Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:12, 19 September 2012

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Markup export from "Top Namespace Edits"

Hi there, would it be possible to at a parameter that allows exporting the list of created pages in wiki markup syntax? Thanks in advance, --Flominator (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you point to which page you'd like that on? I didn't write these tools, I only host them because the guy retired. So it's not clear to me which one you want this feature added.--v/r - TP 17:08, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I meant this page as a wikilist. Regards, --Flominator (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Created Articles

Is it possible to write a function for an export of the list in Wiki-Syntax #] / Diskussion: ? I would find it great.

Protect on Paul Ryan

The article is already under probation. Topic bans are far more appropriate than yet another "last warning" accompanied by a protection that cuts off the WP:ROPE. And yes, I am advocating a "ban 'em all and let ArbCom sort 'em out" attitude; in my opinion anything (aside from BLP violations, which nobody's alleging here) is better than protecting a probation article. Respectfully, Homunq (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm WP:AGF that some of these editors think that per WP:3RR, the 4th revert is the blockable offense. I don't think they are aware of WP:EW and that they can be blocked for the first revert or even if they are reverting material that was reverted by others. I know I could issue a topic ban, but I'm giving the two that I issued final warnings to a last chance for redemption. My effort is to promote the best possible course for successful collaboration in the spirit of Misplaced Pages that I can. However, both editors are literally on their last chance. The page protection was only 2 days and to encourage discussion. It should expire tomorrow.--v/r - TP 20:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, that makes some sense. But didn't you know you'd end up protecting the WP:WRONGVERSION?

Cheers, Homunq (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

:D The day a sysop protects the right version, Misplaced Pages is complete.--v/r - TP 23:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

"Homunq: Your understanding of WP:FORUM is way off."

What did you mean by that? I mean, how am I off? Homunq (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM is about folks who use the talk pages to discuss the subject itself rather than the article. Anytime the article itself is being discussed is outside of the scope of WP:FORUM. Examples include "Oh my God, Britney Spears is coming to Miami this fall, who wants tickets?" ect. In the case of that, Arzel is discussing the article itself and WP:FORUM is inapplicable.--v/r - TP 09:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI: refusal to use dispute resolution utterly

There was a discussion at WP:DRN on Christian Right.

One editor, calling the process a "cesspool" in that discussion, seems to view dispute resolution as something which he is absolutely free to ignore. Were it not for the fact that this editor has repeatedly shown colours not compatible with collegial editing, this would not be of great import.

His latest edit on the article talk page shows a rather combative attitude, indeed:

Just to be clear, this material from DRN is not a genuine consensus and is not binding upon the editors of this article

Which is rich as he refused in no uncertain terms to participate in the process, brought a prior volunteer for DRN to AN/I etc.

But wait there's more! (Ron Popeil speaking)

I told you so. DRN is absolutely worthless. The moderators don't prevent personal attacks and they don't follow WP:CLOSE.

In short, I would suggest that the leash you are holding might well be shortened an inch (or two). Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I knew the calm could not last:

the Christian right is an informal coalition of formed around a core of evangelical Protestants that draws "support from politically conservative Catholics, Jews, Mormons, and occasionally secularists" who share their goals

(adding "Bob Jones University to a list of uncited "Christian Right" schools)

*Bob Jones University — Protestant Fundamentalist university, founded in 1927. George W. Bush spoke at the school's chapel hour on February 2, 2000 as a presidential candidate

Making a clear SYNTH link to the Republican Party contrary to the Dispute Resolution result. The source he gives for this claim is an abstract for Into the Wilderness: Ronald Reagan, Bob Jones University, and the Political Education of the Christian Right which was clearly google-farmed for the purpose of linking the Republican Party to the Christian Right, and for no other valid purpose at all. The actual article is far different from the use to which it is ill-put here. (The objectionable part is the "George W. Bush spoke here" implying therefore a connection between "Christian Right" and "George W. Bush" which is not made in the actual article at all!). The actual link shows BJU described as a "fundamentalist Christian university" and not as a "Christian Right university", the article is about the IRS case and the Christian Right's poor relationship with Ronald Reagan, and nothing whatsoever about Bush (clear and deliberate SYNTH violation and violation of WP:BLP as an unsourced claim about a living person. Collect (talk) 12:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

