| Revision as of 05:15, 18 June 2011 editRisker (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, New page reviewers, Oversighters, Administrators28,284 edits →Please note: I accept your explanation, but it is still best not posted there← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:08, 19 June 2011 edit undoRisker (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Checkusers, New page reviewers, Oversighters, Administrators28,284 edits blockedNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == |
==Blocked== | ||
| '''Welcome!''' | |||
| You have been blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user {{User|John254}}. Should you wish to appeal, please do so directly to the Arbitration Committee. ] (]) 06:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Hello, Chester Markel, and ] to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for ]. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] and ] | |||
| *] (using the ] if you wish) | |||
| *] | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] your messages on ]s using four ]s (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out ], ask me on ], or ask your question on this page and then place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> before the question. Again, welcome! <!-- Template:Welcome --> | |||
| ] (]) 12:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Question == | |||
| Hi, I'm just wondering if you've edited WP from another account (or as an IP) in the past. You seem to know a lot more about policy and the way the wiki works, so to speak, than most editors who have only been around for a week. Just yes or no would suffice, as long as you're in compliance with ]. Best, ] | ] 18:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, as an IP. ] (]) 02:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Basshunter == | |||
| I note that you deleted the text about the current charges against Basshunter, despite the fact that at the time of your edit they had been reported in reliable media (i.e. the BBC). Don't you think it would have been wiser to either {{fact}}-tag the text or actually check if the addition was accurate, rather than simply delete it? ] (]) 22:19, 18 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :] says that "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" about living people is to be removed ''immediately'', not tagged with <nowiki>{{Citation needed}}</nowiki>. In an article, you can't accuse with living people of having criminal charges brought against them without a reliable source from the moment the material is added. If it turned out that the claim ''wasn't'' true, and I hadn't removed it expeditiously, then we would have defamed someone on one of the most popular, highly visible websites on the net. ] (]) 02:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::By the way, I don't just remove unreferenced material about living people; I also source it, where possible . Where unsourced BLP material isn't likely to be defamatory, there's time to investigate whether it can be sourced, or whether removal, or nomination of an unsourced article for deletion would be the best course of action. But for assertions of criminal charges against living people, the best practice is to remove/delete first, and ask questions later. ] (]) 02:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::You seem to be missing the point that the BBC had reported the charges at 11:57 on 14 December, more than twelve hours before the text was added to the page, and your deletion. You clearly did not "ask questions later," because a simple search would have confirmed that the added text was actually genuine, as presumably you would have therefore reinstated it? ] (]) 17:34, 19 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Requiring anyone removing unsourced material about living people to attempt to find a reference so that the content could be reinstated effectively prevents ] from actually being enforced, by creating an excessive burden and disincentive to removal of unreferenced content. This is why ] mandates no such thing, but places the burden of sourcing upon the editor adding the material. Attempting to reference content is an optional, additional step, certainly not required to allow the removal of unsourced claims of criminal charges. ] (]) 18:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Claims that are actually true, of course. ] (]) 20:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::We don't know that until a source is provided. ] (]) 21:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::In this particular case it wouldn't have been hard to check & confirm. ] (]) 10:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| Thanks for adding the FUR Template to images I have uploaded for the older ones where I used prose instead of the newer template. It is good to see people with preservation as their first priority, rather than the deletionists. I think tasks like this tend to attract the deletionists, so it is good you are helping. --] (]) 19:41, 23 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Others under the old "book cover" template were probably migrated by bot to the fair use version of that template when the original was phased out. As I argued in the ANI, whatever template you are using now will be obsolete some time in the future. --] (]) 04:22, 24 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes, bot migration of a free image template to a non-free image template shouldn't have been done. I will check for this particular case on other images. ] (]) 04:27, 24 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| Thanks for cleaning up the ] page. ] (]) 22:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :You're welcome. ] (]) 02:20, 11 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Flickr commons == | |||
