| Revision as of 18:29, 25 August 2010 editWeaponbb7 (talk | contribs)4,369 edits →keep cool my freind,: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:46, 25 August 2010 edit undoNishidani (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users99,541 edits →Jewish Internet Defense ForceNext edit → | ||
| Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
| :Peter, you are absolutely wrong. ] does not justify your vicious personal attacks. This behavior is completely unacceptable for Misplaced Pages. Stop it immediately.--] (]) 17:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC) | :Peter, you are absolutely wrong. ] does not justify your vicious personal attacks. This behavior is completely unacceptable for Misplaced Pages. Stop it immediately.--] (]) 17:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::Peter, I've replied to your question at ]. ] is not a justification in this case. The threat against Misplaced Pages by the apparent socks who support the JIDF is no more credible now that it was before. You are adding fuel to their quest for drama, and run the risk of being blocked yourself. Please remove you left at ANI that was cited below by Off2riorob. ] (]) 17:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC) | ::Peter, I've replied to your question at ]. ] is not a justification in this case. The threat against Misplaced Pages by the apparent socks who support the JIDF is no more credible now that it was before. You are adding fuel to their quest for drama, and run the risk of being blocked yourself. Please remove you left at ANI that was cited below by Off2riorob. ] (]) 17:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::::It would be helpful if everybody rushing to come down like a ton of bricks on an editor who has almost no record of exasperation over the years, for a momentary lapse, would, after rapping him or her over the knuckles, step back and wonder what occasioned the outburst, and start to consider why people who endeavour to represent a global and balanced perspective on a critically difficult area of this encyclopedia find themselves dragged into edit-conflicts, dealing with obvious sockpuppets, meatpuppets, and nationalist activists, with almost no support by outside editors to relieve them of the burden of trying to maintain minimal standards of decency, fairness, and NPOV. The area has several dozen activists, doing their job for one side (no objection to that of course), and only a handful of editors stepping in to see that the systemic bias does not get totally out of hand. In several recent cases, any attempt to identify socks and gaming has only appears to be met with extended discussion drifting to inconclusiveness and an administrative stepback from an obvious sanction: or worse still, a courtesy of the benefit of the doubt to the disruptive, while the original plaintiffs, who are effectively working singly gets a warning, or an innuendo, that they are not behaving properly. Either police that area more effectively, or change the rules so that it can be edited by people who have a proven record of article building in non-controversial areas, before they are allowed to venture into sections of the encyclopedia that are a total fucking mess of strategic gaming and poorly written rubbish. I can understand the general, and often expressed reluctance by administrators to steer clear of these areas, because adjudicating there is tiresome to the point of hopelessness, and the best are invariably subjected to taunts of partiality. But as it is, there is a certain dereliction of oversight that only favours poor editors with almost no knowledge of what they are editing, but a huge passion for ensuring their favourite activist website links get into articles. Peter lost it for a moment. You have time to tell him that. Well, spend some more time looking at what he has to cope with, and either ensure that good editors are given support for sensible edits, or change the rules so that good editors from all sides can work with more efficiency and respect for each other than is otherwise the case.] (]) 22:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == Your personal attack == | == Your personal attack == | ||
Revision as of 22:46, 25 August 2010
Welcome!
