Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:57, 9 February 2009

This is a talk page.

One is enough

Posting the same complaint to multiple noticeboards marks you out in a way that I doubt you intended. Theresa Knott | token threats 22:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how to respond to talk page posts

They are not the same complaint. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Generally you indent your response. No they are the same complaint. You are involved in a dispute about POV with 3 editors on one page. If you need outside assistance then you post asking for it on one noticeboard and wait to see what people say. There is no need to argue on several boards at once, it's messy and less likely to result in a resolution of the dispute. One board is plenty, the more you involve the more irritated people will get as most active editors watch several boards at once and don't want to see the same dispute on them all. Theresa Knott | token threats 23:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I see it as more than just a POV dispute: conflict of interest, edit warring as well as possible 3RR

You are not listening. All dispute will have multiple aspects. That does not mean that you should post to multiple boards. By doing so you achieve little except make yourself look bad to the very people whom you are asking for help.Theresa Knott | token threats 23:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that administrators tend to specialize in one type of dispute. Thanks for clearing that up. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Civility

It would be seriously useful if you could keep it civil please. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Explain how I am not being civil. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The comments that I removed aren't civil. Just stick to the points you want to argue and leave the personal remarks out of it because they cause bad feeling which makes resolving disputes very difficult. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

From what I understand, except for circumstances such as vandalism or dead links, it is discouraged to edit other people's comments. That misrepresents the on-going discussion, and may cause someone to be misquoted. From what I understand, that is why it is now out of practice to summarize other people's comments. It also appears to be an abuse of authority on your part. If you would read the talk page you will see my points. Maybe the other users are asking me to change my position? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll do what I see fit. If you don't like either lump it or complain about me. I have no intention of reading your points on the talk page as I do not wish to be involved in the actual discussion whatsoever. My only interest is to keep things moving minus the personal attacks. Theresa Knott | token threats

So you do acknowledge that my points exist. Explain to me, then -- why do the other users continue to ask me what they are ? Additionally, if you have no intention on reading the entire talk page starting from my first post then you have no intention on understanding the situation. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2009 (UTC)#

Eh? They have asked you to start again one point at a time. What's wrong with that? As for understanding the situation, I understand that you are having difficulty discussing the issues on the talk page and am therefore taking steps to try and help. I know nothing about masons and conspiracy theories and have no intention of actually getting involved in the article itself. I am just policing the talk page interactions so that the situation gets resolved rather than the argument continuing endlessly. Theresa Knott | token threats 06:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Except for Taivo they have already discussed those points. What more do they have to say ? Ukufwakfgr (talk) 07:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Friendly advice

Just so you know, editing the date or time on a post (as you did here is frowned on at Misplaced Pages. It is often seen as an indication that an editor is being dishonest.

I know this was NOT your intent... in fact I am certain that you changed the time in an attempt to be very honest (ie to indicate that you had ammended your comment, and show when you did so). So... this is not a complaint... I am just offering some advice so you don't get accused of dishonesty by anyone else.

Most Wikipedians don't even bother changing the date or time when they ammend a comment, they just make their changes without bothering to change the sig. But, if you feel the need to indicate the time that you have changed a comment, the best way to do so is by using the str strike-through button (in in the menu bar above the edit box)... cross out the old time and add the new one next to it (it would look like this: 10:2010:25). If there have been no interviening comments (ie your comment is still the newest one), another other option is to simply re-sign the comment, delete the entire signature line and re-sign with four new tildies (~~~~).