| If you are interested in photos, you can help the US Library of Congress identify people in photos they upload to Flickr Commons. They add a batch every Friday, most can be identified from the name provided and already appear in Misplaced Pages and I upload the image. Some are more challenging like ] where you know he is "F. Parks" and a boxer but have to do some digging. --] (]) 00:34, 25 December 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks == | |||
| ] Hi Chester, thanks for your well thought out comments on Rodhullandemu workshop page. ] (]) 17:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Thanks so much for your careful review == | |||
| Hi Chester! I just wanted to take a moment to convey my strong appreciation for your careful review of that a particular user put up at ] a few hours ago, and for your taking the time to comment there. I'm so used to that particular user's manner of trying to discredit opponents that it was a real relief to see someone take the time to actually investigate the claims he made. | |||
| What was especially troubling for me about this particular attempt is that he knows full well that the ] is an advocacy publication rather than a medical journal in the sense that we normally use that phrase, and that it accordingly fails ]. He's edited that article himself, albeit only to expunge criticism of it that was made in the ''Canadian Medical Association Journal'', ranked at number seven by English-speaking physicians, btw, in terms of credibility and respect, from what I read recently. | |||
| It should also have been apparent to him that I discovered the cut-and-paste copyvio only by looking for a source for the text the IP added to the Prescott Bush article. If I'd been able to find a citeable source I would have paraphrased and cited it. ( It's my recollection that "DailyKOS" isn't held in especially high regard as a reliable source. ) He also knows that after he found a pay-walled book reference for the info about one of P. Bush's legislative accomplishments, and re-added the information from that, that I took the trouble to find another, non pay-wall book source, and to put both that cite and the one he added into proper cite book format, with all the applicable fields supplied. | |||
| Anyway, sorry to go on so, but I'm just really grateful that I didn't have to answer the kind of attacks he seems to favor entirely by myself this time. I really appreciate your time and effort in taking the trouble to examine his claims carefully. Best regards, – <font face="Cambria">] (])</font> 05:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Hi. :) I glanced at this page and wanted to stop by and ask if you could clarify your evidence there as regards the number of CCIs brought against Racepacket. It rather looks at the moment as though there were three separate incident reports, but actually there were two. ] was simply spillover from a lengthy first page. (] has ten subpages! Makes me unhappy just to think about it. :/) ] ''was'' effectively a second CCI, as it was an expansion of the first, after additional issues were brought forward. Seems like clarity there could be helpful to those evaluating evidence, since the CCI process is not familiar to everyone. --] <sup>]</sup> 13:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Done. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. ] (]) 17:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks. :) I know it looks quite different from some other investigation styles, like SPI. Fortunately for them, they don't usually get lists as long as we do. :D --] <sup>]</sup> 17:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == "Vandalism" Question == | |||
| Not sure what the 'bad' edit was in the ] Bio section. As I am a novice, it would be helpful to know what the edit was that was removed, so I don't make the same mistake again. Thanks. ] (]) 14:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| * Thank you Chester! ] (]) 15:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Megan and Liz == | |||
| Hi, if I change my opinion at ] to ''keep'', would that suffice as a consensus for keep? Also, could I just do a non-admin close and we'd be done with it? It wasn't my intention to drag the nom out for all eternity. – <i><font color="#06266f">Kerαu</font><font color="#1240AB">noςco</font><font color="#4671DS">pia</font><font color="#A60000"><sup>◁</sup></font><sub><font color="#5E1FFF">]]</font></sub></i> 05:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Since no other editors have supported deleting the article, you could perform a non-administrative closure as a withdrawn nomination. Thanks. ] (]) 05:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Withdrawn it is. Thanks! – <i><font color="#06266f">Kerαu</font><font color="#1240AB">noςco</font><font color="#4671DS">pia</font><font color="#A60000"><sup>◁</sup></font><sub><font color="#5E1FFF">]]</font></sub></i> 05:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Netball== | |||
| Thank you for your community reassessment of Netball. Who is allowed to comment/contribute to it? For example, I gather that John Vandenberg would regard it as an act of psychological torture for me to do so. Please advise. Also, did you consider ] or ]? Admitted the last one includes a few suggested edits from Hawkeye7 while the article was being written from scratch, but it was not an arms-length review. ] (]) 08:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| : I would consider it inappropriate, and am gob smacked that this is so important to you that you can't watch the GAR from the sidelines to allow a new cross-section of the community review this article. As a result, I have added my name to the list of people who want an injunction. ]. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 10:25, 7 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am not sure what "gob smacked" means since I have never hear the term before, but I am willing to watch this develop from the side lines. ] (]) 17:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==You have messages== | |||