OMG - hjere he absolutely violates the entire reason for DRN:

The Christian right plays a "powerful role" within the Republican Party, which it is "intertwined with which is 180 degrees from the resolution at DRN. And places the WP:FRINGE stuff in the lede to boot. Cheers. -- looks like SS247 is off on a spree. Collect (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

OK -- he has gone past the pale:

Merging back, 2RR, see talk for full explanation (edit summary)

The material "merged back" clearly is politically chosen edit war

The Christian right plays a "powerful role" within the Republican Party, which it is "intertwined with"

is absolutely connected with American Presidential politics on its face, the editor has been warned many times for edit war, and this is a clear example thereof. He also readds a claim which is 'not inthe source given, etc. Collect (talk) 13:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

OMG^2 he is on an editing rampage -- re-adding that Fox News has Christian employees (Fox News Channel, which has numerous conservative commentators, has been the preferred news network for the Christian right; as many of the network's key figures are Evangelical Christians), The Christian right has been a notable force in both the Republican party and American politics since the late 1970's, , and so on and on and on. At least he hasn;t reverted the "timeline" stuff whose only purpose was political. Articles ought to be about the stated topic of the article, and not about political POV pushing, conspiracy and WP:FRINGE pushing, and frankly SS-247 is way past those limits <g>. Collect (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I think an RFC/U is in order.--v/r - TP 14:45, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

He started one <g>. Does WP:BOOMERANG work in such places? Cheers. - but I would like SS247 being given more than just his 20th warning at some point (15 different admins have warned him now). Collect (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

When I issue a topic ban, I want it to stick. Generally, RFC/Us rarely have room for a boomerang and a new RFC/U right now would be seen as retaliatory. Standingstill24-7's behavior, though, is going to catch up to him at some point. He is playing right on the line because he thinks when he gets a block or ban that he can argue ambiguity and blur the lines. He's going to mess up. His behavior is not collaborative and his battleground behavior isn't going to serve him well for much longer. Patience.--v/r - TP 14:52, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. It appears that I'm being talked about. Is there anything you want to say to me directly? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 16:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't speak for Tparis, but since you've asked, let me take this opportunity to say what I'd like you to hear directly: please stop treating politics articles as a battleground. It doesn't really matter if you're the only one doing it, or one of fifty - either way, battleground behavior is harmful to the encyclopedia and generally unacceptable, especially on a topic that's under community probation, and editors who engage in it can and probably will be removed. Do not take the fact that you haven't been blocked or topic-banned yet (only told to "lay off, please") as evidence that your behavior isn't problematic, because that's likely to result in an unpleasant surprise. What's going on right now is people are waiting for you to notice that you're treading very close to the line of "completely unacceptable" and change your behavior accordingly. Please listen when people ask you to tone it down or back off. If you do that - if you can take others' comments on-board and adapt your behavior - you're much less likely to ever hit that point where you cross the line Tparis is referring to. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:07, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It does matter if I've been singled out for doing much less than those around me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I assure you that while I remain uninvolved to the dispute, I will be issuing appropriate sanctions based on each particular editor's actions in the context of each particular situation. The easiest way to avoid sanctions is to edit appropriately.--v/r - TP 18:46, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I am editing appropriately whereas others are not, yet you single me out for threats. I see a problem with that. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 18:54, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

In the spirit of WP:BOOMERANG, I'd like you to look at Collect's behavior on Talk:Christian right and tell me it's acceptable. Decide for yourself. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 19:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What particularly do you have a problem with? His pointing out to you the correct interpretation of WP:SYNTH or that he just ignored you when you said "I'm not sure that it would overcome your mental block"? Are you looking for a WP:NPA block as well? If you have a concern, point it out to me and I'll address it according to policy.--v/r - TP 21:27, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I would start with the talk page section entitled "Rebuilding the article.", which led to Alfietucker and Arthur Rubin both warning Collect about his repeated attempts to misconstrue part of the lead. Where's his topic ban warning for that? I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

You've misread Arthur Rubin. That last sentence refers to you. You are "SS". StillStanding...had you not noticed? And Alfietucker isn't saying that Collect has misrepresented anything. He said that he believe Collect misunderstands and suggests an alternate reading of it. Is there something particularly concerning about Collect's behavior you'd like me to address rather that what others have said about him?--v/r - TP

That's both true and false, but mostly false. Here's Arthur's last sentence:

I've previously noted SS as being unable or unwilling to understand simple English; if you persist here, I would need to make the sote about you.

