Revision as of 16:21, 5 December 2005 editMarsden (talk | contribs)1,053 edits →Personal attacks← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 22:49, 8 July 2011 edit undoFastily (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled100,543 editsm Unprotected User talk:Marsden: Long gone user. Protection no longer necessary. (TW) | ||
(58 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Archives: ] | Archives: ] | ||
== |
==Blocked for 24 hours== | ||
⚫ | ==Oppose Jayjg's Candidacy for ArbCom== | ||
Just a word of thanks for your support on my RfA - I don't know if I'm Wikipedian of the year but it sure feels like I've been the Wikipedian of the week ! Thanks again, much appreciated. ] <sup><small><font color="DarkBlue">]</font></small></sup> 03:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
(This section was modified without my consent by ]) | |||
==Recusal== | |||
No basis exists for my recusal in the Zephram Stark case. I will not go to mediation, nor will I recuse myself if you bring an arbitration case, see ] ] 13:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
⚫ | in the December 2005 ArbCom election promotes partisan, minority views as being NPOV. He is aided in this by a small but energetic group of other editors. | ||
:''Comment'': the above project page was created by the arbitrator the day before your exchange; I'm unsure what this means, if anything, regarding your concerns. ] 16:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
⚫ | A serious shortcoming of Misplaced Pages is that interested minorities can often promote completely biased perspectives as being neutral. Jayjg is among the worst exploiters of this problem. I urge every Wikipedian to oppose his candidacy to the Arbitration Committee for this reason. | ||
::Hi there! Understood. I sometimes monitor user communications on Wp, and was intrigued by this. (Yes: though, I do have a life. :)) I merely pointed this out to you since it could be perceived by a neutral third-party as (1) an attempt to develop good Wp policy, and/or (2) a collateral, perhaps abusive and biased, attempt by an upper echelon to use one's position to sequester user commentary, particularly given this user's soon-to-be departure from the ArbComm. I hope this helps. ] 16:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
⚫ | It is likely that Misplaced Pages is approaching the end of its usefulness. It is sometimes an effective resource for non-controversial topics, but on controversial matters ''very'' little confidence can be placed in its articles. Eventually a new platform will probably arise that uses Misplaced Pages's free-use content where it is useful, but which replaces POV-ed articles with more professionally produced writing. | ||
Here is the proposal we are currently voting on which will probably pass: | |||
⚫ | It would be better, however, if this were not necessary, and getting Jayjg off of the ArbCom would be an important step toward saving Misplaced Pages from the propagandists for the time being. | ||
====Focus of dispute==== | |||
1.3) Zephram Stark engaged in tendentious (exhibiting a strong POV) and disruptive editing with respect to the article ] over an extended period of time, see ] and ]. | |||
⚫ | ] has since removed all of the critical questions from Jayjg's page, eliminating even the pretence of open questioning of the candidate.) | ||
== Second block == | |||
⚫ | ] 17:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
As an uninvolved admin, I've decided to reblock you for 24 hours for continuing personal attacks like , right after coming back from the first block. I'm sure you don't need to be referred to WP:NPA or given a warning by now. You can still edit your talk page (if you keep it civil). ]·] 03:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
==] |
== ] ] ] == | ||
Can you check out. Humus Sapiens seems to have discovered a list of articles I have contributed and is busy reverting seemingly to make a WP:Point - definitely to push POV. ] 23:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
I think you've dealt with this user before. His name is John MCW and he keeps adding right-wing propaganda into these articles. Even though he's being opposed by three editors, he will not stop reverting it seems. Your input would be appreciated. ]<sup><small><font color="#FF8C00">]</font></small></sup> 01:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
:Sorry, I seem to be blocked. Apparently any word I write now, including "and" and "the" is considered to be a personal attack. ;-) Humus' last edit at Israel and UN seems to agree with yours. ] 14:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
==Arbitration candidate question== | |||