Hello, Dronkle, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Mak (talk) 21:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Review request
Hi Peter, you reviewed George Orwell bibliography several months ago when it came to featured list candidates. The list has been re-submitted at Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/George Orwell bibliography/archive2; if you have the time, would you mind taking a second look? Thanks in advance, Dabomb87 (talk) 02:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
JIDF
I have started an ANI about the multiple socks Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)
Jewish Internet Defense Force
Peter
The JIDF are not an organisation I agree with. They are not an organisation you agree with. They are, unfortunately, an organisation some living people are members of, with the crucial words there being living people. Comments like this, this and this are completely unacceptable. Libeling a subject, outing a subject and being repeatedly rude to and about a subject is not acceptable. We have received OTRS complaints about this, and you can consider this your main warning - next time it's an ANI thread seeking to have you thrown off the damn article completely. Understood? Ironholds (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- "why people keep rejecting your rfas" aww, is ickle petey annoyed I was wude to him? Look, the other user's behaviour does not excuse your own; "but mum, he started it!" is something I expect to hear from a five year old, not a long term editor with more letters in his postnominals than his name. Ironholds (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hi. I was alerted to this discussion, and must echo Ironholds' sentiments. Your comments are doing nothing to aid the situation; they are only making it worse. I strongly suggest you cease interaction with this person altogether. The fact that the subject is engaging in disruptive editing gives you absolutely no excuse to engage them like you currently are doing. Please stop, or pass the issue onto another board, like WP:SPI or WP:AN. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 10:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
- And for reference, you couldn't hit a raw nerve on me if you tried :P. Indeed, the reason for my highly patronising tone there was that to come at me with "OMG THIS IS WHY YOU FAIL RFAS" in response to a message which was neither 1) overly uncivil or 2) related to CSD in any way, shape or form (the two things which cripple my RfAs) I've obviously hit a nerve on you. Maybe when you recover you'll note the admin endorsing my warning above and consider not throwing civility out of the window when you get rid of AGF. Ironholds (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
In the case of obnoxious. pov-pushing, coi-ignoring, self-promoting trolls who have been using sockpuppets to disrupt Misplaced Pages for years then WP:IAR trumps WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Said troll is about to be community banned anyway which makes dealing with him ans his sock and meat puppets a lot easier.--Peter cohen (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Peter, you are absolutely wrong. WP:IAR does not justify your vicious personal attacks. This behavior is completely unacceptable for Misplaced Pages. Stop it immediately.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Peter, I've replied to your question at User talk:EdJohnston#My language about Einsteindonut on ANI and elsewhere. WP:IAR is not a justification in this case. The threat against Misplaced Pages by the apparent socks who support the JIDF is no more credible now that it was before. You are adding fuel to their quest for drama, and run the risk of being blocked yourself. Please remove the comment you left at ANI that was cited below by Off2riorob. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if everybody rushing to come down like a ton of bricks on an editor who has almost no record of exasperation over the years, for a momentary lapse, would, after rapping him or her over the knuckles, step back and wonder what occasioned the outburst, and start to consider why people who endeavour to represent a global and balanced perspective on a critically difficult area of this encyclopedia find themselves dragged into edit-conflicts, dealing with obvious sockpuppets, meatpuppets, and nationalist activists, with almost no support by outside editors to relieve them of the burden of trying to maintain minimal standards of decency, fairness, and NPOV. The area has several dozen activists, doing their job for one side (no objection to that of course), and only a handful of editors stepping in to see that the systemic bias does not get totally out of hand. In several recent cases, any attempt to identify socks and gaming has only appears to be met with extended discussion drifting to inconclusiveness and an administrative stepback from an obvious sanction: or worse still, a courtesy of the benefit of the doubt to the disruptive, while the original plaintiffs, who are effectively working singly gets a warning, or an innuendo, that they are not behaving properly. Either police that area more effectively, or change the rules so that it can be edited by people who have a proven record of article building in non-controversial areas, before they are allowed to venture into sections of the encyclopedia that are a total fucking mess of strategic gaming and poorly written rubbish. I can understand the general, and often expressed reluctance by administrators to steer clear of these areas, because adjudicating there is tiresome to the point of hopelessness, and the best are invariably subjected to taunts of partiality. But as it is, there is a certain dereliction of oversight that only favours poor editors with almost no knowledge of what they are editing, but a huge passion for ensuring their favourite activist website links get into articles. Peter lost it for a moment. You have time to tell him that. Well, spend some more time looking at what he has to cope with, and either ensure that good editors are given support for sensible edits, or change the rules so that good editors from all sides can work with more efficiency and respect for each other than is otherwise the case.Nishidani (talk) 22:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
- Peter, I've replied to your question at User talk:EdJohnston#My language about Einsteindonut on ANI and elsewhere. WP:IAR is not a justification in this case. The threat against Misplaced Pages by the apparent socks who support the JIDF is no more credible now that it was before. You are adding fuel to their quest for drama, and run the risk of being blocked yourself. Please remove the comment you left at ANI that was cited below by Off2riorob. EdJohnston (talk) 17:36, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Your personal attack
Please retract your unacceptable personal attack you made in this diff Off2riorob (talk) 17:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
As you seem to have logged off, I have struck the worst part of your comment. Off2riorob (talk) 18:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
keep cool my freind,
Stand down my freind, the community agrees with you and is overwhelmingly in support of a community ban. (As the Socking at the ANI seems to have caused a WP:BOOMERANG effect) Calm down and consider a non-binding-self-imposed topic ban for yourself until you can stay cool on the topic. You have acted over aggressively here and its backfiring over you. I typically would agree with you AGF is not a suicide pact and thus can occasionally WP:IAR but even the most vile Socks dont deserve Personal attacks because when you cross that line you are as bad as the sock. We must stand the moral high ground here. If you can talk to User:Cirt he might be able to give you some good advice on this. As i see some obvious paralells between his confrontations and your issues with the JIDF Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)