| . Regards, ] (]) 16:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Mindbunny community ban proposal == | |||
| This proposal is grossly premature. Mindbunny is nowhere near historical standards for exhausting the community patience and getting banned. | |||
| Arbcom, senior admins, and senior editors are aware and paying attention. Mindbunny is talking to people. Those are healthy responses and resulted in behavior changes. | |||
| Please retract the proposal. If Mindbunny gets worse again admins can respond without a community ban. ] (]) 00:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *I've marked the thread as resolved. Although some other editors support the ban, it is highly unlikely to reach consensus. ] (]) 01:39, 24 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| *And, yes, I'm aware of the irony of discussing a drama-seeking user on an AN/I thread. However, with arbcom refusing to take action under the belief that the editor is likely to be indefinitely blocked as a community measure, there's no suitable alternative for seeking a remedy. Since contacting administrators via email or IRC to request a block is highly disfavored, and has resulting in some of the worst disruptions on the site, I didn't want to utilize that option. ] (]) 02:05, 24 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| **Hallelujah. ] (]) 18:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Please stop == | |||
| With the sniping at Racepacket. You're assuming a particular conclusion is inevitable (like ), and making pointed comments on that basis on both his talk page and that of the proposed decision. Repeating the dispute is not helpful and neither is presenting speculation as fact. ] 09:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I notice you don't have much involvement in the case. Were you contacted off-wiki to request that you issue this warning? (Sorry, that's actually Racepacket and Risker's schtick.) So much for not "presenting speculation as fact." Obviously, I strongly disagree with your assessment of the situation. Take a look at ], ], and ] to see just how much trouble Racepacket is causing, and how he harassed {{User|LauraHale}}<s> right off the site</s>. Nonetheless, per ], it seems that Racepacket is already well on his way to a site ban, and none too soon. Therefore, I'll stop editing case-related pages until it closes. I expressly reserve the right to start a community ban discussion, in case arbcom manages to mess this up. ] (]) 18:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I wasn't contacted off-wiki, no; I've kept my eye on the case pages simply because the NZEng thing at ] caught my eye. (I did have a coffee with LauraHale when she was in Auckland, but nothing more. I'd hardly tell you to back off if I were meatpuppeting for her...) Thank you for dropping it for now, anyway. Whether you can "expressly reserve" a particular right I'm not sure, but by all means seeing what decision is made and moving from there is a better approach. ] 04:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::My statement about you possibly being contacted off-wiki was a joke, made in reference to certain other users who have been throwing around accusations of collusion. I apologize, because that was in poor taste. ] (]) 04:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Just ] (because of one abstention) to ban Racepacket for a year. This is a great day for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 18:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::At ], we're going to be seeing a whole lot less of Racepacket soon. ] (]) 20:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Huddersfield == | |||
| Hi Chester Markel, | |||
| I have rv the page to your last edits. It appears that this page gets some attention. It may be an idea to keep your eye on it as it appears that not all the edits contain accurate information. It seems that you have some knowledge on this topic, as such it may be a good idea to re-read and to provide further edits. ] (]) 17:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, but I just edited that article to fix some typos. I'm not very familiar with the subject. ] (]) 18:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Remember, he's a new user, and your tone seemed just a tad bit aggressive. Tread carefully. --<span style="text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">] <sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex">]</sub></span> 06:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Editors participating in the talk page discussion have been patiently and politely trying to explain the problems with GenKnowitall's approach for a week, with little success: he's still insisting that he's justified in revert warring against everyone else for the sole reason that "the current article may have undiscussed problems which careful development would reveal.". Obviously, the claim that the article can't be edited without prior consensus violates ], a fact which other users have repeatedly noted , to no effect. Being nice simply hasn't worked. How can mediation be successful with a user obstinately maintaining such a position? Most new editors would understand that it's okay to edit an article without first securing their agreement, after a week of other users repeatedly articulating this simple fact. If GenKnowitall doesn't comprehend this basic principle of Misplaced Pages by now, then I doubt he wants to. Many good editors are lost when they must continually put up with disruptive editing. ] (]) 07:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I agree with what you're saying, and I think that it's important for multiple people to say it. After all, I'm the one who asked for help! Unfortunately, GenKnowitall tends to reply to everything and everyone at length, which splinters the "discussion". At this point, I've come to believe that it's better to let Martijn, the mediator, do the talking. The poor guy seems to have a plan, but he's having trouble getting it off the ground. :-) | |||
