Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:50, 9 June 2006

Bernie Sanders

Thanks for your work on the Bernie Sanders. Recently the article had become involved in an edit war with serveral less than ideal versions. It's nice to that cycle broken and I feel your contributions have improved the NPOV. --waffle iron 20:56, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello, This is User Straight Info. I'm writing because I've been banned from editing by Admin Heah for adding balance to the Bernie Sanders page. He and Bkwillwm seem to feel any statement which may cause the reader to have a any less than a stellar opinion of Sanders is POV. For an example, read the last edit I made. For instance, I wrote that Sanders criticized Bush for cutting section 8, then I quote the Budget office, showing that no such cut took place or was proposed. Well, if that makes Sanders a liar, then it does. However, I give Sanders side, and his oppositions. waffle iron reported me for 3RR when I'd only edited the page twice that day! Don't trust him. He then proceeded to edit the page 7 times. Read the record. Sorry I can't autosign this, please help.

as an example of something you thought of, try Ganfyd

"the possibility of starting a MediaWiki-based weblog that can double as a specialized reference source." you mentioned considering.

We did it, complete with a liccence that I'd suspect is suitable as a base for other professions. http://ganfyd.org

Midgley 22:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 14:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Elections in Cuba

Welcome to the war of liberation to free the Cuba articles from the grip of the Partido Communista de Misplaced Pages. See also Cuba, Human rights in Cuba and (awaiting attention) (History of Cuba. The struggle is long and arduous and the enemy is cunning, but victory will be ours. Please continue to contribute. Adam 14:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

David Lat

So, SuggestBot did its dirty business. Thanks for your excellent edits to the David Lat article. It looks a lot better now. I am glad that you lied when you said that you "don't really post here any more." Cheers! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 15:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your input on the Jim Sensenbrenner article. Incidentally, I like your "Entertaining, if false, accusations made about me on Misplaced Pages"; I've been called a "viscious, greed-driven, megalomaniacal fascist thug" and a "gay male, opera loving, Wisconsin Republican", all of which are mostly untrue. (I'll keep to myself which are actually true. ;^) )--BaronLarf 21:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Conrad Burns

Could you please explain why you removed that sentence from the intro? This isn't my opinion, every single thing I've read about Burns makes the very same point. One of many examples: "The rural upbringing of Republican senator Conrad Burns makes him an unlikely spokesman on high-tech issues, but the Montana senator is an outspoken champion of the technology and telecommunications industries. The former cattle auctioneer sometimes embarrasses Montana citizens with his cowpoke ways, but he can be counted on to defend the interests of ranchers and farmers on Capitol Hill." Gamaliel 22:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Frivolous Litigation

Perhaps a new section on frivolous litigation should be added. Bill Smoot 00:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Arlington County, Virginia

Hey FRCP11, I wanted to let you know that I have nominated Arlington County, Virginia as a candidate for US Collaboration of the Week. The article is in need of much help and with a little group effort, it could be brought to Featured Article status! I brought this to your attention as I have seen you have contributed to the article in the recent past. Please cast your vote with your signature at the US Collaboration of the Week page under Arlington County, Virginia. --Caponer 02:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for providing sources...

...on the items you've recently added to the Brandeis alumni list. Dpbsmith (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Henry M. Jackson

Can I get a second set of eyes to look at a revert war in the Henry M Jackson article? I think I'm being reasonable, but the other editor doesn't agree. -- FRCP11 21:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Gave up long ago on trying to talk sense to 8bitJake (talk · contribs). State politics articles are pretty much on my "avoid" list; the Olympics is so much less stressful a topic ;). Anyway, looks to me like the information that he keeps deleting is relevant, well-cited, and informative. Looks like there's plenty of support for the inclusion on the talk page. I'll restore it. -- Jonel | Speak 23:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ongoing war

Only because it seems as if you're around and I won't be for a while, if he pulls any stunts that require admin intervention, make sure they check his talkpage history. He's notorious for deleting his talk page, and there's a lot of stuff in there. Scoop isn't the first article he's acted like this on. Hang in there. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting

You (and several others) saved me many keystrokes by reverting the most recent round of trivial/POV H1-B spam. All I had left to do was leave a message on a talk page: see 71.123.40.76. Much thanks -- Paleorthid 01:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey there

I agree the content should be in Gregoire's article, but could you stop mentioning Jake's conduct (stalking, tagteaming, whatever it is?)? I worked with him before and he was alright; maybe if you focus on the article he'll do the same? If it's a personal battle he'll never budge (no one does) and the article won't go anywhere. Phenry ("phh") is a fair editor that also works on the article. He might not appreciate info that paints Gregoire in a negative light but my guess is he'll agree that the info is fair to mention. Justforasecond 05:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I am kind of shocked that you've had a good situation with him, but I do suggest taking a look at Henry M. Jackson. It's been a frustrating week with 8BJ and there's a reason why some of us are on our last straw with him. --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

OK sounds good guys. He does seem to be acting different than he did when I worked with him. Hopefully he'll come back to the light side of the force ;) Justforasecond 13:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

{{unblock}}

Regarding reversions made on June 8 2006 (UTC) to Christine Gregoire

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

This block is erroneous. I did not violate 3RR. Please show me 4 reversions in 24 hours. I have been very careful to avoid this problem. -- FRCP11 19:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

From here I see the edits and they do look like basically reverts. May I suggest taking it to the talk page in lieu of revert as edit warring is a bad thing -- Tawker 19:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Some were reverts, but there were not 4 reverts. I even abstained from adding a POV tag that had been improperly removed four times. "Look like reverts" is not "reverts" when several of the edits are attempts at compromise. I was given no warning. -- FRCP11 19:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

An admin is reviewing this atm. -- Drini 19:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

NB also my frequent use of the Talk:Christine Gregoire page when 8bitJake simply reverted my edits. -- FRCP11 19:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Having looked again, I still think you have 4R. 1 is rv cos it says so; adds controversial, as does 2; and 3 are a pair; 4 re-rms "legal" (and 5 does essentially the same) William M. Connolley 19:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

1 is an edit about tobacco, not an edit of the introduction; 2 is a brand new edit of a different section in the article, and not a revert; 5 is a compromise edit moving "controversial" away from "recount". If those are your 4, you prove my point that I haven't violated WP:3RR. -- FRCP11 19:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

DENIED you did make more than 3 reverts. And even if you had only 3, you're edit warring and gaming the system (push your revert limits while carefully trying not to get over 3, in both cases blocking is warranted. So endorse deletion for both parties. -- Drini 19:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a moment... a block, yes, but deletion seems a bit strong :-) William M. Connolley 19:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

mind slip -- Drini 20:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a good way to chase away legitimate editors, when you treat people who follow the rules worse than you treat bad-faith editors -- 8bitJake got warnings, and I didn't. If someone had said, don't push, I wouldn't have pushed. My edits were legitimate, and I tried multiple compromises, and discussions on the talk page once I was reverted. 8bitJake, who is a multiple violator, simply reverted several times, and got the same 12-hour penalty. -- FRCP11 20:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet oth are blocked, so situation is fair. -- Drini 20:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh, no, the situation isn't fair. I have 2000 edits without so much as a warning for anything, and I was blocked 12 hours. 8bitJake who reverted a POV tag four times without discussing it on the talk page and is a repeat offender previously blocked four times for edit-warring, gets the same 12 hours. -- FRCP11 20:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me explain the warning bit at least. 8bit got a warning, cos we didn't know if he knew about the rule. You don't need a warning - you're reporting people, of course you know about the rule.

As to the rest... I know what you mean. You're being "good" and 8bit "bad" so why can't we use discretion and come down on the side of the godly? Because we don't know the nature of your dispute. The blocks are just based on text removed and added, with only the tiniest bit of judgement as to validity. The opposite - allowing admins to block (or not) because they agreed with the edits, is bad William M. Connolley 20:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

But I didn't know the rule that almost 4 reversions about different subjects in more than 24 hours would be considered the same as more than 4 reversions of the same text in under 24 hours. And once again, I did not violate the rule as I understood it. -- FRCP11 20:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

And it's not true that "8bit got a warning because we didn't know if he knew about the rule". He'd previously been blocked twice for 3RR violations when he got the warning. -- FRCP11 20:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Twice this past week, in fact, and his fifth overall. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Um, well, I'm afraid I'm not totally up to speed on his previous convictions. You have 4R; please read the WP:3RR page for the rules, which you'll discover are by no means exact, which is why sticking well clear of 4R is considered wise William M. Connolley 20:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

But I did not know that one could be sanctioned for failing to "stick well clear of 4R". My experience has been that two-time violator 8bitJake made six reversions, was given a warning, then made two more reversions before being blocked, so I honestly thought that if I followed the letter of the law, I was in the clear. I appreciate the warning, but giving me the same penalty as a recidivist seems inappropriate on both (1) giving me a penalty, rather than a warning; and (2) failing to sanction someone who has been consistently abusive. Like I said, if you're going to treat the good-faith editors the same as the bad-faith editors, I have no incentive to stay here. The bad faith editors have too much power to disrupt Misplaced Pages as it is, and if they can entangle someone like me into a penalty, then there's no wonder no one tries to stop them. And, again, I don't have 4R, because you're counting good-faith compromise edits and a POV tag that I added as part of an RFC as reversions. -- FRCP11 20:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

You're in danger of going rather over the top here... is a revert because (a) it is and (b) you labelled it as one William M. Connolley 21:46, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Evidence of system gaming

• with a minor addition

This is not a reversion. There was a complaint that "controversial" was being used to describe the second recount, so I instead used it to describe the election, and added cites to show that I wasn't making up the use of the word. This was a good-faith effort at compromise to clean up messy language by using one word instead of twelve. -- FRCP11 20:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• (2 hours over 24)

This fourth one is an addition of a POV tag. -- FRCP11 20:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, you stated that you carefully try not to step over the limits, so that means you do know that edit warring is frowned upon, so don't cry foul for the lack of warnings. -- Drini 20:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

In other words, I followed the rules. (And one of these "reversions" is for adding a POV tag!) If you give me a different rule, I'll follow that. I'll accept this as a warning to not break what is apparently an unwritten rule, but this is unreasonable to penalize me for following the rules. -- FRCP11 20:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not giving a differnet rule. Those were reversions (i.e from one of your edit to the next one with other users' edit in the middle. My point is: what is important is the sipirit of the law, not its letter. The spirit is: Edit warring over an article is bad, so it must be stopped. Usually this is done when 3 reversions are reached, which is a technical debate I suppose, but the fact is that you both engaged into fighting each other and thus both had to be stopped. If you're having a content dispute, I suggest you a few possible channels: Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes, Mediation cabal, Requests for mediation that way you can sourt out the problems without having to fight one-to-one -- Drini 20:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Holy cow! This lecture is telling me what I already know! I did use the dispute resolution channels. I made several RFCs in response to 8bitJake's wikistalking reversions:check the RFC/Politics (and the personal attacks 8bitJake launched on me on that page when I used the RFCs). After consensus on the talk page, I then reverted, trying to be careful to stay within the rule. When there wasn't consensus, I didn't revert. -- FRCP11 20:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

As a third party in these disputes, this has happened. The RFCs have occurred numeroua times, he has been brought to the mediation cabal before in a different dispute, etc. You seem to misunderstand the magnitude of the situation with him, and perhaps an RfA may be in order if this is how it is going to be handled. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Drini already dealt with your unblock request. Please do not add the tag again - talk pages can be protected to stop abuse of the unblock template. --Sam Blanning 21:16, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

