Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Seicer (talk | contribs) at 22:27, 14 February 2008 (Restored SA's original comment before it was refactored "per agreement"). 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 who does little to no actual editing seems to have taken it upon himself to work to remove all of the 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 like his predecessor at WP:AE, User:Rlevse, this user seems to be incapable of providing adequate and timely justification and evaluation of situations, and instead he has lent a sympathetic ear to the vocal minority of POV-pushers complaining about vague and ever-changing notions of "civility" and "good faith". He obviously wants to remove the people who are advocating for Misplaced Pages to abide by its own content guidelines. Rather, he's a supporter of behavior guidelines and seems to revel in his role as a parental figure punishing the naughty editors who point out the breaches other users perpetrate. "Don't scold your sibling or I'll punish you." is the clear and obvious message. Misplaced Pages is a playground for authority-obsessed sycophants hoping to weild arbitrary power over those they can scold for behaving in ways they think is "naughty".

It is clear that User:Ronnotel made an edit that had the effect of POV-pushing in favor of cold fusion (for reasons that only he can understand). It is also clear he was not involved in the mediation conversation and swooped in when he thought the time was right so as to tip the balance on a mediation page in favor of his POV. Poor, User:Seicer doesn't know what he got himself into. This is the very reason I said that we shouldn't do a mediation in the first place and I sure as hell will not involve myself in anything like this 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 magnanimous 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. Perhaps GRBerry should block himself for 96 hours! No, as long as its an admin in good standing doing the violation of "comment on the content not the contributor", it's okay.

Thing is, 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 users like GRBerry are more concerned with 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)

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)

It should be noted that PouponOnToast (talk · contribs) heavily edited ScienceApoligist (talk · contribs)'s comments to reflect his own values, per what he authored on my talk page. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)