Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:31, 15 January 2009

Archives

1 - epoch — July 7, 2007 2 - July — Nov 25, 2007 3 - Nov 25, 2007 — March 6, 2008 4 - March 6 — June 1, 2008 5 - June 2 — Nov. 8, 2008 6 - Nov. 8 — Dec. 31, 2008

FYI re my post on Cas's page

• User talk:Casliber#Thanks.

Cas seems off for the night; though you might like to give this a read. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Not really, and I dont think you should be involving yourself in this. John Vandenberg 14:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Jayvdb,

Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

Majorly talk 21:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply to you on arbitration request.

Reply at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Request_to_amend_prior_case: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration.2FFootnoted_quotes.23Special_enforcement on_biographies of_living_persons --Barberio (talk) 12:11, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Re your Everyking appeal decline

John - do you think the community and the committee is truly better served by having Everyking or someone else refile the appeal and all the statements in 6 weeks, rather than have the committee simply consider and deal with it now? Avruch 16:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I do. The committee is very busy right now, and this is by no means a simple request. John Vandenberg 21:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Chris Crocker

Hello, sorry to keep bothering you but I was wondering if this page met the requirements for some protection? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 09:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I've semi protected for three months. It's no bother at all. John Vandenberg 09:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 12:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For the speedy action. I don't suppose we have a way of clearing or purging log entries, do we? :P Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Not yet. Only meta:developers can play with that. There is an enhancement coming soon which will allow us to redact log entries. John Vandenberg 00:16, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Episodes and characters 3

I think you are missing one important point. This dispute is less about the conduct of TTN alone and more about several actors (including TTN) who had been acting in complete disregard of any community input they feel unnecessary.

I guess what I am trying to say is: the scope of the RFAR does include TTN but resolving issues concerning TTN alone will not be sufficient in resolving the actual problem.

-- Cat 14:51, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If you have a dispute with other users in this topical area, please raise those concerns on RFAR. I dont wish to open a case with a very wide scope unless there has been justification given for a very large scope. John Vandenberg 22:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing how I fit in the picture. I have stopped editing fiction related topics for the past year due to this conduct. I have provided this evidence to arbcom before: Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence#Common editing behaviour of some users (Meatpuppetry). I am currently working on a tool with Betacommand to provide statistics on AFD behavior by editors. -- Cat 00:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The only person clearly in this "picture" is TTN. I will not support opening a case that doesnt have a clear scope, and I dont like large cases that reinforce battlegrounds. If you think that there is a dispute beyond TTNs methods, please raise that at RFAR: cite other problems which would justify a large scope. John Vandenberg 00:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

If you read through the evidence, please... Back then, I demonstrated how a group of editors acted as a collective to meatpuppet/votestack with or without TTN to mass remove fiction related articles. Thats a mere example of their conduct. By no means that is the only example. /Evidence phase exists for a reason. If you consider wikipedia to be a chess board. TTN is the queen. Queen (chess) is the most powerful piece in the game of chess. That does not mean queen is the only piece.

Please also read the article Deletionism and inclusionism in Misplaced Pages. Please pay close attention to the Criticism section and the sources. The problem even made its way to the mass media. What must I do for arbcom to realize that there is a serious problem?

-- Cat 02:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletionism and inclusionism in Misplaced Pages is a community tension. The committees role is to fix disputes. E&C2 is done. We do not need a E&C3 unless the community shows that there are unsolvable spot fires between other people. So far I can only see issues being raised with TTNs methods. The analogy to chess is incorrect; a chess game has one player in control of the queen - are you suggesting that TTN and others are controlled? If so, who is the controller? If not, TTN is a prominent player, most ppl are complaining about his role, so we should focus on TTN. I will not respond again: if you want me to accept a case with a scope of "E&C", you need to add diffs showing other unsolvable disputes between other people in relation to E&C. John Vandenberg 02:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you know about User:Jack Merridew's arbitration case? Why was he sanctioned? What kind of edits was he doing? If you do not know the answers to these questions, I have no reason to explain them to you as that is your homework not mine. Do not ask me to do your job for you. Now if you do know the answers then you know there clearly are other people committing edits just like TTN. They however have less important roles on the chessboard.

Also lease do not be ridiculous. E&C2 resolved absolutely nothing just like E&C1.

-- Cat 05:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

May you have a pleasant, prosperous, principled and pretty-much peaceful year with as few perturbations as possible, despite being on the Arbcom -- and congratulations on that, too! Thanks for all you did last year. -- Noroton (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot problems

Once again, it has stopped noticing pages created by whitelisted users with redlinked userpages. DS (talk) 14:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed the last run, and cant see an example of that happening. John Vandenberg 15:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Incivility/unconstructive editing of User:Jack Merridew

Hello! You are listed as one of three mentors to this editor and I am therefore notifying the three of you. I and another user have cautioned him for making unproductive comments as seen at User talk:Jack Merridew#Less than civility. Instead of responding to this good faith feedback from myself and User:Randomran in a civil manner, he instead has an edit summary in this edit that links to an account other than to my or Randomran’s accounts, which is deliberately antagonistic. You would think someone coming off an indefinite block would not say or do anything overly hostile. Neither Randomran nor I linked to any of his previous accounts or said anything else to be sarcastic to him. Moreover, he seems to be making Encyclopedia Dramatica allusions in various posts as well (see , for example) as well as other odd or unconstructive/non-serious posts as seen with such edits as this. I am therefore concerned that he is 1) needlessly escalating tensions; and 2) uninterested in good faith cautions (after all, Randomran is pretty neutral in all of this even if one thinks I am not). The bottom line is that we are all trying really hard to come to a compromise concerning WP:FICTION and anyone mocking editors and dismissing even those who reached out to him (for better or worse, I even said I supported him being mentored when he requested being unblocked back in December…) is remarkably discouraging if not detrimental to the attempt to compromise. Please notice item 5 at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Jack Merridew ban review motion#Indefinite block lifted with editing restrictions. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody 05:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Bish

Please clarify your proposal - you think Bish should be desysopped for one bad block, which she herself took to ANI for review? Is that correct, or am I missing something? Thanks - KillerChihuahua 01:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)