Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Nkras (talk | contribs) at 05:34, 5 January 2007 (→Overreaction?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

To Whom It May Concern...

I am shocked that Nkras was blocked indefinitely, and think it was a gross overreaction on the part of an admin here. I would hope somebody with authority can reverse this decision, as Nkras, while being somewhat problematic at the beginning of his editing here, was a major force in resolving the conflict on the Marriage article. If he is unblocked, I will be the first to welcome him back. We had strong differences of opinion, but he certainly had my respect for his ability to compromise in order to achieve consensus. Jeffpw 09:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Traditional Marriage

Nkras—I would be interested in your options of my recent edits to traditional marriage.--GMS508 02:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

? Nkras 12:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

It was deleted hours after I wrote here is a copy that I was able to save.User:GMS508/Sandbox --GMS508 23:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, that's actually a good write-up. It needs editing, however it's a great beginning to the TM article, once the current one is deleted. Or maybe I'll just take the initiative and copy and paste it. :-) Nkras 00:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The original has already been deleted. I am not sure how long is proper to wait until posting another (I would like to get this rough version out though to get other editors comments). As for editing, please feel free to edit the page as you see fit.--GMS508 00:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Too late. :-s Nkras 00:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not re-create articles that have been deleted in AFD discussions, as you did with Traditional marriage. The version that was just deleted (at Traditional Marriage) was identical to the article deleted at AFD, and violated general criterion 4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you wish to contest the deletion, you may file a deletion review. Continued identical re-creations may result in a block. --Coredesat 02:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I checked, the content was exactly the same. I noticed that you have been blocked previously for vandalism of the AFD and for POV pushing (both of which are not allowed). If you wish to contest it, please file a deletion review. --Coredesat 02:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review is where AFD decisions are contested, although they look at the process decisions made in the deletion - it is not AFD Round 2. --Coredesat 02:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

First of all, please refrain from making incivil remarks, as you just did. Recreating articles under different names does not make them different from the version deleted at AFD, and G4 still applies. Whatever userboxes I may have on my user page are irrelevant - the consensus in the AFD was to delete the article, and the only keeps were from you and from several brand new accounts, and none of them used any policy or guideline to defend the article. --Coredesat 02:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Because of you not heeding the warnings about reposting deleted content, and your behavior when reposting the content, I have fiven you an indefinite block. User:Zscout370 02:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

/shaking head in disgust You are wrong: I was very civil in my comments. Consensus is available to any interest group that has the most editors, therefore, any group of activists will have rule over what is considered to be legitimate content and what is not. Now, yet another autonomous "Admin" has blocked me. It is a farce. Nkras 12:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh.

That was a suboptimal outcome. DanB†DanD 03:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

DanB_DanD, thank you for your kind comments. Nkras 03:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nkras—I almost never agreed with you, but what happened to you tonight was wrong. Some people are so afraid of opposition that they resort to fascist techniques to silence opposition. Take care.--GMS508 03:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, also, for your kind comment and support. Be well. Nkras 03:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

i don't even know what has happened here. why is Nkras indefinitely banned?? did WP:ArbCom do this? other than ArbCom, who has such authority? r b-j 04:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it takes special powers to give an indefinite block, but given that Nkras is a new user editing in good faith who helped de-escalate the conflict he began, the choice seems very strange. The blocking policy is at WP:Block. DanB†DanD 05:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:Heresy

Look where the Traditional marriage article is directed:

You are free to recreate it, provided the content is totally different from that deleted at the AfD. Anything remotely similar (ie. highly POV) like the version that was deleted at AfD can be speedily deleted under G4. However, you have shown intention to create a NPOV, verified article, so I'd reccomend you make it at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject LGBT studies/Traditional marriage draft, and let Coredesat (the closer of the AfD) have a look over it to make sure it isn't POV/repost of deleted content etc. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 02:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Traditional marriage draft is directed to the LGBT Project? No POV on the part of the Admins. /sarcasm Nkras 12:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Review of block decision

Hi Nkras. I share concerns expressed above about your indefinite block. I certainly don't share your views and you have been rather heavy handed in express them. However, given that you have been willing to work with others to achieve concensus and are willing to recognise errors on your part when explained to you, an indefinite block seems disproportionate.

Are you aware that you can have the block reviewed by a different admin (who can unblock you, or reduce the length of the block if they feel the block unjust?)? To do so place the template:

{{unblock|your reason here}} on this page....

Hope that helps, WJBscribe  17:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am taking the unblock under consideration. Nkras 03:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Overreaction?

Some editors appear uncertain of what precisely went down, and I hope I can clear it up. Nkras recreated deleted content at Traditional marriage. I saw this and notified the admin who closed the Traditional Marriage AfD, Coredesat, who speedy deleted and salted (protected) the page. This is all standard procedure for recreation of deleted content. It turns out that the content Nkras reposted was substantially based from User:GMS508/Sandbox, a proposed compromise, but I did not realize that and Coredesat could not be expected to have known that.

