Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:34, 8 March 2015

Admins: If one of my admin actions is clearly a mistake or is actively harming the encyclopaedia, please reverse it. Don't wait for me if I'm not around or the case is obvious.

This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.

Requesting advice

This is an unfortunately somewhat delayed cross-post to an earlier comment at Drmies's talk page.

Please see the following exchange on my user talk page here. I also believe it might be valuable to review the subsequent edits of this newly created account to other articles since then. In a number of ways, this seems to me to be a rather obvious sockpuppet, in a number of ways, of Tgeairn, but I think, under the circumstances, it would be best if someone other than me reviewed the matter and filed either the SPI or the AE request. John Carter (talk) 02:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Seriously John? Although I must admit to laughing wholeheartedly at the mess you find yourself in, to try to blame me is complete BS. False flag went out of fashion with GamerGate. Harry, now I owe you two - call it payment for the mess. --Tgeairn (talk) 02:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Well it's obviously somebody's sock, and I've blocked it as such. I doubt it's Tgeairn—to sock immediately after an AE request against you was closed with a warning would be like suicide by admin. @Callanecc: fancy taking a look to see who the master is? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, based on the available evidence, including this new editor almost immediately going to the List of new religious movements, which is, admittedly, not necessarily one of the most obvious articles and certainly one I haven't edited for some time, I think anyway, as well as the new editor at least in my eyes showing what I see as the same rather simplistic grasp of basic policies and guidelines, as well as it coming almost immediately upon my indicating on the Landmark article talk page that Landmark is apparently significantly discussed in a new book about "cults" by a sometimes somewhat sensationalist but not disreputable author, it very, very much seems to me that the puppetmaster is almost certainly a person concerned about Landmark's reputation and also, honestly, someone who may be perhaps "uncomplicated" enough to believe such a transparently laughable attack would work. To summarize, it shows a bit of arrogance on the behalf of the sockpuppeteer, a rather simplistic grasp of things, and very likely being instigated by someone who cannot abide any sort of criticism, in this case of Landmark. To my eyes, the person who unfortunately seems to me to most nearly possess those characteristics in sufficient strength to be a match is, most likely, Tgeairn. Even DaveApter, who may perhaps show the same level of what some might call uncritical fanaticism about the topic, has also from what I've seen shown a slightly better grasp of conduct and content guidelines than Tgeairn himself. John Carter (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

With respect, John, that comment could be interpreted as a personal attack. Speculating about the person responsible for that account isn't going to yield any action here because there's not enough evidence to draw any concrete conclusions. I'm afraid you have two options as things stand: file an SPI or drop the issue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Landmark AE

Hi, the AE request on Tgeairn needed to be handled by one or more functionaries. That should have been made clear but it wasn't. Non-functionary admins should have been asked to step back since they didn't have the requisite evidence.

The COI is unequivocal and the POV-pushing through sockpuppeting is unequivocal, among other issues. Callanecc said the sockpuppeting is obvious. That's not something to be ignored.

The AE request needs to be evaluated on the evidence. The non-functionary admins who took part didn't have the necessary evidence and formed their conclusions without it. Would you please reopen the case and ask that it be handled by functionaries? Regards, Manul ~ talk 05:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

No. You've conflated several different issues. First, AE is run by admins; functionaries who participate there do so in their capacity as regular admins, so the functionary corps has no mandate to take over AE requests. Second, the functionary corps has no mandate to investigate editors' off-wiki activities; if that's within anybody's mandate, it's ArbCom's. But all the arbitrators are subscribed to the functionaries list, and as it happens I spoke informally to two arbitrators and a functionary before I closed the AE request,none of whom suggested that ArbCom was inclined to take it over. Now, much more importantly, having a conflict of interest is not against policy, especially if it doesn't manifest itself in problematic editing. None of the admins who commented at AE saw Tgeairn's edits as problematic. You need to start focusing on content, not the contributor, and stop casting aspersions, stop alluding to private emails, and stop this unhealthy focus on Tgeairn. Otherwise you'll be sanctioned. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello again HJ. I know that you have a lot on your plate, and I'm frankly tired of bothering people. BUT... Would you be so kind as to take a look at one or both of this ANI thread and this SPI filing? These guys are just not letting up. I could provide dozens of diffs of more personal attacks, accusations, and general mud-slinging - but I think you've probably seen enough. I'm coming to you as you're most recently familiar with this, and I'm going to ping @Cailil: as well since he is familiar too (but hasn't edited in days). I don't care at this point if the result is to block anyone who even mentions new religious movements, I just want the incessant harassment and outright attacks to stop. Thanks for considering a look, and double-thank you in advance for looking. No need to even reply here unless you like. Cheers, Tgeairn (talk) 22:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Premier League

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that one's better off on long-term semi. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:01, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

AE-related

Binksternet who is in the BLPN dispute as an involved party has also now restored the offending text at Steven Emerson, and the entire "Islamophobia criticism" sourced to weak self-reinforcing accusations. I'm not sure if Binksternet is aware of the AC/DS, but he is an involved party and I removed the offending text citing the BLPN and AC/DS. I don't care what version you restore, protect or something because it is not a top-tier BLP issue, but it this has gone on for months now. Nomo's attempt to call it a "gambit" shows the battleground atmosphere surrounding this page and I frankly think I should take it off my watchlist because this page is probably screwed for NPOV. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:29, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Binksternet has changed the text, while I disagree with the material in its current form - this is not about winning or losing, so I've moved for a resolution section at BLPN. I've asked for clarification and citation of examples - not name-calling on Emerson. If any of the other editors can provide a citation of a single case, I'll switch to supporting the claim because it won't be sourced to "Islamophobe like Steven Emerson" which only verify the existence of the accusation and not of its substance. A WP:UNDUE matter in a sense. I'd still like 1RR on that article, but if this resolves quickly - it may not be needed. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:49, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