It was a perfectly appropriate question as I see trollish behavior as the number one problem impeding building the encyclopedia. There are a handful of editors (i.e. ]) who focus on other editors (harrassing them) rather than on article contents . This kind of disruptive behavior only serves to chase away good editors and I would like to see the arbitration committee take stronger measures in dealing with the disruptive few who insist on behaving this way. --]<sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 05:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
:No, personal attacks are never appropriate, and I’m very disappointed in your tactics which reveal that you apparently believe it’s ok if you harbor enough hate toward the person. Btw, I don’t believe the ranting and spamming of a candidate’s page you and FW are engaging in will gain the effect you’re hoping for. (See zeq’s attempt to negatively affect Ramallite’s RFA, for example). Also, no one expects a candidate to answer "would you like to rebut my character assassination of you?" which is easily recognized as merely an invitation to feed the trolls. --]<sup><small>( ] | ])</small></sup> 18:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
== {{User|Snowspinner}} == | |||
==The arbcom nomination pages== | |||
Marsden, these are not attack pages, and in fact they were specifically set up to avoid the unpleasantness of last year, which no one wants. You've said your piece and you've asked a question; there's no need for any more aggression. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 21:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
Ah, Misplaced Pages's true colors come out. | |||
:I have made a suggestion on the associated talk page. I was wondering if you could have a look and consider your "question", which I feel is more a statement. ] | ] 21:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
I have apparently been blocked indefinitely by one "Snowspinner," with the comment, "Hopeless troll": . | |||
I haven't laughed so much for a long time. The process has clearly totally broken - and the behaviour of "the usual suspects" here illustrates this so well that it's now degenerated into farce. ] 14:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
Perhaps he was upset that I removed the prejudicial phrase, "... although much of the land reserved for the Jewish state had already been acquired by Jews, had a Jewish majority, or was under state control," which had followed, "The partition plan was rejected out of hand by the leadership of the Palestinian Arabs and by most of the Arab population, ..." in the ] article. And, in some edit conflict to keep the propagandist Jayjg from restoring the phrase, the following underlying facts of the situation have been added to the article: | |||
==question== | |||
Marsden, did you watch the HBO series called "Rome". It was pretty good, actually. Anyway, there was this one episode where a main character, "Lucious Varinas", was running for office. It turns out that Ceasar wanted Varinas to win. So, Varinas is giving this speech to the public, and there is some guy in the audience who says Ceasar is a menace and Varinas is a traitor for supporting him. Ceasar sent some of his men to stand in the audience during the speech, and when this guy starts criticizing Ceasar, these guys quietly form a circle around him, and then snatch him out of the crowd. I was wondering if there is a term for these sorts of brute-squad characters. A "shill" is usually a person who pretends to be a customer saying how great the product is, but they're really paid by the merchant. Casino's use them a lot, paying some people to gamble so the place looks busy. Little old ladies make great shills because if people think gambling is safe for "grandma", then it must be safe for them. The problem is that "shill" isn't exactly the right term for brute squad tactics to suppress criticism. I was just wondering if you happened to know a vocabulary term to describe the behaviour. Shoot me an email. ] 18:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
*According to an October 17, 1947 testimony before the United Nations by Moshe Shertok of the Jewish Agency, "the Jews have, so far, managed to acquire less than seven percent of the land area of Palestine." According to British statistics, of the land that became Israel (approximately 78% of Mandate Palestine, by area), Jews owned almost 9%, Palestinians who became citizens of Israel (and retained ownership of their land) owned another 3%, about 18% belonged to Arabs who had left the area, and the mandatory government owned over 70%. | |||
==Personal attacks== | |||
I'm usually pretty conservative in applying the no personal attacks policy, however, is over the line. If I see you make any more like it, you can expect to be blocked. ] 19:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