After the salting, Nkras briefly explained the situation to Coredesat, who told Nkras three separate times to use Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. This is standard procedure. Deleted content does not get to rise again automatically, but there are routes that will allow it, and Nkras was pointed to one of those routes. In response, Nkras indicated he did not intend to use deletion review, and then declared unilaterally that "The Traditional marriage article will appear again in some form or another", regardless of the AfD results. Nkras then recreated the article again at marriage (traditional). At this point, Zscout370, a disinterested admin who as far as I can tell was not contacted by anyone involved in the situation, noticed the recreated content, read Nkras's stated intent to disregard consensus and refusal to use the deletion review process, decided he was a disruptive editor, and indef blocked him. If this seems harsh, explain what else an admin is supposed to do when an editor refuses to use established process and has already stated "I will not agree to any "consensus"".

The methods for dealing with disruptive editors have been honed by thousands of tests. The approach cannot be perfect in dealing with every editor. Apparently a substantial number of editors believe the result was inappropriate, and such things do happen, so we have a process for dealing with that too, at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I would ask that these editors take note of precisely how the process played out, and ask yourselves if this was really a case of systemic bias, blatant censorship, or gaming the system (I paraphrase). Given Nkras's stated disregard for consensus, what should have been done instead? Tensions are indeed high, my own included, but I ask everyone to assume good faith on my part and on Coredesat's and Zscout370's parts. I don't see anything opened yet at WP:ANI so I will go do that now. Comment at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disputed indef block of User:Nkras; this talk page will presumably also be read by disinterested parties who follow that case back here.

To those of you who are eager to continue working with Nkras, I admire your patience and optimism. What happens when he doesn't get his way? He does not care for consensus and has already threatened meatpuppetry: "I can arrange for that to change." This, even while he was "resolving the conflict" by discussion. I'm not going to argue for or against the block, but if someone could detail the reason for this optimism I'm sure that would help Nkras. — coelacan talk — 02:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In working class prose: just cut the crap. IMHO, you don't like my politics, nor my traditionalist beliefs, nor probably my religious beliefs. I must have invaded your kingdom, your territory, put your ego on the defensive, it really doesn't matter. Note well: if you're going to quote someone, have the intellectual honesty to quote them in context:

"Same-sex marriage" is not a subset of marriage, because it is not marriage. It is a wholly fabricated construct. Members of the same sex cannot get married, because they are not of the opposite sex. To demand the inclusion of "same sex marriage" in the Marriage article is pushing a political and social agenda, is the destruction of language, and an attempt to push a POV that is already evident in the Same-sex marriage article. As a compromise, I will agree to the inclusion of a section about "Redefinition of Marriage" where references to "same-sex marriage" can exist, subordinate to the intent of the article. I will not agree to any "consensus": a group of editors could reach a consensus that eating pork is kosher, though it remains treif. The editors may think they are correct because they have reached a consensus - and they would be wrong nonetheless. Destroying language and the definition of marriage is not acceptable under any circumstances."

"You can't recognize your own POV pushing, which I find all the more troubling - and pathetic. You are pushing your own religious beliefs whether you realize it or not - and you obviously do not. Note well that I have not referenced Lev. 10:22-23,, and I have tried to re-edit the lead in good faith. Proof of the POV pushing in this article was adequately provided by other Editors over a period of time, and I see no need to reiterate their arguments. Editors such as Coelacan believe in the hypocrisy that Traditional Marriage is an illegitimate article and Same-sex marriage is not. I have been surprising patient with the with the POV ideologues and obvious slant in Misplaced Pages, and have stayed with this because it may be worth something of my time and energy. There is a representation of the cultural left here that is out of proportion with their actual numbers in the world. After the backstabbing by Coelacan I can arrange for that to change. I have not done so. It is time to get back to work on the lead, if you Editors are agreeable. "

You have been so advised. Be guided accordingly. Nkras 03:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What's all this "You have been so advised. Be guided accordingly" hoohah? Is that an ultimatum? I provided the links to the diffs that put everything you said directly in full context. So your accusation of intellectual dishonesty does not apply. I didn't support or oppose your block, because I'm too invested in the situation to provide a disinterested perspective. But I opened your case at WP:ANI, and if anything leads to your unblocking, that will, sooner than ARBCOM. In case it wasn't obvious, my words here were not for you but for other editors whom I respect, as I was involved in a situation that others feel has played out wrongly. I do have something to say to you, though. You couldn't play Torah Scholar and you aren't making a very good show of Working Man's Hero either. Don't presume to lecture me about class consciousness. "Playing on sexual insecurity and backwardness, particularly among the most psychologically vulnerable layers of semi-lumpen youth, is a perennial element of any reactionary social movement." "Such views run counter to the democratic instincts and history of the American people." Couldn't have said it better myself, comrade. — coelacan talk — 05:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

<plonk> Nkras 05:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

request for arbitration.

arbitration has been requested for a dispute that you are or may be involved in. please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#User:Nkras indefinitely blocked by admin User:Zscout370 r b-j 04:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)