Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:30, 6 May 2008

Welcome to my talk page. Please take off your shoes at the entrance and have a seat. Tea will be served shortly. Please keep all comments here calm and polite. Messages that are welcome here:

• politely-worded criticisms of my behaviour
• calmly-expressed differences of opinion
• questions about how to edit Misplaced Pages
• just saying hello or whatever
• etc.; I like getting that "you have new messages" banner.

Messages that are not welcome here:

• criticisms of users other than myself (However, if you need help, it's OK to place on this page a link to polite criticism of another user in an appropriate place, if there is an appropriate place, perhaps your own talk page.)

One way to leave a message here is to click on the tab with a plus sign ("+") at the top of this page. Sometimes I reply here, sometimes on your talk page, etc.; feel free to let me know which you'd prefer.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

A quick thumbs up

Just wanted to stop by to let you know that I appreciate your diligence on the CG article thus far, and that I believe with your efforts and others, the article will turn out very nicely. I hope you keep up the great work, and plan on joining you more heavily this weekend, when I have some spare time. Redthoreau (talk TR 06:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I also appreciate the tremendous amount of work you've been putting into the article, and hope you keep it up! I was happy to see you editing about the same time as me part of yesterday.

By the way, last weekend I was in a used bookstore, happened to see el Che's image looking at me from a display of books, and acquired Anderson's biography, doubling the number of books I own on Che Guevara.  :-) --Coppertwig (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a great book; I suspect you won't be able to put it down. Well I am off to nap for awhile (after a long night of "editing") ... I trust that you will continue to make great modifications and improvements in my absence. Redthoreau (talk TR 11:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I see you've made lots of edits! I was thinking of posting a message to you about 10 hours ago just to say hello and that I was about to log off -- you started posting not long before I was stopping -- but I got distracted. Hope you get some good sleep. --Coppertwig (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Responding to answer, in turn to request to Mattisse

Hey, greetings. You wrote:

"Hi. I'm not sure how familiar you are with Misplaced Pages practices. Many users archive their talk pages; I do, for example. Some like to keep a mostly-empty talk page and archive quickly; others let things sit around for a long time (as I do -- probably too long.) Some users don't archive at all but just delete messages. If the user archives, you can easily view the archived messages in the links to the archive pages at the top of the talk page. For users who don't archive, the messages are still viewable in the page history, although that's less convenient.

You've made a request and it's been turned down. I don't think it's reasonable to insist. The Misplaced Pages:User page#Removal of comments, warnings guideline says "Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred." --Coppertwig (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)"

This is something I've never been involved with, as you surmised. I'm fairly sure I'm in line with Wiki, though, so I'll proceed: Mattisse created an article which I happened on by chance. When I checked other articles written by Mattisse, I discovered systematic mistakes.

Then I discovered that there is, in fact, a considerable amount of controversy about contributions that is not reflected in Mattisse's talk pages.

The pattern is that Mattisse deals with disputes on a one-on-one basis, and somehow (I am not a sufficiently sophisticated Wiki user to understand how this is done) manages to sweep under the carpet considerable and significant community opposition to edits. Hence, an editor who prefers comments on their edits to be difficult to access. Surely an archive period of 60 days, or even 120 days, would not strain resources.

Regards,

24.130.14.173 (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

With the consensus system and the fact that we're all volunteers, we tend to do things via request, not demand. If you get a "no" to a request, you pretty much just have to accept it. If your request were backed up by a policy or guideline you might have a stronger case.

What you're asking for is very unconventional, potentially technically unworkable (as some browsers can't handle large amounts of text: a reason I probably ought to archive my talk page more often) and generally seen by Wikipedians as unnecessary, since the information is available in the archive pages. Therefore, while you can attempt gentle persuasion, I think your request is very unlikely to be accepted.

You know where to find the talk page archives, right? Numbered or dated links near the top of the talk page.

You might want to look into WP:Dispute resolution.

I'm not sure whether you're a new user or someone who has previously edited under a different IP address or account (that's not an accusation! There are accepted reasons for doing so) but if you're new-ish you might want to look at the welcome page which has links to various information to help you learn how things work around here. You're also welcome to ask me questions about how to use Misplaced Pages.

The consensus system takes some getting used to. Although there are some rules and some enforcement of rules, it's mostly about getting along with people. It's hard to explain. --Coppertwig (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate the thoughtful words. Asking someone to be accountable for what they say, well, that's not unusual. So, I can't accept that Mattisse is removing her talk pages to an archive for an honest purpose. She's involved with divide-and-conquer, then, alternatively is shuttling criticism to another authority which she reckons will be unable to deal with the situation.

Archived talk pages cannot be modified. Mattisse has found a vulnerability in Wiki which she is exploiting.

That Mattisse is writing dozens of articles about subjects which she knows little about seems to be lost in the political shuffle. So it goes.

Thanks again for your comments.

24.130.14.173 (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.

Just asking someone to be accountable is rather vague. Usually when we do accuse people of things, we provide diffs to illustrate exactly what we're talking about.

Please note the message I've put at the top of my talk page about what types of messages are or are not welcome on this talk page.

If archived talk pages can't be modified, I think that's a feature, not a bug. In practice, I think they can be modified: they just don't tend to be, or if modified will tend to be reverted. If you want to reply to something that's in an archived page, you can post a message on the main talk page and state that it's a continuation of a previous discussion.

I believe messages are only archived (automatically) from Mattisse' talk page when the latest time stamp in the section is 14 days old. I could have that wrong.

We don't have to be previously personally familiar with a subject to write about it. Misplaced Pages articles are based on reliable sources, not personal knowledge. It does help to have experts in the subject involved, too. If someone gets something wrong, someone else will likely fix it. Some experts might find it easier or more inviting to fix errors in an already-existing article than to start an article from scratch.

If someone asks you not to post to their talk page, it's probably a good idea to comply with that request, possibly making an exception if you have a specific complaint that the person has violated a specific policy or guideline that you can cite and if you can provide diffs showing that they violated it -- though even then often it's best to keep away from their talk page. Trying to carry on a discussion when the other person isn't interested in participating tends to make things worse rather than better. You might want to look at the WP:Civility policy.

Thank you for trying to help make Misplaced Pages better. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You said "I'm fairly sure I'm in line with Wiki, though,": I'd suggest reviewing relevant WP:Policies and guidelines to make sure. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, excuse, I didn't read the header on your talk page. So I'll just round this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.14.173 (talk) 21:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

With acrimony it's possible to bring Mattisse to heal. She's so far out of line that...there's not much question. I'll leave it to someone who's spoiling for a fight to alert the Wiki community that someone who is ... let's say obsessed ... is using the "letter of the law" to run roughshod over those assuming "goodwill" on the part of others. Unfortunately, in the meantime, the authority of Wiki, and the truth of what Wiki readers see needs to suffer. It's a "Wiki growth experience". Smile.

Friendly wave your direction.

24.130.14.173 (talk) 21:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

A friendly wave to you, too. However, the above message is the type of thing I'm talking about when I say that "criticisms of users other than myself" are not welcome on this talk page. --Coppertwig (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Salt Lake City School District

Hi, you contacted me about the Salt Lake City School district page. I'm just curious as to why I can't put up this information. Somebody else has undone my work at least 3 times. Doesn't that break a rule? I listed those two Deseret News pages as sources. Nothing in my paragraph is false. It's true. Please send me a private message. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylandude89 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Salt Lake City School District: Thank you for discussing this with me. Note the Biographies of living persons policy. Misplaced Pages requires high standards of reliability of sources in order to include defamatory material about living persons in an article. A student newspaper is not the type of source considered reliable for this purpose. See the reliable sources guideline. An account from a person involved is not the type of source Misplaced Pages uses. It has to have been previously published in a respectable forum, such as a newspaper with a good reputation, a book from a publisher with good editing standards, etc. The first two footnotes you give seem to be dead links or links to some kind of error message or something that I don't understand. Your citations are not properly formatted; they would have to have title, date, etc. For defamatory material about a living person, several reliable sources would be needed. Please don't re-add the material until there's a consensus that there are sufficient reliable sources. You can present sources on the talk page of the article and discuss there whether they're good enough. To see whether there's consensus you should probably wait at least several days for replies to see if anyone has any objections after you post to the talk page and before posting to the article.

I see that your edits have been reverted. I reverted once. If all of the other reverts were by the same person, they might have over 3 reverts in a 24-hour period (I haven't counted), but enforcing the BLP (biographies of living persons) policy is specifically listed as an exception at WP:3RR, so they would not be in violation of 3RR even if they had more than 3 reverts. You are in violation, however.

