Misplaced Pages

Mediation

I did not protect the page (I requested someone else do it, as I am involved, per policy) and I disagree there was no edit war before my involvment. See also my latest comments on the talk page, but yes I am up for mediation if you initiate it - if you do I reccomend you note it on the policy talk page as others there will probably be interesting in the procedings. I don't know your timezone but I'm in the UK (UTC+1) and off to bed shortly so I may not get chance to respond before either tomorrow morning, or more likely tomorrow evening. Thryduulf 21:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've not done mediation either, but go ahead and contact the cabal and I'll respond tomorrow (my time). I disagree about the tag, but as that is what this disupute is about I'll not rehash everything again here. The page is protected though, so regardless of any other tags it should have {{protected}} on it. Thryduulf 21:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit war

If a page is protected to stop an edit war (as is the case with Misplaced Pages:Protecting children's privacy) it is extreme bad form to ignore that protection and continue the edit war. Please desist. >Radiant< 22:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

• m:the wrong version. A protection is not an endorsement of any particular version. >Radiant< 22:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

RE:Your message on my talk page

Hi, Herostratus! I confess I don't recall the conversation I had with you... :/ I'm very sorry. Anyhoo, basically, what happened in the Cute 1 4 u incident was... well, let's go to slide one, a timeline:

• Cute 1 4 u impersonated numerous celebrities (User:Raven Symone, etc., see the link on her userpage)
• Cute 1 4 u and a friend formed a Wikiproject with the stated goal of vandalizing other projects
• Cute 1 4 u and her co-conspirator were indef-blocked
• Cute 1 4 u requests unblock (several times, I believe; see her talk page)
• Unblock denied
• Rather lengthy conversation on WP:ANI about child safety; it is determined that it may be unwise to allow under-13s to post their ages, names, etc. (this fueled WP:CHILD)
• Cute 1 4 u continues to create sockpuppets

Basically, Cute 1 4 u wasn't blocked for her age (despite the confusing block reason): she was blocked because of her plan to vandalize other wikiprojects, including the Simple English Misplaced Pages. She has also been found guilty of repetitive sockpuppetry.

In other news, I have a sister who is twelve, so I know how you feel. :)

Have a great day, and let me know if you have any more questions, or if I didn't adequately address your first one! :) Srose (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Blocking of User:Babychum as a sockpuppet of User:Snowboardf

Hi,

I noticed that you put the sockpuppet and indefinite block notices on User talk:Babychum.

This is great. I'm the one who reported Babychum to WP:AIV so I'm happy with the result.

However, I'm confused as to why three admins got involved and whether I could have or should have helped in this process.

After my report to WP:AIV, User:FCYTravis blocked Babychum as a "vandalism only account" at 23:14.

At 23:17, User:AcademicChallenger removed User:Babychum saying that Babychum had been blocked but did not put a block notice on User:Babychum. I left a note on his Talk Page noting that no block notice had been left on User talk:Babychum.

At 01:26, you put the sockpuppet and block tags on User:Babychum.

My first question is : I had suggested in my report to WP:AIV that someone run Checkuser on Babychum to see if he was a sockpuppet as he claimed. Apparently, someone (probably you) did this and discovered the connection to Snowboardf.

For my understanding (partly because I'm preparing for an RFA in the near future), could you explain how you discovered Babychum was a sockpuppet of Snowboardf? Did you use Checkuser?

My second question is : Is this standard for three different admins to do the separate parts of the process (block, removal from WP:AIV and adding tags)?

My third question is : How could I (as a non-admin) have helped in this process? Could I have requested the Checkuser? Should I have? Should I have put up the block tags after User:FCYTravis blocked Babychum or is that the blocking admin's responsibility?

Thanks in advance for your assistance.

--Richard 17:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Mediation?

You, an administrator, edit warred with another admin at a protected page, and then you took it to mediation thus exluding five other editors who are involved, effectively giving them no say. First of all, as an involved party you should have never used your sysop bit to revert war. Second, you should not have opened mediation between you and one other because the entire community could not come to consensus. By doing so you've carried the debate to a venue where you are able to invite those you want to discuss with.