Yes, the "SS" here is me, but the "you" is Collect. Arthur's point is that he routinely insults me by saying I don't understand simple English, but if Collect continues to misinterpret what the lead says, then (says Arthur) this will apply to Collect. This is somewhat muddled by the use of "sote", which isn't a word. Charitably, it might be a very bad typo for "same note". Or maybe it really is English, but Arthur is right about my inability to comprehend it.

Alfietucker and Arthur Rubin are not always on the same side of the table, yet they agree with me that Collect was obstinately misinterpreting the sentence for the lead. You can tell because they used phrases such as "for the last time", "you're pushing it", "if you persist here", "raising a straw man" and "don't understand simple English". Note how I pointed out their response instead of mine, to show that there is an objective problem here, not just a conflict between me and Collect. My response was consistent; I politely suggested that he might have some sort of mental block that's interfering with his comprehension.

Assuming good faith -- which is not easy, let me tell you -- Collect is guilty of severe WP:IDONTUNDERSTANDIT or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Some people might be forgiven for imagining that he may well be intentionally dragging his feet to prevent the restoration of something he deleted. After all, he removed huge parts of the article without prior discussion and has since argued unconstructively, as indicated by this example. Those people would have my sympathy, but I'm certain that if I expressed agreement, I would be singled out for it and threatened with bans. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. You want me to threaten Collect with a topic ban because he has an opinion that two people disagree with? Or is it you wish me to topic ban him because other people said some things about him? Have you considered for a moment, that despite what you said on your talk page about my less than fair objectivity, I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I could've very easily just issued a topic ban and I'm 95% certain I would've had ANI's full support? I gave you a respite because the article probation was new and I was giving everyone a chance to get used to it. You'll find that I'm very objective. In this case, I feel your grasping at straws to test me but it's an unfair test to begin with because it's fundamentally a misunderstanding of the policies involved. I'm very happy to explain any particular policy you have a question about were you to ask, but the way your going about it by pushing boundaries and crying foul of others isn't effective in learning. It comes down to this: Your test has two wrong answers and no right answer. Either I block/topic ban Collect, which wouldn't be in line with policy, or I don't, which wouldn't be in line with your interpretation of policy. So when there are two wrong answers, the only right answer is inaction. In this case, using my tools or position of trust inappropriately will cause more harm to the encyclopedia (and me) than not using them. Have you considered mentoring?--v/r - TP 00:50, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I couldn't care less if you threatened Collect; I want you to stop threatening me. But it would really, really help if you were consistent. For example, you tossed out the accusation that I was "pushing boundaries and crying foul of others", when in fact this applies directly to Collect and much more so than it does to me.

Remember, he's the one who removed a huge part of the article without prior discussion -- "pushing boundaries" -- and then he came here to complain to you when I dared bring up citations that support the re-inclusion of some of that material -- "crying foul of others". When I point out his behavior, you jump down my throat and laugh off the idea of banning him, yet you continue to threaten me with the same. Sorry, I just don't see the parity here.

Remember, we got here because you decided that reverting exactly once after much discussion somehow constituted edit-warring, but only when I did it. What I want is for you to state your requirements explicitly and then be objective in enforcing them. If we are obligated to follow BRD, you need to say so now, not complain afterwards. If we must stick to 1RR, say so. If we should edit only after gaining a full consensus on the talk page, say so. It is impossible to comply with demands that are made only after the fact. It amounts to punishing us for not reading your mind. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 01:07, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

"I want you to stop threatening me." You're right, I should stop threatening you. In the future, instead of warnings, I'll just move straight to sanctions since that seems to appeal to you more.--v/r - TP 01:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC discussion of User:Rtmcrrctr

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Rtmcrrctr (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Rtmcrrctr. -- Homunq (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget to get a second certifier to sign it.--v/r - TP 14:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC)