Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:40, 21 June 2015

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

WP:Don't template the regulars

Templating regulars with user warnings that are unwarranted is an abuse of their intended use, and may be construed as WP:Uncivil or WP:harassment. It is always better to WP:AGF and write a polite warning advising that editor of the problem. Templates are not a requirement for blocking disruptive behavior. It is also not wise to use templates or written warnings, polite or otherwise, as a ploy to game the system in an effort to distract from your own noncompliance with WP:PAG, such as WP:edit warring or WP:OWN behavior. Sticking to "did you know we had a policy here" mentality tends to be counter-productive in resolving the issue, as it can be construed as being patronising and uncivil. Atsme

Actually for stuff like edit warring templates are prefered as they are standardized and reduce confusion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes they might avoid confusion, but they can be very scary to receive until you know what is going on. Some editors use these deliberately to harass others, a behaviour which I believe should be prevented somehow.DrChrissy 11:52, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That's interesting Doc. Of course the real answer is to avoid behaviour that leads to templating in the first place. You and Atsme both know this. -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 12:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Removing noncompliant material is not edit warring. The editor who starts reverting the work of others with invalid edit summaries is the one who is edit warring. Instead, we're seeing one editor being ganged up on which actually stems from WP:OWN behavior at an article where a particular POV is being pushed and information is being suppressed. NPOV is one of our core content policies and the passage I removed and expanded had been disputed as noncompliant with NPOV and MEDRS. No RfC was called to keep the noncompliant material, therefore, since it was disputed as noncompliant, I had every right to remove it and make the lede compliant. Any editor who wanted to restore the disputed noncompliant material must do so via consensus. Each time my edit was reverted, it was to remove compliant material and restore disputed noncompliant material. That is edit warring. The onus to replace noncompliant material is on the editor who wants to restore it. Read the PAGs. I agree that we know what edit warring is, but it appears you don't. Atsme 17:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Reverting one edit as I did here is not edit warring either, but I received a template for it. I am sure the Project Medicine crew have no problem with this, or anything certain privileged editors may do, based on what I have observed. IMO, this favoritism is non-neutral and is very destructive to the project overall. petrarchan47คุก 19:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion: since Atsme has stated this is going to ArbCom (which hopefully will settle the issue once and for all), we all stop telling each other that none of us understands policy, and let ArbCom sort it out... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

How 'bout leading by example? petrarchan47คุก 19:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Sunshine

Here's an alternate Sun.

-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Atsme, I told you that zit would get bigger! -Roxy the non edible dog™ (resonate) 22:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Lol but it's not red and inflamed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

LOL. Rox, it wasn't a zit that got bigger, it was the beautiful sun and now the clouds are gone. It actually looks alot like the Inca sun pendant I acquired during my month long adventure into the Andes Mountains. Thank you, Serialjoepsycho. Atsme 22:37, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kombucha. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ca2james (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I consider this warning to be a violation of WP:CIVILITY and it also appears to be associated with patterned behavior and group harassment by the same editors who have repeatedly reverted my edits and/or demonstrated ill-will toward me, both recently as well as in the past. I am preparing a case for ARBCOM. Atsme 14:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm saddened, but not surprised, that you feel this way. You appear to think that any editor who disagrees with you is demonstrating ill-will. I have been nothing but civil towards you and it is perfectly acceptable to provide notice that you were edit-warring. Clearly you believe otherwise, but your beliefs are unsupported by policies and guidelines. Good luck with your arbcom filing. Ca2james (talk) 14:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I am saddened even more by your behavior, and somewhat disappointed in myself for not being wise to your polite disruptions which are even more disconcerting because I consider them deceitful of one's true intentions. Yours passive aggressive behavior toward me has become quite noticeable and now that I am aware and can evidence your patterned behaviors with diffs that span several months, I intend to move forward with the DR process without further delay. I also want you to stop stalking me, stop the gang-like harassment of me with your tag-team members, and stop commenting on my TP unless it is a 'warranted notice unlike the notice you posted above. I have grown weary of your harassment, so consider yourself warned of incivility. Atsme 16:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I am saddened to see all of this harassment on your talk page, Atsme. There is a certain handful of "medical editors" here who believe templates are an appropriate form of communication. I can tell you, I spent a few years here in some very contentious debates involving BP and the Gulf oil spill, and never was taken to a noticeboard or received a template on my page, not until editing the "March Against Monsanto" page, where I met this small group. Still today, on pages other than medical-related ones, people leave polite messages on personal or article talk pages: "hey, you've already reverted three times today, better cool it". Only when a true vandal is at large do we take action. Otherwise we treat people like adults, like friends. The fact that there is a group who've decided to play nasty games is the reason my longtime WP buddies such as Coretheapple, Gandydancer and Buster7 stay far away from areas where MEDRS comes into play, which is reasonable but also creates an uneven playing field in these topic areas where this childishness seems the norm. petrarchan47คุก 18:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

Article ban from Kombucha (you may still edit the talk page and are encouraged to do so) until 23:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You have been sanctioned as this is second time you have edit warred on the article in the past week so this sanction will stop the edit warring and encourage discussion.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015 Part 2

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Kombucha, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

• If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
• If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. You appear to be linking to illicit copies of Elsevier's copyrighted material. Alexbrn (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Alexbrn posting this template is a violation of WP:CIVILITY and may be considered harassment along with your 3 prior template warnings on my TP. If you are certain there is a copyvio regarding the url I cited at Kombucha, and you know full well I cannot edit that article because of the above sanction, then you are in violation of copyvio and harassment of a sanctioned editor. You posted the above template after Callanecc unjustly imposed an article sanction against me. These recent events have clearly gone over the top, and as soon as I pick up my laptop tomorrow, I intend to prepare a case for ARBCOM. You have demonstrated a pattern of disruptive behavior and harassment of me, and have now stepped over the line for what any reasonable editor can be expected to tolerate. Atsme 15:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The violation has been fixed. Your appeal to civility misses the point: to quote the template: "Misplaced Pages takes copyright violations very seriously". That means you should too. Alexbrn (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, well how are we supposed to know that? Show me how you found out so I and others who stalk my TP will know in the future. And stop templating me, especially if you cannot provide verifiable evidence of a copyvio. It also doesn't erase the fact that you did it after the unwarranted sanction was imposed. If ARBCOM takes my case, you explain your actions to them, too. Atsme 16:14, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It's the other way around, Atsme: if you find someone republishing someone else's material, you need to assume that it's a copyright violation unless you can find evidence of licensing. Copyright is the default state under modern law: creators are no longer required to register them. Instead, if they want the material to be shareable, they have to explicitly say so.—Kww(talk) 16:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Atsme, the template is not a punishment but a request & a warning. It begins "When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Kombucha, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright." Please do as it says. By and large if you come across copyrighted material from a major publisher on a file-sharing site like scribd.com, and the publisher is charging $41.95 for individual access to it then it's not rocket science to work out it's a ripped-off copy. I find it astonishing and worrying you'd think otherwise. Alexbrn (talk) 16:39, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: shouldn't the revision be deleted?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

What you mean oversighted? (it was removed from the article in the usual way when other editors reverted Atsme's edits). In my experience copyright violating links aren't oversighted, but I'd bow to a more experienced voice. Alexbrn (talk) 17:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

break

Thank you for the explanation, Kww. It is much appreciated. Working on this antiquated 256k iPad has been a nightmare, especially considering I'm accustomed to editing on a 17" laptop. I saw the OPEN ACCESS tag at Elsevier and made the mistake of assuming it was when I found the .pdf at a university , in scribd, and on kombucha share. I am guilty of AGF and not doing a more thorough investigation, and hope I won't make that same mistake again. What I should have done was simply not include the url and we would not be having this discussion.

Alex could have acted in GF and removed the url and made it a simple DOI reference which is what one expects in GF collaboration, but no, he had to come to my TP and harass me a little more with yet a 4th template knowing full well I couldn't edit the article - oh, but wait - the passage was reverted by project team member, Yobol, before anyone could do anything anyway. Instead of trying to be good collaborators, this bunch is too busy reverting, attacking other editors and looking for ways to get them blocked or banned so they can enjoy free reign to push their POV on WP. It is downright shameful. The beehive behavior on my TP - 6 freaking warning templates - and the discussion at the article TP provides the evidence I need regarding the behavior. Compare Red Bull to Kombucha and let me know what you think. Exposing this very disruptive "cabal-like" behavior at ARBCOM may well be worth the risk and the time it takes to gather the diffs because I've grown weary of being baited, harassed, politely hounded, ridiculed, reverted, and sniped at with snarky, condescending remarks....for what? A beverage that is being sold commercially world-wide and has been around for at least 2,000 years? After what this same group of editors put me through at Griffin, and again when I authored WP:AVDUCK, and now Kombucha, well...I think I've tolerated more than should be expected of any editor. Those diffs will also be included.

I just want this very aggressive, contentious, POV-pushing, disruptive, WP:OWN, advocacy-like, beehive behavior to stop. We've been losing editors faster than we can recruit them and what you're seeing here is one of the reasons why. I've dismissed all thought of it being gender related, but now I'm beginning to wonder. There may not be a better time than now for ARBCOM to do a thorough review of this highly disruptive, unwarranted behavior. If it turns out that I am indeed considered to be the problematic editor, then I will honor ARBCOM's decision. I just find it rather hard to believe that I have become the targeted editor for edit warring when it was I who contested the noncompliant material in the first place, contributed to the discussions for days and provided valid reasons on the article TP. So what happens? An editor shows who has done nothing but revert edits, has contributed dip-poopy to the article, and walks away free and clear. We all know the onus for restoring challenged material is on the editors who are pointing their fingers at me - not to mention 6 templates worth of BS. Atsme 20:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Comment

I looked back through the history, and as far as I can see, the only admin who has edited recently was Doc Watson. Neither the admin who topic blocked you nor the the admin who protected it has edited the page at all AFAIK. If you feel that either has a conflict of interest, you should raise it at ANI. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I think perhaps you're referring to Doc James but his bias isn't about me per se. The admin to whom I'm referring imposed DS against me without analyzing the situation or even considering the tag team effort that was deployed to revert my edits (same tactics that were used on other articles by same editors) in order to keep each other safe while restoring challenged material that is noncompliant with NPOV. It is typical tag-team behavior, and this isn't the first time I've been subjected to it. When an admin sits back and allows (by nonaction) PAs to continue against an editor and makes only token gestures to stop it, and then issues a ARB block warning against the targeted editor for something as ridiculous as a rogue emoji and harmless pun, makes that editor jump through hoops for a week to get it removed - that is bias. Hatting my requests for help and guidance, and then discussing ways to get me blocked or banned with the very editors who have been attacking me is also evidence of bias. It didn't end there, as evidenced now with this unwarranted AB. There are few times in my professional career that I have been more disappointed in the prevailing justice system. I'm at the point now that I just want the unwarranted attacks to stop and I will do whatever is necessary to make that happen. I cannot possibly function as a productive editor under the current circumstances. Atsme 20:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)