(Jayjg actually added most of the information, although typically he failed to mention the "18% belonging to Arabs who had left the area," even though it was from the source for the rest of his information. And, obviously, he didn't add the "less than seven percent" quote.) | |||
== self-hating == | |||
So, this is what trolling is at Misplaced Pages: objecting to a statement that "much of the land reserved for the Jewish state had already been acquired by Jews ... or was under state control" when in fact Jews owned less than 9% and Arabs owned about 21% -- Bill Gates and I own much of Microsoft's outstanding stock shares, too. | |||
I would hate to see anybody blocked. Can you draw more people into the conversation? If you check the Jew/Judaism and related articles you will see a number of people pretty knowledgable on Jewish topics who may provide constructive ideas about how to apporach this, and keep it from descending into a conflict between two editors. This has worked in the past and I really urge you to consider trying it. In the meantime, I will do what I can. I may not simply delete whatever he added, but at least I will try to reword it in a more NPOV way or something. ] | ] 20:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
:Okay, take a look at what I did. IF Apeloverage ignores my advice and just reverts my edit, and you feel strongly about this, my suggestion to you is that before starting a revert war you go to the "Request for Comment" page and try to get others to join in the discussion on this matter. The ideal (granted, often not achieved) is for reasonable people to engage in a well-informed discussion leading to something like consensus. Let's at least give it a shot. ] | ] 20:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
Okay, concerning the other matter. And please take this as constructive and well-intentioned, good-faith advice. Jayjg is pretty well-respected by many editors. This of course doe not mean that he is immune from criticism. But whatever issues you have, I urge you to be as careful in providing evidence the interpretation of which is beyond doubt, and/or raise questions, in as dispassionate, respectful, and reasonable tone as possible (which I am well aware you are capable of). And never violate the 3-revert-rule. I am no angel myself and have been blocked a couple of times for violating rules and loosing my cool. I just would hate to see the same thing happen to you, ] | ] 20:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
Ah, Snowspinner. I'm comfortable where I'm standing. How about you? | |||
==Blocked for 24 hours== | |||
] 15:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
⚫ | ==Oppose Jayjg's Candidacy for ArbCom== | ||
:Your talk page was protected; I don't know why, but I've unprotected it so you can talk here. I've been arguing with Snowspinner against your block, but there's actually not much I can do, because I have an ArbCom ruling that prevents me from questioning the actions of other admins. Our first strategy should be to try to get Snowspinner to agree to unblock you. Can you think of a way you could appease him? ] 09:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
⚫ | in the December 2005 ArbCom election |
||
::You have an ArbCom ruling that prevents you from questioning the actions of other admins???! WTF? Misplaced Pages just gets curiouser and curiouser. | |||
⚫ | A serious shortcoming of Misplaced Pages is that interested minorities can often promote completely biased perspectives as being neutral. Jayjg is among the worst exploiters of this problem. I urge every Wikipedian to oppose his candidacy to the Arbitration Committee for this reason. | ||
::Everyking, I appreciate your efforts and your sentiments about how Misplaced Pages ''ought'' to function, but it is clear that the way Misplaced Pages really functions is something else entirely. Misplaced Pages is broken, and for the last couple of months I have worked at fixing it, to the exclusion of editing articles that I could make my most worthwhile contributions to. But Misplaced Pages will not be fixed; it doesn't want to be fixed. Frankly, after Snowblower's heavy handed reaction to a comment I made on a user ''talk'' pager (for f***'s sake), I take it as given that Jimbo Wales really is selling content control over Misplaced Pages -- it wouldn't make sense for such a response to be tolerated if this were false. | |||
⚫ | It is likely that Misplaced Pages is approaching the end of its usefulness. It is sometimes an effective resource for non-controversial topics, but on controversial matters ''very'' little confidence can be placed in its articles. Eventually a new platform will probably arise that uses Misplaced Pages's free-use content where it is useful, but which replaces POV-ed articles with more professionally produced writing. | ||
