Misplaced Pages

A note re: Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review

Please be advised that I have recently conducted a review of the Rorschach test (formerly Rorschach inkblot test) talk page and archives. At some point, you have commented on the issue of the display and/or placement of the Rorschach inkblot image. Based on my understanding of your comment(s), I have placed you into one of three categories. I am issuing this note so that you can review how I have placed you, and to signal if this is an appropriate placement and/or to make known your current thoughts on this matter. You may either participate in discussion at the article talk page or leave a note at my talk page; but to keep things in one place, you should also clarify at Talk:Rorschach test/2009 consensus review/addendum. Longer statements may be made here or quick clarifications/affirmations based on several pre-written statements can be made here. Best regards, –xeno 14:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Civility

You might want to think twice before the next time you want to imply another editor is a Nazi. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Any intelligent or honest analysis would see that was not the implication. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So, I'm stupid and dishonest? Good to know. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The first step to solving a problem is to recognise it. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If you look again I used an OR not an AND. You can contribute a third option if you like; too quick to judge perhaps; insufficient attention to context? I was rather hoping you would say one of those straight off. Instead of taking offence you could have looked again at the straw man deconstruction this actually was.

The Nazis where all for uniformity, but dressing our 60,000 active editors in Nazi uniforms just to make you happy is just not on.

HarryAlffa (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I Detest Dishonesty

Is that a bad thing?

The straw man is a form of dishonesty. I hate it, and protest when ever it is employed, unless it is knowingly used to illustrate an absurd position - although it may be more a misremembering of another's position than a deliberate fallacy. But in my recent interactions on talk pages it has been used in a dishonest fashion, and I have said so. Should we all let straw men be destroyed by their builders without comment? Would you call it uncivil to protest at a straw man argument? To point out the disreputable use? If so I am guilty of it, and will continue to re-offend in this manner without apology.

To have one's position dishonestly and deceitfully misrepresented is not good to see when everyone is supposed to be operating in good faith. I don't like this, I find it offensive, and when it happens I say so. Is that being uncivil? Then I declare my culpability in that as well, and the charge sheet will grow with further such offences in the future.

I am happy that your finally reached a consensus with yourself, however, I do not think this is enough to change MOS. Ruslik (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You've argued very cogently up to this point - though I continue to disagree with you, we'll see how the RFC goes - so don't get tendentious now. Rd232 talk 20:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And now we get to the RfC on the 21st of May 2009.

I didn't comment on any user, only their opinions, unlike these;

• "What you say is your opinion, what I say is the objective truth." Constructive? JamesBWatson (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• Judging from your rhetoric, you seem to view anyone who doesn't agree with you as absurdly clueless—an attitude that's not really compatible with a wiki. --Laser brain (talk) 19:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
• plonk. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:09, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
• Suggest silence --Kotniski (talk) 13:20, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
  • ... endorse the statement of Kotniski. Ruslik (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
• If you insist on demonstrating your compulsion for pissing into the wind, I shall stand clear. -- Tcncv (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

And yet it is I who is being accused?

There was absolutely no justification for these personal attacks - but I didn't ask for admin intervention. I got on with it. JamesBWatson's and Laser Brain's misrepresentations I find particularly offensive - no text of mine will be found to justify such mischaracterisation. Tcncv's comment I thought was rather enjoyable, but I'm judging by the standards being applied to me.

Misplaced Pages does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons.

Read my Fear, uncertainty and doubt, and competence contribution to that talk page, which surely cannot be described as anything but comprehensive and polite.

Thanks for finally ending this silly thread.--Hans Adler (talk) 13:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

In WP:Link talk I count 5 times when I claimed misrepresentation by another, or their use of a straw man - check it out.