BLPN discussion

I mentioned your block of Cwobeel at BLPN Cwobeel blocked. Please feel free to comment. Binksternet (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Restraining Nomoskedasticity

Hi HJ,

Please warn user Nomoskedasticity against hounding me. The latest is this where I have an active discussion with other editors on the talk page in which he doesn't even bother to participate. This is the second second time he does so, after giving ridicules explanation the first time around.

He have no shame of even warning me of war edit when he ignores discussion on talk page clear mentioned in edit summaries. Not to mention he little participated in the AE request he opened. Obviously, getting me tied with it is 'mission accomplished'.

I am tired of him and Nishidani harassing me. The latest from Nishidani can be found here.

Have a great weekend,

Ariel

I'll speak only for myself, but Ashtul's edit went against consensus that there is an unresolved problem there. I explained to Ashtul what, in my view, the error he made consisted of here. This could have been easily resolved if Richard Silverstein's blog (like it or not he documents closely what the Hebrew press writes) were accepted as pertinent to the issue, since his reading of the original text is almost identical to the one Roland made. Unfortunately, Silverstein is (wrongly) regarded as hostile to Israel (as opposed to his being a Jew writing for his idea of a democratic state detached from a policy of occupation). The solution is simple:

'Drucker 'apologized', though one critic has interpreted the remark in which his apology was expressed as ironical.'

And, Ashtul, I am not hounding you. I edited that page first in early January, and, proper to your admission that you follow me, you went there to edit three weeks later, with a particularly bad revert because it expunged evidence (I added) in defense of the integrity of Naphtali Bennett, which Drucker had questioned. After undertaking to keep a distance on 16 February, you came back to it a mere 9 days later.

To regard me as hounding you, when I have added material on several occasions in support of your POV since early January, and even given the reason why material you entered, which was subject to a revert, should be retained, is improper. We all make mistakes at times, and I'm certainly no exception. You make mistakes or bad calls of judgement, repeatedly, basically because you still can't grasp policy and method. That is the difference. Nishidani (talk) 18:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Nishidani, I didn't say you hounding me, but Nomoskedasticity. You just use language which is improper between editors. You blamed me of misconduct when a quick search on WP:RSN will show you are wrong. As per Bennett, why bring it here? Ashtul (talk) 19:17, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Please warn user Nomoskedasticity against hounding me

I am tired of him and Nishidani harassing me.

Nishidani, I didn't say you hounding me, but Nomoskedasticity

At Misplaced Pages:Harassment, harassment and hounding are interchangeable terms. On that I rest my case that you don't understand policy, and that it is impossible to negotiate with you because you write a lot, but ignore logic and the crucial niceties of language.Nishidani (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

In light of that talk page thread, I've topic-banned Ashtul. @Nishidani and Nomoskedasticity: I strongly suggest you leave him alone. And by "suggest", I mean that if a gentlemen's agreement proves insufficient, I'll upgrade the suggestion to a formal interaction ban. If you come across him in the future and his conduct gives cause for concern, bring it to me or AE (or any other appropriate board if it's not covered by ARBPIA) rather than engaging in lengthy and unproductive arguments. I think al three o you mean well, but nothing good is going to come from further interaction between you two and Ashtul, and Ashtul clearly feels aggrieved at your conduct towards him, so parting company would be best for everyone. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Pixie Lott

Extend PC time? --George Ho (talk) 19:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Yep. That seems to be a case where PC is doing a decent job. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Double standards

I would really appreciate if you could explain to me your warning vs. indefinite ban train of thought. It seems you have some misconceptions about the sandbox and other things. --Steverci (talk) 19:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I've seen your question at AE, and I'll reply there to keep everything in one place. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Permissions for edit notice editing

Hello, a proposal to change the permissions required for editing edit notices is taking place at Misplaced Pages:Village_pump_(proposals)#Proposed_permissions_change:_Edit_Notices; as you have edited recent pages related to this topic your feedback is welcome. Happy editing, — xaosflux 21:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The fellow who vandalized the Mazda article...

Just hit Jeep. ] Anmccaff (talk) 01:06, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've renewed the block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Jaja.Delera

G'day, it's a measure of how tired I am that I opened an SPI for Jaja.Delera01 and then posted the Notification message to the Talk page of User:Jaja.Delera03 without even realising they were different accounts. I simply must go to bed now, could you deal with this please? Cheers YSSYguy (talk) 11:37, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course. :) It's still mid-morning Sunday here! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

1RR clarification

I am bringing this to your talk page as opposed to AE because I don't care for sanctions to be levied on someone based on a question that even I don't know the answer to, but are ArbCom 1RR sanctions only applied to the article, or does it count on the talk page as well? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Assuming we're talking about gamergate, the 1RR only applies to the article because it was a specific discretionary sanction on the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Please review comments about other editors

Again. Here. --DHeyward (talk) 20:34, 8 March 2015 (UTC)