Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bryce Carmony (talk | contribs) at 02:37, 15 March 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Your 8,000 merger proposals

Could you please slow down with all of these proposals? You have made so many that it is simply disruptive, and it shows - you don't seem to have actually looked at the articles in question to see if a merger is actually appropriate or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hey Luke, I promise my attempt is not to disrupt anything in Misplaced Pages, the only mergers I'm proposing are involving Content Forking where we have two articles with the separation being not content but perspective. I am going to assume good faith because I know you're only looking out for Misplaced Pages, I would just look at it this way, if I said I was going to make an article "Praises of Google" where only thing in there was Praising Google, we could agree that is not really needed to be its own article. The same goes for "Criticism of Google" we can put the content into the same article. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• A large proportion of these articles were spun out by consensus due to their size. When you're proposing a merger every 10 minutes, there is simply no way you could've actually being assessing whether the merger has merit or not. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:04, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in Luke, but I'm butting in. While Bryce may be wrong (he is), there is nothing here I see that rises to the level of "disruptive". I resent the implication. He deserves to be heard, regardless of however wrong (he is) he is. I'm willing to hear him out on Talk pages, because as far as I can see, there is no ulterior motive here. I will ponder his arguments, and scratch my chin.

You're right, Luke, these are content forks, and therefore legitimate, though the article title sucks, we couldn't agree on a better one. The histories do admit of that. But lest Bryce be accused of a Randy from Boise argument, content has been re-arranged before, after consensus was gained that it was for the better.   —Aladdin Sane (talk) 03:48, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Just because an article is split doesn't mean we can't look at reemerging it. Misplaced Pages is a work in progress, where we are isn't what matters, but the direction we're heading does. Let's see if we can find some common ground. What would be more neutral to you. 1 article that contains both critical and non critical verifiable sources. or reading an article that excludes all critical sources. What is more NPOV? NPOV is about how we write the articles not how we write the encyclopedia. separate but equal is not equal. There are unflattering spin offs that make sense. for example a company that has been involved in extensive litigation could have an article dedicated to that litigation. but just making a "this article is the Critical POV" is not a solution. Bryce Carmony (talk) 23:15, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Bryce Carmony (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

5 albert square has refused to assume good faith, he says that I am WP:POINTY but doesn't say which edits are disruptive he just uses the ambiguous claim. I request that future bans come from a different admin since 5 Albert square bans for personal reasons instead of what is best for Misplaced Pages. Bryce Carmony (talk) 22:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Unblock requests containing personal attacks are not considered. --jpgordon 23:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As it says, Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.. --jpgordon 23:46, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Bryce Carmony (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Facts are not personal attacks "you are a dumb idiot" = personal attack "you are going against wikipedia policy assume good faith" =/= personal attack. "your ban is based on personal reasons" =/= personal attack. less than .01% of English speakers edit Misplaced Pages,which is why we assume good faith, admins who are abuse ban is why. Again, none of my edits are disruptive, if they are why are there no references to them in my ban? ] (]) 23:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Facts are not personal attacks "you are a dumb idiot" = personal attack "you are going against wikipedia policy assume good faith" =/= personal attack. "your ban is based on personal reasons" =/= personal attack. less than .01% of English speakers edit Misplaced Pages,which is why we assume good faith, admins who are abuse ban is why. Again, none of my edits are disruptive, if they are why are there no references to them in my ban? ] (]) 23:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Facts are not personal attacks "you are a dumb idiot" = personal attack "you are going against wikipedia policy assume good faith" =/= personal attack. "your ban is based on personal reasons" =/= personal attack. less than .01% of English speakers edit Misplaced Pages,which is why we assume good faith, admins who are abuse ban is why. Again, none of my edits are disruptive, if they are why are there no references to them in my ban? ] (]) 23:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

user:5 albert square and user:Jpgordon are why women don't edit wikipedia. admin abuse like theirs

How is that relevant? 5AS is female, and personally, I am in no way deterred by her and Jp-I admire them. You can't argue that they discriminate against you because you are female, because your user page shows that you appear to be male. Also, I believe the personal attack is your opinion that 5AS doesn't assume good faith and that she bans for personal reasons. Origamite 00:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

