Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:57, 30 December 2011

LAz17

Per what request is LAz17 unblocked? You unblocked a user that had created a sockpuppet shortly after he was blocked and admitted the matter on his own talkpage GibbonGiboo (talk · contribs). I'm curious to know how many times users are allowed to cross the line which they are told not to. I'm also curious to know whether this request is the discussion in which he, sneakingly through a file he links, refers to me as "PRODUCER ustaska govnarcina" = "PRODUCER the Ustase shithead". As for his misinformation: I had doubt that he had the source because previously he defended ethnic makeup figures that were manipulated by an IP from the same source as being accurate. Also, it was only after he was blocked that he provided the relevant requested section. While discussion was ongoing he simply provided a scan of the front page. Your decision is truely bewildering Todd.-- ◅PRODUCER _(TALK) 20:21, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Producer was doing tenacious editing and removing sourced information. After I gave sources - multiple sources too, and went as far as scanning things to prove that I had the materials and was not making things up, Producer still went out of his way to disregard that material. He does not have good intent, or assumes that I do not have good intent. Whatever the reason might be, I feel that for me it is not worthwhile pursuing matters with him because he feels he and his views are correct, despite what any sources may say. There is only one solution when it comes to this, and that is mediation. That page has had problems for a very long time. Time and time again sources have been used improperly and have been miscited - not by me but by other people and by anonymous users. The talk page shows a lot of problems, mostly between direktor and me... to sum it up it's basically his threats at me and pointless discussion and his denial of his bad sourcing. Even when obvious things show that I am correct, what I think gets shunned. My only goal has been to get to the bottom of things by providing correct information with good sources. What I got in response to that is rude behavior and content blanking of sourced information. I had good intent. I tried. It failed, and these guys have been very rude and not supportive in improving the article. But that's okay, as I trust that mediation will limit their ability to say "no" when the sources say "yes". I will proceed with mediation after the holidays pass... orthodox christmas is on january 7th so I figure that anyone who might be willing to participate would be back by january 10th. In the meantime I would ask that Producer stops harassing me and looking to ban people - he recently requested user FkpCascais to be banned. (LAz17 (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)).

Regarding producer's comment on ethnic make up and his editing... I did not defend things that were put by an IP. I defended complete blanking done by Producer. I did not know that an IP edited stuff, what I knew is that the information was there for a long time and that it's not fair to simply delete something so blatantly. The least that one can do is to investigate it and look into weather or not it is correct. If it is cited falsely then it should be cited properly. If producer had his way that would still be blanked. What's worse, he put false figures in and a source which does not even mention ethnic composition of the group. When I added a correct source he deleted it. Bad intention from him, or he thinking that I had bad intentions... whichever it is, mediation will solve the problems as it will limit him in his tenacious editing. Also Toddst1, do look right under Producer's own link, . It mentions something about a Sisak uprising. Direktor inserted that into the article and claimed that this was the first partizan unit. This is a common myth that some croatians believe in. In fact direktor's own source says that this group in Sisak had nothing to do with the partisans. What does he do when I tell him that this is wrong and should be removed? He threatens me! Touch it and you will find yourself immediately reported for POV content blanking. That is all. was his statement. So I hope you see what is going on here. We have an extremely unencyclopediatic article which is in desperate need of mediation. Producer does not want this to happen and is trying to get all users who disagree with his ideas banned. Because quite frankly, if FkpCascais and myself get banned then there is nobody to file a mediation, as it seems that other users have not been too interested in the article. That's his goal, to avoid mediation and fixing of the page. If you indeed think that producer is right in his requests to ban me, then at least do it after the mediation has started. I want to be able to submit all my sources first, to present the case. My only goal is a good solution, a good article on wikipedia. (LAz17 (talk) 19:54, 29 December 2011 (UTC)).

AE

This unblock was mentioned on WP:AE (in the FkpCascais section) it would actually be of benefit to us uninvolved sysops who are reviewing the FkCascais issue to see the agreement/request/reasoning behind LAz17's unblock (to see what the state of play is in this wider dispute) if you get a chance--Cailil 20:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Cailil. My thinking was that my indef block was rather harsh as the editor was actively working to resolve the dispute at hand when I blocked him/her. It would be hard to characterize his/her active attempts at DR as disruption.

I wasn't aware of issues that occurred after my block - only reconsidering my own actions. I am not opposed to any other admin re-blocking if you or others deem appropriate. Hope this helps. Toddst1 (talk) 22:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Toddst1--Cailil 03:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

SPI

LAz17 has apparently created a sock account for evading his blocks. I've reported the case here. --DIREKTOR 20:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The sock was blocked too, so your evasion theory is somewhat flawed as the evasion had been stopped. (LAz17 (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)).

Toddst1, I hope you don´t mind a comment of mine about this issue, as involves a same dispute in which I am involved. LAz17 is a young unnexperienced editor. At begining I had several problems with him on completely unrelated articles to the ones we are dealing nowadays. I noteced that you gave him a chance. Honestly, for me in the dispute it may be as beneficial as not. His unknolledge of certain policies may well be prejuditial to his arguments, including the valid ones. However, he did improved and, mostly, he understood the importance of reliable sources (something that gives me hopes). In case of assuming good-faith and allowing him to participate, something I don´t oppose, it should stay clear that the discussion of article content should not suffer from unrelated disruption, and LAz17 should definitelly take some time to read and familiarise himself with all policies, as I am fed up of the other side taking dispute advantages because of policy mistakes donne by some users. His last initiatives are quite noble, as he favours a fair dispute resolution which will include a third party arbitration. It is actually the other side who wants to avoid discussion at all cost, as by means of numerical advantage and edit-war got their edits to be placed. So, whatever is decided I´ll agree, however some aspects of this dispute should be taken into account, as one side is for time being clearly favoured with no reason. Wishing you best regards and happy Hollydays, I apologise if my comment was inconvenient. FkpCascais (talk) 21:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

The guy is an editor of five years (two more than you FkpCascais) with thousands of edits, numerous reports, warnings, sanctions, three confirmed socks, and several topic ban violations I do not quite understand how he got out of. He's what you call a "grizzled heavyweight". That is not to say you aren't more careful than he is, but that's a lot different than what you claim. --DIREKTOR 21:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi

User Twaftofs has started an offending thread about me on Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Just to let you know.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Lemme clarify

I posted for a discussion User talk:Beyond My Ken, Talk:Bikini and Misplaced Pages talk:Manual of Style/Images. and I did request for discussions every time I reverted, which didn't happen. I did post my concerns before reverting, while the other party went on to revert my other edits without participating in the discussion. It was natural to assume that the other party isn't interested in discussion, and okay to make another revert. The other party's answer to his talk page, which ended in - "I'm not interested in hearing from you, since your interest seems entirely selfish and not focused on improving the encyclopedia" - made that assumption even more natural.

You seem to have forgotten the very beginning of the relevant guideline - "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." (WP:WAR) I also have noted with some curiosity that while you templated me, you have done no such thing to the other party. I also was quite curious to see that you didn't find - "You've done it to Bikini and Bikini variant and Thong (clothing)-- which I didn't revert because it's already garabage. You apparently think you know what a good image is; you're wrong, but I can't be bothered to spend the time necessary to tutor you about what is a good image and what is bad" - to be a personal attack, especially because the relevant guideline is summarized as - "Comment on the content, not on the contributor". (WP:PERSONAL)

I have posted this to my talk page as well. I'm really surprised at this action. Can you, please, explain where I'm wrong? Aditya 15:54, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) You don't go back and re-make the edits until you have obtained consensus to do so. Great, you made the edit, it was reverted, and you started to discuss - unless the new consensus emerges to reinstate them, you do not go back and make them (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)