaging you because you offered some support in a rough patch not too long ago. I just wanted to bring to your attention my own talk page, and the talk of Dunmanway Massacre. It seems the actual edit itself is no longer important, certain users haven't read the post, but one users determination to silence my very legitimate point and paint me as a troll is simple a blast from the past. Can you take a look? Its really pissing me off. Thanks. NewIreland2009 (talk) 07:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Looking it over now, sorry it took so long.--Tznkai (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice work

I really appreciated this. Thanks, and keep up the good work. --John (talk) 01:06, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I owe you an apology

You may recall that we butted heads quite a lot several months ago over troubles related AE threads and I now see that that was all mostly my fault. Since I abandoned the area, I have been watching your contributions to noticeboards and the like and have been more and more impressed with the value of your input and your worthwhile practical commonsense approach, so I just wanted to say sorry for being a dick and thank you for being so sensible. Spartaz 10:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For high quality and practical contributions to resolving disputes that always puts building the encyclopaedia first. Spartaz 10:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Spartaz, I truly appreciate it. Sadly, I've mostly abandoned AE myself - that place is a hellish, and its no surprise we butted heads, and I'm plenty stubborn myself. Thanks for the appreciation.--Tznkai (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Note

I've noticed that you have reverted a change I have made to my personal Arbcom section. If I understand the Arbcom discourse structure properly, it is not allowed for editors to interfere in each other's sections and leave long comments, let along, provocative insults on it. Is this correct? Jaakobou 08:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

See my comments on the talk page of the case.--Tznkai (talk) 18:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Tznkai's Day!

User:Tznkai has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Tznkai's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Tznkai! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!--Tznkai (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your eyes needed

As the person overseeing Caspian Blue, could you please have a look here, and inform him that bringing his antipathy towards me into unrelated discussions is completely unacceptable? Thanks. //roux   18:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

You have tried to do and say "the same thing" to other users. My criticism on your repeated behaviors has nothing to do with my Sennen goroshi and you know that. likewise, I'll ask an advice from Tiptoety who had overseen you, Roux.--Caspian blue 18:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

By all means, go ahead and do so. I've done nothing wrong here. //roux   18:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Your retaliating "forum shopping" to the admin for irrelevant matter is very disturbing.--Caspian blue 18:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What? Tznkai is the person keeping an eye on you with your restrictions and as such is the best person to bring your questionable behaviour to. It's not forumshopping; I haven't tried raising this problem in any other venue, apart from asking you directly to remove your offtopic, personal, and incivil comments. So go ahead, try and get Tiptoety to do something. I can guarantee to you it won't happen, because I haven't done anything wrong. //roux   18:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Tznkai is only watching me and Sennen goroshi for the "topic banned area" proposed by you based on your long-term antipathy toward me. That means "only Japan-Korea matters", so do not distort the restriction. I don't think my criticism is neither unacceptable nor breach of "incivility". You have made sharp and uncivil comments toward people, so they are wounded by your attitude and drastic unhelpful suggestion. Why couldn't you heed other people's criticism? Aside from Sennen goroshi, I'm free to point out on anything uncivil or inappropriate behaviors of any editors including YOU. Your behaviors is a really a childish retaliation. I suggest you refrain from making more drama and help people from good faith.--Caspian blue 19:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake. I'm not distorting anything; Tznkai is watching you for other things, is familiar with you, is already involved with you, is therefore the person to come to. And yes your 'criticism' is totally inappropriate--you should have commented on the proposal only. I didn't make any sharp or uncivil comments. The suggestions are not drastic--note that an admin said the next time he sees Rjecina make an accusation of sockpuppetry, s/he is getting blocked. I'd really love to know what my 'childish' (that's a personal attack, by the way) 'retaliation' is... what exactly am I retaliating for? I'm suggesting restrictions on two editors who are unable to coexist, two editors who I have had zero interaction with. Oh wait.. you mean I'm retaliating for your attacks and unfounded criticism. I'm not, I'm asking someone else to take a look at it and have a word with you. I'm done with this. It's actually far better for me to let you write all this nonsense and let it go unopposed, as it really is beneath paying attention to. You go ahead and try to 'get me' for doing... whatever it is I'm supposed to have done. Have fun with that. //roux   19:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, you can't see what others can see through your behaviors. Many people have been hurt by your sharp tongue and some of your uncivil behaviors were well pointed out on your RFA. In my observation, ever since you had been topic-banned, you suddenly began to suggest a similar probation to editors at AN/ANI. I clearly said the inappropriateness of the proposal and your usual expression like "we are sick of...". How many times I have to see the exaggerated unhelpful comments at ANI? If you think "Grow up" is not a "personal attack" but a criticism along with your uncivil behavior, then you have to acknowledge the definition of incivility. You're not an admin and don't give a stress to peope who desperately need a help. The more problem is that before making such the ban proposal, you don't investigate the underlying matter. (you said such many times like "although I don't spend time in investigating the matter..."). I wonder you did investigate their issue.--Caspian blue 19:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

What exactly you're retaliating for? Your visit here to report me for the unrelated matter with my banned area is a retaliation. Anything uncivil in your proposal? Remember whenever people come or are summoned to ANI, they get enough stress and frustration already. You know such feeling but why you add more stresses to the people?--19:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(out)Indeed I did begin to suggest similar things at ANI. Because it works. Any editor on Misplaced Pages may propose solutions on ANI, so there's that dealt with. Also, can you please show me where in that thread I said I hadn't investigated the matter? I'll be waiting. I have not been incivil; the 'grow up' comment was a short form for 'Grow up and take your antipathy towards me somwehere else, because it doesn't belong here. You may be upset that you are currently restricted by sanctions which I proposed, but it's worth noting that those sanctions were pretty much unanimously supported by everyone else who commented at the time. It's further worth noting that the reason those sanctions were imposed by Tznkai--the straw that broke the camel's back--was because instead of actually defending yourself, you did exactly what you are doing here: you began attacking me for absolutely no reason. So grow up, suck it up, recognise that your behaviour is totally inappropriate and you were lucky to get away with only a topicban. Your renewed antagonistic behaviour towards me is only likely to add more restrictions to your editing, and isn't going to do you any favours.'

I didn't say all that at the time because it wasn't necessary and would have only created the drama you seem to think I enjoy creating. I don't. I look for quick and effective solutions to problems. You don't; you would rather argue, as evidenced by the fact that you started attacking me here and at your topicban discussion, and indeed at the MedCab case I attempted to mediate between you and Bukubku (I think it was Bukubku; I can't be bothered to dig it up). You have absolutely no interest in looking at your own behaviour or even trying to understand how there is a problem with your behaviour--even when (if memory serves) everyone who commented on the topicban proposal agreed with it.

And as for your statement "Your visit here to report me for the unrelated matter with my banned area is a retaliation". No, you're quite wrong. I am well aware--as I said above--that this isn't part of your restrictions. I should know; I wrote them. What I did say is that because Tznkai is already overseeing you, s/he is the best person to talk to about this. I'm sorry that you misunderstand; it's probably because English is not your first language. And no, that is not an attack; I certainly wouldn't understand anything you said in Korean or Japanese or Urdu for that matter.

The reason I propose such solutions is that they are both fast and effective. Dealing with problem users often drags on for a ridiculous amount of time, wasting everyone's energy and sucking up volunteer resources. Quick and effective--but thought-out--solutions are best for the people involved because they can move away from their dispute, best for the other editors who have gotten sucked in because the dispute ends, best for the project because less of our finite volunteer time is eaten up by dealing with twits who have nothing better to do than snipe at each other.

So. I have done nothing wrong here, but you have. I really strongly suggest that you re-examine your behaviour before admins get involved, because I have the feeling it will not end well for you, given what Tznkai said at your topicban discussion about why s/he imposed the restrictions. I tried requesting that you remove your off-topic and personal comments, and you have chosen not to do so. I have tried explaining to you what is actually going on, and you refuse to listen. Instead, you follow your usual pattern of attacks and accusations. That's your choice to behave that way, and you will eventually have to face the consequences of continuing such behaviour. If you would actually like to enter into a dialogue of constructive criticism with me, you are more than welcome to. If, however, you would rather persist in attacking me and making ridiculous accusations, then please consider this your final and only warning before I seek to have a prohibition on interactions with me added to your general editing restrictions. I don't need the stress you cause. //roux   20:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Now you're threatening with the totally unacceptable personal attacks. Tell me what exactly your proposals get a success. You think your own topic ban was working well, why you got the many badges in just few months? You said your blocks were "just from topic ban" at your RFA. That contradicts your rationale for your constant topic-ban proposals. If the new topic ban roosa by you at this time is approved, that would be your "second" successful one. The others were "ignored", but you can show me the aedged success with by your proposal.

If many people perceive your behaviors "uncivil", that's who you're and your inappropriate behaviors are well documented in your RFA as I already said. So don't make more fuss about my valid criticism toward your incivility. That is nothing new and you have done as such to me today again. "Grow up" means I'm acting like a child. that is an "insult" to any adult. Why don't you practice it to yourself and then don't produce such contradictory comments? I commented to the repeated pattern of your behaviors and you are very upset at the criticism. Don't you remember your own comments regarding your investigation? Search your comments toward me. As for your proposal to ban me, other two editors pointed that your proposal is "unfair" and unjustified" and "unrelated" to the ongoing issue. There was no other suggestion except "topic banning the one or the two altogether". Do not distort the situation. The only big mistake I made is I should've brought it to RFC if you're active. Therefore, I don't want to see another victims who do not know about DR methods are trapped into your ban-setting.

I have antipathy feeling toward you? Oh, I only don't respect people who play "dual standards" and are only generous about "their fault". Open your eyes and see yourself. One thing clear is that your long term antagonistic behavior toward me leaded "the ban" and you're now threatening to pledge for more restrictions. Even when I was harassed by indef.blocked socks or trolls and reported by them, you commented only against me. Then you're complaining that I don't love you? Funny. Besides, do not derail the main issue, however, since you mentioned your abandoned meditation by your grand departure, I must response. You did not meditate anything related to me at all: All you did is you just simply oppressed me to yield into your "own rule" with your incivility. You're the one to make me feel really a deep frustration on the MedCom system. Fortunately, after you declared to leave Misplaced Pages, a civil meditator with good faith gave me some hope. Ever since you came back to Wikiedia, I've seen many dramas around you. Then you said you've been not uncivil and done nothing wrong to people. Don't be kidding any more.

I've done nothing wrong about the criticism on your behaviors and the proposal. Here you're not only forum shopping for the unrelated matter (but related to your own behaviors) but also threatening me with the unwarranted manner. As soon as you realize who you're and how people evaluate you, that would be a chance for you to start treating people nicely.--Caspian blue 21:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Encore

Tznkai, this thread had grown quite a bit while I worked quietly on the following: A. In the archived Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive510#Sennen goroshi Caspian Blue, please allow me to refresh your recollection, not so much about what you wrote, but why did you write it? What you were thinking at the time? -- see here:

The final nail in the coffin is Caspian blue spending his time attacking roux instead of anything productive, or even an affirmative defense. Request for topic ban Accepted, Caspian Blue and Sennen goroshi are restricted as described by the above topic ban for the duration of six months.--Tznkai (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

B. You probably overlooked the final diff in this WP:AN/I-thread before archiving. As I construed Caspian blue's words, what struck me was the absence of any sense that Caspian blue should have handled anything differently -- no remorse, no regret, no reason to abate a campaign to denegrate Roux, albeit in the coded language which Misplaced Pages policy defines as civility. -- see here:

Roux, I've brought up not "content issue", but "behaviroal issues". However, you seem to ingore the fact and exaggerate your "own" feeling stemmed from our history.(your abadonment of meditation for your "retirement).--Caspian blue 20:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

C. In a context inspired by "A" and "B," you may recall that I posted a cautiously neutral comment on an iteration of this talk page (which has since been archived). My muted message was so cautiously inoffensive that you wondered what was the point; and Caspian blue responded to my intolerable temerity with serial, escalating, exaggerated comments while I sought to avoid exacerbating any incipient conflict -- see here:

In my view, a crucial concept needs to be introduced into this "tipping point" moment; and more importantly, this constructive notion needs to be incorporated in whatever process ensues. George Santayana wrote: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Wikiquote

D. In the context now created in this newest thread, please allow me to remind you of a tidbit of conventional wisdom that roux and others misunderstand -- and Misplaced Pages is ill-served by this continuing misconception. The fact-of-the-matter is this: It is demonstrable that it does not take two when Caspian blue is involved -- see here:

Do us all a favour, okay? Address your own shortcomings and stop attacking others who point them out to you. It takes two to tango, and Sennen Goroshi is your favourite dance partner. If you're capable of doing so, address the topicban that we are here to discuss and stop bickering with other people. //roux   21:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

In the rhetorical sense roux used above, I too have been Caspian blue's "dance partner." The ordeal engendered a string of bitter lessons learned the hard way.

As an over-bearing dance partner with me and others, Caspian blue has learned that derogatory, provocative tactics work very well indeed, usually causing ill-informed observers to presume that "it take's two to tango."

While, I still refuse to say very much, I'm mindful of Misplaced Pages:Silence and consensus. As I tried to explain earlier, my continuing restraint should not be taken to imply qui tacet consentire videtur ("He who remains silent is understood to consent"). To what ever extent I can affect what develops from this newest incident, I would oppose ascribing any kind of "benefit of the doubt" in whatever process unfolds.

I am offended by the heedless harassment of roux, but it represents only the tiniest part of arc of harm documented in Caspian blue's edit history. Bluntly, Caspian blue is a "toxic long-term warrior" who poisons the collaborative editing that makes Misplaced Pages possible. What bothers me more is the likelihood nothing will happen which encourages Caspian blue to reconsider strategies and tactics which ultimately profit no one. --Tenmei (talk) 21:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)