By the way... thank you for starting over. I think we are actually making slow but steady progress towards compromise and consensus (at least I hope so). Blueboar (talk) 15:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That was an error on my part. I keep a copy of my respones in a text file locally on my computer. I must have editted the text file, with the 4~ intact. Maybe I should take the 4~ out of my local copy? Change the 9 back to 6 if you see fit. All for the best. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 16:06, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nah... no need to change... it was not a big deal for me, just something that I thought I should be mentioned. Taking the 4~ out of your local copy when you paste changes should solve the issue. Best. Blueboar (talk) 16:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Regarding your comments on User talk:Theresa knott: Please see Misplaced Pages's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)]

The particular edit is a personal attack on a group of editors ("In addition, it appears that practically all of the active editors of "Masonic conspiracy theories" are Freemason admins, which is like putting a gang of criminals to build a prison"). Treat this as a first formal warning. You're not a new editor, and should know better, so you don't get a level 1 warning. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You have not explained your rationale for this action. That was not a characterization of all Freemasons. Do not confuse the issue, and do not make it appear as though you are defending them because of their affiliation. You have NOT addressed the conflict in the talk page, nor do you seem to be concerned with the incivility demonstrated by the other users. I see this as an effort towards getting me to disappear. You are doing Misplaced Pages a disservice by not exercising impartiality. Your advice not to "get a warning" is an ostentatious show of might, NOT a resolution or even a deterrent. Help solve the underlying issues or let somebody else handle it, simple as that. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Ukufwakfgr (talk · contribs), looking through your contributions to Misplaced Pages, few that they are, I am very concerned. You seem to have great familiarity with how Misplaced Pages works, you are quick to revert other editors, and your comments towards others range from mild incivility to blatant personal attacks. This is not the way to proceed here. If you want to work on articles such as Masonic conspiracy theories, it is necessary that you proceed slowly and cautiously, and that you keep your comments on the talkpage civil and collegial. Discuss the article, not other editors or their perceived motivations. To make a major change to the article, don't try to change everything at once. Choose one section that you are most interested in changing, line up your sources, and if other editors disagree, be prepared to engage in polite consensus-building discussion on the talkpage. If you continue with inciviity, personal attacks, or rapid reverting, it is likely that your account access will be blocked. To avoid this, simply keep your comments civil, and avoid edit-warring. That will be much more likely to result in positive and long-lasting changes to the article. --Elonka 18:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

• That I revert other editors is absolutely false.
• You are appealing to the majority.
• You are parroting other people's arguments.
• I have discussed the article to great length. Many of my comments have gone without a response. If you look carefully, you will notice.

You have discredited yourself. Thanks for playing. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Talk:Masonic_conspiracy_theories. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. Kingturtle (talk) 00:06, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

They are making false statements, which I see as insulting. I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt, and assume that they are not simply being careless. Misplaced Pages can't have careless editors. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 00:14, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Uku... some advice... when an admin comes by and warns you that you have done something wrong... it is not a good idea to argue about it... even if you think the warning is unjustified. It is an especially a bad idea to make additional personal attacks in an attempt to justify your edits. Just acknowlege the warning and move on. Blueboar (talk) 03:47, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

It solves nothing if an admin is unjustified. Then any admin can just make any warning they want. Real problems go unresolved, while the floodgates to abuse and corruption are opened. And I have no idea why you even posted this. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Because you're not the first person we've run up against in a one-editor-against-everyone-else situation. User:JASpencer came in and started making edits some of us found offensive in the articles about religion and Freemasonry (if I remember correctly -- I'm not going two years into the past of multiple articles to check). After working with him for a while, we found common ground and were able to improve the articles together, taking both "sides" into consideration. I'd like to see the same thing happen here, although your refusal to accept any criticism of your actions makes that unlikely.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:55, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You are comparing me to someone else with NO BASIS. This guy says that he's an expert on "most everything" which is a bit delusional, don't you think? Is that what you really think of me?? I made ONE edit that was reverted twice and THAT'S IT. Obviously, you are not taking any facts into consideration. Instead, you insist on repeatedly using tactics that you seem not to understand. Don't mis-characterize me on my own talk page, that is stepping over boundaries. Ukufwakfgr (talk) 06:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Ukufwakfgr (talk · contribs), you have a new account, just created on January 29, but obvious experience with wiki procedures, which implies sockpuppetry. In fact, your account appears to have been created for no other purpose than to cause disruption at a powderkeg article, Masonic conspiracy theories. On January 30, you implemented a major controversial rewrite of the article. When your changes were reverted, you proceeded to edit war. On the talkpage, things weren't much better, as you tended to react with incivility and ad hominem attacks at other editors. Warnings from other editors to your talkpage do not appear to be helping, as you simply respond with more attacks, and vague references to logical fallacies. Your edits appear to paint a picture of someone who is operating in bad faith, and is just here to argue. You may or may not be enjoying this, but it's wasting the time of other editors who have better ways to spend their time.

