Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Alienus (talk | contribs) at 19:43, 18 June 2006 (typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Usertalk-sprotected

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Welcome

Welcome to my Talk page. Please feel free to leave me messages here, but understand that I now delete much of what shows up. Al 02:31, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Attacks

Do not use incivil language to refer to your fellow editors, such as calling them "snippies". Terms like that make editing a hostile activity. You have been blocked for it before repeatedly, and I will block you again if necessary. -Will Beback 18:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete warnings from the community from this talk page. -Will Beback 20:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

ANI

That was my expectation, but it seemed you were getting a little grr-argh at someone, somewhere, about something. As such, I send you this stupid template to make you feel better:

Hipocrite - «Talk» has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Don't let the bastards grind you down. Take a break, it helps, I know. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

!

I'm not stalking you, Alienus. Really. Curiosity got me here based on a restored warning summary. Anyways... I noticed Hipocrite's edit and it reminded me of an edit I made to Chooserr's talk page. I was berated for it, as I'm sure you remember. Feel free to delete this. :) --Elliskev 20:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If you visit Hipocrite's talk page, you'll see that it was just that glitch where text gets lost, and I restored it as soon as I found out about the problem. Al 22:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant the 'bastards' comment. Very much like my 'jackasses' comment. Anyway... Hope to work with you productively (an olive branch). --Elliskev 23:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't write the bastards comment, but if it offends you, I'll remove it. As for olive branches, there's no need because I do my best not to hold grudges. If you treat me fairly, I will do my best to return the favor. Al 23:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't offend me at all. If it did, I wouldn't have made an almost exact duplicate of that comment on Chooserr's page. Just pointing out the irony and all that weird cosmic convergence stuff.

Re: holding grudges, I do. Hence, my olive branch. It's in preparation for the next time I lose it over something you do. I can point back at it and say, "SEE?!? Who's got a problem with civility?"

Hoping you don't take this for anything other than it is - --Elliskev 23:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then I'll accept your olive branch and keep it handy so I can thwack you over the head with it the next time you lose it. This violent irony should drive the point home. Al 23:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean WP:POINT, right? ;> --Elliskev 01:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No, an olive branch is a blunt weapon, so there's no point to it. Much like most of Misplaced Pages. Al 01:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS Email list archives

What do you think of this? Regards,--Doright

I think it's too specific and limiting. H-Net might offer particularly reliable mailing lists, but almost all mailing lists are reliable enough for citation. Al 23:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

We pretty much agree on everything. If you recall, I've been trying to avoid narrow focus on "scholars," etc. (e.g., see my "Tiger Woods" analysis), but am trying accomodate others', albeit ill-founded concerns. Please change it to your satisfaction. I'm sure I'll be able to live with it. I'm getting tired of being the only one to revert it from the even less agreeable version. Regards, --Doright 23:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that it's worth compromising this far. Al 23:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

List of major philosophers

Your edit summaries about Rand don't help make it look like you have an open mind. It would be enough to say "Removed Rand - see unresolved discussion on talk page" instead of "removed Rand, and will do so forever". Forever is a long time... GRBerry 23:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"Forever" is an overstatement caused by trying to fit into the limits of an edit comment. My stated policy is that Rand gets in only if she is in fact a major philosopher as per the criteria we have set up. However, at this rate, that's essentially forever, because she is routinely excluded in encyclopedic 1000+ philosophy surveys that cover all major philosophers and many minor ones. She is, academically speaking, a nothing and a nobody, not a major player. See the Talk history for more on this. Al 23:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism (Ayn Rand) and such

Indeed, I work for consensus, as you seem to. I can't speak for any of the other Objectivists (sorry, that's the term I'm used to using), although I know GreedyCapitalist from other parts of the web. I think he's an upstanding guy, new to the wiki, and gets frustrated when LGagnon goads him on, etc. The fascism remarks are particularly offensive, as I'm sure you can see. Although we do disagree, you and I seem to be the two coolest heads currently working on this article, so hopefully we can work towards a consensus. Crazynas 06:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be a good thing if we could avoid endless reversion wars, pointless fighting and the inevitable blocks. At this point, things are pretty tense, though. To be frank, creating that new article was not a good idea, and things aren't going to calm down until the issues brought up by that article are settled. Al 14:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks

Regarding edits such as these: ; Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Paul Cyr 08:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I followed the links, but you must be seeing things there that I don't. In the first, I'm calmly discussing a heated matter, without ever attacking anyone, personally or otherwise. In the second, your boy Nandesuka had been violating WP:NPA by repeatedly calling me a troll, then deleting my warnings, yet my comment was still civil. Looks like a misdiagnosis on your part, so I'm going to politely ignore your warning as erroneous. The funny part is that this all came because I reported Nandesuka for his personal attacks. Apparently, you're trying to punish the innocent for daring to accuse the guilty. Lovely. Al 14:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Those don't appear to be personal attacks at all.Timothy Usher 20:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how I got the first link (wrong paste probably) but from the second link, Clearly, you do not respect the rules you are expected to enforce, is a personal attack. As for your comment, you're trying to punish the innocent for daring to accuse the guilty. Lovely. Please see Misplaced Pages's policy on civility. Users who are repeatedly incivil may be blocked from editing. Paul Cyr 23:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

He does sound a little prickly in diff 2, and it's arguably incivil, but it appears to be a comment on conduct, not a personal attack. If someone is alleged (rightly or wrongly) to not be respecting rules, that's conduct.Timothy Usher 23:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Saying someone does not respect the rules would be a comment on their character as well as conduct. Saying that someone's actions are not inaccordance with the rules would be fine, but saying they themselves don't care about the rules is a comment on the person. Paul Cyr 04:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't agree with that, and I'm the one who said these words so I'm in a position to know exactly what I meant. Any statement on behavior can be misinterpreted as a statement on character. Contrast this with Nandesuka's clear and repeated violations in the form of calling me a troll. I bet if I called you a troll half a dozen times, I'd be blocked so fast my head would spin. Please, tell me I'm wrong. Tell me there's a single standard that applies equally to admins and regular editors. Al 05:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka called me a troll about half a dozen times, then deleted a good-faith warning. This is more than enough reason for me to be annoyed with his behavior, yet my comment still fell well short of incivility. However, all the "troll" accusations were in clear violation of WP:NPA. In fact, the word "troll" is even used in the example of what a personal attack looks like. With all due respect, any attempt to call my comments uncivil or attacking while ignoring the blatant personal attacks by Nandesuka show that you're not looking at this carefully and impartially. Just for a moment, pretend that I'm the admin and Nandesuka was just some editor. Al 04:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

While I grant that Alienus has made personal attacks in the past, I haven't seen them anytime recently, and the diffs don't support it. If the point of previous blocks was to bring him into compliance, mission accomplished. This relentless persecution of Alienus has become unseemly.Timothy Usher 04:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought the policy was that, once you've been blocked, you're fair game for all future blocks. How else do you explain the current block Tony Sidaway? Al 05:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring and incivility

• Alienus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• LaszloWalrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Chaps, I blocked you both for this once before, and it seems we're back again. I've blocked you both for a period of three days. --Tony Sidaway 15:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There's definitely an edit war going on, but it's not me versus LaszloWalrus, it's LaszloWalrus and RJII against everyone else. By "everyone else", I don't just mean non-Objectivists such as myself and LGagnon but respectable Objectivists such as Crazynas. It is not a matter of two unreasonable people reverting each other, but rather two unreasonable people -- LaszloWalrus and RJII -- reverting against everyone else.

The edit war itself is over a content issue, which is that these people want to remove a category that, while well-supported, is unflattering. In short, they are intentionally removing content so as to push their POV. If someone needs to be blocked, it's them. Their behavior violates WP:NOR, ignores consensus and is disruptive. LaszloWalrus and RJII have both done this before, and have not learned their lesson.

Given this ugly situation, I have done my best to remain civil and have been careful not to violate WP:3RR, which leaves us with the question of what justification this ban has. I think that my edit comments show my frustration, but do so in a civil manner. I would be interested to see precisely where you think I crossed the line, because I certainly made an effort to avoid doing so.

I would suggest that the block be removed entirely, since it appears to be based on your personal unhappiness with our behavior rather than the violation of any particular rule. With all due respect, it's impossible to know what will make admins unhappy, and there's so many of them, so the most that can be asked is that editors follow the rules. If you block editors despite the fact that they follow the rules, it makes the whole blocking thing arbitrary.

If you wanted to block everyone involved in the edit war, you'd need to take down at least three more people. And if I had been uncivil, then you would be able to specify just where. As neither is the case, this block is in error. The right thing to do would have been to give a warning rather than shooting first and asking questions never.

Fundamentally, this block is wrong because it's counter-productive. Unlike Laszlo, my edits on Objectivism-related topics are a small portion of my overall contributions to Misplaced Pages, so all you've done is demotivate a valuable contributor by forcing them out of action. This is not wise.

Al 16:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, the block is not based on my "personal unhappiness" but on your behavior. A quick look at Ayn_Rand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) shows that you're both responsible for the bulk of the recent edit warring. There is also an ongoing civility problem between you two, typified by "there is a consensus; you lose, get over it" (LaszloWalrus) and "*sigh* the cult allegation is well-documented; please stop edit-warring against us; we have the consensus and the rules on our side." (Alienus), with both of you shouting at one another in edit summaries.

It's not about making admins unhappy. It's about treating one another, and Misplaced Pages, with respect. I blocked you for that three months ago, and I block you again for the same reason today. To give Misplaced Pages a rest, in the hope that the poison will not spread beyond the pair of you, and finally hoping that you will learn not to do this. --Tony Sidaway 16:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see how Lazslo's comment could be uncivil, but not mine. While I clearly showed my frustration by sighing, I did not speak in an uncivil manner. My edit comment was in no way "shouting". And, in fact, if you look at the article talk page and Laslo's, you'll see that I brought up this issue repeatedly and tried to get him to stop removing content, all civilly.

Because you have not genuinely shown incivility on my part and because I simply did not break any rules, I cannot imagine what possible lesson I could learn from this except that you block for arbitrary reasons. Al 16:35, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

You can edit war without "breaking the rules". This is sometimes called "gaming the system." This doesn't mean that someone who blocks you when you do that is acting in an arbitrary way, it just means that you'd better stop looking at the rule book and start taking Misplaced Pages seriously. Shouting at someone in edit summaries is also very uncivil. I see both of you up to the same disruptive behavior you engaged in three months ago, and so I block you both again. --Tony Sidaway 17:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, you keep suggesting that I was shouting, but this is simply not the case. What distinguishes shouting is the extra emphasis, parallel to actually raising your voice. In this medium, it is conveyed by typographical means, including boldface, UPPERCASE or exclamation points!!! Sometimes vulgarities work, too.

Instead, the quote you chose shows a resigned, slightly frustrated editor audibly sighing before patiently reminding an edit warrior that they are violating consensus, WP:NPOV and WP:V. This isn't shouting or unicivil or anything bad. With all due respect, as far as I can tell, you just decided that my comments were uncivil and this ideosyncratic interpretation had no basis in part of reality that we all share. It was, in a word, arbitrary.

Edit wars often have clear agressors: people who make changes regardless of consensus. If you look at the history, you'll see comments by fellow Objectivist Crazynas admitting that "even though I agree with you , you can't do this without consensus", and "although it pains me to do this, LazoWalrus, the cat has to remain until proper consensus is reached". He wrote these while reverting LaszloWalrus' changes.

The fact that a bi-factional group opposed Laszlo and RJII shows clearly that they were violating the consensus and trying to force their view on the article. The only support the two got were from apparent sock puppets, such as Xyz90009, 172.189.140.151, 70.181.156.58, and JToH.

Of course, just because these two and their socks were edit-warring doesn't mean that the rest of us were. Whereas the two ignored consensus, the three of us all participated in building consensus on the talk pages, discussing the evidence that justifies the inclusion of the cult categories, and leaving warnings on talk pages with requests to end the war.