Per the WP:Edit war policy, editwarring is not endorsed as an editing technique. Rather than repeatedly reverting (whether it's about a living person or something else), it's better to discuss things on the article talk page and make changes after the people involved agree on what the article should say. See WP:BRD: you can be bold and edit an article, but once someone reverts your material once, you should shift to discussion, not editwarring. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Good heart

		The Good Heart Barnstar
		For all your efforts to help others in many different areas and particularly your dedication to helping others reach peaceful resolution to conflicts. Moonriddengirl 00:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Coppertwig (talk) 09:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Well deserved ! Redthoreau (talk TR 10:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! --Coppertwig (talk) 10:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Hello,

Thank you for responding to my New Wikipedian "help me" request last month. I've just posted an announcement about my little ol' research survey on the miscellaneous village pump. If you have a few moments, would you be willing to take the survey? Please visit my User page for details. Thanks very much! AMQ815 22:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello again, thank you for the suggestions. I've made some alterations and will continue to do so as I feel my way through this. (It is the wiki way, after all.) I hope you'll find the time to answer my survey questions. AMQ815 02:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AMQ815 (talk • contribs)

Well, they are not easy questions to answer!!! --Coppertwig (talk) 02:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Belated reply to Redthoreau

I realized today that I needed to reply to these messages (which are now in my talk page archives); I decided to make the reply in the following paragraph (though I hadn't decided on the precise words) before I saw the recent activity between you and Mattisse. I hope these comments help and don't make things worse!

Re this and this messages from you to Mattisse: I hope I'm not violating my own instructions for use of this talk page by saying this, but I'd like to explain: Yes, agreeing with someone can be perceived as an insult. For example, in a culture where being fat is deprecated, if someone says "I think I'm getting fat" and someone replies "I think you're right," the person would tend to feel hurt. And if someone says "I'm leaving now" and someone replies "Good idea," again that would tend to be perceived as insulting -- and I think it would tend to be perceived that way not only by the person being spoken to but also by objective observers. Please consider retracting some of your words.

That's what I had intended to say; but I'll add some comments on the recent exchange between you and Mattisse. Mattisse has stopped editing Che Guevara because of what Mattisse perceives to be personal attacks from you. Under these circumstances, it would seem to me wise for you to be very careful to use the highest standards of civility when interacting with Mattisse -- or else to avoid interacting at all.

If I understand correctly, by "MD" you mean The Motorcycle Diaries, an article related to Che Guevara. I suggest that since Mattisse has already shown extensive interest in the topic of Che Guevara, that it is not at all surprising to expect that Mattisse might decide to edit articles on that topic. No coincidence need be assumed. Also, Mattisse is apparently sorting large numbers of autobiographical articles; I've seen a few of thsee showing up at WP:BLP/N, for example. When sorting large numbers of articles, it doesn't take much coincidence to hit one of a small set of articles.

Mattisse is absolutely free to edit Che Guevara – there is no reason not to. Exactly the same applies to Motorcycle Diaries or any other article related to Che Guevara or any other article not related to Che Guevara. Mattisse is also free to express an opinion that articles are not compliant with NPOV.

You feel that Mattisse has attacked you; but please remember also that Mattisse also feels that you have attacked Mattisse.

You quoted Mattisse as saying in an edit summary, "this article is Original Research - it presents the editors view only & any reverences are not neutral - article is written only to glorify subject of article 18:05, 7 April 2008 Mattisse" Apparently when Mattisse wrote this, Mattisse didn't know you were one of the editors of the article. Note that the word "editors" has no apostrophe. Therefore, it's not possible to tell whether it's in the singular or the plural. I would presume it's intended in the plural. There's nothing there to say that the alleged glorifying was done purposely. People can easily express an individual POV (e.g. glorifying someone/something) without realizing that that's what they're doing; each person's POV tends to seem neutral to that person.

While you might perceive a personal attack there, I'm not sure that anyone else would see that edit summary as a personal attack against you. This is a typical pattern, that people tend to see attacks against themselves more often than other people see them. We need to compensate for that, in part by showing understanding towards those who perceive our own words as attacks.

In the interests of developing a NPOV encyclopedia, Mattisse must be free to express the opinion that certain articles or parts of articles do not conform to NPOV. Please don't take that personally.

Sometimes I find it hard to take when someone uses harsh words to criticize an article. I feel as if I'm being criticized. However, I realize that the user has the right to make comments about an article and to express them in the style that the user prefers, so I don't complain. --Coppertwig (talk) 00:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just putting this link here for convenience in case I want to refer to it later: AN/I archive ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Please do not post Redthoreaus's name on my page again.

Readhoreau has stated that he reserves the right to continue to hassle me every time his name is posted on my page. I am begging you to cease mentioning him on my page. You are the only person who does. This has become harassment. It if continues, I will close my page to all messages and delete without reading anything that are posted there. PLease, –Mattisse (Talk) 21:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You mentioned my name as an attack, which is why I responded Let's review:

I'm sure, to stand up to Redthoreau. No one has so far, so I don't expect any change. In fact I expect an ugly post from him to appear right under this one. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

= Mattisse accept personal responsibility for your actions and stop impugning Coppertwig, who has only dealt fairly and politely with you. I don't know how else to make this extremely clear: "If you post an accusation against me on your talk page, on another page, on a forum, anywhere I know of on the internet" ... = I WILL respond and answer my accuser. If you wish to be left alone, then desist from casting aspersions.       Redthoreau (talk TR 21:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, I will try to remember to do as you ask, unless I have a strong reason not to. When I said "Congratulations", I was congratulating you for getting a barnstar, a DYK and an invitation to join a wikiproject. :-) Congratulations on mostly remaining civil through the stress of the last day or so, and for posting good comments about content without commenting about editors at all at Talk:The Motorcycle Diaries#My objections to para one; however, it would be better to revert with no comment (which is also frowned on) than to refer to a longstanding editor's edit as "vandalism". Redthoreau is right that this remark about an "ugly post" was not nice. It's OK to defend yourself by saying things like "that was an attack", but please don't say uncivil things yourself. AGF: Redthoreau can be easy to get along with if you treat the user nicely. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Redthoreau, I think everything would go much more smoothly if you would start treating Mattisse with consistent civility, respect and gentleness, regardless of whether you believe it's deserved.

Even if you believe someone is acting in bad faith, there is rarely or never any reason to say so explicitly, as you did here. Try to think about how things will look to other observers who may not interpret the evidence as you do. See WP:Assume good faith#Dealing with bad faith, its subsection WP:Assume good faith#Accusing others of bad faith and GTBacchus' comments at Misplaced Pages talk:Assume good faith, such as this one. Also, re using "vandalism" in an edit summary, please don't try to use another person's behaviour as an excuse for your own behaviour. I would really appreciate it if you would instead constantly look for ways to de-escalate or at least not continue that sort of conflict. I'd rather spend my time reformatting footnotes than responding to these sorts of things. --Coppertwig (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR / BLP issues

Thank you for coming to my support in this 3RR issue. Your message on my talk page was the first warning I had of the report. As I noted in my comment on the report, I suspect that the report was actually made in retaliation for these warnings (which I chose not to report). You will see from my comments in those warnings that my intention has always been to assume good faith and apply consensus editing. Anyway, thank you for your interest and helpful guidance in this matter. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. A couple more things about how 3RR works: 3 reverts in 24 hours is not a violation of 3RR (though it may be considered editwarring; it takes 4 reverts to exceed 3RR and violate the rule. Also, a series of consecutive edits by one editor is generally counted as a single edit for 3RR purposes. Taking these things into account, I don't see how Andyvphil could possibly be considered to have violated 3RR in the last day or two at Barack Obama. --Coppertwig (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. This is personal for User:Andyvphil, as I am sure you have gathered. Under normal circumstances, I would revert these edits for the reasons I (and other editors) give here, but I'm afraid to revert anything that isn't obvious vandalism, etc. I'm essentially being prevented from carrying out my normal functions as a Wikipedian by a single individual trying desperately to get me blocked because I politely warned him about possible 3RR violations of his own. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked at some of the discussion on that talk page, and it seems to me that the issue is complex. Your preferred version may be better, but it isn't immediately obvious. As EdJohnston says, it would take quite a bit of study to figure out whether it would count as a BLP exemption. (I may have been too quick to jump to conclusions about BLP earlier.)

You called your warning to Andyvphil "polite". You might be able to avoid getting into these retaliatory situations in future by learning to be more polite. I doubt it was perceived by Andyvphil as polite. If I remember right, you posted two 3RR templates with largish triangles with exclamation marks on them to his talk page, when he had not violated 3RR. Note Stifle's warning to you: it's short, without icons, personally written, begins with a positive message and is worded as a gentle request; Andyvphil complained that it hardly counts as a warning. You could try to emulate Stifle's style, and consider not even doing that until the person has actually violated 3RR, i.e. done 4 reverts (separated by other users' edits) in 24 hours. See Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars.

