Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:17, 3 December 2017

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Please add comments to the bottom

DRN for Useful idiot

Hi DH, here's a link to the DRN discussion regarding Useful idiot: . All best, -Darouet (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

1RR

That one is a 1RR violation, as well as violation of the "consensus required" provision. Here's your chance to self-revert. Volunteer Marek  04:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh, wait, holy crap, that's your FOURTH revert in less than 24 hours on a 1RR restricted article!  Volunteer Marek  04:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of. I've reverted to pre Phillips version while consensus discussion continues as you requested. --DHeyward (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Ummm, no this is NOT a self-revert as it completely removes the info which has consensus for inclusion. This appears to be a sneaky attempt by you to pretend you self reverted when in fact you just made another revert. I was trying to be nice about this but this blatant attempt at WP:GAME is sort of irritating. Off to drama boards we go...  Volunteer Marek  04:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

If you genuinely wish to self revert then this is the appropriate version. Not gonna wait long, given that you've actually made four reverts on 1RR article, then tried to pull off that little fake-self-revert stunt. Volunteer Marek  04:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

AE

Mister wiki case has been accepted

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 15, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct of Mister Wiki editors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement result

Per the outcome of this arbitration enforcement request, you are topic banned for 1 month from articles about living and recently deceased American politicians, and related topics, broadly construed. This has been logged at the arbitration enforcement log. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:57, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Seems like a wide net considering this was one article...maybe ban him from just that article or set of related subarticles.--MONGO 03:59, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

DHeyward...the website is overrun by partisan sanctimonious hacks. The days of fighting the conspiracy theorists on 9/11 articles as we did more than a decade ago are long gone...replaced by a sullen pack of maroons incapable of applying fairness or objectivity in their decision making. If one has even the faintest lean to the right here, you're exiled, yet almost none of them can compare their contributions history to mine and as far as I am concerned...they can all go fuck themselves. I am well aware of all you have done for this website...the risks you have taken to try and restore balance and maintain policies here even when faced an with an admin corp too naïve to see or care or who overtly defend these POV pushers. If you resume your efforts to try and keep articles neutral and reliably referenced in these political hot topics all you can do is follow policy as strictly as possible.--MONGO 09:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

It’s a pretty bad sanction. When numerous experienced editors don’t understand it, and the sanctioning admin has to try to explain it over and over and over because it makes no sense then the usefulness of it should be self explanatory. The edit war aside, your edits were clearly improving the article, especially with regards to BLP compliance. We should never ever ever be sanctioning editors for good faith attempts to stay in line with BLP. This appears to be a brand new admin, so hopefully their judgment improves with time. Sorry it had to come at your expense. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Yikes!! Quite the departure from where they said they would be contributing. Makes a lot of sense now. --DHeyward (talk) 21:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

For my general fund of information, is “sullen pack of maroons” referred to above a typo, or a racial slur? That is to say, did MONGO mean to call other editors “morons”, which is presumably sanctionable, or “maroons,” which is a racial slur and therefore presumably sanctionable? MarkBernstein (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2017 (UTC)