::In any case, as further evidenced by your bizarre ArbCom restriction, Misplaced Pages, much like Stalinist Russia, does not like questions to be asked. As far as I'm concerned, that's a society's way of saying, "Get the f*** out, NOW!" So that's what I'm doing. Eventually Misplaced Pages will be put under by a liability threat much as Napster etc. were. (I'll look forward to the day.) And then Jimmy Wales will sell the database to someone who wants to have a more strictly controlled online encyclopedia, who will freeze input, put some resources into professional editing, and sell advertising. That, ultimately, is what you are contributing to by participating in Misplaced Pages, and I have no interest in it. | |||
⚫ | It would be better, however, if this were not necessary, and getting Jayjg off of the ArbCom would be an important step toward saving Misplaced Pages from the propagandists for the time being. | ||
::If you really work for a grocery store, Everyking, consider that maybe you're wasting your talents there. | |||
Here, by the way, is the question I posed to Jayjg on his candidacy page, the question for which ] blocked me: | |||
::] 16:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
FWIW: You seem to have made the right enemies: | |||
⚫ | |||
] 16:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
== Block == | |||
⚫ | ] 17:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
I changed the indefinite block to a duration of one month, ending 16 January 2006. If you choose to return, please respect the Misplaced Pages community and all its editors, and ensure that you are aware of relevant policies such as ] and ]. Thanks, ] <sup>]</sup> 11:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
== RfAr against ] == | |||
== Your question on my age re: ArbCom candidacy == | |||
I noticed that you filed a Request for Arbitration which was then dismissed as irrelevant. | |||
I know that you are blocked, but I thought that you should look at this page ]. Whilst in that issue SlimVirgin is just an accessory, there is some suggestion of abuse of administrative priveleges there too. I thought that you might be interested in looking at it (as might anyone else who might come across this page). I am very proud of it actually. Since you would likely be neutral, would you want to take it to Jimbo for me? I don't feel that I can as I am too involved in it now. But you are basically neutral. ] ] <small>] ] ]</small> 13:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
Hi Marsden - this is just to let you know that I've ] concerning my Arbitration Committee candidacy. If you want me to expand or clarify anything I've written, please just let me know. Thanks, ] (] | ] | ]) 01:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 22:49, 8 July 2011
Archives: Archive1
Blocked for 24 hours
Oppose Jayjg's Candidacy for ArbCom
(This section was modified without my consent by User:SlimVirgin)
Candidate Jayjg in the December 2005 ArbCom election promotes partisan, minority views as being NPOV. He is aided in this by a small but energetic group of other editors.
A serious shortcoming of Misplaced Pages is that interested minorities can often promote completely biased perspectives as being neutral. Jayjg is among the worst exploiters of this problem. I urge every Wikipedian to oppose his candidacy to the Arbitration Committee for this reason.
It is likely that Misplaced Pages is approaching the end of its usefulness. It is sometimes an effective resource for non-controversial topics, but on controversial matters very little confidence can be placed in its articles. Eventually a new platform will probably arise that uses Misplaced Pages's free-use content where it is useful, but which replaces POV-ed articles with more professionally produced writing.
It would be better, however, if this were not necessary, and getting Jayjg off of the ArbCom would be an important step toward saving Misplaced Pages from the propagandists for the time being.
User:Viriditas has since removed all of the critical questions from Jayjg's page, eliminating even the pretence of open questioning of the candidate.)
Marsden 17:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Israel and the United Nations Magen David Adom Zionist Terrorism
Can you check out. Humus Sapiens seems to have discovered a list of articles I have contributed and is busy reverting seemingly to make a WP:Point - definitely to push POV. Unbehagen 23:09, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry, I seem to be blocked. Apparently any word I write now, including "and" and "the" is considered to be a personal attack. ;-) Humus' last edit at Israel and UN seems to agree with yours. Marsden 14:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Snowspinner (talk · contribs)
Ah, Misplaced Pages's true colors come out.
I have apparently been blocked indefinitely by one "Snowspinner," with the comment, "Hopeless troll": .