Things you can do include: Posting to WP:BLP/N; posting to wikiprojects or WP:Requests for comment (article content) to try to get more people involved; if you feel you can't revert due to 3RR, you can put in tags such as {{fact}}, {{POV}} etc., and you can edit the words by adding words such as "allegedly"; adding words would probably not be considered a revert, and modifying might not either, although it could be argued that if you deleted a word that's a revert. --Coppertwig (talk) 22:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is about a different 3RR case; I'm just posting it here because the section heading says "3RR". For the record, when I posted this I was aware that the argument for the 3rd revert was very weak. I figured I would present what I had anyway and let the closing admin decide whether the argument had any merit. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Place to discuss CG article

Great work thus far and it has been a pleasure to edit with you. A suggestion I thought I would throw out in response to yesterday's message about stepping over each other at the same time. One thing that I always do before I push preview or submit ... is copy and paste the info I am working with. That way if there is an edit conflict it won't be lost and I can just re-paste it. Just a suggestion that I have found works well.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 13:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I shouldn't have said anything. I only got one edit conflict. I don't really need to copy-paste the material beforehand because I can just hit the back button on my browser (or, in fact, get it from the lower edit window in the edit conflict display.) I do sometimes save stuff but not usually. Anyway, in spite of edit conflicts I still find it more fun to be editing at the same time.

With the references reformatting, if someone had edited the same section I would probably have changed to my version, then re-added the other person's change. The only problem would be if two people did extensive changes at the same time. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As an aside, there seems to be gaps in the references after Kabila, Gott, and US army but I can't tell how they are there ?    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 13:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Quick ?. If there have been several edits in a row that were faulty ... how do you revert back to a specific edit, without having to revert all of the intermediate ones individually ? Thanks.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 22:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Suppose you want to discard the last three edits. Click "history". Click on the date for the 4th edit in the list (i.e. the good version that you want to revert back to.) You're now viewing the good version, with a pink bar on top warning you that you're viewing an older version. Click "edit this page". It warns you that you're editing an older version. Fill in the edit summary and click "Save page". --☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that will help tremendously in the future ... in the case of repeat vandals.

   Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 23:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind that I copied your idea of having a smiley face in one's signature. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No not at all. I view imitation as the highest form of flattery jk ;o). But joking aside ... I think the smiley actually fits your personality more than mine. To me it is a reminder to be more "civil" ... for you it is an accurate representation of your very positive personality that I benefit from.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 23:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Looks below. Just wanted to say that I am constantly impressed by your calm politeness and resoluteness for civility in a situation that I believe is most likely futile. Unfortunately it has been my experience that some people can just not be worked with collaboratively, but I admire your unrelenting commitment, and note that you are a better person than I in that regard. Keep up being who you are regardless of other editors behavior, as this editor finds it extremely refreshing.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 06:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, but before posting, please carefully check whether your messages are within the spirit of the note at the top of my talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you are only taking a temporary break from your great work on the article.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 14:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was just busy for a few days, that's all. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Glad to hear it ... and look forward to your return at your nearest convenience.    Redthoreau (talkRedthoreau 23:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The History Channel's Documentary

Recently the History Channel (hardly a bastion of Communism) released a 1 hr 30 min documentary entitled: "THE TRUE STORY OF CHE GUEVARA", where Jon Lee Anderson also narrates parts from his book. You can watch the full film --> Here -- and I would recommend it if you have the chance.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 22:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Redthoreau. Not sure if I have the right technology to watch that. By the way, you offered to email me a JSTOR article. I can get JSTOR but not very easily – I have to go somewhere, it takes time. So it would probably be useful if you would send it to me. I think the first step is for you to enable email in your preferences so I can send you my email address. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to email me      RedThoreau@gmail.com

3R

Thank you Coppertwig for that. I know contentious articles very often there are sides to choose and while there are positions on various arguments my side is with making the encyclopedia an excellent neutral resource. I welcome both sides of the circumcision controversy and simply feel the article is unbalanced. Note I'm not alone in this opinion just perhaps more vocal. I look forward to working with you and am sure that as long as we WP:AGF and remain WP:CIVIL everything will work out. Garycompugeek (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

All of us are on the side of trying to have a neutral encyclopedia. It's just that different people have different ideas of what neutral looks like. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit summaries

You need not mention that I have asked for a citation in an edit summary for Che Guevara. What is the purpose of that, other than regurgitate my name and perhaps your satisfaction that you have driven me away. I noticed you did not for many other citations where you added facts for notations. Plus I notice that wording I wanted (which was removed because I objected) is now back as I wrote it. Ironic. You and another have replaces much of my wording, but, of course, it is all credited to you now. –Mattisse (Talk) 02:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never had any intention of driving you away, and if you're staying away from the article because of things I've done, then I feel shame and regret about it, not satisfaction.

Today I was originally intending to post a question asking whether everyone was satisfied with the current wording of the "Castro's brain" sentence, in order to encourage you to get involved and to show support for your freedom to edit. However, while searching the edit history etc., I realized that the current version seems to me to perhaps satisfy the point you were raising, but that there were other issues you had raised in other edits -- such as citation-needed tags -- which had not been addressed, so I decided to mention those instead. The reasons for mentioning those things were to try to ensure that your contributions were not lost but were used to improve the article; and to try to encourage you.

If I've put some of your words in without attributing you in an edit summary, I apologize. If you tell me which words, maybe I can do something to help fix the situation; or maybe you can do something about it yourself, such as deleting and re-adding the words with an explanation in an edit summary of where they came from.

Your message above leaves me confused as to whether you would prefer that I mention your name, or that I not mention it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I checked through your edits of March 30 &ndash April 1, and it seems to me that for almost all of them, the current version of the article in some way fixes the problems you were raising. If there are some points you feel are still not addressed, I hope you will mention them again so they can be negotiated and worked out; and I hope you'll continue to contribute to the article. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RRN

Just thought I'd tell you the result of a case you worked on: . Good job! :-) Scarian 10:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Scarian (or Pat), for letting me know, and for the compliment! (Not to mention for closing the case in the first place.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Runhardt Sander

Hi Coppertwig, I am thinking that I should put this article up for AfD. The sources just don't feel right, although I can't tell if this is intended to be promotional or negative. (Heaven forbid that means it is NPOV!) I am not a reader of German, but what I got from the AfD at de.wp, it seems they felt there were original research and notability concerns. If this fellow isn't notable in Germany, I really can't see him being notable internationally. Any thoughts? Risker (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice that I just nominated it for deletion with prod a few minutes ago? I figured if anybody removed the prod notice I would put it up for AfD. If you want to take it to AfD right away that's fine too. I have some ability to read German though I'm not sure it helps me read that deletion discussion any better than you can; I had to look up "Quellen" in the dictionary anyway (apparently it means "sources"). I would have to re-read it a few times and look up some more words to really follow it, but yeah, I get the impression they're talking about relevance (notability?) and sources. And "Original Research". :-) Someone says something along the lines of fine, if there were ... sources. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

PROD works for me, no point having a big debate if it isn't necessary. If it fails PROD then I am quite happy to see it on AfD. I did a bit of google translation on what appeared to be the key portions of the discussion, and it did seem to boil down to those two things. There are a few wikipedians around who read German quite well, I might ask one of them to give it a read if the PROD fails. Thanks for doing the nomination. Risker (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I felt responsible because I had patrolled the article.

By the way, I think at least one person in that deletion discussion is arguing to keep the article. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It is allways a problem, to show sources about living persons in the internet, because they are able, to alternate much. Therefore I've added some additional references. Now a plagiarism of this article is shown at Xiando. Heinrich8 (talk) 01:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for adding references, but I think the references are still not very good. Misplaced Pages pages can't be used as references. See Reliable sources. I'm going to nominate the page for deletion by AfD. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so very much for your help and for all your hints. I've worked much hours to improve the article. Hope, that you are more satisfied. I saw, that I've worked sometimes imprecise. Sorry and thanks for all your efforts! Heinrich8 (talk) 02:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.230.6.32 (talk)

I've tried to add some improvements, that you have proposed me on my talk page. I've spended much hours in the night with this work. Maybe you are now willing to keep the article. In any case you have taught me much about the the need and the use of references and sources! So I have to be grateful - in any case. Heinrich8 talk) 04:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.248.169.109 (talk)

Oreskes page

Hi Coppertwig,

Thanks for offering to explain how Misplaced Pages works. I am bewildered by the rules. Are there Wikipedian lawyers and consultants to help novices? Or books written on the subject?

Is WP:3RR the same as 3RR?

Did Tabletop protect the Oreskes page?

Why would an editor have a name like Tabletop if he also uses a real name?

Thanks for your offer of help.

Larry 12:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Lawrence Solomon

I'll answer some of your questions now, and might answer some more a little later.

Essentally, WP:3RR is the same as 3RR. "WP:3RR" is an abbreviation ("shortcut") you can type in as a page name in order to quickly find the page Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule, which describes the three-revert rule (3RR). That page is one of Misplaced Pages's policies. Policies are listed at Misplaced Pages:List of policies. There are also guidelines and help pages.

Misplaced Pages is pretty much entirely run by volunteers. We're all at different stages of learning how things work, and we help out people who are newer. I don't know whether there are any books on the subject.

Misplaced Pages follows a consensus system. It takes time to get used to. It's not just about following rules: it's about using common sense and getting along with other people.

People are encouraged to be bold and edit even if they don't know all the rules. People are also expected to start gradually getting familiar with the rules by reading policies and guidelines from time to time; when you've been editing for a longer time, there's more of an expectation that you should know certain rules.

You can feel free to ask me questions. You can also post questions to the help desk, or you can put {{helpme}} on your talk page and put a question after it, and someone will come along to answer it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Tabletop has not edited the page Naomi Oreskes since March 15.

Naomi Oreskes was page-protected by Rjd0060, which you can see by looking at the page history, or by clicking on "Special pages" at the left side of the window (under the search box, under "what links here"), then clicking "Logs", and then entering the name of the page in the right-hand text entry box, which should show you this display.

Regarding why someone would use both a pseudonymous and a real-name account: see Misplaced Pages:Sock puppetry. There are some limited situations for legitimately using more than one account. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, when you post a message on a talk page such as this one, please sign it by putting four tildes (~~~~) which will transform into a signature and date when you post your message. That way there will be a link back to your talk page, making it easier for people to reply to you. I think now I've replied to all your questions above; feel free to ask more. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Lawrence asked if there were books about editing Misplaced Pages, here is one:

John Broughton (2008). Misplaced Pages:The Missing Manual. O'Reilly. pp. 477 pages. ISBN 0-596-51516-2.

See his Chapter 10 'Resolving content disputes' for discussion of the 3RR rule. EdJohnston (talk) 13:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, EdJohnston. Thanks for filling in that missing information! ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence Solomon, you might also be interested in the page protection policy. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Just my two cents (since i'm the one Mr. Solomon wrote an article about, and confused with tabletop). I'm not tabletop, and never have been. You seem to have confused a single edit by an uninvolved editor with me, when browsing the article history. I presume that appologies should be forwarded to User:Tabletop, since you've basically libelled that person in Canadian national media. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify: in my reply above I was trying to reply to a general question without expressing any opinion as to whether anyone in this situation was using more than one account. I apologize if I appeared to imply anything.

Now that you point it out, KimDabelsteinPetersen, it's very clear: Tabletop has made only one edit to the page ever, and it was a minor spelling correction. You later reverted to the revision by Tabletop, but that revision was really entirely written by people other than Tabletop, except for that minor spelling correction.

Lawrence Solomon, I guess you were confused by a statement which is standard in edit summaries, "Reverted to revision 198494083 by Tabletop; ..." The person mentioned is simply the last person to have edited the page, not necessarily a main author. Maybe it should say "last edited by" instead of "by", but I guess it's concise to save space. This part of the edit summary is usually automatically generated, for example if you click "undo" beside someone's edit. (And by the way, just in case you do that, if you click "undo", you're normally supposed to type in some additional information in the edit summary to explain the reason for your edit, as KimDabelsteinPetersen did in this case.) ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

And, Lawrence Solomon, I think you also owe an apology to KimDabelsteinPetersen, whom you have (apparently) essentially baselessly accused of sockpuppetry in national media. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Coppertwig. I checked the history and it appears to me that a change occurred after Rjd0060 protected the page. Is the correct and, if so, why would this have occurred? Larry 14:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Lawrence Solomon

Yes, William M. Connolley has edited Naomi Oreskes while it is protected. William M. Connolley is an administrator, and administrators can edit protected pages, though they should only do so under certain circumstances, such as if there is a consensus on the article's talk page in favour of such a change, or if the administrator is enforcing key policies such as the Biographies of living persons policy, etc. See the page protection policy.

William M. Connolley has also posted messages on the talk page of the Naomi Oreskes article. Note that you can find an article's talk page by going to the article and clicking the "discussion" tab at the top, or by putting "Talk:" before the article name, like this: Talk:Naomi Oreskes.

I don't understand why your signature doesn't include a link to your talk page. Are you signing using four tildes, or typing in a signature each time? ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I am keying in my signature, preceded by four tildes. Larry 15:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Lawrence Solomon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence Solomon (talk • contribs)

Tabletop, I have done you an immense injustice to have thought you could be KimDabelsteinPetersen. I apologize for this.Larry 15:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Lawrence Solomon

I think it must be that either you've used "preferences" at the top of the page to change your default signature, or else for some reason you aren't really typing four tildes. Did you change your signature? If so, what did you change it to? If not, try copying and pasting this: ~~~~ . ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Lawrence, in case it's not obvious, you don't type four tildes and THEN your name, you type ONLY the four tildes, then press 'Save Page.' The software knows who you are, so it adds your name automatically. Practice this on your own User_talk page if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Four tildes and then my name: ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Coppertwig

No, it still works for me even if I put my name after it. (See above.) It doesn't do that for Lawrence Solomon. I think you can put four tildes anywhere in a post (except between nowiki tags or something) and it will substitute your signature. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

This is my guess: Lawrence Solomon has edited his signature and changed it to "Larry". The four tildes display "Larry" and the time, and he types in the rest. If this is the case, then I suggest, Lawrence Solomon, that you uncheck the little "raw signature" box under your signature in "preferences", then click "save". Then it will display "Larry" or whatever you've put in as your signature, but it will also include links to your user page and talk page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi again Coppertwig. I have another question about how Misplaced Pages works. Do administrators get their position because they are knowledgeable in the subject that they administer? I see that William M. Connolley is a long-time global warming activist. Is this why he can over-rule an editor? Lawrence Solomon (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I see your signature is working properly now! Thanks for fixing that.

Administrators get their position through the requests for adminship process, where members of the community discuss whether to accept the candidate as an administrator. Each person has their own criteria for deciding whom to support, but commonly considered criteria include having contributed significantly to the encyclopedia as well as showing civility, good judgement etc.

The protection policy says "Pages protected due to content disputes should not be edited except to remove inappropriate material or to make changes for which there is clear consensus." ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

You earlier thought that I had posted to the 3RR noticeboard. I didn't but I'm curious as to who did. Is the poster's identity public? Lawrence Solomon (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I jumped to conclusions about that. The discussion is at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#Report by User:203.173.156.182 (Result: Page protected). Someone posted in this edit apparently the entire text of your National Post article to the 3RR noticeboard (and they messed up the Example section of the noticeboard in the process, which I easily fixed however.) Someone else later figured that you had not intended to post that article there, and replaced it with a link to the article on the national post website.

The person who posted the article was not logged in at the time. Therefore, their IP address (computer address) shows up, and it's 203.173.156.182. That edit is the only edit that's ever been done at Misplaced Pages from that particular IP address, as can be seen here. I think that's all the information we have. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 02:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't word that right. That's the only edit attributed to that IP address as a username, but someone on that computer could have also edited with a logged-in username.

To find out who owns that IP address, you can ask any computer geek to look it up.

By the way, I forgot to introduce myself. I got involved because I'm a helper at the 3RR noticeboard. I also help in several other areas of Misplaced Pages, and I'm just one of many volunteers. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Quick note

This is just a quick note to say thanks for the work you've been doing around the Wiki (Spec. WP:3RRN)! WP:RfA soon, ja? Scarian 17:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I've replied by email. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Continued edit-warring

A new 3RR report was filed against supergreenred for reverting 4 times in 24 hours, 9 minutes. I trust that you agree this is not acceptable and will action the report if no one else does.

