Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by StillStanding-247 (talk | contribs) at 21:29, 17 August 2012 (→Encouragement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

How to abuse a talk page.

In a recent post, Lionelt outlined a simple plan to get rid of me:

Guy like that are just the cost of doing business at Misplaced Pages. Once his talkpage fills up with enough warnings and blocks someone will take him to ANI. He'll get a second chance, then a mentor, then another chance, then some kind of voluntary sanctions, then a topic ban, and when he finally realizes he won't be able to push his POV he'll disappear. Going by his edit frequency, this process will take a couple months. Just be patient, always warn him on his talk when he's disruptive, and never never edit war with him. That only engenders sympathy for him.– Lionel 07:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Not coincidentally, when I cleared my talk page, the person he was writing to immediately reverted my wipe. I think it's painfully obvious what's going on here.

I have nothing to hide; I'm proud of my small achievements here and I fully expect that some people will be unhappy with them. However, this talk page is not going to serve as a sewer for these people to fill with bogus notices intended to create the illusion of a pattern of disruptive editing. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Still; Just a note, since this is contrary to WP guidelines, but often ignored. Misplaced Pages:Talk_page#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages specifically prohibits naming other editors in Talk page headings. "using headings to attack other users by naming them in the heading is especially egregious, ". Not sending this with a WP warning template; will change the heading to NPOV. If you were unaware, and this is the first time you read the policy, feel free to delete this once read. --209.6.69.227 (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't aware of this. I think that just listing his name, as opposed to "Really stupid edit by X" might be acceptable. Still, I'll take your hint and try to make the headings particularly neutral. Thanks again for the information. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI request

If you are lucky enough to get an interaction ban, I will be jealous and would like one, too. But as for ANI, to quote Malleus: "Nothing good ever comes from that place." Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

So far, nothing whatsoever has come from that place, good or bad. I have no idea why it even exists, except perhaps as a place to vent and be ignored. You'd think that granting an interaction ban to a pair of people who both want it would be simple administrative request... Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:46, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Bluff.

I'm calling your bluff. You claimed you want an interaction ban. Well, I want to give you what you want. If you were telling the truth, make the request and I will back you up. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

In general, I like the idea of WP:STICK and WP:IAD, but I am unsure whether you actually understand the concept.

You do realize that on Misplaced Pages, an interaction ban means that you can't talk about someone either, right?

For example, This post, where out of the blue you accused me would be forbidden.

You do realize that the fact that your BFF Lionelt brought up my name would be no excuse, right?

And that "not talking about the other user" includes clever things such as "an unnamed user did X" or "I can't say who did it, but Y happened", right?

And you do realize that the other person violating the ban is not an excuse for you to violate it either, right? (to answer the obvious question, reporting the violation at ANI -- once -- is allowed.)

If you really want to drop the stick, respond with an honest, non-insulting reply that gives me some sort of assurance that you understand all of the above and are willing to comply fully. Convince me that you are serious, asking the question in good-faith, and that this is a rule that you will follow. Remember, I was peacefully ignoring you until you you made a false accusation against me out of the blue. Please, give me a reason to believe that you won't do it again if I go back to ignoring you. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Out of the blue? Take a quick look at this and notice who dropped your name. Right, it's Lionelt again. Remember him? He's the one who calls himself an evil genius, the one I described as having manipulated an admin to block me by lying about the number of reverts I made.

After you cleaned off your talk page, I didn't so much as gesture in your direction. I didn't talk about you, or with you or near you. I left you alone and I was happy to do so. You didn't haunt my talk page, you didn't horde URL's to share out with the rest of the world, you didn't chime in against me at every false report.

In the end, I don't need to convince you that I'm serious. Once there's an interaction ban, if I do anything that shows I'm not serious, I get blocked. Simple enough? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I recommend a unilateral interaction ban. Nobody Ent 18:26, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Ent, I walked away from Macon on my own, so I'm obviously quite content to avoid interacting. He just can't help himself, though. As of a few hours ago, a helpful third party reminded him that he's out of line so he's back on the non-interaction wagon. However, if history is any guide, all it's going to take is a little prodding from Lionelt and he'll fall off the wagon again. I'd like a real ban so that he can be motivated to keep keeping away. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Over the years, I've had editors who had taken exception to an opinion I offered on WQA ping my talk page with comments. Unless I have something new and different to say, I simply ignore them -- the all time record for persistence was five times. Dispute resolution veterans and good admins -- and most of them are -- don't believe anything anyone claims about another editor not supported by diffs and links. So, really he has no power over you or your presence on Misplaced Pages except what you choose to give him. A wiki-conflict is like a 100 meter dash towards a cliff 80 meters away: the winner doesn't go to the swift but to the editor that stops first. Nobody Ent 20:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm more than willing to stop, and have stopped unilaterally. Problem is that you're ever so slightly optimistic. Consider that Guy Macon is himself a DRN volunteer, yet his neutrality with regard to me is nonexistent. Also consider that he seems to have nothing better to do than find out-of-context diffs that you'd think an admin would question, but... Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Encouragement