Perhaps he was upset that I removed the prejudicial phrase, "... although much of the land reserved for the Jewish state had already been acquired by Jews, had a Jewish majority, or was under state control," which had followed, "The partition plan was rejected out of hand by the leadership of the Palestinian Arabs and by most of the Arab population, ..." in the British Mandate of Palestine article. And, in some edit conflict to keep the propagandist Jayjg from restoring the phrase, the following underlying facts of the situation have been added to the article:
- According to an October 17, 1947 testimony before the United Nations by Moshe Shertok of the Jewish Agency, "the Jews have, so far, managed to acquire less than seven percent of the land area of Palestine." According to British statistics, of the land that became Israel (approximately 78% of Mandate Palestine, by area), Jews owned almost 9%, Palestinians who became citizens of Israel (and retained ownership of their land) owned another 3%, about 18% belonged to Arabs who had left the area, and the mandatory government owned over 70%.
(Jayjg actually added most of the information, although typically he failed to mention the "18% belonging to Arabs who had left the area," even though it was from the source for the rest of his information. And, obviously, he didn't add the "less than seven percent" quote.)
So, this is what trolling is at Misplaced Pages: objecting to a statement that "much of the land reserved for the Jewish state had already been acquired by Jews ... or was under state control" when in fact Jews owned less than 9% and Arabs owned about 21% -- Bill Gates and I own much of Microsoft's outstanding stock shares, too.
Ah, Snowspinner. I'm comfortable where I'm standing. How about you?
Marsden 15:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
- Your talk page was protected; I don't know why, but I've unprotected it so you can talk here. I've been arguing with Snowspinner against your block, but there's actually not much I can do, because I have an ArbCom ruling that prevents me from questioning the actions of other admins. Our first strategy should be to try to get Snowspinner to agree to unblock you. Can you think of a way you could appease him? Everyking 09:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- You have an ArbCom ruling that prevents you from questioning the actions of other admins???! WTF? Misplaced Pages just gets curiouser and curiouser.
- Everyking, I appreciate your efforts and your sentiments about how Misplaced Pages ought to function, but it is clear that the way Misplaced Pages really functions is something else entirely. Misplaced Pages is broken, and for the last couple of months I have worked at fixing it, to the exclusion of editing articles that I could make my most worthwhile contributions to. But Misplaced Pages will not be fixed; it doesn't want to be fixed. Frankly, after Snowblower's heavy handed reaction to a comment I made on a user talk pager (for f***'s sake), I take it as given that Jimbo Wales really is selling content control over Misplaced Pages -- it wouldn't make sense for such a response to be tolerated if this were false.
- In any case, as further evidenced by your bizarre ArbCom restriction, Misplaced Pages, much like Stalinist Russia, does not like questions to be asked. As far as I'm concerned, that's a society's way of saying, "Get the f*** out, NOW!" So that's what I'm doing. Eventually Misplaced Pages will be put under by a liability threat much as Napster etc. were. (I'll look forward to the day.) And then Jimmy Wales will sell the database to someone who wants to have a more strictly controlled online encyclopedia, who will freeze input, put some resources into professional editing, and sell advertising. That, ultimately, is what you are contributing to by participating in Misplaced Pages, and I have no interest in it.
- If you really work for a grocery store, Everyking, consider that maybe you're wasting your talents there.
FWIW: You seem to have made the right enemies: Marsden 16:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Block
I changed the indefinite block to a duration of one month, ending 16 January 2006. If you choose to return, please respect the Misplaced Pages community and all its editors, and ensure that you are aware of relevant policies such as Misplaced Pages:civility and WP:AGF. Thanks, Rd232 11:04, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
RfAr against user:SlimVirgin
I noticed that you filed a Request for Arbitration which was then dismissed as irrelevant.
I know that you are blocked, but I thought that you should look at this page User:Zordrac/Poetlister. Whilst in that issue SlimVirgin is just an accessory, there is some suggestion of abuse of administrative priveleges there too. I thought that you might be interested in looking at it (as might anyone else who might come across this page). I am very proud of it actually. Since you would likely be neutral, would you want to take it to Jimbo for me? I don't feel that I can as I am too involved in it now. But you are basically neutral. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)