• I restore the RfC, Kotniski removes it again.
• I complain in ANI about them both, bit of a mix up on my part about who had removed it prematurely some weeks earlier (Kotniski).
• Ruslik outright lies in the Hans Adler ANI;

  The only editor whose behavior is disruptive here is you, HarryAlffa. During the RFC you constantly tried to let down all other participants by claiming that everybody who disgrees with you is incompetent... Ruslik_Zero 19:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Kotniski ANI Kotniski makes a personal attack

  I believe it disrupts Misplaced Pages to allow this sort of self-indulgent attention-seeking.

  with no comment from an admin.
• In the same ANI, Hans Adler dishonestly describes my proposal and my contributions, no comment from an Admin.
• SheffieldSteel quotes two bullet point contribs to back up claims of incivility, one which actually contains the personal attack on me from JamesBWatson, and the other a knowingly-poor joke, obviously not ill-intentioned, by me.

Ckatz then joins in. All my interactions with him have been contaminated by his misrepresentations. I give a link to some of his obvious dishonesty - YellowMonkey blocks me. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

I was being lynched in an ANI, enter stage-left, Sheriff YellowMonkey, who ties my hands and feet. This defies natural justice, I am being prevented from defending myself. In an RfC I called, here was a personal attack on me by Hans Adler, which no one has commented on, to which I replied, Hans' reply to this was to remove the RfC! I complained in ANI. A feeding frenzy started, with me defending myself. Then, because I'm defending myself, YellowMonkey blocks me, citing battlegrounding! How can one reply to a personal attack in an RfC, that had been quiet for 11 days, be battlegrounding? How can you battleground by countering accusations in an ANI? Astonishingly illogical! What's wrong with the primate?
Many users have lost patience with me, and I am beginning to loose patience with them. It seems my biggest crime is not to shut up, by asking for good reasons for stuff - and getting only FUD instead.
See above also.

Decline reason:

See WP:NOTTHEM. Also, you are blocked for violating WP:NOT#BATTLE, so it's a bad idea to make an unblock request that does so as well.  Sandstein  18:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Request reason:

How can I be battlegrounding by defending myself in an ANI, or answering a personal attack on me in an RfC which had been quiet for 11 days? The ANI was used by two users in particular as an excuse to attack me, carrying invective from the recent Solar System FA review. This was battlegrounding on their part, I had to answer them to defend myself. I did not carry personal attacks to the ANI, I was answering them. Therefore this is an unjustified block. A block without warning.

Decline reason:

"They started it" is a not a defense to battlegrounding (rather it tends to be an admission). Daniel Case (talk) 02:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Daniel, that is an unbelievable description of my answering personal attacks. My defence was not "they started it", but that I did not battleground. Please tell me with whom YOU think I was battlegrounding, from when, and in what manner. Some diffs would be helpful. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

HarryAlffa seeks an explanation

YellowMonkey, you blocked me. I ask again. Could you provide a narrative of your thought process, and a time line? Is this an unreasonable request? HarryAlffa (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for nothing YellowMonkey HarryAlffa (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Misplaced Pages does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons

— WP:Concensus

One last note on the lack of intelligence, from a couple of months back in discussion with a couple of MediaWiki developers;

• HarryAlffa: It was good to get intelligent, analytical discussion - unlike Misplaced Pages in most of my experience! Perhaps you could contribute to the discussion here...
• Developer: You identify the reason I'm not going to contribute in the same breath as you ask me to do so, I'm afraid.

1. I said I was witty! Even under duress!

Notes:

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

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

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=<blockquote class="templatequote " >Misplaced Pages does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons<div class="templatequotecite">— <cite>]</cite></div></blockquote> I can only "edit against consensus" if I am actually against consensus. The ] talk page RfC shows that, by reason of ] '''Policy''', I had consensus. Therefore the block is invalid. The line I have quoted is to prevent a "stupid consensus". Which is what YellowMonkey is now enforcing. By ] definition it is not a consensus unless it has ](s).<br />It is also highly suspicious that YellowMonkey, who was incivil to me when I asked him politely for some narrative on his passing of the Solar System at the recent FAR, (he blocked me above, and I'm still waiting on an answer) suddenly shows up and blocks me again - was he prodded in this direction? If so in what manner? With what emotional loading? You may notice on the ANI page that this block was his only contribution, he didn't just happen along, he sought out and targeted me.<br />On the ANI there are the many diffs I supplied which show Ckatz, Ruslik & Serindipodus obviously tag-team reverting, with absolutely no participation in the talk page, no discussion on that? Then, finally some participation on the talk page - Ruslik "''playing dumb''" on the RfC. Then there is the time between my last edit and the block. It must be obvious to anyone that I had left the article and was awaiting some sensible admin input. Not YellowMonkey to be "recruited" (I suspect).<br />This is Ruslik's second bite at this cherry where you can see his one outright lie and his other propaganda.<br />Misplaced Pages has a nettle to grasp, which it must do soon - how do you deal with those lacking the necessary intelligence to be useful? Ruslik is obviously not gifted with great intellect, as demonstrated by his bemusement at the RfC in a couple of places - and by other corking contributions I won't list here. Sorendipodus isn't the sharpest tool in the box either, look at the current Solar System lead - it has a prime piece of idiocy written their by Sorendipodus, and this was copy edited by Ckatz, and endorsed by Ruslik and others, and FA passed by YellowMonkey. It takes but a trifling of knowledge and a minimal number of neurons to detect the idiocy contained there, all of the above lack one of these two things. Not a personal attack, a brutally honest assessment - an inescapable conclusion from these facts. I was jaw-droppingly amazed at this lead, and have been waiting for someone from Wikiproject Solar System to correct it, I think my face may be starting to turn blue!<br />Hands up everyone reading this who has created an article whose subject is absolutely central to modern life and the Information Technology Age we are revolting(!) in. No? Just me then? If there's someone standing a long way off, you'll need to speak up. I don't hear anyone, apologies if I missed you, so here - ].<br />So you want to block a highly intelligent, creative, insightful, imaginative, perceptive, witty and articulate guy like me at the behest of the Ckatz Cabal, and their pet (I suspect) YellowMonkey?<br />Ah, but you're being disruptive, I hear you say (<small>you're standing closer now</small>). Well, you could look at it that way, or you could say that it is the less intelligent (evidently) editors who are being disruptive. If this was a one v one situation or a many v many, then you would have to have some intelligent assessment to analyse the dispute. The prejudiced<sup class="noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact" style="white-space:nowrap;">]</i>]</sup> Yellowmonkey counted heads and engaged his prejudice, counted heads, reviewed his prejudice, and blocked.<br />Imagine this was a many v many dispute, and engage as much Intelligent Assessment as you would in that case to this.<br />'''I''' think, (obviously) that you must conclude consensus, as defined by '''Policy''', is with me, and that it must follow YellowMonkey was wrong in his block.<br />I'm asking you to not perform a shallow analysis, as "UncleG" did in his "allusion", if he'd bothered to read further he would have seen that my sentiments about Google echoed his. Perhaps you could tell him that such sanctimonious contributions aren't helpful most places, and certainly not in ANI.<br />And I just noticed the last dig by Ruslik - a trivial point, which was actually a lie, I only mention it to show his ethical standards. One last note on the lack of intelligence, from a couple of months back in discussion with a couple of MediaWiki developers; *HarryAlffa: It was good to get intelligent, analytical discussion - unlike Misplaced Pages in most of my experience! Perhaps you could contribute to the discussion here... *Developer: You identify the reason I'm not going to contribute in the same breath as you ask me to do so, I'm afraid.

1. I said I was witty! Even under duress!

 |3 = ~~~~}}

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

{{unblock reviewed |1=<blockquote class="templatequote " >Misplaced Pages does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons<div class="templatequotecite">— <cite>]</cite></div></blockquote> I can only "edit against consensus" if I am actually against consensus. The ] talk page RfC shows that, by reason of ] '''Policy''', I had consensus. Therefore the block is invalid. The line I have quoted is to prevent a "stupid consensus". Which is what YellowMonkey is now enforcing. By ] definition it is not a consensus unless it has ](s).<br />It is also highly suspicious that YellowMonkey, who was incivil to me when I asked him politely for some narrative on his passing of the Solar System at the recent FAR, (he blocked me above, and I'm still waiting on an answer) suddenly shows up and blocks me again - was he prodded in this direction? If so in what manner? With what emotional loading? You may notice on the ANI page that this block was his only contribution, he didn't just happen along, he sought out and targeted me.<br />On the ANI there are the many diffs I supplied which show Ckatz, Ruslik & Serindipodus obviously tag-team reverting, with absolutely no participation in the talk page, no discussion on that? Then, finally some participation on the talk page - Ruslik "''playing dumb''" on the RfC. Then there is the time between my last edit and the block. It must be obvious to anyone that I had left the article and was awaiting some sensible admin input. Not YellowMonkey to be "recruited" (I suspect).<br />This is Ruslik's second bite at this cherry where you can see his one outright lie and his other propaganda.<br />Misplaced Pages has a nettle to grasp, which it must do soon - how do you deal with those lacking the necessary intelligence to be useful? Ruslik is obviously not gifted with great intellect, as demonstrated by his bemusement at the RfC in a couple of places - and by other corking contributions I won't list here. Sorendipodus isn't the sharpest tool in the box either, look at the current Solar System lead - it has a prime piece of idiocy written their by Sorendipodus, and this was copy edited by Ckatz, and endorsed by Ruslik and others, and FA passed by YellowMonkey. It takes but a trifling of knowledge and a minimal number of neurons to detect the idiocy contained there, all of the above lack one of these two things. Not a personal attack, a brutally honest assessment - an inescapable conclusion from these facts. I was jaw-droppingly amazed at this lead, and have been waiting for someone from Wikiproject Solar System to correct it, I think my face may be starting to turn blue!<br />Hands up everyone reading this who has created an article whose subject is absolutely central to modern life and the Information Technology Age we are revolting(!) in. No? Just me then? If there's someone standing a long way off, you'll need to speak up. I don't hear anyone, apologies if I missed you, so here - ].<br />So you want to block a highly intelligent, creative, insightful, imaginative, perceptive, witty and articulate guy like me at the behest of the Ckatz Cabal, and their pet (I suspect) YellowMonkey?<br />Ah, but you're being disruptive, I hear you say (<small>you're standing closer now</small>). Well, you could look at it that way, or you could say that it is the less intelligent (evidently) editors who are being disruptive. If this was a one v one situation or a many v many, then you would have to have some intelligent assessment to analyse the dispute. The prejudiced<sup class="noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact" style="white-space:nowrap;">]</i>]</sup> Yellowmonkey counted heads and engaged his prejudice, counted heads, reviewed his prejudice, and blocked.<br />Imagine this was a many v many dispute, and engage as much Intelligent Assessment as you would in that case to this.<br />'''I''' think, (obviously) that you must conclude consensus, as defined by '''Policy''', is with me, and that it must follow YellowMonkey was wrong in his block.<br />I'm asking you to not perform a shallow analysis, as "UncleG" did in his "allusion", if he'd bothered to read further he would have seen that my sentiments about Google echoed his. Perhaps you could tell him that such sanctimonious contributions aren't helpful most places, and certainly not in ANI.<br />And I just noticed the last dig by Ruslik - a trivial point, which was actually a lie, I only mention it to show his ethical standards. One last note on the lack of intelligence, from a couple of months back in discussion with a couple of MediaWiki developers; *HarryAlffa: It was good to get intelligent, analytical discussion - unlike Misplaced Pages in most of my experience! Perhaps you could contribute to the discussion here... *Developer: You identify the reason I'm not going to contribute in the same breath as you ask me to do so, I'm afraid.

1. I said I was witty! Even under duress!

 |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

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

{{unblock reviewed |1=<blockquote class="templatequote " >Misplaced Pages does not base its decisions on the number of people who show up and vote; we work on a system of good reasons<div class="templatequotecite">— <cite>]</cite></div></blockquote> I can only "edit against consensus" if I am actually against consensus. The ] talk page RfC shows that, by reason of ] '''Policy''', I had consensus. Therefore the block is invalid. The line I have quoted is to prevent a "stupid consensus". Which is what YellowMonkey is now enforcing. By ] definition it is not a consensus unless it has ](s).<br />It is also highly suspicious that YellowMonkey, who was incivil to me when I asked him politely for some narrative on his passing of the Solar System at the recent FAR, (he blocked me above, and I'm still waiting on an answer) suddenly shows up and blocks me again - was he prodded in this direction? If so in what manner? With what emotional loading? You may notice on the ANI page that this block was his only contribution, he didn't just happen along, he sought out and targeted me.<br />On the ANI there are the many diffs I supplied which show Ckatz, Ruslik & Serindipodus obviously tag-team reverting, with absolutely no participation in the talk page, no discussion on that? Then, finally some participation on the talk page - Ruslik "''playing dumb''" on the RfC. Then there is the time between my last edit and the block. It must be obvious to anyone that I had left the article and was awaiting some sensible admin input. Not YellowMonkey to be "recruited" (I suspect).<br />This is Ruslik's second bite at this cherry where you can see his one outright lie and his other propaganda.<br />Misplaced Pages has a nettle to grasp, which it must do soon - how do you deal with those lacking the necessary intelligence to be useful? Ruslik is obviously not gifted with great intellect, as demonstrated by his bemusement at the RfC in a couple of places - and by other corking contributions I won't list here. Sorendipodus isn't the sharpest tool in the box either, look at the current Solar System lead - it has a prime piece of idiocy written their by Sorendipodus, and this was copy edited by Ckatz, and endorsed by Ruslik and others, and FA passed by YellowMonkey. It takes but a trifling of knowledge and a minimal number of neurons to detect the idiocy contained there, all of the above lack one of these two things. Not a personal attack, a brutally honest assessment - an inescapable conclusion from these facts. I was jaw-droppingly amazed at this lead, and have been waiting for someone from Wikiproject Solar System to correct it, I think my face may be starting to turn blue!<br />Hands up everyone reading this who has created an article whose subject is absolutely central to modern life and the Information Technology Age we are revolting(!) in. No? Just me then? If there's someone standing a long way off, you'll need to speak up. I don't hear anyone, apologies if I missed you, so here - ].<br />So you want to block a highly intelligent, creative, insightful, imaginative, perceptive, witty and articulate guy like me at the behest of the Ckatz Cabal, and their pet (I suspect) YellowMonkey?<br />Ah, but you're being disruptive, I hear you say (<small>you're standing closer now</small>). Well, you could look at it that way, or you could say that it is the less intelligent (evidently) editors who are being disruptive. If this was a one v one situation or a many v many, then you would have to have some intelligent assessment to analyse the dispute. The prejudiced<sup class="noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact" style="white-space:nowrap;">]</i>]</sup> Yellowmonkey counted heads and engaged his prejudice, counted heads, reviewed his prejudice, and blocked.<br />Imagine this was a many v many dispute, and engage as much Intelligent Assessment as you would in that case to this.<br />'''I''' think, (obviously) that you must conclude consensus, as defined by '''Policy''', is with me, and that it must follow YellowMonkey was wrong in his block.<br />I'm asking you to not perform a shallow analysis, as "UncleG" did in his "allusion", if he'd bothered to read further he would have seen that my sentiments about Google echoed his. Perhaps you could tell him that such sanctimonious contributions aren't helpful most places, and certainly not in ANI.<br />And I just noticed the last dig by Ruslik - a trivial point, which was actually a lie, I only mention it to show his ethical standards. One last note on the lack of intelligence, from a couple of months back in discussion with a couple of MediaWiki developers; *HarryAlffa: It was good to get intelligent, analytical discussion - unlike Misplaced Pages in most of my experience! Perhaps you could contribute to the discussion here... *Developer: You identify the reason I'm not going to contribute in the same breath as you ask me to do so, I'm afraid.

1. I said I was witty! Even under duress!

 |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}