Misplaced Pages

User talk:PantherLeapord: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:46, 12 October 2013 view sourceEatsShootsAndLeaves (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers4,723 edits →WP:AN discussion: new section← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:59, 24 November 2015 view source MediaWiki message delivery (talk | contribs)Bots3,138,459 edits →ArbCom elections are now open!: new section 
(46 intermediate revisions by 19 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{retired}}
{{pp-vandalism|expiry=14 October 2013|small=yes}}
Due to admins wanting to ban me rather than admit their or simply apologize I am retiring before their cabal forces me to due to their personal attacks against me. I don't give a shit how many policies you throw against me; this is the TRUTH, these are the FACTS! ]|]|] 00:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
{{Talk header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(30d)
|archive = User talk:PantherLeapord/Archives/%(year)d/%(monthname)s
}}
{{userbox
| id = <span style="text-decoration:underline;">AGF</span>
| border-c = #d0d0d0
| id-c = Cornsilk
| info = This talk page is STRICTLY an ] zone
| info-c = Ivory
| nocat =
| usercategory =
}}
]


== ] ==
== FOUR ==


Hi,<br>
{{archive top| I got what I wanted; let's not sling any more mud here! ]&#124;]&#124;] 07:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)}}
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current ]. The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages ]. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to ] and submit your choices on ]. For the Election committee, ] (]) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for requesting my feedback. As with the prior RFC, it is difficult for someone who has been uninvolved to fully understand all the issues and present the most useful questions. Do you want me to a.) respond to problems with the RFC? b.) suggest further issue c.) try to refine it d.) other?--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 22:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
<!-- Message sent by User:Mdann52@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:Mdann52/list&oldid=692261863 -->
:a and b if you can please. ]&#124;]&#124;] 22:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
::Am I up for a topic ban now. Last I looked that was neutral although I think I am going to be interaction banned.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 22:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
:::At this stage the topic ban discussion could go either way (Or just no consensus), but the I-ban is not between us so you can still provide feedback if that passes. I just want to make sure that we both agree with as much as possible before the discussions are closed. ]&#124;]&#124;] 22:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
::::I expect the topic ban to be NC (plus time served), but who knows.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 23:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

*Personally I don't even understand some of the RFC topics as you wrote them and I am the person most aware of the issues. E.g., issue 1 juxtapposes the nominations area and someone wantonly listing articles. That is not what the issue is. The way it is written, it is so confusing it sounds like someone told you to write something on a subject you don't understand. Even with use of the nominations area, someone could wildly list articles without regard for merits. See below. Active use of the nominations area does not oppose willy nilly director, it opposes passive nominations by category. Basically, since you are no more familiar with the issues than the previous RFC creator, you are likely to waste another month of debate without resolving anything if you don't revise your issues. You need to learn what this issues are so that we don't waste another whole month.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 00:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

;starting my list
#Presentation: I think there should be an introduction that says. Something like this RFC is intended for the projects and editors affected by the mission and administration of this award. This includes ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and the 168 editors who have received the award. You may also be here because you want to lend an objective eye toward a controversial issue and your input is sought as well.
#(say what FOUR is) You may want to state that the project serves as encouragement for people who have a strong interest in and/or a deep understanding of redlinked topics to advance them to a very high level of quality. There should be a statement that FOUR has been awarded as recognition of editorial activity that has supported a current ] by strong editorial involvement in all stages of the development of a FA. I.e., it recognizes that an editor helped 1.) create it as an encyclopedic topic, 2.) expand it to the point where it was recognized for having interesting content (DYK), 3.) expand it to the point where it was comprehensive (GA), 4.) expand and refine it the point where it upheld WP style guidelines and policy at the highest level (FA).
#Then there should be a statement that the award has existed since early 2009 as an editorial merit- and criteria-based one-shot peer reviewed award. I.e., selection has been based on a set of criteria that are reviewed by a volunteer for a final decision. The criteria leave little room to "fix" a candidate and are reviewed as a one-shot application. There has been much discussion as to whether FOUR should go forward as a barnstar type award given by and to any individual editor who the award is relevant to or whether it should continue as a merit- and criteria-based award.
#There should be a statement that recently, highly-contentious discussion has revolved around the criteria. Specifically, the first stage of the FOUR which is the creation stage has been hotly contested. All 800+ articles have been evaluated officially evaluated (FAs that are former DYKs and GAs) and a total of about 2000 articles have been evaluated based on the creation stage meaning an editor was involved before the article had encyclopedic content. I.e., those in support of the historic criteria (namely TonyTheTiger, who has reviewed about 2000 articles based on this criteria) says changing this criteria would change the award and all articles would need to be reviewed because another criteria is essentially another award. Others have stated that although no articles have used any other criteria in the past, FOUR should be awarded based on creation being determined by when an article appears in mainspace (if it was created in userspace or a sandbox) with a 24 hour window.
#Active or passive nominations. (strongly suggest rewording current presentation because the role of a director is under strong challenge). Currently all articles that appear in ], which is a category populated based on being a current ], former ], and former ] according to ], are considered nominated and moved to either ] or ]. I.E., every article that gets promoted to FA with the proper history is evaluated. Many of you likely received a FOUR without ever nominating an article due to the passive nomination based on T:AH. The vast majority (likely well over 90%) of all current FOURs have been awarded without an active nomination. The project does have a nomination section that predated the creation of the category. Formerly, nominations had to be sought by an active nominator. Should the awards be limited to those actively sought or continue with those passively identified as candidates.
#Currently FOUR has a ], which is a historical record of the project. Currently, four editors have withdrawn ] from the historical listing. This has also been contentious. There has been a lot of drama about this. Essentially, once I refused to acknowledge a candidate based on different criteria than the other 2000 candidates were evaluated against, several editors wanted to disassociate from the project. Edit warring began. The issue that remains is whether an author should be allowed to remove all information of his article from the history or whether the article should remain with the editors name replaced by .
#Currently, FOUR has a stated policy of being open to collaborations although no collaborative award has been recognized. The openness to collaboration is dependent on the definition of the creation phase of the article since all other phases of the article are clearly open to collaboration. Currently, by defining the creation phase as all those involved prior to the first encyclopedic content (readable prose that defines an encyclopedic topic) allows multiple users to contribute to an article prior to it having readable prose (creating a redirect, adding infoboxes, section headings, categories, etc.). The proposed alternate definition of those involved prior to it first appearing in the mainspace with a 24-hour window also allows collaborative creation. Some argue that only one person can create an article and that is either the person who makes the first edit or the person who makes the first edit with encyclopedic content. Should FOUR allow collaboration?