5AS banned me for "edit warring" when I created a discussion in a talk page, got 2 yays and no noes, and changed one single word. other admins said " it doesn't matter if that word is there..." but when I removed it. 5as banned me for edit warring. I am banned for "disruptive editing" yet she can't be bothered to cite a single example. All I have done is started discussions on a few mergers. and worked on some criticism pages, but instead of wondering about NPOV, all she thinks is how to use a ban as a cudgel, the decline of wikipedia since 2008 can be placed squarely at the feet of the admins who create a enviroment so hostile that editors decline and women even more so. How does she assume good faith when she says " merger proposals are disruptive so you're banned" when there is no guideline against merger proposals. ( espiecally when WP:NPOV encourages not to have the split in the first place ) the hostility of Misplaced Pages is why women don't edit. Jp and 5as are why editor counts are lower than they were years ago. this isn't a personal attack, who they are as people is irrelavent. This is just about their actions. if your actions aren't founded in policy then what else could the be founded in ? oh that's right, something personal not policy. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:27, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

admins like to delude themselves and say "ban hammer" as if they're using a tool to forge something better. but it's just the ban cudgel, a weapon that requires no discipline or skill and is wielded by thugs and low lifes for petty extortion and to get conformity. WP:POINTY (which I would argue I didn't even violate ) can be ignored if you are improving wikipedia ( promoting and moving towards a stronger NPOV I would argue is improving wikipedia ) but Ignore all rules, Be bold, NPOV, assume good faith, admins don't care about them. the ratio of editors to articles is going down every day, it's easy to see why. I try and create a wikipedia that is welcoming to everyone, people who disagree with me I don't go and say to an admin (this person should be banned) no, I reason with them and respect them. because every editor is important because we need every single one of them. Bryce Carmony (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you link to the discussion you were blocked for edit warring in? The point of this block is that you do not seem to be looking at the reasons that the criticism articles were split from the main in all cases; for example, in Criticism of Facebook, the merger would create a page which blows the article length guidelines right out of the metaphorical water. We are working as a whole on making Misplaced Pages a more welcoming place to edit; I'm sure you see the banners to the IdeaLab discussions on this very topic. I don't find the Wiki hostile at all, and their actions are based in policy because your mergers seem to be disruptive and making a WP:POINT. The entire point of all these discussions is that you seem to be making mergers of "Criticism of ..." left and right instead of taking a look at the articles individually. Origamite 01:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

You are the kind of person who makes it hostile. why do you go to admin pages and say " I think we should ban this personf or this" because you're a hostile person. Do you know why Article Size is not the 6th pillar? why of the 5 most important things to wikipedia article size is not one of them? becuase it's a secondary concern. NPOV is non-negotiable. it's not bypassable by consensus. it's the bedrock of our very existince. When you read WP:NPOV you're telling me that the inturpretation you have is " we should seperate articles by pov criticism vs non criticism instead of by topic (History of Facebook, Facebook Litigation, Facebook Controversies, Facebook Labor Relations, Facebook Privacy Policy. ) We can make appropriately sized articles on topics instead of POV. but you and the cudgel club aren't interested in that. the second POV gets hard you say forget it. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

The difference between me and you is I assume good faith, you don't. I assume that while I think your attempts are misguided that you hold wikipedias interest closest to your heart. so I try and reason with you, I try and explain my side to you, and understand your side. what I don't do is assume that you're a "disruption" or a "vandal" which is why I don't go around to admins and say " ban this person" becuase I believe in good faith. all I ask from the admins and from you is the same good faith. When I say "This is what NPOV says this is how I think we can improve NPOV" maybe instead of banning me you could consider it. but that would require you to be less hostile. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Bryce, I think you've missed the point here by a country mile. You weren't blocked for personal attacks, but you've since made quite a few here, questioning people's competence and calling them abusive with no real evidence. You were blocked for disruptive editing, because you proposed a HUGE number of merger requests at a rapid rate - a rate so high, that it was very clear that you had made no attempt to look at exactly why the pages had been split in the first place. A couple of editors (including myself) came here suggesting that you slow down and actually check what you were doing, and not only did you not do so in any sense, you rejected some people's comments with descriptions such as harassment and spam - completely inappropriately, as those were neither spam nor harassment. I ended up disengaging from you in the above section because you simply weren't listening, and that is a key issue here. Your editing was disruptive, because you were proposing a huge number of merger requests in a very short timeframe. Not only that, but simultaneously, you were blanking content from some of the articles with no rationale whatsoever, or with very poor rationales. I mean, "Google has received criticism for its Gmail service." - really? That's supposed to be sufficient how, exactly? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 01:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't blanking content. the "criticism of Gmail" article had multiple paragraphs that were word for word identical to the "criticism of google" why have 2 articles with the exact same content? so I took the ocntent form "criticism of google" and put it on "criticism of gmail" if it wasn't already there. and kept the duplicate information there. so when you say " blank it out" that's not accurate in the slightest. No one here says " the reason we banned you was becuase you violated npov" and no one says " I say no to this merger becuase I think including both sides of a story would violate npov". I haven't made a single "personal attack". if I say "you are not showing good faith" that isn't a "personal attack" if I say " you are fat and smell funny and no one likes you" that's a person attack. when I say " you lie about me blanking pages" that's not a perosnal attack. thats me stating that you are misrepresenting events. if you believe in your heart of hearts that NPOV = banning criticism from main articles and putting all "criticism" (including things that aren't criticism like controversies, lawsuits, competitors that open business , etc ) then say it. say that you think that's what NPOV is. Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:06, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

the definition of disruption is now "you tried to write too many wrongs" when the article says disruption is when you intentionally do something wrong to prove a point. I didn't do anything wrong. I read Misplaced Pages Merging that's what it suggested. I'm sorry if you're a google fanboy and the idea of allowing two sides in the main article is hurtful. if you edit with an agenda you should work on different articles. Any editor who's goal it is to ban other editors and then brags about it and then goes aorund saying people have a "death" wish. that is harassment. Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Firstly, you haven't been banned, you've been blocked temporarily. There is quite a large difference there. Secondly, exactly how is "user:5 albert square and user:Jpgordon are why women don't edit wikipedia. admin abuse like theirs" anything other than a personal attack? That's a pretty horrendous slur on their character. And, yes, obviously wrong accusations of lying are personal attacks. Likewise, there is a big difference between reducing duplication (which is fine, within reason), and just removing everything and leaving such a useless sentence behind. There should be some redundancy; the Criticism of Google page should have a rough summary of the most notable/frequent Gmail criticisms. I have no idea what your crusade is here... but almost all of these articles were created to be as close to NPOV as possible. The titles are not neutral, but if a criticism article is done properly, then it should have responses to the criticisms, be it first-party or third-party, and how these things were dealt with. When this is the case - which it often is - then the articles are compliant with NPOV. And this is one of the key issues with your actions - the rapid rate of the merger requests shows that you have not made a single attempt to analyse each article's contents, its history, and why it was created in the first place. As the proposer of a change, this means that you have completely failed to comply with WP:BURDEN, and you have done so repeatedly. Also - how in the world does advocating for the existence of a criticism page make me a "fanboy" of that product? Logic would dictate the exact opposite of that! And it would still be rubbish. I have no agenda here, other than preventing disruption to Misplaced Pages... quite how you can claim others have agendas, when all bar two edits that you have made in mainspace since February have been related to these criticism articles, is beyond belief. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 02:17, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me help you make the distinction with an example " Barack obama has big ears and looks dumb when he smiles" thats an attack about him, the person "Barack obama abuses his presidential authority when he has american citizens executed without trial via drone strike" that is a criticism about him in his capacity as president of the united states, of course it is directed him the person who is president. but it's not a "personal attack" if I said " JP morgon looks dumb and I bet he sucks at ukulele" that would be a peronal attack. if I say " I don't think JPgordon is a good admin" that is not a personal attack. Bryce Carmony (talk) 02:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock