Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:26, 26 May 2009

Archives

Note: If you leave a message here I will most often respond here

Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

It seems that we are getting in an edit warring situation so it would be a good idea for you as administrator to keep an eye for an article and probably increase its protection level. Thanks for the kind attention

all the best Melathron (talk) 19:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

An image

Sorry to annoy you once more, but could you check out this image? Part of the FUR says "It is of much lower resolution than the original" which is confusing considering the size. Also, the source seems to be a book published in Bulgaria in 1941, which wouldn't be a reliable source, would it? Thanks in advance, BalkanFever

Macedonians (Greeks)

I nominated the article for deletion: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Macedonians (Greeks). Cheers!--

Aaegean Macedonians vs Greek Macedonians/Bulgarian Macedonians

Hi Moreschi,

I want an explanation as to why Aegean Macedonians are forced into the article Slavic-speakers of Greek Macedonia, while Greek Macedonians and Bulgarian Macedonians get to have their own article instead of being within the article Macedonia (Greece) and Blagoevgrad Province, respectfully?

Mactruth

Blocked

You have been blocked for incivility at arbitration following a final warning issued to all parties for a period of 24 hours. Tiptoety 21:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tiptoety, could you provide link to a diff (or diffs) at the arbitration please? R. Baley (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Tiptoety has logged this block here. The diff in question is here. Having followed this case, I can confirm this is not the only time Future Perfect at Sunrise has been incivil and used intemperate language. An earlier example is here. Block endorsed. Carcharoth (talk) 22:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

FPAS was warned three times even before my final warning and he chose to ignore them. I endorse this block. — Rlevse • Talk •

Comments by others on this block have been moved to this subpage. Please do not post further on this page about the block until Future Perfect has had an opportunity to become aware of the block and to respond. Carcharoth (talk) 02:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC) Future Perfect, please restore or delete the additional comments as you wish.

Comment: leaving the 3 nods of support for the block while moving and archiving the protests of 6 other editors to a subpage is poor form. 10-15, R. Baley (talk) 04:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It fits these arbitrators perfectly, it's their form. man with one red shoe 04:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

removed comments restored:

Horologium and Future, bang up job arb-people. Keep going and maybe you can get all of the regulars in the trenches who still give a damn. Sadly there are fewer and fewer of those, but whatever. . . Do not endorse. R. Baley (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Take home lesson: Misplaced Pages is for the nationalists. WP:NPOV trumps WP:CIV any day. Truly egregious block. Aramgar (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Neither of the above comments are likely to help matters. This is not about "regulars in trenches". This is about remaining civil while participating in an arbitration case. Future was warned previously for being disruptive during this case but chose to ignore the warning. I suggest that no-one else comment until Future Perfect has had the chance to say something here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Not a comment, but a question: the diff you provide asks Fut. Perf. not to argue with Avg (talk · contribs). This comment is obviously a criticism of the arbitration process and the sanctioning admin, not Avg. Am I to understand that the incivility prohibition applies to commenting on the case and matters relating to it on any Misplaced Pages page? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The final warning can be found here, and states: "Everyone is now on final warning. Any arb clerk or arb will now ban and/block any case participant who continues the mudslinging, insults, posting of private info, etc." Cheers, Tiptoety 22:59, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Ruling out "posting of prvt. info," I don't see anything in that comment that is either "mudslinging" or "insulting". While not the best comment, can an Arbcom process be insulted? R. Baley (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Processes have feelings too, you know. Someone insulted Misplaced Pages:Votes for deletion so badly once that it ran away and had to be replaced. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

ChrisO, Tiptoety has correctly pointed out the general warning. I was pointing out an earlier warning. There is also a history here of agitation during the case, not all of which is visible on-wiki. To put it bluntly, Future Perfect has been pushing the boundaries in this case for some time, and has failed to modify his behaviour even following the general warning. Two other people have been blocked during this case, and more are likely to be blocked if people don't heed the warnings. Again, I ask that people not comment here until Future Perfect has had a chance to be aware of the block and respond here. This is Future Perfect's talk page, not a place for people to descend and discuss his block. That discussion should take first between Tiptoety and Future Perfect, and then Future Perfect can decide where to go from there. Carcharoth (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth, are you suggesting that Fut. Perf. was blocked in part because of off-wiki disruption that has not been made public, nor cited in Tiptoety's block rationale? That's not a good way to reassure bystanders that ArbCom is being transparent. I can only go by what I see on-wiki, and what I see is that Fut. Perf. was blocked for making a comment on Horologium's user talk page. It's hard for me to see how making a comment on a user talk page is disruptive of an arbitration proceeding, and as R. Baley and ChrisO have already pointed out, Fut. Perf.'s comment didn't violate the language of the "final warning" anyway--it simply states, in blunt terms, that blocking Horologium was a bad idea. (And he's right--the block of Horologium was unjustified.) Blocking Fut. Perf. for pointing that out was also a bad idea. (I would state this more strongly, but you see where that gets you...)

