| Revision as of 16:41, 15 December 2021 editFirefangledfeathers (talk | contribs)Administrators31,647 edits →McCullough/Ayurveda: new sectionTag: New topic← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:45, 9 January 2025 edit undoMalcolmxl5 (talk | contribs)Administrators149,220 edits →Thomas Partey: Thanks.Tag: Reply |
| (998 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|maxarchivesize = 30K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 30K |
|
|counter = 87 |
|
|counter = 97 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|minthreadsleft = 1 |
|
|algo = old(48h) |
|
|algo = old(48h) |
| Line 7: |
Line 7: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{ombox |
|
{{ombox |
|
|text = ''“Libraries gave us power"'' <small>Manic Street Preachers</small> |
|
|text = ''"And while I'm alive, I'll make tiny changes to earth."'' <small>]</small> |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{tmbox |
|
{{tmbox |
| Line 19: |
Line 19: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Block == |
|
==WP:BLPCAT violation again on religious converstion pages== |
|
|
Can you please take a look at ]? Last time, several entried were removed before the article was protected. Now another editor doing the same like a previous blocked sock and . Thanks. --] (]) 16:01, 11 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Block with. All project ] (]) 11:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
==Time to close AFD== |
|
|
|
* Sorry, I'm not sure what this means. ] 11:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
This article's ] AFD here has been listed for deletion three times now, and the third list has gone beyond 7 days. I think that's it's time to close it.] (]) 04:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Thomas Partey == |
|
== AE current case {{u|Maneesh}} == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Can you have a look at the antics at ] please? The short story is that the police have been investigating allegations made about a Premier League player and a file has been passed to the CPS but neither have named the individual (and they can’t due to privacy rules regarding the identification of suspects) meaning any sources naming anyone are conjecture. We have a young editor persisting adding the accusations to the article and talk page who will not stop. They have a CTOP notification. — ] (]) 21:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
Bearing in mind your recent disgraceful comments at RSN |
|
|
|
* {{u|Malcolmxl5}} Indefinitely blocked and every edit revision deleted. I've also semi-protected the article. Thanks, ] 21:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
*:Thanks. — ] (]) 21:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC) |
|
which, you may remember, I objected to at the time, my view is that you should recuse yourself from anything to do with gender issues, and in particular, the current AE discussion about Maneesh. As you say, {{tq|Misplaced Pages is meant to be an inclusive, collaborative editing environment}} and anyone who attacks editors as ‘culture warriors’ is degrading that environment. ] (]) 12:28, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The environment has been degraded. An admin observing that a topic area is rife with misconduct can't be construed as involvement, as it's reasonably a part of the administrative role. ] 13:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::This was not an admin ‘observing that a topic area is rife with misconduct’. It was an admin attacking someone who had raised a reasonable query about the reliability of a publication, on the grounds of the perceived political orientation of the questioner. The discussion had been about the publication, until Black Kite got involved. It was BK who degraded the environment in that discussion. In the second diff, BK makes another unevidenced personal attack on the questioner, and threatens to topic-ban them. The Misplaced Pages system for evaluating the reliability of publications cannot operate if anyone who raises a reasonable question risks being threatened with a topic ban, particularly where, as in this case, the threat is based on a political (in the broadest sense) dispute. ] (]) 14:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Sweet6970, your opinion that the mover of that RSN discussion was actually raising {{tq|a reasonable query about the reliability of a publication}}, and that the discussion from the beginning {{tq|had been about the publication}}, is your personal opinion and nothing more. In my view, the discussion was tendentious and laden with bias right from the mover's opening statement - and I believe there is more support of that perception from comments by editors within the discussion itself than for your view that, essentially, everything was fine until BK messed it up. ] (]) 15:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Admins are free to question the motives of editors and warn that topic-bans are an option. You might disagree with those admin actions, but they aren't reasons to recuse. ] 15:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::To Newimpartial: Once again, we disagree. And once again, we’re in danger of drifting off the point. The point I’m trying to make is that an admin who has aggressively expressed partisanship over a particular issue should not be adjudicating on any matter in that area. |
|
|
::::To Firefangledfeathers: BK was not ''questioning'' the motives of editors, or giving a ''warning''. They were ''assuming'' an illegitimate motive, without providing any evidence, and making a ''threat''. |
|
| ⚫ |
::::] (]) 16:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::We are reading the same text and drawing different conclusions. I think it's unlikely that either of us is going to convince the other; at least, I don't believe I could do so without repeating arguments, which is usually a sign that I should step away from the discussion. Please do not take my lack of response as agreement with any of your present or future points here. ] 16:03, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== McCullough/Ayurveda == |
|
|
|
|
|
Black Kite, you implemented an arbitration enforcement remedy at ] in which comments that solely complain about "quackery" without any policy basis are removed without comment. I am wondering if a similar remedy might help at ], which has experienced months of comments that dispute "misinformation", which is well-sourced, but provide no PAG reasoning for doing so. There have been five such comments posted in the last week.{{pb}}If you'd prefer, I think this request could reasonably be posted at AE, where other admins can discuss the idea. Either way, I would appreciate your thoughts on whether it's reasonable or if there are better methods to alleviating the disruption. Thanks, ] 16:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC) |
|