In contrast, neither of the two edit warriors could justify their changes, so they stuck to either repetition or insult, respectively. Despite this, I went out of my way to keep the peace, defusing hostility and avoiding personal attacks and incivility: this is the opposite of being disruptive. I also followed up on some of the socks.

Initially, you accused me of edit warring, and now that I've explained that this is not the case, you've retrofitted the new charge of "gaming the system". However, it turns out that this term actually means something quite specific, which does not apply to me.

The canonical example of gaming is doing 3 reverts in a short period, then waiting until just past the 24th hour from the first before doing another. My own favorite analogy is that it's like have a 100 yard restraining order and managing to remain 101 yards away at all times instead of just going away and leaving them alone. In short, "gaming" is defined is intentionally bordering a rule violation. Alas, I did no such thing, so this charge is just as mistaken as the previous one.

The last time I tried to get your help to avoid an edit war with Objectivists, I was arbitrarily blocked by you for 3 hours, then 21 more, despite not having broken a single rule. This is a pattern with you, Tony: you block too much and for too little reason. You are an officer of the law, not judge, jury and executioner. You shoot from the hip and think with your heart, acting on truthiness and not truth. Think about it from the other side of the table. If blocks do not follow clearly spelled out rules, how are people supposed to avoid getting blocked? You didn't even give a warning before acting, so this came out of nowhere.

Speaking of nowhere and arbitrary, my sole attempt at appeal was rejected by a Pschemp with the informative comment "reviewed block, agree". I think this speaks for itself, showing that you're not the only admin who works on truthiness. Al 22:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, I consider this block to be entirely spurious. I do not accept it as legitimate in any way and I hold Tony Sidaway personally accountable for exceeding his powers. Al 04:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I was convinced by the conversation at AN/I that this block was unjustified, and I have unblocked you. -lethe 13:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Your actions have gone a long way to restoring some confidence in Misplaced Pages justice. Al 16:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome

It just makes me really upset to see admins abusing their power by acting out grudges, and this seemed to be one such case. Everyone has different ways of dealing with other editors they disagree with, and sometimes it seems like we're all expected to sugar-coat our language at all times just so we don't get in trouble with certain trigger-happy admins. I'm just glad that I was able to help out, both for your sake and for the sake of a more just Misplaced Pages. romarin 18:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

There's something to be said for civility, but also much to be said for genuine respect as opposed to mere lip service. There are certain people who seem careful not to quite cross the line in terms of word choice, but aren't always fair, forgiving or just. Worse, some hold grudges and act out of spite, even weeks after negative interactions.

Anyhow, what concerns me more is that this ban removal might be the exception that proves the rule. Tony Sidaway is still an admin and he's likely to act on his instincts again. Perhaps more disappointing is this and that. Al 18:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Well of all the..... anyway, I restored your original message on Pschemp's talk page. This is all just crazy. romarin 18:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Please don't pester her. As unreasonable as her response (or lack thereof) has been, it may well be that she recognizes her error but lacks the integrity to admit to it in public. If so, then shoving it in her face like this will only serve to harden her resolve and make her act just as unreasonably in the future. Al 18:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose you're right; I'll just drop it. Got better things to do with my day anyway... :) romarin 19:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Your heart was in the right place, regardless, and that matters a lot to me. Al 19:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Pestering User:Pschemp

Pestering other editors as you have done here is not really a good approach. Your edits are bordering on harassment, Pschemp sees your message and doesn't agree with your assessment, as she has said. Please stop, accept that you may not agree, and don't edit tendentiously, or you risk another block. ++Lar: t/c 19:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe I'm pestering. I have yet to undelete a comment that she has deleted, and I've even suggested to Romarin that doing so was not a good idea.

Having said that, I don't believe that admins, as public figures, deserve the same protections that regular editors do from unwanted entries on their talk pages. Their behavior as admins is fair game and any systematic attempt to suppress such corrective feedback is harmful to Misplaced Pages as a whole. Admins must be prepared to stand behind their decisions.

I have nothing civil to say about your unwarranted threat of an unjustified block, except that you can be sure that I will fight to have any such attacks overturned. Thank you for understanding and feel very free not to post here again. Al 19:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)