Your refusal to acknowledge policy or conduct yourself in a manner befitting someone with a sysop bit is very frustrating, and makes it very difficult to maintain good faith while working with you. You assert that a netural party would see your arguments as being superior, yet you are not neutral. I see it the exact opposite, but I don't use my opinion as grounds for asserting your position is faulty. I'm really sick of saying the same thing over and over because you ignore my comments or only selectively answer certain sentences of them. You continually restate your position and if I don't rehash my reasons why it is flawed, you assume I can't refute it and go on to state that it's fact.

I've lost faith in your ability to use your sysop bit with responsibility. I hope that you can take something away from your experience with WP:CHILD so that others don't feel the same way about working with you as I do. BigNate37_(T) 21:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhm, oh hell... that's a mess. You should have at least unprotected it if you planned on making changes. Glad to see you want to protect children, but that's no excuse for edit warring. --tjstrf 21:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Can I jump in here? I just want to point out that taking it to WP:MEDCABAL is a good thing. Things were getting a little testy and it seems to me that a backing-off and calling in a cooler head was a smart move. Elliskev 21:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

C'mon guys. Thryndulf tagged the page and then immediately asked for protection, to protect it in the rejected state. That's just bogus. There had not even been serious edit warring to that point. It's obious why he did this: any proposal that is frozen in a Rejected state even for a while will scare off new edits, allowing the dialogue to die and forcing the proposal to fail. It's an obious ploy. In order to shed some light on the issue I compiled an analysis of every freaken post , which showed how bad-faith was the whole effort to tag the page as rejected, so I removed the tag. Basically, on one hand you have more than a score of editors who are interested and supportive, and on the other hand you have three people acting like bullies who who offer no rebuttals except argument by assertion and who are hell-bent to get their way by hook or by crook. That ain't flying with me. I offered arbitratrion to Thryndulf and he accepted. It was he and I and no others who had been reverting the page. I don't know how the Mediation Cabal works, but maybe you'll get a chance to have your so. I hope so, since the more you post the more people get the idea what your deal is. Herostratus 01:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You offered mediation, which I accepted, not arbitration. Thinking about it now, the issue (imo) is wider than just the state of the tag, and a request for comment allowing all interested parties to express their opinions would probably have been a better way to go. Thryduulf 08:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, mediation. OK I have no trouble with an RfC. Anyway, I have not heard from the Mediation Cabal. They may be booked up weeks ahead for all I know. That might be OK for an article, but a proposal is time-sensitive. Radiant says that formal mediation is not available at this time. There is a thing called third-party review, in which a single random person looks at it. I'd be OK with that too. But yeah an RfC, sure if you like. Herostratus 16:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Protecting children's privacy

It appears that you have already posted a brief summary of my key points. --Ineffable3000 20:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You need to calm down

...about the children's privacy proposal. First you were edit warring. Then, after the page was protected, you persisted in edit warring. Now you have posted personal attacks about the people who disagree with you on its talk page, which needless to say is inappropriate, and made misleading summaries about what people said, which needless to say is not conductive to proper discussion, and asked everybody to comment once more, which can only lead to a repetition of the earlier debate. Furthermore, you have declined to respond to anyone's concerns about the proposal and simply dismissed everything you disagreed with out of hand. This is NOT the way to reach consensus. I think you seriously need to stay away for a few days and give people a chance to consider it without further pushing from your part. This issue has existed for years, and there's no reason why it can't wait a week more, regardless of media hype regarding Xanga. >Radiant< 23:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You seriously do need to calm down. Involvement on Misplaced Pages with things you are too attached to personally is bad for your wiki-health, and the health of the discussions that take place here. --tjstrf 02:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the biggest uncalm thing was probably that you were threatening an RfC on Radiant! after he attempted to rewrite the proposal to something more general, and claim he's trying to destroy the proposal by doing so.

I would assume he merely intended to do what he has done successfully several times in the past (here for one example) with controversial proposals: rewrite them to be voluntary, to suggest rather than command, and to operate within existing policy without needing to create new rules. By doing so, you can make a previously heated argument into an academic situation where you simply do what it says without needing to bicker over details.

In other words, he didn't intend to destroy the policy, he was attempting to improve it in good faith. --tjstrf 03:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Think as you will, I'm just making my judgments in accordance with my own perceptions. --tjstrf 04:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

After reviewing his actions once more, I think the most Radiant can be held guilty for is an overzealous enforcement of WP:NOVOTE. Most of the actions taken by both sides could have just been your standard Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, except that the admin tools made it messy.

As for refactoring proposals being page blanking, I would disagree. Or rather, say it's an instance of 20/20 hindsight. In cases where the refactorization is generally accepted as better no one would have raised a fuss about page blanking. --tjstrf 05:20, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• I think you are seriously misunderstanding what is going on, as well as suffering from a severe case of fundamental attribution error. Nobody is trying to bully you. The "tactics" employed by me and Thryduulf have consisted of calmly and rationally explaining exactly what was wrong with the proposal. You have made ZERO effort to respond to that, or to amend the proposal to address these concerns. That would be how you make consensus. What you are doing is causing a repetitive debate over and over again, and over again, and misquoting people, and calling a vote - none of which is conductive to a good discussion. Tjstrf is entirely correct above; since nobody else was willing to address the issues, I did so myself - and you respond with insults and personal attacks. >Radiant< 12:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Google SketchUp 3D Text

Herostratus: I understand your position in relation to How-to-Manuals. maybe its a bit long. I was trying to make it visual (the reason for so many pictures)... so readers could easily see how to create 3D text for google earth. I will recast it as a shorter more descriptive article in the next few days. Ashleyjoyce 07:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Image:Dallas Area Rapid Transit M-Line.jpg

Hello.. I noticed you deleted a picture I uploaded from DART's website.. I even added the terms/conditions:

Template:DARTimage

Can you please explain why this kind of licensing doesn't apply to the Misplaced Pages..? drumguy8800 C T 18:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the portion I bolded and italicized seems to cover use here at the Misplaced Pages pretty clearly.. drumguy8800 C T 18:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent History Merge

Hi, thanks for merging two of those articles. Would you be able to move Panty Raider back to Panty Raider: From Here to Immaturity (where it was), though? 156.34.209.175 00:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Support for your steady...

Hey. Just want to throw some kudos at ya' for your weathering of the storm at Misplaced Pages:Protecting children's privacy. How do you stay so calm? I have to log off and stomp around for a while to keep from violatinf WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Anyways, you've got my belated support in your WP:RFA - whenever it was, you got it. --Elliskev 23:31, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

5th Street Transit Station

You deleted 5th Street Transit Station as lacking context. I didn't edit the original article, but I wanted to let you know that 5th Street Transit Station is in Minneapolis. Could you please restore the article and add the category Category:Buildings and structures in Minneapolis at the end of the article? Many thanks. --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 05:14, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

re Twist ending in comic books

Heh heh. I did not write that. I just took it out of the main article, which was becoming a bit too long. Cheers. —☆ CieloEstrellado 07:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

WP:NPA

You just made a highly incivil comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Snowball clause, comparing the people you disagree with to fascists. Such a comparison is wildly inappropriate. You have lately been resorting to personal attacks in other debates as well, such as on the children's privacy issue. Do not make personal attacks. You are supposed to be civil to other editors and follow wikiquette in order to keep a friendly atmosphere here. >Radiant< 09:19, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Whoops - I vandalised your page, thinking i was polishing mine. Your badge needed upgrading and the book is now south of instead of east of the medal. Please correct. - Kittybrewster 10:36, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Mediation closed

I've closed the mediation per your request. Thanks. —Xyrael / 12:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Pulling the switch

If you'd read the Richard Edwin Fox article more closely before commenting, you'd see that Mr. Fox died by lethal injection, and not electrocution (or termination of life support) as "pulling the switch" seems to suggest. Due both to tone and factual inaccuracy, I chose to give your comment lesser weight in the discussion. I can only echo TruthbringerToronto's concerns regarding tactfulness. Happy editing. — CharlotteWebb 18:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)