:*Tony, you do realise that the most recent withdrew after you called him racist, right? That's in no way related to how Ian and Nick were treated. I withdrew not because of how they were treated ''per se'', but because your reaction and instant assumption of bad faith showed that FOUR had become your personal fifedom and was flying in the face of consensus. When someone with (13?) such awards decides "I don't want my name associated with this", generally that's an indication that there's a problem. &nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 03:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
::*I don't understand how your withdrawal is different from Ian's and Nicks. They were all because I refused to evaluate their article with a different criteria from the other 2000 articles that I had evaluated. You call this refusal a fifedom issue.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 03:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
:::*They were all because you refused to listen to consensus, a ''policy'', and instead treated every new opinion with a heaping dose of bad faith with a side of personal attacks. Had you, you know, ''listened'' and acknowledged that either a) there should have been no collaborations or b) the wording of the FAQ was unclear, the issue would have been defused immediately. Once you get to the point where spamming personal attacks in an RFC notification seems like a good idea, then calling a random editor who disagrees with you racist, then calling an admin the same ''on ANI'' (neither times offering any proof), you've left "constructive disagreement", flown past "debate club", "Congress", and "husband and wife arguing", and reached "MAD".&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 06:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

*Panther, I think the question of the director should go first. The current wording of question one ("should it be the way it is now with the director listing articles as they see fit?") presupposes the existence of a director. Question 1.5 is too vague, needs to be more direct (and if its a criteria change, I still strongly suggest dealing with the leadership issue). What's with the term "listed"? :If I were to write my own RFC, it would probably be based around
::1. Should WP:FOUR be run by one or more directors?
::1.1. If yes, should WP:FOUR also be run in consideration of a consensus established on the talk page?
::2. Should all articles that meet the criteria be listed, or can articles not be included despite meeting the criteria?
::2.2. If articles may not be included, should WP:FOUR be run on an opt-in (nomination basis) or opt-out (awarded writer asks for award to be withdrawn) basis.
::3. Should collaborations be recognised by WP:FOUR?
::3.3. If yes, how should the appropriateness of an award for a collaboration be determined?
:Something like that. It's not perfect, but...&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 03:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

:*Part of the reason the last RFC was withdrawn I believe was that it devolved into a vote about something that was never discussed or even propounded for discussion. Now, you are again trying to insist on voting about the organization of the project without describing different parts of the role. Voting on a director should not come before understanding the role and the issues related to it.--] <small>(] / ] / ] / ] / ])</small> 03:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
::*Tony. Reread Khazar's withdrawal statement. That's not how it was, and you know it. Now, some of us are ''trying'' to get FOUR out of the hole you dug for it with your sticks, stones, and hardened heart, so please either work constructively with ''accurate'' facts or make like ] and stand very very still.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 06:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

*Panther, I don't think asking Tony for feedback is likely to be productive (see the implicit "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" above). The replies to my attempts to be constructive and help you with the RFC make this perfectly clear.
:Tony, I never said there would not be an introduction. You are putting words in my mouth. Stop, now. That's not going to get any work done.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 06:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Apologies ==

