Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ronnotel (talk | contribs) at 21:50, 14 February 2008 (→Current Block: diffs please). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Current Block

Having finally completed consideration of the report closed here, I've blocked you for 96 hours. Thatcher had specifically warned you against some of the language used in the reported edit less than a week prior.

Before I could find that you assumed bad faith, I had to check more of the history than just the complaint. Having read the history of Cold fusion, the mediation page, and the ArbComm case, it is clear to be that you did assume bad faith. This behavior has to stop.

You also were incivil. I wish to offer you further advice on how to avoid being incivil. I'm sure that you have heard "comment on the content, not the contributor" before. I'm saying it again, because you aren't doing it. Be more specific say "this change was appropriate because...". Good completions where the ellipsis are would be things like "sources X, Y, and Z each say 'quote from the sources'" or "we don't have any sources to support the alternative". References to POV are not good completions for the ellipsis. GRBerry 20:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Another day, another changing bar. This admin has now removed at least two NPOV supporters on Misplaced Pages. Perhaps not his intention, but definitely the effect of his advocacy. He started with Adam Cuerden and now has moved on to me. Just as before, there was a failure in providing adequate and timely justification and evaluation of situations, and as a result a sympathetic ear has yet again been lent to the vocal minority of POV-pushers complaining about vague and ever-changing notions of "civility" and "good faith". Rather, he's a supporter of behavior guidelines.

It is clear that User:Ronnotel made an edit that had the effect of POV-pushing in favor of cold fusion. It is also clear he was not involved in the mediation conversation and swooped in with the effect of tip the balance on a mediation page in favor of his POV. User:Seicer is having a hard time controling the situation, and this is the sad result. This is the very reason I said that we shouldn't do a mediation in the first place and why I will not involve myself in anything like that in the future given the terrible track record I have witnessed for its (non)success. GRBerry has assured us that he has "read" the Cold fusion pages and from that it is somehow "clear" that I'm "assuming" bad faith. There are so many ill-defined terms in that last sentence, that I'll leave it to the reader to figure out what he means by it. I particularly am amused by his offer of "advice". It is more than ironic that this user is not practicing what he preaches by commenting on me instead of my contributions. Indeed, my comments to the user in question were simply advice. References to another user's POV are relevant and manifestly not assumptive when the person makes an edit without being involved in talk space and has a proven track record of supporting a particular POV. If it was a policy never to refer to another person's POV, then why, praytell, is there an WP:NPOV policy at all? Just get rid of it and rely completely on WP:CIV, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF.

It's clear that this had led to playing the game and supporting the community rather than writing a verifiable, reliable, and neutral encyclopedia. What a sham(e).

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC) modified by agreement by PouponOnToast (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

SA, I've been very tolerant of your continued use of uncivil terms to unfairly taint my behavior. However, it has now been determined by two neutral parties, GRBerry and Seicer, that I have not been POV Pushing on Cold fusion. Either substantiate your charges with diffs or kindly stop making them. Ronnotel (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)