Many thanks, John Smith's (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it - it was dealt with. John Smith's (talk) 05:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw. I was going to mention it. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:3RR

No problem, it actually puts me in a better position having been decided on its (lack of?) merits, and the onus is now on the complainant to take it further; but since it's now distinctly a cold issue, I am not worried about it. However, Admins should be able to apply policy without being stalked for it, and if it had gone against me, I seriously would have left the project. Life's too short for this sh*t. Regards. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The rules are a colander or a minefield, depending where you are. Admins often have to make tough decisions under pressure; last Sunday afternoon and evening took eight hours out of my life which I would rather have spent writing Stained glass of York Minster. As it is, I'm completely unable to write creatively at present, but nobody takes that cost to the project into account. To be pilloried for upholding policy, as a volunteer, would have been the last straw. I'm sure you understand. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure you can quote me if you think it's worthy. I generally make comparisons off the cuff without really deep thought, but if it fits, of course you can use it. The GFDL says you can. The antagonist in this has quietened down anyway. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR closure

He did it again as soon as you closed the report.Kww (talk) 00:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Iantresman

I support unblocking Iantresman, on the grounds that the user has apparently done nothing wrong, unless complaining about injustice against himself is considered disruptive. For example, I looked over several months of edit history of Wolf effect and did not see the alleged repeated reversions mentioned. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Coppertwig, I don't know if you are aware of the existance of these pages, they have what you are looking for:

• Misplaced Pages:Community_sanction_noticeboard/Archive10#Iantresman
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Iantresman_placed_on_Probation ((Iantresman is placed on probation for a year by arbCom, 8-0, after reviewing evidence)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Comment_by_William_M._Connolley (he blocked Iantresman)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Regarding_Ian_Tresman_in_particular
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Problem_with_Ian_Tresman.27s_so-called_.22evidence.22
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Exemplary_autopsy_of_Iantresman.27s_evidence
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Ian_Tresman_.28User:Iantresman.29_is_repetively_sardonic_to_the_point_of_incivility
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Ian_Tresman_does_not_follow_WP:OR_to_the_point_of_being_dishonest
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Ian_Tresman_routinely_venueshops_with_continued_dishonesty
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Contrary_to_User:Mangojuice.27s_assertion.2C_I_am_not_.22here_to_oppose_the_work_of_people_like_Lerner_and_their_articles.22 (makes reference to Iantresman behaviour)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:Art_LaPella (says that Iantresman has never criticized a ridiculous pseudoscience theory)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:Mangojuice (talks about Iantremans skirting policies)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Shell_Kinney (examples of POV warring by Iantresman and others)

If you *still* need concrete evidence, leave a message on my talk page and I'll dig a few blatant examples of misbehaving from the list above and present them on a nice way --Enric Naval (talk) 14:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the information and especially for being willing to provide more information if needed. I'll look through these links soon. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 14:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

P.D.: On Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, the summary of first block listed has two links with input from other admins and reasoning of the block including diffs --Enric Naval (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

To answer other questions that Jehochman doesn't want on his page: "Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Iantresman says that no checkuser was performed because Tsyko had already been blocked", but Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist/Workshop#Request for checkuser on User:Tsyko says a checkuser on Tsyko had already been done. Yes, Jehochman said "no evidence", but restoring one of the templates shows he no longer believes that. Also, "3:24 20 April" is after "3:57 April 19", not before. Art LaPella (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't check the dates carefully enough – sorry about that.

The link you give is to a statement by MastCell that a checkuser was performed, but I'm wondering whether that was based on a misunderstanding. MastCell says "see block log"; the block log states that Tsyko was blocked, and I wonder whether MastCell assumed that meant a checkuser had been performed, or whether MastCell had other information, perhaps by email.

I don't know what the reason was for Jehochman to begin believing that there was evidence, so I don't necessarily share the same belief at this time. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

MastCell has replied in a section below on my talk page confirming that there was no misunderstanding, checkuser was run on Tsyko. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I can't look at the notes until tomorrow or past tomorrow --Enric Naval (talk) 11:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. When you do have a chance to look at it, you might want to save time by looking at only the "Conclusions" sub-sub-section. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 11:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Notes

Processes

• Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-19 Talk at Redshift 19 March 2006. Mediation Cabal, started by Flying Jazz
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience 11:13 12 Oct 2006
• Community sanction noticeboard 14:55, 16 July 2007
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive3#Problems with User:Iantresman and Wolf Effect ScienceApologist reports Iantresman on content problem 13:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive3#User:Iantresman ScienceApologist reports Iantresman on content problem 19:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
• Arbitration started by Iantresman 10 March 2007
• Arbitration started by Iantresman 15 July 2007
• declined appeal of community ban

Actions

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Iantresman placed on Probation Passed 8-0 at 02:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• "I have indefinitely blocked User:Iantresman. Tom Harrison Talk 20:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)"
• Iantresman block log

Incivility against Iantresman

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#ScienceApologist is uncivil Passed 7-1 at 02:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Deprecation by ScienceApologist Passed 5-2 at 02:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• "bean-counter" ScienceApologist 13:18, 7 December 2006
• "lied" ScienceApologist 14:56, 7 December 2006
• "lied" in edit summary 14:56, 7 December 2006
• "Tom Harrison has refused to justify his block. I have filed a complaint against him." --Art Carlson 08:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by Iantresman

• 18:58, 19 July 2006
• 19:13, 19 July 2006
• 18:45, 19 July 2006
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Iantresman is uncivil Passed 7-1 at 02:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC) (Gives diffs of 4 January 2006 and 16 November 2005 (rather old)

Actions by Iantresman

Arbitration processes apparently started by Iantresman

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience 11:13, 12 October 2006
• FeloniousMonk

Warnings

• "Though I'm afraid that you might not understand the gravity of ArbCom. It is a last resort. Why don't you tell me what the conflict is about before you make an arbitration request?" Dmcdevit 23:24 3 November 2005
• "Socking while banned is reason enough to keep the ban in effect until the user identifies all the accounts they have used and vows to stop socking." 13:49 20 April 2008 Jehochman
• "I'm repeating bucketsofg's warning to you about vexatious litigation and adding that another such frivolous filing will result in you being blocked for harassment, abuse of community tools and disruption." FeloniousMonk

Quotes

• ""I'm reluctant to criticize St. George" (ScienceApologist) "until all the dragons are gone."" Art LaPella 16:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• "I think one of the real questions here is: do we treat the biographies of people with non-mainstream views like other biographies of living people or use the more relaxed rules that govern the non-mainstream articles themselves? In the case of the Eric Lerner article, the latter has prevailed so far ..."
• "ScienceApologist, Iantresman and Elerner frequently completely revert to their preferred version, even while discussions are ongoing. They revert good edits with bad in wholesale changes." Shell Kinney 03:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• "The final reasons for the ban should be explicitly and concisely laid out by the admins making the decision." Art Carlson 12:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• "I've looked through this sanction discussion several times, and, in fact, I've yet to find a single case of actual proof against Ian, beyond the arbcom. " Bladestorm 16:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• "Tom harrison's block does not necessarily mean Ian is banned; he is only banned if no admin is willing to unblock him." Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
• (inclined to unblock) "In response to JoshuaZ and for the avoidance of doubt, I would be inclined to unblock Iantresman to give him a second chance to comply with editing norms." Stifle (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• (willing to unblock) "As something of a clarification, I am willing to unblock this user, which technically means the community-ban principle is now no longer applicable. Having said that, such an unblock would be conditional, on the basis of, as described in my above comment, Iantresman entering into mentoring." Anthøny 14:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• "no actual evidence was presented of malfeasance by user Iantresman at the time of his original ban." Mgmirkin 17:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• "A persistent correspondent with the ArbCom, said editor has only procedural factors running in his favour, in my opinion" . Charles Matthews (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• : "It seems to me that you've been given leeway because your expertise is valued (as it should be.)" Proabivouac 05:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• "I must say, this discussion is particularly harsh on Iantresman, however it seems he can take it. ". --PhysicsDude 20:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
• "OK, I think I see where you're coming from. Are we differentiating between (1) Citations to articles that support "intrinsic redshift" (2) Citation to articles merely using the term "intrinsic redshift". ... I don't think I've tried to claim that mere mention of a term is support for a theory." Iantresman 14:28, 20 April 2006
• "There is no doubt in my mind that FJ has some very legitimate issue with SA and Ian. There is no question there. There is some doubt as to who is more responsible for those problems but I think that it is SA and Ian's responsiblity, no matter how much they may disagree with each other and be incapable of reaching concensus, to be repectful of their fellow editors and not dominate the conversation with perpetual argument." --Nick Y. 18:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC) (Nick Y. was the mediator)

Sockpuppets

• Iantresman admits to editing via IP during ban
• checkuser on Tsyko

Other stuff

• ScienceApologist lists information and diffs about Iantresman
• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience/Evidence#Problem with Ian Tresman's so-called "evidence" more information by ScienceApologist about Iantresman
• Both Iantresman and ScienceApologist disagree with the statement that "Ian is easily baited into an argument which is often tangential (not reader or article focused)"

Conclusions IMO

• Iantresman has been uncivil, the most recently I'm aware of at the moment being 19 July 2006 (nearly 2 years ago; nearly a year before the ban.)
• The person who indef blocked Iantresman refused to answer why.
• The community sanction discussion did not present any concrete evidence.
• Since two admins have expressed willingness to unblock Iantresman, he is no longer banned but merely indef blocked.
• Iantresman has used sockpuppets inappropriately.
• There may be a lack of openness and remorse about the use of sockpuppets.