I am encouraged that your recent editing focuses more on building consensus than on edit warring. Your comments often walk the line between robust discussion and tendentious disruption, but the conclusion of the recent ANI directs very useful advice your way. You should be aware, however, that joining in an already extant edit war is disruptive to the smooth functioning of the project in the same way that repeatedly insisting on your preferred version of the article is, and is treated the same way. Your recent edit to Rush Limbaugh–Sandra Fluke controversy constituted edit warring despite being your only recent edit to the article. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've read WP:ER, and to the best of my understanding, my edit was not warring. In fact, the IP editor accepted my edit as legitimate and made the following comment in his next edit:

To Still; perfectly fair, but you need to separate the BOLD edit from the multiple grammar language, etc edits also clipped. Look forward to discussion of editing down Boycott and Response sections as already set out extensively on Talk.

He's right about the grammar changes, of course, and he's especially right to recognize that we should be discussing these drastic changes. It looks like he accepted my revert as the R in a BRD sandwich and is moving directly to the D, just as I hoped. Mission accomplished, edit-war averted.

I see that you protected the page anyhow, but I'm not sure that it's necessary anymore, as he agreed to discuss further deletions and was making helpful grammar fixes, so I believe him.

In any case, back to WP:ER, maybe you could help me understand something. First, please take a look at this. As you can see, some guy named Belchfire edit-warred up to 3RR, and then someone named Arzel joined in to tag-team the IP editor. Should we be reporting Arzel and/or Belchfire for edit-warring, based on this history? Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 18:47, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: IMO you should avoid reporting anyone at 3RR if they don't actually violate 3RR. Merely because someone else agreed with his edits does not mean it will bear the label of "tag-teaming" - for that you need evidence across multiple articles, over a period of time. Your approach appears combative; edits like this where you basically dare people to change an edit; claiming consensus during an ongoing discussion when consensus was clearly not reached (if it had been your edit would have stood), do not make you appear to be a reasonable editor who is interested in making the best possible Misplaced Pages article, but rather make you look like a combative POV warrior. Please take a step back and try to view your edits and posts and summaries from the perspective of someone who holds no view, or holds the opposite view. Take some time to read WP:TIGERS and WP:ENEMY. I think you have great potential to become an excellent Misplaced Pages editor. I also think you're really shooting yourself in the foot, and if you don't take a deep breath, step back, and learn how to edit in a less aggressive and more collegiate fashion, your tenure here may be unsuccessful and brief. I would prefer not to see that happen. KillerChihuahua 21:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure your advice is well-intentioned, but I can't agree on the details.

I didn't report either of them, and I didn't even revert their edits. Instead, I'm using them to understand how a single edit by me is considered warring while Arzel ensuring that Belchfire's version survives without Belchfire going over 3RR is not. It seems to me that there are multiple standards at work here.

As for the edit where I tried to implement the consensus, it's on an article where the discussion process has broken down, in that the existence of a consensus would in no way assure that the implementation wouldn't be reverted, and by that token, the fact that it was reverted says little about consensus.

There are really two separate consensuses: a real one based on the supermajority of editors whose views are supported by policy, and a false one of the simple majority of all editors, including those whose views are based solely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Without a disinterested authority to WP:CLOSE the !VOTE, it is the latter "consensus" that controls the article by virtue of veto power via reverting.

In any case, "See talk before you touch this." is the meekest of challenges. Contrast it with Belchfire's "BLP violation. Opinions must be properly attributed. Please don't revert this again without discussion.", "rv to neutral version", or Arzel's unexplained revert. Again, I sense multiple standards at work.

Put bluntly, if I merit an unsuccessful and brief career, then Belchfire and Arzel must have been community banned years ago and nobody noticed. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 21:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)