| ::I guess what I'm saying is, when GenKnowitall replies to your comment, it'll be ugly, but you might want to ignore it. ] (]) 08:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Unfortunately, Martijn seems to be taking the position that, as mediator, he shouldn't pass judgement on the underlying dispute. Therefore, if GenKnowitall is obviously violating policy, Martijn can't point this out. This is precisely why Sbyrnes321 described the mediation as unproductive. Would it be possible to persuade Martijn that insisting on the editing policy actually being followed isn't taking sides? If a mediator entertains objections to content premised solely upon a lack of discussion before inserting it, he's doing the site no favors. ] (]) 09:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't know... it's too early for me to tell. Of everyone on the talk page, Martijn is probably holding the most cards that he hasn't played yet. ] (]) 09:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Mr. Chester Markel, lets get a couple of things straight. You don't have the facts, and have not correctly stated the policy anyway in your comments. So what are you? {{Nono|You appear an officious intermeddler, in addition to being seriously mistaken.|removed personal attack}} The article is locked under the supervision of an admin. An attempted mediation is being discussed in discussion pages. You are on full notice of that as well as admonition against personal attack. If you intend to intrude in some "official capacity" then I suggest you take that up with the admin. In any event, no one prevents you from making a complaint against anyone using the proper procedure, but I advise that personal attacks and making frivolous complaints against users is undoubtedly disruptive itself. Don't you think? ] (]) 18:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Melchoir, please refrain from "characterizing" things in the manner you are doing. These comments violate wikipedia policies and, in any event, do not advance your cause. ] (]) 18:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Re:Abortion == | |||
| I'd go carefully on that page at the moment until it becomes clearer what is going on there. The medical literature will bear out the facts. It's sad that some editors won't accept that, but see some sort of agenda behind every reference to "fetal death" or "fetal demise". It only takes one quick search to bring up an immediate definition. ]. There is no excuse for editors who either fail, or refuse to run a basic search, if that is what I could come up with in 2 minutes. Such editing is only designed to provoke. ] (]) 19:39, 9 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ==Divide and conquer== | |||
| Hi, Chester. I saw what you wrote at ], and I have a suggestion about it. | |||
| * Misplaced Pages is not an appropriate forum for political activism supported by original research and tendentiousness. This needs to stop. | |||
| I agree, and I think that separating our comments into different pages might help. The place for discussing improvement to an article is that article's talk page. The place for discussing "behavior" (e.g., activism, tendentiousness, incivility) would be user talk pages or dispute resolution. | |||
| What do you say we try and focus talk on the article in question, and discuss personalities elsewhere? --] (]) 20:49, 10 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :In order for discussion on the article talk page to be confined to content, we'd need to be talking about a genuine, tenable dispute over it. But the issue involving the most heated discussion right now is whether, given ] that state abortion causes the "death of the fetus", the sources claim abortion causes the fetus to die. My patience is taxed by continued arguments over whether references actually say what they said. How do you propose to move a dispute over a matter such as this forward? ] (]) 21:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's a darn good question, and I think I'll try to answer it on the abortion talk page. --] (]) 22:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Thanks. The other problem with the discussion right now is ensuring a reasonable level of decorum. For instance, Orangemarlin's comments such as "My left nutsack knows more than you" and "incompetent, hypocritical admins refuse to deal with this shit" seem better suited for a flame war than Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 22:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Mickmacnee case == | |||
| I'm not sure why you added me to this. I have no interest in either defending or criticizing Mick. I am assuming the case is about his behaviour, which tbh I've not closely looked at for months. The fact he was blocked for bad behaviour back in November will be pertinent to that, as will the terms of his unblock and his behaviour since. But that fact it happened to be that unblocked him six months ago, has been well discussed elsewhere and is a very dead issue - not in need of arbitration, surely. I've removed myself from the case, and don't think I'll be saying anything at all.--] 14:40, 13 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :This is not an issue for you, or me to determine. Ultimately, the arbitrators will decide whether your unblock is or is not relevant as administrative conduct. This is the case irrespective of your removal of your name from the arbitration page. ] (]) 16:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Absolutely. If the arbiters want to examine my conduct in relation to a single action six months ago (which I think is as likely as hell freezing over) then that would make me a party to this case (or, hypothetically, any other where they decided to do so). Until then, I'm not a party, and don't wish to be involved. Thanks.