Discussion

thanks

thanks for your comment re my self-reportage of 3RR. while i try to be as honest as possible, i'm certainly no saint, and have been guilty of violating 3RR previous times, and in engaging in edit warring. but - again, thanks. Anastrophe (talk) 02:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I would not have thought to visit the discussion page without your link and comment in the edit summary line and unfortunately, Binksternet continues to violate the WP:3RR rule. 71.100.174.134 (talk) 06:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. See the message to you in the next section, below. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Message to 71.100.x.x

Welcome to Misplaced Pages, 71.100.x.x. Some of our rules take some getting used to. You may find useful information in the links from Template:Welcome-anon, which I would post to your user talk page if you had one steady user talk page. Note that article talk pages can be found by putting "Talk:" before the article name, and user talk pages can be found by putting "User talk:" before the user name. Feel free to post here on my talk page, for example if you have any questions about how to use Misplaced Pages.

I would appreciate it, 71.100.x.x, if you would register an account. It's very quick and easy to register on Misplaced Pages, and has a number of benefits. Since you're using a dynamic IP, it's difficult for anyone to send you a message. For example, Binksternet posted a message to you to inform you about the 3RR, but by that time maybe you'd shifted to a different IP address and never received the message. I don't like to take up space on article talk pages with this sort of information which is directed to an individual user and would be more appropriate on the user's talk page. Also, the list of reverts you posted at Talk:Analog hole would be more appropriate on Binksternet's user talk page or (if formatted appropriately) at WP:3RRN. The article talk page is supposed to be dedicated to discussing article content.

You seem to think that restoring deleted content is exempt from the 3RR. It is not. I suggest carefully reading the WP:3RR policy, which says "This can include undoing edits to a page, deleting content or restoring deleted content,..." Putting back in a link which someone has taken out is a revert, and doing that more than 3 times in a 24-hour period violates the 3RR. I believe you've both been violating the 3RR. In general, rather than repeatedly reverting, users are encouraged to discuss content disputes on the article talk page until consensus is reached. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 11:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Noramlly, when we are in a class project research mode and using each other's computers rather than using our assigned computers exclusively we do not log in so as to avoid inadvertent posting under someone elses user name.

Not to argue the basis of the 3RR with you but it was in fact originally created only for the purpose of dealing with repeated deletions of valid and acceptable content or repeated restorations of invalid and unacceptable content, versus repeated deletions of invalid and unacceptable content or restorations of valid and acceptable content. Binksternet repeated deletions of valid and acceptable "How-to" link is therefore in violation of 3RR, whereas the restorations of the original post of the valid and acceptable link are not.

BTW, have you visited Wikibooks yet and checked out any of their "How-to"s? 71.100.174.134 (talk) 11:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not obvious to me which edits, yours or Binksternet's, are more correct or in line with Misplaced Pages policy. Being right is usually not an exemption to 3RR. You can violate 3RR even if your edits are supported by policy, except in certain very clear exceptions e.g. WP:BLP which this is not. I advise you to self-revert your last revert back to Binksternet's version to avoid being in violation of the 3RR. Note the wording of the current policy which I've quoted above. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Note reports I just submitted at WP:3RRN.

The whole point of the 3RR is that in general it isn't obvious which edits are valid and acceptable and which are not. Different people have different opinions, which is why there are edit wars. The 3RR puts a limit on those edit wars, regardless of how certain each party is that their side of the argument is the right one (and regardless of whether they actually are right). See m:The wrong version. I'm not convinced that it was originally only re invalid text etc.: perhaps you could provide links to earlier versions of the policy. Regardless, it now applies regardless of the merits of the edits, except for some very specific exemptions listed on the policy page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Besides the issue of restoring valid and acceptable content being exempt from 3RR there is the consequence of determining at what point 3RR begins. If I post valid and acceptable content and that content is deleted then the starting point is with the deletion and not the original posting of the content. This is also why the validity and the acceptability of content must be determined before 3RR can be legitimately applied. 71.100.174.134 (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Coppertwig has accurately summarized Misplaced Pages policy. Your view that 'restoring valid and acceptable content' is exempt from 3RR is not correct. You risk being sanctioned for 3RR if you revert based on an incorrect theory. In the case being discussed here, there is also the spam problem. Edit warring to restore what is possibly spam puts you on very shaky ground if you are counting on regular editors to back you up. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

Sorry to interfere, Coppertwig, but I just happened to see your 3RR post on my watchlist. The dynamic IP may present a problem for 3RR enforcement, so it occurred to me that you might want to make a WP:RFPP. Best wishes, Jakew (talk) 12:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. Actually, I almost filed a RFPP, but the RFPP page says it's for editwarring of "multiple" editors, and this is (apparently) only two, so I decided to go with 3RR. The 3RR closers are quite capable of using page protection as a remedy. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 12:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No doubt you're correct. It was just a thought. Jakew (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations you've (also) made the News.

Here: Hide your name on Wiked-pedia.

A follow up to this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, wow! My name's in the newspaper! I'm famous! Thanks for letting me know! (Well, I've had my mundonym in the newspaper a few times, but I think this is my first time under my real Wikipedian nomer.) Maybe I'll rush out and buy the Financial Post – except I think I have some diffs I need to study. I wonder if I'm the "patient Wikipedian" he mentioned? (Possibly he means EdJohnston, who is one of the most patient Wikipedians I know.) And you've even got a link to my talk page, with my twig image and all, from their blog. Cool. Maybe some readers will leave me a message just to say hello. (Click the "new section" tab at the top.) ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Hope you didn't mind about the link, but as i said in the comment i find it important that tabletop gets "off the hook", since he/she has absolutely no involvement in this. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't mind at all; I like it. I'm just irritated that I haven't gotten any fan mail yet. LOL (Didn't really expect any – though I thought just maybe somebody following the link might post something.) I doubt many people reading that article would know Tabletop or pay any attention to who Tabletop is. I still think you deserve an apology, though. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Tsyko (talk · contribs)

Hi - to answer your post on User talk:Jehochman, there's no misunderstanding about Tsyko (talk · contribs). I emailed Raul654 and asked him to compare the account to Iantresman (talk · contribs) after my on-wiki request in the ArbCom workshop sat unanswered for a few days and Tsyko/Martinphi continued to be disruptive. Raul654 ran the check, found the two accounts were linked by checkuser data, and emailed me to this effect. I then blocked Tsyko (talk · contribs). If you like, you can ask Raul654 about it, or another checkuser can verify in the logs that the check was run. If the IP data isn't stale, they could also confirm Raul654's findings. But yes, a checkuser was done, and it confirmed what was already fairly obvious socking by Iantresman (talk · contribs) using the Tsyko account to pursue his old grudge and disrupt an ArbCom case. When checkusers are run in response to off-wiki requests or on the initiative of a checkuser themselves, there's generally nothing at WP:RFCU. MastCell  21:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond, MastCell. There's no need for an independent check: I trust your word. I just wondered whether there was a misunderstanding. By the way, according to the block log it was Raul654 who blocked Tsyko, not you, but I suppose that's not important. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. Good point. MastCell  22:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you!Kitty53 (talk) 06:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Iantresman

I am considering unblocking this user for a mentorship. I will be noting the matter at WP:ANI or elsewhere. He suggested that you might be suitable to act as a mentor for him. What do you think? Stifle (talk) 18:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Belated Response from User:Acps110

Hi, how's it going? --Coppertwig (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't gotten back to you! :-( I wasn't on Misplaced Pages for a while, but now I'm back. Thanks for checking in. I've made quite a few edits in the Misplaced Pages:WikiProject New York City Public Transportation and I appreciate your help a while back.

Acps110 (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Today's lecture

Coppertwig, I just realised that my recent reply to you could be taken as an attempt to lecture you. It wasn't intended that way. I've been thinking quite a lot lately about our core policies, why they're important, and how well-designed and coherent they are. As such, I was kind of 'primed' to make a speech, and that's why I wrote such a lot! I hope I didn't offend you or seem to patronise you, but I just wanted to let you know the background just in case. Jakew (talk) 23:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Jakew, my friend, it's very thoughtful of you to give me this message. Well, I read this before your other message, so we'll never know how I would have reacted, but as it is, there's no problem at all!