I have blocked your account access for 31 hours, which is actually quite lenient considering your recent behavior. When you return, if you wish to actually work in a civil and collegial manner with other editors, you are welcome to do so. However, if you resume disruptive comments and edits, the block may be rapidly reinstated. Please, if there's any part of you that genuinely wishes to help with the building of the encyclopedia, simply treat other editors with civility and respect, and keep comments focused strictly on the building of the articles, and not on other editors. You may also wish to spend some time working on other less controversial parts of the project. For example, Category:Misplaced Pages pages with broken references is currently needing some help, just to add {{reflist}} tags on articles that are missing them. If you do have any questions, let me know, --Elonka 18:41, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The provided rationale is not actionable.

• Your assertion that I'm a sockpuppet is not valid, apparently being based on nothing but sparse circumstancial evidence ("characteristics"). Neither a second account nor a confession has yet to be produced. In addition, there is no proof that I:
  • Marked an article for deletion
  • Requested sysop privs
  • Have developed a "precocious edit history" in a short time
  • Have "correct knowledge" about Misplaced Pages's customs (I have only cited the website)
  • Am using two accounts for that article
  • Created this account during an on-going discussion regarding possible deletion
  • Have participated in any discussion regarding possible deletion
  • Have familiarity with functions such as building charts, uploading images or designing templates
  • Have used this account solely for non-legitimate purposes
  • Demonstrate usage patterns similar to that of any other account
  • Demonstrate writing styles similar to that of any other account
  • Have abandoned another account, or have engaged in anonymous IP editing
  • Demonstrate characteristics similar to other cases of sock puppetry
  • Cannot possibly learn to wing it out
  • Have done it, beyond reasonable doubt
• According to you I did meet one characteristic of a new user: "inappropriate behavior at times"
• "Major controversial rewrite" is loaded language, which mis-represents my actions
• I did not engage in edit warring, unless you consider using vulgar language to reference argument as "editting" (note that vulgar language was never used to characterize any person).
• I was the one who originally claimed incivility and "ad hominem attacks." That is clearly either mis-attribution, mockery, or an insincere show of reflection.
• The other editors were basically supporting one another's arguments, which has done nothing but make the conflict an ever-stronger dichotomy.
• Nobody has disputed my claims of logical fallacy, or practically any claim for that matter. As a matter of fact, many of my talking points in the page went without any dispute.
• That my edits illustrate how I attempt to do nothing but argue is completely false. I'm sure they have better ways to waste their time then by living in some deluded fantasy where everyone communicates through telepathy.
• In the past day or so the editors and I have started to come to common ground. I believe this to be mostly by my insistence on communicating in a clear, consistent and uncompromising manner, and by subjecting the other editors to rational arguments instead of appealing to their fears or possible ignorance. As a matter of fact, they have agreed to cease discussion on that talk page until my block expires. If you kept current with the discussion you would know that.
• "Any part of you" == bad faith

Generally, the provided rationale demonstrates lack of: impartiality, good-faith effort, and accurate and timely fact-finding. It seems as if you're just doing someone else's bidding, and as if you have an itchy trigger finger.

Ukufwakfgr (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Appeal against being blocked

Ukufwakfgr (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Based on false presumptions, lack of care, and favoritism likely due to off-wiki alliances or fears of off-wiki retribution |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Based on false presumptions, lack of care, and favoritism likely due to off-wiki alliances or fears of off-wiki retribution |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Based on false presumptions, lack of care, and favoritism likely due to off-wiki alliances or fears of off-wiki retribution |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Requests for unblock