--] 19:10, 13 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Why did you add me as a party to an arbitration case with which I am not involved as far as I can tell? Please undo this addition. Thanks in advance, <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:02, 13 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :You blocked MickMacNee indefinitely. If I'm going to add Scott as a party for reversing the block (he "removed" himself), I need to act evenhandedly. ] (]) 20:07, 13 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I suggest that you leave it up to the filing party or to arbitration personnel to decide who needs to be named as a party. I won't revert others on an arbitration page, the way the other admin apparently did, but I'll ask the clerks to if you don't. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I am the filing party. ] (]) 20:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OK, but then I suggest that you explain in your statement why you mention me (I'm not currently named in your statement) and ask the clerks to re-add the other admin to the list of parties, or remove me as well. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I've changed my statement to indicate that you blocked MickMacNee. Obviously, the arbitrators aren't going to refuse to consider Scott's actions simply because he removed himself as a party - they're either going to find it relevant on the merits or not. You can request that his name be restored, however. ] (]) 20:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| Sandstein, I suspect what is happening here is that Chester Markel, who has a quarrel with me for unrelated reasons, is trying to coatrack one of my admin action into this case, on the basis I undid your block on Mickmacnee six months ago. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that block/unblock cycle, it was discussed to death at the time. , and I hardly see them changing their mind and recooking history, six months later. The fact Mick behaved bad enough to be blocked by you, and (perhaps) ought to have learned something from being blocked and unblocked, may (I suppose) be obliquely relevant to the case. However, the notion that arbcom would see any need to scritnise the actions of the blocking or unblocking admin, at this distance, is simply grasping at spiteful straws, and will be seen as such.--] 20:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :When arbcom refused the case six months ago, they didn't know how MickMacNee would act in the future. While his subsequent disruption obviously isn't your responsibility, except to the degree it would have been reasonably anticipated, something arbcom already examined, you certainly haven't reblocked him, despite being aware of his behavior, and participating in the most recent AN/I thread about him. Administrators should be willing to reverse their actions when later proven to be highly problematic. ] (]) 20:29, 13 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Get real. You think arbcom is going to sanction me for not performing blocks on demand for you? Frankly, these silly battleground tactics are worse that Mick's.--] 20:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::I didn't claim they would necessarily impose any sanction. I simply asserted that there's continued administrative behavior. If someone requests that you reconsider one of your blocks, your response is administrative conduct, isn't it? The same principle would apply to unblocking. ] (]) 20:35, 13 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Except I haven't performed any admin action re-Mick for six months. There's 1400 other admins to do that. None of them blocked when you stirred the drama at ANI, maybe you should arbcom the lot.--] 20:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::::None of the other admins had any action in place regarding him. Therefore, they didn't have any responsibility. Because there was no requirement to do anything, a lack of action on their part shouldn't be construed to indicate that nothing should have been done. Also, the fact that arbcom rejected the case six months ago is hardly a ringing endorsement of your unblock at the time. They merely regarded it as an insufficiently serious issue to have a case just over that. Having an arbitration whose only remedy is "Scott MacDonald reminded to discuss administrative actions before reversing them" is pointless. ] (]) 20:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I've no responsibility either. I unblocked, and after that what happens, happens. If you think arbcom will be in the least interested in looking at a six month old block cycle, fine. But we warned, you'll look petty and stupid. As I said, despite your baiting, I am not getting involved.--] 21:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == ] opened == | |||
| An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at ]. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at ]. '''Please add your evidence by {{#time: F j|{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}{{#if:|, {{{3}}}}} +14 day}}{{#if:|, {{#switch:{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}, {{{3}}}|December {{#expr: 32 - 14}}, {{{3}}}={{#expr: + 1}}|}}}}, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes.''' You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, ]. For a guide to the arbitration process, see ]. For the Arbitration Committee, ]<small> <nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki></small> 11:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Abortion == | |||