I'm not sure whether there's a misunderstanding. When I mentioned IAR I was actually thinking of a very specific part of WP:WIARM: the second half of "A rule-ignorer must justify how their actions improve the encyclopedia if challenged. Actually, everyone should be able to do that at all times." In other words, I was invoking IAR to ask you to justify your use of a rule, not to justify breaking a rule. Perhaps that's a rather subtle distinction.

I support the core policies. There's always a question of where to draw the line: how much re-casting of information is WP:SYN and how much is merely appropriate encyclopedia-writing work?

Re how well-designed and coherent they are: What a coincidence! Today I wrote this. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

You've raised some very interesting points. I must admit that I usually ignore WP:IAR, because I've yet to find a case when the consequences of following the core policies are worse than the consequences of ignoring them. SYN is always a tricky problem, because in a way everything we do is synthesis, but I tend to ask myself if the result is simple narrative or whether there's a resulting claim (implied or explicit). If there's a claim that hasn't already been made in reliable sources, then alarm bells start to ring. I think the consequences of making a novel claim with even the slightest chance that it's incorrect are far worse than making no claim at all. On the other hand, if the claim might have merit, then the author should be encouraged to enter it into the literature by the appropriate channels.

Re your sandbox, that's very interesting. We're obviously thinking along similar lines. I think it's fascinating when one starts to not only understand but actually grok the policies. Incidentally, I hope you don't mind, but I fixed a typo. Jakew (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I've ever invoked IAR to break a rule (I don't remember). On one page I reluctantly went along with others who wanted to do so. For me, IAR is more of a way of refraining from criticizing others. (Except here, where I've invoked it to ask you to justify your reasoning. I may have picked up some anti-wikilawyering sentiment during my interactions with Mikkalai.)

You're right about the cost of a false claim being far higher than the cost of not saying anything. We want to make Misplaced Pages as reliable as possible, both for its reputation and so that people don't make wrong decisions based on bad information. The reputation is important so that people can use it; it's no use it being correct if people don't know it's correct and therefore ignore it. One wrong article can cause people to ignore all other articles even if all others are correct. Hmm. I wonder if I could estimate at what probability of incorrectness the cutoff would lie. Possibly it's proportional to the reciprocal of the total number of articles. I guess it would depend on the utility of the information provided – and the particular cost of incorrectness of that particular information. Some wrong information about a fictional character won't matter so much. With a health article such as Circumcision it's much more serious, both in terms of direct consequences and of Misplaced Pages's reputation.

Thanks for finding that typo. I guess I've been using the word "exemption" a lot at the 3RR noticeboard, and it's got me confused about how to spell words beginning with "exc". I've been hesitating and retyping words I used to spell with no problem. Now that I'm more aware of that I'll probably have no trouble spelling them. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've always thought that controversial articles (esp. those prone to POV-pushing) are particularly sensitive, and consequently need the most careful application of policy simply in order to retain sanity, but you're right, we also need to think about the sensitivity of the subject matter. It's a difficult problem, and of course we can't just decide what's correct and what isn't, even though it may be tempting to do so (which is probably for the best, given Misplaced Pages's editing model). I think it's a case of trusting that we can take the existing literature and our policies and create something good, and I think most of the time this works amazingly well. I think it's vaguely like writing a systematic review or meta-analysis, where you define a search strategy and method of statistical analysis in advance, and then for the most part trust that these processes will allow you to generate a reliable overview, and that by sticking to them you can minimise the impact of your own biases.

Incidentally, I can't reliably spell 'date' at the moment. My fingers seem to insist on typing 'data'. :) Jakew (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

My fingers will type letters whose sounds don't echo in my head. For example, I used to end the filenames of my numerous Perl programs with ".perl". I then had a few files ending in ".per" for some other purpose, and I would think "per", there was absolutely no thought of any "l" sound in my head, and my fingers would type "perl". Kindof interesting how the mind works. If I'm talking, an extra sound won't come out unless I've thought it first, I think. So the control of the fingers typing seems to be different somehow from the control of the mouth when speaking. At least, that's my impression. It would take a clever experiment to prove it. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Edits to Mark Power

Twig, you were probably in a rush and distracted and undoubtedly meant well when you wrote this, but alas its addressee is a vandal for whom this is just another IP for use in an infantile diversion: see the history page of Mark Power.

If you wouldn't mind, I'd be grateful if you'd put Power's article on your watchlist if it isn't there already) and keep an eye on it. Many thanks. -- Hoary (talk) 13:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Ho. I was doing Recent Changes patrol. I don't examine the articles and their histories in detail; I figure others are experts on the article, and I'm only looking for obvious vandalism. I figure there's very little harm if I occasionally post a Welcome message on the page of a vandal by mistake, but much good if I post it on the page of someone who might use the information in it, for example to know how to find the help desk. However, since you've brought this to my attention, I apologize for that particular post. I've placed Mark Powers on my watchlist and started to familiarize myself with what's going on there. You might want to consider listing the article at the biographies of living persons noticeboard. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Ill be sure to read it--Yankees10 17:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Eurasia discussion

Hi! Jake and I have submitted (at his instigation) the issue of the "Eurasia" sentence in the prevalence draft to WP:NOR/N to seek further opinions. Being new to all this, I am trying to get a sense of what this means and I wondered if you had any thoughts on the matter. See discussion on my talk page. Cheers Johncoz (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: Blueboar is an experienced user who has participated in development of the policies and I have considerable respect for the user's opinion in a matter such as this. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 11:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Oreskes comment

Hi. Re your comment at RFA. The second diff is easy: he answers are no and no. The first I would answer as "because someone with the ability to edit protected pages decided it would be a good idea to do so". But I applaud your patience in dealing with LS William M. Connolley (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and perhaps those would also have been good answers; however, I did manage to come up with answers I was pleased with , although it took some thinking and diplomacy. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Advanced template coding question

Would you be kind enough to look at this and tell me how hard this would be to create or if it even can be created? Thank you. -- Low Sea (talk) 17:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA

Are you going on the 5th? Rudget (Help?) 17:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The 6th or 7th. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, let's go with the 7th, given my slightly rescheduled wikibreak plus other considerations. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

British Isles

Hi Coppertwig. Rather than replying to the remarks you addressed to me on the British Isles talk page within that forum and having them buried in the bedlam of that page, I'll reply here. The problem on that article is simple. There are references that state a simple thing, and there are editors who refuse to accept it. No matter what discussion comes up they refuse to accept verifiable sources. Matt Lewis, who was the 3RR offender, has already stated that even if there were 100 verifiable sources which said that British Isles was offensive to many Irish, he would not accept it. How is the seacch for consensus supposed to proceed in that context?? Wotapalaver (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

What exactly does he not accept? Does he believe that it's not true that there are many Irish to whom the term is offensive, or does he accept that as a fact but refuse to have it stated in the article?

Not all verifiable statements belong in articles. Material also has to satisfy NOR, NPOV etc. What arguments does he give to support his position? What are the reasons you feel it's important to include that statement in the article? IMO Wikipedians are not required to believe any particular statement no matter how many references support it, but they may have to accept having it included in an article. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 18:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: re your post at ANI

Do you know that you are the first person to say anything that actually dealt with my concerns? Thank you for that.

...there are many problems that people just have to work out by figuring out how to get along with others.

I got the same response from an administrator (I presume) when I asked here that something be done about an editor vandalizing the article The Green Hornet who had placed a false "final vandalism" warning (there had been no preliminary warnings) on my talk page and forged an administrator's signature to it here. Obviously, somebody who would pull such an outrageous stunt on me is not someone who wants "to get along with others." But as you can see here, the initial response was to view the situation as "a content dispute" (incredibly, no action was taken against the vandal until an admin got personally caught on the receiving end of "his" vandalizing edits and sarcastic & abusive edit summaries). While the situation I posted about yesterday is merely blatant as opposed to this earlier one's flagrant status, it is still clear that "getting along with" editors who willfully refused to enter in good faith a discussion that they had called for (I repeat, their initial so-called response to my defense of my two edits that they had deleted as "speculation" was absolutely nothing but repeating that assertion, subsequently followed by an ostensible criticism of them that had absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the actual content of my edits, and eventually claiming a consensus that did not exist) is not a viable option. Edokter and Ckatz should at the very least lose their positions as administrators for their behavior on that thread.

About your concern over my posting's length, past history shows that anything I do not make expressly and explicitly clear in my posts is (seemingly) not understood and/or ignored, so the details were requisite. Ted Watson (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not just the length: it's the way it's organized. I'm not the greatest at that, myself, but it's better to start with the punchline, and precede each clump of evidence with a brief statement of the conclusion you want the reader to draw; to make it easy for the reader to take in the information. When you're deeply involved in the situation it's hard to do that, because it's hard for you to imagine someone who has little interest in or ability to remember events which for you have intense significance. Admins tend to be busy and want to get the essential information quickly.