And yeah, these proceedings are giving me the strong impression that ArbCom intends to let the "regulars in the trenches" hang out to dry. Why else let SPAs register specifically for the purpose of spouting mountains of nonsense during the arbitration proceeding? Maybe when the proposed decision is posted (when is that going to happen again?) my suspicions will prove to be baseless, but the handling of this case doesn't reflect well on ArbCom at all. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I certainly feel let down. Several forests are being missed for a tree here. Shame. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Liz summarises my feelings perfectly. - Ev (talk) 19:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus, the proposed decision is nearly ready for posting. Lots of work has been going on with that. My reference to the earlier off-wiki stuff was to demonstrate that there is a pattern of behaviour here that not everyone is seeing. That pattern is the reason I endorsed the block - it was not the reason for the original block. For the third time, I would ask that people please be patient and let Future Perfect speak for himself, either on this page, or by e-mailing ArbCom. It helps no-one to have a long discussion when Future Perfect isn't here to take part in it. Carcharoth (talk) 01:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Carcharoth, if we think ArbCom is doing a poor job of handling a case, it does no one any favors to keep quiet about it. In response to your last comment, what it looks like you're saying is that Tiptoety blocked Fut. Perf. for on-wiki behavior, and you endorse it because of on-wiki and off-wiki behavior. Is that an accurate summary of what you're saying? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. I'm not going to say more until Future Perfect has had a chance to say something. Carcharoth (talk) 02:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Being blocked during these proceedings is quickly becoming a badge of honor. Yes, indeed, this is fucking ridiculous, and indeed, the Arbcom process is failing miserably at establishing any level of rationality. Block me again. – Oh, and, Carcharoth: I also stand by every word of what I said off-wiki. You can quote me on it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 04:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This is all very disappointing. I hope it's not too late to ask everyone, once again, to please calm down – this situation isn't helping anyone. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Echoing ChrisO. Nil carborundum illegitimi. Kafka Liz (talk) 11:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposed decision

Can't say this is altering my opinion that ArbCom intends to hang the regulars in the trenches out to dry. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about a new hobby, myself. Aramgar (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Before we get too concerned, there is still only one vote for each remedy, so it's a bit premature. But yes, this is quickly looking rather grim. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it's premature. On the other hand, the decision has been discussed beforehand on the Arbitrator's email list, right? (Bonus question: note FoF 3.2.10.7 and remedy 3.3.20, and check out the timeline of evidence/findings/remedies presented against ChrisO in the Scientology arbitration--which is still in the voting phase. Tell me if you think someone's got the knives out, or if I'm just paranoid.) --Akhilleus (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Fairly sure you're not paranoid. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The Scientology decision was and is an absurdity. See Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for arbitration/Scientology/Proposed decision#The finding and remedy against ChrisO are prima faciae invalid for a dissection, by another admin, of the FoFs against me in that case - it was a topic area in which I hadn't even significantly been active for about 15 months and the diffs presented all related to things that were completely uncontroversial two or even three years ago. The current ArbCom is the most nakedly political one I've ever seen, I'm sorry to say - it's quite blatantly seeking to reach "balanced" verdicts by removing editors on both sides of a dispute and finding (or even, in my case, manufacturing) evidence to justify it, even if there's no evidence of ongoing problems. And in the present Macedonia case, they seem to have punted on the central issue - how to resolve the naming dispute when there's an ethnic block vote obstructing progress at every turn. -- ChrisO (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

What's going on here? I thought April Fool's Day was seven weeks ago. Didn't get involved in this one because I was too busy dealing with <esteemed editors with unusual but forceful opinions> elsewhere. Don't know whether to regret that or breath a sigh of relief now. If you and Chris get desysopped, that means we'll probably be able to count the gutsy, intelligent admins on the fingers of one hand (Moreschi got burnt out by <this sort of palaver>). If I can do anything to help, drop me a line (by e-mail if you like). --Folantin (talk) 09:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: Macedonia proposals

1. I'll take a look at that shortly.
2. Fair enough; I've changed it to "supervision" throughout.
3. As the third paragraph of the remedy states, the supervisor is expected to not only deal with misuse of administrative tools per se, but also to help train the administrator "to conduct themselves in a manner appropriate for an administrator". There are a great many administrators who do their jobs very effectively without ever coming up for sanctions; I'd like for you to train yourself to act as they do. Basically, I'd much prefer to have a model administrator than to have no administrator at all; but either is preferable to having an administrator that conducts themselves inappropriately.

Kirill  17:47, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily; the supervising admin is free to set limits, but not required to do so in any particular way. Personally, I'd expect them to take fairly general forms (e.g. no using tools in some topic area, no blocking editors, and so forth), not a requirement for individual approval of each action. Kirill  18:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Strange stuff

There's an user that kinda scrambled a couple of articles (User:Pyraechmes, but that's not my point) and who has created a new account - see User:Pelegon. Now, when you look at his last comment on his old talkpage and his new user page, what do you make of it. I mean, isn't this sorta anti-semitic and well... I'm not sure. Take a peek, please, and then decide if any action is appropriate. --Laveol 21:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, wasn't aware he had created the new account. I've blocked it and told him to return to the old one and request an unblock there. BTW, I actually think those "I hate Jews" remarks were just being sarcastic, but they are certainly unhelpful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't sure how to qualify them. Thanks, anyway and luck on the arb. I hope you don't get desysopped or anything. I'm not sure if there's anyone to take over. --Laveol 21:38, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole issue was covered here. It seems to be over for now. PMK1 (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hy, long time havent talk

Just one thing? Can this be asumed like good references?

• Population exchange in Greek Macedonia By Elisabeth Kontogiorgi (from page 30)
• Macedonia and Greece by John Shea (from Page 101)

Makedonij (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I fix the links.Makedonij (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

The Kontogiorgi book looks decent enough, at first sight, although you should keep in mind that its actual academic focus and expertise is on a later period, so Kontogiorgi's presentation of the 19th-century situations may not be representative of her own first-hand research to the same degree as what she writes about the 1920s. For the earlier stuff, it might be preferable to go back to whatever other secondary sources she relies on, or to other more specialised literature. The John Shea book is not quite first-rate. It can be used for its description of the present-day conflict, I suppose, but it's not really expert stuff when it comes to history. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

John Shea's own words in this book : "I don't claim to be unbiased...". I don't think it would be prudent to use him as a source but you could look into his claims and references and use him as a guide. GK1973 (talk) 11:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Stalemate

A referee to do what? We are not talking about changing the reference to RoM here, a term appearing only TWICE in the whole article, but about editors wanting to edit other aspects of the article. Should we lock any article referring to this country? Sorry FP but I cannot see any logic here. A simple reminder of an impending ban on anyone going against the injunction would suffice to thwart any regular editors from playing with the name in question. I know that Horologium will most possibly NOT agree, but I have to state my opinion. Anyways, I have opened a topic about this Greek motto and we will see what happens next. GK1973 (talk) 11:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

You and I both know that articles about Ancient Macedonians, Sts Cyrill and Methodios, Alexander, the Rosetta Stone etc are all the time being war edited and attacked by such editors. This does not justify keeping an article about a COUNTRY locked. RoM references will be arbitrated and we will see whether this arbitration will be respected or not. I proposed that the ArbCom should issue a decision instead of organizing a committee, which will engage in a fruitful discussion with the community, which will propose a poll, which will be disputed, which will be arbitrated etc. I think that no "neutral" committee's decision will ever be respected, since it can only PROPOSE and not IMPOSE its will... I see that the same thing happens in every other naming issue in Misplaced Pages and I am sure that this is what will happen here. Thus, being somewhat of a pessimist and knowing that ArbCom will not impose a decision but urge for consensus (unless they surprise us...), I think that what we are doing here is seriously disrupting Misplaced Pages, much more than a few edits and reverts would. You know my POV, but here we are not just discussing POVs about the name, but also implementing strategies of pressure to a community, which cannot be characterizd as Misplaced Pages-like. What we are doing here and our refusing to unlock Greece really sends a message that unless the Greek-sympathizing community will unconditionally agree with the other POV, they will not be able to update the article of the state. Bearing in mind that the name of RoM appears only ONCE as RoM and ONCE as FYRoM, I really believe that this is a clear overkill. Keeping an article locked for a week is understandable, but keeping it locked for months (or years in this case, since you know as well as I do that NO respected compromise will be found, as is the case in EVERY other such case in Misplaced Pages) is illogical. In my opinion we are already walking a dangerous path imposing a new disputed and here arbitrated status quo over the established status quo ante and I am really concerned of possible implications, once other involved admins start following the examples we set here. Should ArbCom be able to give a swift decision, it would be no problem, but in such cases... GK1973 (talk) 11:37, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Motto

Hello there :) I left a message about you here. SQRT5P1D2 (talk) 12:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

RE: PBUH editing

Future Perfect,
I got your message. Thanks. I'm working on being more civil and less cantankerous  :) ) I'll re-word my note to that gentleman. You're right, he might be offended if I call Mohammed "his deity". Thanks

_{Naluboutes, Nalubotes} 16:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)