*Sorry if you found my above posts either offensive or disruptive. I hope we can work out a reasonable solution to issues at WP:FOUR, and overall bring the award to a consensus. It's patently clear that numerous editors (including myself, at one time) find it beneficial, and I would hate to have this 2-month debate ruining things.
:If you do not mind, I may suggest further revisions to the RFC. As you're still plotting out the questions to ask (and I agree, multiple RFCs may be for the best) I have no further suggestions just yet.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 11:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
:*Both you AND Tony need to SERIOUSLY work on your interactions with the other! Both of you are free to suggest changes to the RfC as I work on it but if discussions turn into mud-slinging then they will be shut down without hesitation. I do NOT need to be pinged for arguments here! ]&#124;]&#124;] 11:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
::*... Right. And if one user or the other includes information which another believes to be inaccurate (or can show to be inaccurate) do you consider that "mudslinging"?&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 11:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
:::*No; that is debate. Mudslinging is when you assume bad faith of another person with remarks such as "I don't think asking Tony for feedback is likely to be productive (see the implicit "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" above)". ]&#124;]&#124;] 11:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
::::*So, in other words, you disagree with the assessment and have a different reading of his comments. Fair enough. I may have been a little harsh, though I should hope that it was not at the same level as some of (both editors) earlier arguments.&nbsp;—&nbsp;] (]) 11:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

== Your comments ] ==

Hi PantherLeapord, I am not sure we have met, but I am Ben, more commonly known on Misplaced Pages as ]. I am not going to revert them, but I am not sure your comments on TonyTheTiger's talk page really are helpful, particularly in defusing what is a very charged situation. I would suggest you strike them as such. In situations like these, one should consider whether their comments are helpful in resolving the dispute prior to hitting save page. Maybe you did and thought that they were helpful, in that case we will have to agree to disagree on the matter. I am more than happy to discuss if you wish. Thanks, and happy editing. -- '''] ]]''' 22:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
:G'day Ben, more commonly known on Misplaced Pages as ]! As you can see - on review of my post I self-reverted. I will be sure to take more care with posting on talk pages in the future. Thanks for directly raising your concern here! ]&#124;]&#124;] 22:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
::Thanks - self-reflection does us all good from time to time, and for no one more than me :-) Happy editing! '''] ]]''' 22:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
:::I just noticed that this thread provides a good example of how to properly handle problems raised... ]&#124;]&#124;] 22:42, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
::::I try. {{smiley}} '''] ]]''' 00:13, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
== Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. ==

]
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the ] regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "]".
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice--> ] <sup>''] / ]''</sup> 11:13, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

== Could I ask you to tone it down? ==

While I appreciate the sentiment, the kind of comment you made at ] works against us and allows people to claim that this is being done out of anger, not reason. Could I get you to edit your comment a bit?&mdash;](]) 02:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
:In a way my comment is in anger about their rather stupid response to the strongest community consensus EVER formed on this wiki AFAIK. ]&#124;]&#124;] 02:30, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
::It definitely needs to be toned down, please. ] is policy, and dealing with this situation will take extreme decorum on our part to make any change stick. Please be considerate of other editors, especially those you disagree with. I'd hate to see you get blocked for agreeing with implementing the RFC results because of your tone. —] • ] • ] 02:41, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
:::I appreciate the concern but quite frankly I feel that the WMF has a rather severe ] problem on this issue which is why we are here now. ]&#124;]&#124;] 02:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
:::I have redacted the P-word. ]&#124;]&#124;] 02:44, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

== ] ==
{{archive top|] is indefinately banned from posting on this talkpage. Any postings from them on this talkpage WILL result in the agreement ending and my restriction for posting on their talkpage will also be revoked. This ban can be removed if ES&L decided to ] towards me in the future. ]&#124;]&#124;] 09:52, 9 October 2013 (UTC)}}
Hello PantherLeapord! I did not see ] on the other user. That's why I reverted the warning. ]] 02:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
:Personally I consider the edit summary of specifically the part stating "you deserved to be templated" is a rather clear ]. ]&#124;]&#124;] 03:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
::Okay! I probably didn't look at that! Opps.... Thanks anyway for giving me a heads-up! ]] 03:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
:::No worries! We all make mistakes from time to time! Happy huggling! ]&#124;]&#124;] 03:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
:::: Actually, EuroCar was completely correct in removing it. PL, do not edit my talkpage - period. <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 09:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
:::::If you do the same then I agree to that arrangement. ]&#124;]&#124;] 09:49, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== October 2013 ==

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|]|]}}

|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Barnstar of Good Humor'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | This is the only template you should template a regular with. <span style="border:1px solid #f57900;padding:1px;"><font style="color:#8f5902">]</font> ] </span> 21:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
|}

== Thanks to all! ==

I was away while that vandalism occured. Thanks to all (Even ES&L) who reverted that vandal! ]&#124;]&#124;] 10:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

== ] discussion ==

PL, as you can see, other than reverting vandalism, I also logged into my ] to semi-protect your talkpage from those attacks. As that action was against my promised 6-month "holiday" from my admin tools, I have opened a discussion on ] where you may wish to comment. PS: If you have any idea who that IP might be, let me know <span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]]</span> 10:46, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:59, 24 November 2015

Retired This user is no longer active on Misplaced Pages.

Due to admins wanting to ban me rather than admit their personal attacks against me or simply apologize I am retiring before their cabal forces me to due to their personal attacks against me. I don't give a shit how many policies you throw against me; this is the TRUTH, these are the FACTS! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 00:12, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)