There are all kinds of people on Misplaced Pages. You can feel outraged; you can feel outraged that others don't share your feeling of outrage; you can continue to feel that way and continue to be surprised every time others don't respond the way you hope. Maybe you can even influence people to change for the better by expressing that outrage. However, most people find it's more helpful to accept the reality.

I'm not claiming that everyone is trying to "get along with others". I'm just saying that we have to manage somehow with the mix of people we have. Blocking tends to be used only in extreme cases and usually only temporarily, so we have to use other methods -- methods available to everyone, not only to admins.

People very often claim "consensus". The word has come to almost lose its meaning from overuse. I would prefer that people use it more narrowly and carefully, but the reality is that people use it a lot and that there is no enforcement system for biassed use of the term -- and it would be difficult or impossible to set one up without giving too much weight to the individual biasses of whoever administers such a system. A proposal to desysop someone simply because they claim "consensus" is just not going to get anywhere.

Here's one way of looking at things: Everything on Misplaced Pages is a content dispute. The various things people do such as personal attacks, claiming "consensus", vandalising, framing others, etc. etc. are simply (wrongful) techniques for trying to win the content dispute. One reason admins are reluctant to intervene except in the most extreme cases is that intervention will favour one side or the other of the content dispute, possibly introducing bias into the encyclopedia.

If someone is vandalising, you can warn them and you can report them at WP:AIV after a final warning. However, opinions might differ as to what counts as vandalism.

Your sentence "While the situation ... not a viable option" is rather long and difficult to follow. If you'd like me to comment on that situation, I invite you to restate that matter more clearly and straightforwardly without hiding it in subordinate clauses or parentheses.

Personally, I find that most of the time, people are very civil and well-behaved on Misplaced Pages. It depends on what areas of the wiki you participate in; things are worse on some controversial articles.

I've tried to edit this post to demonstrate some of the organization skills I'm encouraging you to use. I haven't managed to shorten it much, but I put the main points in bold to demonstrate a technique I use sometimes to help people who want to skim a post quickly without reading the whole thing. If you assume a reader will only remember a few words of what you write, you can choose which words they'll remember. I think people can get the gist of my message by reading only the words in bold type and nothing else. Possibly, then, I could have drastically shortened this post. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 20:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Your sentence 'While the situation ... not a viable option' is rather long and difficult to follow.

Just skip the parenthetical aside next time and it should be crystal clear. If it still isn't, let me know. I put that in because past history indicated that without the explanation of what I meant by "willfully refused to enter in good faith...," the phrase itself would be jumped on as "uncivil" and my actual point ignored. That has been the problem witrh this, that the basic act of reporting misconduct on someone's part has been declared to be in violation of "civility" and "no personal attacks" regs in and of itself.

I have comprehensibility problems with a couple of your statements:

1. Most people find it's more helpful to accept the reality. I've read the entire paragraph in which this appears, and I have no idea just what "reality" you are suggesting be accepted.

1. Your discussion of content disputes ends with, One reasons most admins are reluctant to intervene except in the most extreme cases is that intervention will favour one side or the other of the content dispute, possibly introducing bias into the encyclopedia. Two problems here. First, if the dispute isn't resolved on its own merits, rather than by one side pulling rank over, or figuratively shouting down, the other and getting their version left up, then there is certainly bias introduced into the encyclopedia. Second, how is an admin intervening into a dispute on his own initiative any more (or less) likely to do that than answering a "third opinion" request is? Not at all, I should think.

Oh, yes, they did lie, not merely exaggerate. Ted Watson (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Re "willfully": You've described a poor-quality discussion, reminiscent of many Wikipedian discussions, but have not convinced me there was any lack of good faith. GTBacchus is often pointing out that assuming good faith is easy when there's no evidence of bad faith; that the difficult thing the AGF guideline calls on us to do is to assume good faith even in the face of evidence of bad faith.

"more helpful to accept the reality": I mean for example not being surprised by the thing you said "incredibly" about.

If getting along with certain editors is not a viable option, what options do you have? This is one of the difficult realities we must each as an individual struggle with at Misplaced Pages.

If bad techniques such as shouting down are used, I think it's somewhat more likely that bias will be introduced into the encyclopedia than if civil techniques only are used; but it seems by no means certain to me that bias would be introduced in such a case. Blocking someone on one side of a dispute, however, seems to me very likely to lead to bias.

Perhaps you have a good point about the "third opinion" request. However, "third opinion" requests can be answered by anyone; blocking can be done by only a smallish subset of people, and it would tend to lead to more bias in the encyclopedia overall if content disputes were ultimately settled by only that smallish group. It might not be evident over the course of a single dispute, but multiple similar disputes would have more of a tendency to be decided in favour of the same "side", and bias could creep in – especially since admins are often expected to support each others' decisions.

Anyway, regardless of whether my theories to explain it are correct, the fact is IME that for a broad range of problems, asking admins to help does not lead to any admin action. Repeatedly asking for help that's not going to be given could be considered disruptive.

Re "they did lie": please review my requests at the top of this page re the types of messages that are not welcome here. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

...the difficult thing the AGF calls on us to do is to assume good faith in the face of evidence of bad faith. As many times as I've said on various talk pages that this is something I can not do, nobody has ever responded that the regs require it. Not once. Indeed, no one has ever acknowledged that sentiment from me before. This implied (to me, at least) that they had no way to counter it, but also did not want to admit that I had a good point. Have the regs just been changed to include that? If so, as this is a completely imbecilic attitude (to borrow from Thomas Jefferson, it is whether I say so or not; I might as well say so), they should be changed back. Actually, it should be removed in any event. I don't know what your "IME" means. Finally, concerning your closing small-font comment, then you shouldn't have brought this discussion here in the first place, as that is what it is about. There are other things I wanted to say, but I'm getting rushed off this computer (I don't own it). Ted Watson (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't been able to be more helpful. I've had similar experiences and frustrations that you've had: wanting help when there is no mechanism at Misplaced Pages to give the kind of help I wanted, etc. All I can do is suggest the things that have worked for me, i.e. expressing requests succinctly, and finding ways to get along with people. In many cases, just being very civil works fairly well. Different strategies may be needed for different situations (though being civil is always an ingredient of my techniques, unless I lose my temper). If you have a particular problem, you can ask me what I would do. If someone has lied, that doesn't appear to me to be a problem that needs to be solved, but a regrettable incident in the past: the past can't be changed.

The guideline is at WP:AGF; you can read it and form your own interpretation. I was giving my interpretation of GTBacchus' interpretation of the guideline. I've just added a couple of quotes of GTBacchus to this section of my userpage. Oh, I thought this part had been removed from the guideline: "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." Either I was mistaken, or it's been put back in.

Sorry for the TLA (three-letter acronym)!! "IME" means "in my experience". (cf. IMO, "in my opinion"; cf apparently comes from the Latin "confer" meaning "compare".)

I replied here because I find it usually works well to reply on the same page as the post I'm responding to, but you're free to reply on your talk page if you prefer. I see no advantage in my replying there, since you might reply here anyway. Coppertwig (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but my IAP was down all day Monday. And I'll remember IME, thank you. Otherwise, I just found out that you are not an administrator and I have therefore been wasting my time here. I'll go see what, if any, response there has been from administration on the incident page. Ted Watson (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Objection

I have entered an objection to your proposal of co-mentoring Iantresman, based on my experience with you in the past. I will not say more for fear of receiving more harassment from the editor you promoted at my expense. However, I thought I should notify you of my very strong objection that you be involved in the co-mentoring of any problematic editor. It is my belief that you are too easily swayed by the most dominate editor and fail to protect those less aggressive who are not POV pushers and who are less willing to use aggressive methods to win and therefore need some help. I have not been editing since my unpleasant experience with you. I would say more but will not out of fear. I do not want others like me to fall victim. –Mattisse (Talk) 08:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I have provided a statement of support for Coppertwig, and believe the above complaint to be without merit.    Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 13:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I believe that wanting to be liked at all costs is not a good attributes for someone who aspires to mediate and in other ways to help Misplaced Pages run more smoothly. The result is the sacrifice of too many good, conscious editors at the expense of the aggressive and amoral. I perceive this quality of wanting to be liked as a dominant factor in your interactions with others. I believe this quality attracts abusive editors to you to partake of the services you offer them. –Mattisse (Talk) 08:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Mattisse, I apologize again for overreacting to a post of yours on my talk page, for not using a gentle enough tone when stating that I might revert some edits, and for not replying promptly to some incivilities against you that were posted to my talk page. I do not condone any harassment and had no intention of promoting one editor at the expense of another. I hope that you will return to editing Che Guevara, and I repeat my suggestion that we go to mediation. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)