My unblock request has not been dealt with

1. Djini's denial made several mistakes in characterizations that he has not defended or responded to.
   1. For example, Djini argued that I should have used the talk page. But I did use the talk page, and the edits I made were changes that were discussed, including through an RFC; only a single bad-faith editor objected.
2. Djini's denial counted a legitimate non-reversionary compromise edit and an addition of a POV tag as "reverts" because he misunderstood the controversy over the term "controversy."
3. I have no history of abuse in my 2000-edit career, but got no warning of a "spirit" violation, even though the user who reverted my edits dozens of times today got a warning, even though he had been blocked twice.
4. I got the same penalty as the abusive recidivist editor who was being penalized for the fifth time, even though I was using the Talk page, and the RFC process, and other editors on the page agreed that I was making legitimate edits: that user is gloating now that he succeeded in tricking me into getting blocked through his bad-faith edits.
5. The editor who blocked me admitted that he failed to look at the block logs or attempt to understand the nature of the dispute.
6. In effect, I am being blocked because I reported an abusive editor, and the administrator decided to just throw blocks on everyone. Had I simply allowed the abuse to occur, I would have suffered no consequences. Does Misplaced Pages not understand what a perverse incentive this creates for the encyclopedia as a whole, and that it will be overrun with other abusive editors because educated people who have good-faith edits to contribute are being driven away?

I humbly request that my block be downgraded to a warning, and I will behave better in the future, since I have apparently breached an unwritten rule that I was unfamiliar with.

But if this is not going to be corrected, I am not going to return to Misplaced Pages. As I have stated on several occasions in RFD discussions and RFC discussions, Misplaced Pages does not adequately penalize bad-faith editors, and disruption that editors like User:8bitJake engage in drives away useful editors. If a good-faith mistake of an editor with no adverse record is to be punished to the same extent as someone who has been blocked for edit-warring three times in ten days; if a good Samaritan who reports abuse is treated as indistinguishable from the abuser because the adminstrator can't be bothered to figure out what happened; then you will have definitively persuaded me that this is not a worthwhile endeavor. Blocks are being issued randomly, regardless of the merits. -- FRCP11 21:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

They are not being issued randomly. You violated 3RR, we don't play favorites or take sides. Sorry. Sasquatch t|c 00:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You are taking sides when you punish the good-faith mistakes as stringently as the bad-faith recidivists. -- FRCP11 09:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Who are you to judge what is good faith and bad faith editing, your self-righteousness is galling, take your punishment like everyone else. We all feel hard done by unjustified slights but this is the nature of editing in WP, if you were ignorant of the 3RR ruling and the principles underlying it, well then that is tough, the same has occurred to me and many others, if you feel the need to leave WP over what you perceive as an unjustified slight, then so be it, WP could probably do without overly-sensitive editors who are incapable of accepting a consensus judgement and whose sole objective appears to be imposing one's opinion on others relentlessly. Bazzajf 10:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

All anyone needs to know about Bazzajf is that he claims there's no evidence that Scoop Jackson has a neoconservative legacy, refused to adhere to an RFC, and that he's suffered no consequences for ignoring RFC or using sockpuppets. This is precisely the sort of bad-faith editor that has no place on Misplaced Pages and that Misplaced Pages rules currently favor. -- FRCP11 10:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The three false statements you make reflect your self-righteous attitude which appears to have ultimately taken you over the WP edge.

• I never claimed there was no evidence of Jackson's neocon legacy, I argued the evidence provided in the WP article on him was not verifiable or objective enough as far as I was concerned.

• As regards RFCs, my contributions are well-documented in the discussion page of same article so I can only presume you are deluding yourself.

• I have suffered consequences for sockpuppetry when I was not even guilty of it, User LtPowers will confirm this.

Even you yourself stated you were sceptical of the sockpuppetry ban extension imposed on myself

so feel free to contradict yourself on this point.

Just take your ban like a man. You violated the principles underlying 3RR, that is the bottom line, don't go spitting the dummy out because you are part of the "I have a block on my record" club. Just move on, besides should you not be in another community forum now imposing your self-righteousness on others. Toddle along now. Bazzajf 10:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

I don't know if you're around, but I opened an RfAr on 8BJ which input would be useful. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)