| Fetal death is the sina qua non of abortion. You can have everything else, but without fetal death, you don't have abortion. | |||
| *If the fetus is removed or expelled from the uterus and lives, it is not an abortion. In fact, it is malpractice for an abortionist to fail to kill the fetus during an abortion. | |||
| *If one twin is removed or espelled from the uterus and dies but one remains intact in the womb, there is no "termination of pregnancy" (so the sina qua non of abortion cannot be the end of the pregnancy). | |||
| Do you disagree? ] (]) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added 22:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC).</span><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == Comments about Racepacket == | |||
| I've been following the Racepacket arbitration case, and I noticed some comments you made about this case on your user talk page a few days ago. Specifically, (8 June) and (12 June). That appears to me to look like grave-dancing, and the comment ''"This is a great day for Misplaced Pages"'' (in the context of the banning of a single editor among many thousands) is just plain inappropriate, in my view. I have been away for a week, so I may have missed those comments being discussed elsewhere, but if not, would you consider striking or removing them? It also strikes me as odd that those two edits appear to show you engaged in a running commentary on the case on your own talk page. Were you talking to yourself there, or to someone else? ] (]) 00:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :The context of those comments needs to be considered. According to my ], more or less credited by the arbitrators in deciding to impose a one year ban, Racepacket decided to resolve his editorial disagreement with Laura Hale by making threats to cause real life harm to her employment. That's an action which, at a very fundamental level, undermines the basis for the project by causing many editors, not just Laura Hale, to fear that if they find themselves in a dispute with a disruptive editor, some very nasty real life consequences may result. This sort of intimidation needs to be condemned and punished in the strongest possible terms. So when a user who has caused such grievous harm to the editorial environment is removed, we ''should'' be celebrating. Racepacket-like threats are a reason that many editors are afraid to contribute under their real names, and some have left Misplaced Pages entirely. Any measure taken to quell such extreme disruption will help to stop the loss of productive editors. ''That's'' the loss over which we should be concerned. ] (]) 02:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not the only editor who is of this opinion, either. ] (]) 03:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::You are right that context is everything. The comments you made were on your talk page, to yourself, unless you were addressing those comments to someone (which was one of the questions I asked that you didn't answer). That is very different from making the same comments in another venue (for example, over on the arbitration pages, which was where the diff you provided in your reply is from). Don't get me wrong, on balance I agree with the decision (if not all the details), but the kind of celebrations and/or commentary you have engaged in are unseemly. It doesn't take much reading of your talk page and your edits to user space to find other examples ( followed immediately by ). The was started because another editor objected to the way you were making presumptions about the outcome of the Racepacket case. The net effect of this is to increase tensions all round, which is why I asked if you would consider removing some of the comments you made above, and why I'm asking now if you could try and be more dispassionate about these things (toning down the edit summaries) and to not be effectively holding open the door for people (your comments on the talk page of the proposed decision), engaging in a countdown, and then slamming the door behind them on the way out and shouting 'good riddance' after them. There is a theory that if you kick people out hard, they are more likely to stay away, but in my view community and arbitration bans and indefinite blocks of editors with any reasonable amount of editing history are serious matters, and there should be a certain level of decorum from those commenting on such proceedings. ] (]) 00:30, 16 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::Okay, I will henceforth treat long blocks/bans of editors with substantial contributions in a manner befitting such solemn occasions. ] (]) 03:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == foreword == | |||
| I'm not sure about your to the "Foreword" typo-fixing rule. By my reading of the previous rule, it was going to change "foreward" and "forword" to "foreword", but it wasn't going to touch "forward". Did you run into a page where the rule damaged correct text? -- ] (]) 07:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes. The rule would have changed "forward" to "foreword", if I hadn't rejected the edit, because find="\b(F|f)or(?:ewa|wo)rd\b" replace="$1oreword" includes "e" only as an option, not a requirement. To change "foreward" or "forword" to "foreword", we could write find="\b(F|f)or(ewa|wo)rd\b" replace="$1oreword". It's a question of whether "foreward" is more likely to be intended as "forward" than "foreword". If you believe this conversion is helpful, I can rewrite the rule in this way. The current "forword" to "foreword" rule seems fairly safe. ] (]) 08:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::No. The rule never matched "forward". The "e" was always required. You must be confusing the non-matching group construct "?:" with the optional character syntax "?". Your proposed revised rule would behave the same as the old one. ] 08:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :::You're right. I currently have no explanation for the behavior of AWB with the old rule. I will revert the change, and test the old rule in my userspace shortly. ] (]) 08:20, 17 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::::The behavior of AWB with the old rule hasn't been reproduced. I may have read the diff incorrectly, mentally correcting "foreward" to "forward", when the latter was used appropriately. So we do have a rule which changes "foreward" to "foreword", even when "forward" would have been correct in the context. Or perhaps the correct word really was ]. I don't have name of the article on which this problem appeared, but I do recall that it discussed naval history, in which the obsolete term may have been appropriate. I'm going to leave this issue for another day, unless someone else is having problems with this rule. ] (]) 08:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Advice == | |||
| I would advise you to please stop editing the ArbCom pages for a while. Your edits seem to be out of control at present. The case is not about Betacommand/Delta. Please chat to a clerk or an arbitrator for advice (possibly by email). Thanks, ] (]) 19:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :At the direction of arbcom, delta has been added as a party to the case. Therefore, my evidence and proposals concerning him are within the scope of the case. While your advice has been duly noted, I respectfully disagree. ] (]) 19:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Question == | |||
| And feel free to remove this post if you wish. I mean no disrespect, but I wanted to ask you a question or two. Are you a former Arbitrator under another name?, or have you been routinely involved with Arb cases in the past? I only ask because you appear to be so adept in such complex issues within the arbitration structure. I also wondered why the intent interest in both Delta and Mick. I'd never noticed any conflict between the two of you/them .. whatever. Is there a past history that makes you feel they need to be sanctioned for? I'm just curious, and you are obviously under no obligation to respond. Again, you're perfectly free to delete this post if you like. Thank you for your time. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 22:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I promise you that I'm not a former arbitrator. Although, if I were a member of ] performing a covert operation, that's exactly what I would say... I was previously involved extensively with the ], due to close shortly. It's funny that you should say I'm just a bit too adept at arbitration, when Mathsci is claiming exactly the opposite . He is right about one thing: my initial formulation of the parties list for the case wasn't completely correct. Consider it a beginners mistake. MickMacNee also rebukes my supposed "rather poor preparation for this case". I read about the MickMacNee situation on AN/I, and requested the addition of delta as a party, once the case had opened, after investigating the situation further. There's no past history. At this point, MickMacNee and delta's dispute is really with the entire community. ] (]) 03:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks for the reply Chester, as I said I didn't want you to feel obligated. It just struck me as out of the norm., since most newer users usually try to shy away from Arbcom. Kind regards. — <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;"><b>]</b> : ]</span></small> 03:58, 18 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| == Please note == | |||
| I have your post to the administrator's noticeboard with respect to encouraging evidence with respect to ∆ in the current arbitration case. I will assume good faith that you were acting with good intentions, but whether intentional or not, it has the appearance of canvassing. ] (]) 04:44, 18 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :I apologize if this was considered inappropriate. I thought that, by noting the situation in a neutral forum such as AN, editors would submit evidence on more aspects of ∆'s participation, both positive and negative, than I am able to cover. Not everyone at AN dislikes ∆, far from it. Since his name doesn't appear in the case title, the fact that his behavior is being considered isn't necessarily obvious. According to ], a single message, written neutrally and posted in a neutral forum, is considered "appropriate notification". If special standards apply to arbitration cases, such as no notification of non-parties in any manner, it might be prudent to update the guideline. ] (]) 05:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| :In any case, arbitration seems ''less'' canvassable than ordinary community discussions decided by consensus, since the number of editors actually ruling on the merits of issues presented is extremely limited. ] (]) 05:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
| ::I accept your explanation. Generally speaking, it's best for parties to a case (and you're a party automatically as the editor initiating the request) to refrain from motivating others to participate in the case, or from taking action that could be perceived as attempting to influence the outcome. In this specific case, already there has been disruption in the arbitration process that has resulted in multiple other editors/administrators being added as parties. It would probably be best if you were to stick to the arbitration pages themselves to discuss the case further. ] (]) 05:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 06:08, 19 June 2011
Blocked
You have been blocked as a sockpuppet of banned user John254 (talk · contribs). Should you wish to appeal, please do so directly to the Arbitration Committee. Risker (talk) 06:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)