Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:09, 11 February 2012

For new users

If you are new here, welcome. The page Misplaced Pages:Welcome, newcomers has links to a tutorial, and answers to frequently-asked questions.

Archives

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

9/11 cultural impact discussion

Would you mind commenting on the proposals (there are several) here?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I've followed the discussion; not sure I have anything to add at this point. Tom Harrison 00:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects

The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

 
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

thanks

thank you for being open about this.

Xiutwel-2012 (talk) 15:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Well surmised

Your comment here pretty much sums it up...as usual, you're able to make a point concisely and accurately.--MONGO 00:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

It works both ways; if his edits are allowed by consensus, then he's not banned. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it so. Although again, my point is about banned users in general, not about this case in particular. Tom Harrison 15:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, as someone that understood the Mantanmoreland/WordBomb "fight" I did take a side in that affair in favor of the latter. I had no idea that ScottyBerg is/might be Mantanmoreland, so that was a revelation. However, the reasons we have rules around here is so we have order and some semblance of harmony of course, even if we are faced with a relatively unique returnee...what surprises me is why it takes so long to issue 1 desyopping and ban another editor for a year...--MONGO 00:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

There is such a group

With respect to your comments here - that is the Audit Subcommittee. Please see WP:AUSC. We've just recently closed applications for candidacy for the 2012 community representatives; please watch WP:AC/N for further information as it becomes available, as we will be calling for comments from the community on the candidates put forward. Risker (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking of, thanks. Tom Harrison 18:11, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

9/11 CT article

Please stop making edits like this. It isn't even a question for discussion. Trying to smear all 9/11 conspiracy theorists by prominently associating them with antisemitism is blatantly tendentious. You are aware of the discretionary sanctions I am sure.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 05:22, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand you don't like it, but the antisemitism of 9/11 conspiracy theories is well established in reliable secondary sources, which I and others have provided. Discussion is continuing of how to correct the bias of the article as it is now; I've read your arguments there, and will continue to, but those arguments so far have been unpersuasive, and haven't gained traction. Tom Harrison 12:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

AE case

I have filed a request for enforcement at AE concerning you.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:ARB911 and this thread, you are indefinitely topic-banned from articles which relate to the events of September 11, broadly interpreted. See WP:TBAN for the scope of a "topc ban". You may appeal this sanction in accordance with the instructions at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

@Mkativerata: I don't know why you closed this so quickly, but I direct you to this post. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 07:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

AQFK, please don't pursue this. Thanks to those who took time to read and comment. Tom Harrison 13:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh? What on earth is this...is Mkativerata under administrative recall..or the other two misguided admins...un-believable. I looked at those diffs TDA provided and all I can say is WTF?--MONGO 21:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If there's reason to think Requests for Enforcement was manipulated, that should be investigated. Tom Harrison 18:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Manipulation...indeed...COI...indeed...misuse of the dispute resolution process for retribution and to gain an advantage in a content dispute...indeed...administrative misconduct and violation of COI...you bet. The only issue now is do I waste valuable time on an Rfc or drag everyone to arbcom.MONGO 19:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's give Mkativerata a chance to respond before filing an RfC/U or taking this to Arbitration. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

He admitted to a COI in this area...yet acted anyway...even if the situation is fixed appropriately, we can't have admins going around misusing their tools and positions...MONGO 20:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Mkativerata has retired and handed in his tools under a self admitted "cloud"...yet the topic ban still stands...I'm sorry...the admins involved in this nonsense should all resign...we've been losing fine contributors partly due to admin overzealousness...I don't think this website has any understanding how important the work you have been doing here is...and for the record, over this fiasco, AQFK has also resigned...he was only hanging around to attend to the issues at hand. Plainly put, we can't have admins out their crucifying editors over a few less than perfect edits, when they have made many thousands of completely perfect ones...admins not worried about their power trips could have simply protected the page for a week.--MONGO 06:09, 11 February 2012 (UTC)