Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:14, 28 August 2007

If you're looking for my archived Talk

1

2

3

4

5

6

Medical Update 8/10

Getting better slowly. The fact that I had a wisdom tooth pulled this week doesn't quite help, either (would grin, but it's hard to do when your face is all puffy!). Thanks to the people who emailed me good wishes. Hopefully, soon I can come back to editing more full-time. SirFozzie 15:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Good news. take yer time mate.--Vintagekits 20:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Just dropping by....

Assuming you're recovered, keep an eye on Paul John Ferris for me please. Have meant to email but been busy with various things, feel free to drop me a line though you know where to find me! Glasgow Two 20:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Verdict

Hi SirFozzie, hope your getting better. I've created a long term abuse page for Verdict seeing as his socks are still here editing on Misplaced Pages. If you want to add anything, add it here. Thanks! Davnel03 17:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom case

I have filed Misplaced Pages:Request for arbitration#User:Vintagekits and you are a mentioned party, SqueakBox 21:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Posted my statement. Thank you. SirFozzie 21:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Feeling any better Fozzie? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 22:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Kinda Sorta, I had another flare up while I was on my vacation, which meant I spent the last 2-3 days in my hotel room, which I'm really bummed out for.. I just returned to work yesterday. I'm trying to stay stress free.. never so easy these days :) Glad to see you, btw. Been too long since we chatted. SirFozzie 23:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Go anywhere nice? Trying to stay stress free? I'd suggest giving the ArbCom case a rather wide berth then, assuming it is accepted. I see nobody has taken care of this yet :( One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Went to GenCon. I'll probably stay as clear of the ArbCom if I can, but I have a sneaking suspicion I'm going to be pulled in. I'll take a look at it that diff in a monent SirFozzie 23:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Banned

Thanks for naming the IP, someone just reverting an unnamed "banned editor" isn't gonna cut it; it helps when someone actually mentions who the IP is claimed to be.--Isotope23 17:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/216.194.2.0. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 18:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sock Sanitized. Talk Page Semi-Protected ;)

Back

Yayyy!!! :) - Alison ☺ 20:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• grins* Figure if I can't resist checking in on WP a few times a day, it's hypocritical of me to leave the break thing up ;) SirFozzie 20:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, you are a good man here. I really hope your illness isnt life-threatening (as someone who has suffered debilitatinhg illenesses but never anything life threatening and seen my Dad in the same boat just recently). Best wishes and hope my overall reaction to VK is to your liking, SqueakBox 01:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not life-threatening or anything, just me needing to take care of myself before it could really become an issue. Irritating, and at times, it puts me down and out for a few days (missed part of a vacation last week due to it), but otherwise I'm pretty much normal (well, as normal as I get ;)) SirFozzie 01:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Your note

There is no 3RR limit for removal of links to attack sites. Crum375 01:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

SEE Fozzie, now read for your self;

"You have a mistaken interpretation" Not in the slightest, here are the important bits out of WP:HARASS;

1.4 Posting of personal information Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Misplaced Pages editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives.

AND

2 Off-wiki harassment Harassment of other Wikipedians in forums not controlled by the Wikimedia Foundation creates doubt as to whether an editor's on-wiki actions are conducted in good faith. As per WP:NPA#Off-wiki personal attacks, off-wiki harassment can and will be regarded as an aggravating factor by administrators and is admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases. In some cases, the evidence will be submitted by private email. As is the case with on-wiki harassment, off-wiki harassment can be grounds for blocking, and in extreme cases, banning. Off-wiki privacy violations shall be dealt with particularly severely.

Harassment of other Wikipedians through the use of external links is considered equivalent to the posting of personal attacks on Misplaced Pages. The Arbitration Committee has ruled that links to off-site harassment, personal attacks or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted "under any circumstances" and must be removed. Such material can be removed on sight, and its removal is not subject to the three-revert rule. Repeated or deliberate inclusion of such material can be grounds for blocking.

and i've highlighted one of the important bits for you to make it easier. Now enforce policy on CYDE his put all those links back up AGAIN. 02:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

PS i noticed this post was before you said i was wrong. 02:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

And you are still wrong, Hypno, and if you continue to edit war and disrupt WP, you will face blocks. SirFozzie 02:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The policy is there in black and white as is you one sidedness on this issue, try enforceing the policies as they are writen as oppossed to what you want them to be. What part of

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that links to off-site harassment, personal attacks or privacy violations against Wikipedians are not permitted "under any circumstances" and must be removed. Such material can be removed on sight, and its removal is not subject to the three-revert rule.

are you having difficulty understanding, i'll go word by word if i have to. 02:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, see, for that to be applicable, we'd actually have to be dealing with any sort of "off-site harassment, personal attacks or privacy violations against Wikipedians" — and since we're not, 3RR immunity doesn't apply. Ted Frank had his identity public for a year, while he was publishing those articles attacking Michael Moore. It's only when Michael Moore turns around and realizes that Ted is editing his articles and calls him on it that Ted suddenly wants his anonymity. Which is of course impossible, because he's already long exposed his identity. --Cyde Weys 02:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Read it again; It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives.

See "because he's already long exposed his identity" means nothing! 02:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The policy also makes no mention of it not applying if the person is supposedly a public one. It would apply as much if i posted links to MMs home address etc. Also the CoI case has been and gone and you lost that one as well. 03:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Arb page

You may want to ammend your recent post on the arbcom page. I suggest you check my and User: David Lauder's recent edits. I'm almost giving up on this, one can't help these people. Giano 20:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Thank you for your comment on the Vintagekits ArbCom page. I still believe that it is for the editor concerned to follow the instructions and if he is wrong then an admin can deal with that. Giano is not an admin. Do you consent to this sort of self-appointed anarchy? I left a complaint on his Talk Page and he then moved to my Talk Page. Naturally I deleted it because the correct forum was his. He has now interferred with my Talk Page. Just why do we have to put up with this sort of thing on WP? David Lauder 21:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Silly man, check the times we were cross posting and David Lauder actually deleted my comments from his page. His are still on mine. I have no need to hide the truth. Giano 21:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

(would post this on User:David Lauder's page, but the section has been deleted) David, if you want, I will move your comment to a section of its own... I am an administrator (you can confirm this :)), that way it's all nice and official.. I'm trying to keep things damped down. Giano's actions, while hasty (as you say, he could have let you know on your talk page) to have you move it yourself), are correct, instruction wise. Let's not quibble over small things, k? SirFozzie 21:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reluctantly decided that I must add a comment into the ArbCom case because the suggestions there of 'them and us' all being equally disruptive are simply untrue, at least in my case. David Lauder 21:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Sorry for that, but there is a discussion on the issue in the talkpage but Astrotrain refuses to accept that the Union Flag is representative of all the flag lists in that template and a neutral image to use.--padraig 21:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Myself and others have tried to compromise with him- but he refuses to. Until he learns to compromise, a solution will never be reached. Regards. Astrotrain 21:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This nonsense again. Quite frankly, no flags is looking better and better. What a pity both sides are engaging in partisan politics on-wiki instead of devoting their energies into more productive areas - Alison ☺ 21:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you seriously suggesting that no flag images be used on flag pages? I have tried to compromise with Padraig by including his wording, expanding areas and adding other "official" images that he harps on about- but still he reverts to his preferred version. Astrotrain 21:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Where have you tried to compromise, your idea of compromise is that we ignore WP policy on NPOV and allow you to insert incorrect information which breaches WP:OR and WP:POV, you have been ask to support your claims with sources which you can't, your whole edit history consists of edit warring on this issue, you have been blocked about nine times in seven months for either making personal attacks or edit warring over this, any other editor would have been giving a long term block by now for this, all you are doing is being disruptive.--padraig 21:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose you have never edit warred on this or any other issue? You need to learn to compromise to reach consensus as I have. I have tried to include your opinions and referenced these to reputable sources, and included both favoured images but again you keep reverting. I do hope you reconsider and look at compromise suggestions with an open mind as I am keen on resolving this issue. I had hoped that giving the Union Flag the lead with the official tag and the UB as second in an unofficial tag would be acceptable to you- together with appropiate references. What does Sir Fozzie or Alison think? Astrotrain 21:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, first off, I'm no expert in this field, Astrotrain, so this is an area where I might fear to tread. I protected the template on M:The Wrong Version, because I didn't know what the right answer was, but wanted to stop the edit war (I think you were both on or close to 3 reverts). I think I suggested seeking a 3rd Opinion on this, to try to get someone not emotionally tied to the issue who might know more then I did on this. SirFozzie 21:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I might have a look at a 3rd Opinion. I do have some other ideas to reach a consensus position if others are willing to listen but I am off for a few days so I will return to the issue at the weekend. Meanwhile, I notice that Padraig has ignored your warning and continues to edit war on various pages... Astrotrain 12:04, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe you will discuss these in the talk page first before hand.--padraig 12:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Astrotrain you have failed to provide appropiate sources or references, this is a template on lists of british flag lists, the Union Flags is the Official flag that all these lists have in common, therefore that is the image to use, all you are trying to do is use the Ulster Banner which is not a national flag, and for which you have provided no sources to support.--padraig 21:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I should think Astrotrain ,, would like these articles locked also. This seems to be the patteren they have decided on. --Domer48 22:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Not So

Hi SirFozzie, sorry, I have to correct you. Although I would find editing some of these warring-pages tiresome, that is not the reason why I retired from WP, maybe I'll come back later on in the year, it all depends. Neither do I see myself on any side, I suppose one could say that I'm on Misplaced Pages's side. I think there has been an awful lot of damage caused by Vintagekit's current predicament. The parameters last month were very strict, and I knew that they wouldn't work out. Did you? I said it at the time, and you didn't respond to my question, but I know you haven't being feeling so good, and maybe you missed it. I hope you are much better now, and on the road to full recovery. Short blocks, in Vk's case, if warrented, would have been much better than than those conditions imposed. He was actually pressurised into flipping his lid and there are some people here who would need to examine their own consciences regarding the same. Personally speaking, I wouldn't do that to anyone. However, the situation can be retreived if only some have the bottle to say, "I'm sorry". User:Gold_heart23:13, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Gold, VK was lucky to a point that he was allowed back in.. I fought my hardest, and had to convince other admins privately that VK could be a net benefit to the project. Alison has shown me the diffs in question (before they were oversighted).. if *I* made those threats, Gold.. I'd be de-admined so fast my head would be still spinning at the time they indefinitely blocked me. VK is a good guy, I like him a lot. But the ArbCom case is going to be a rubber stamp, plain and simple.. they have the diffs as well.. the best we can do is use this case and hopefully trim the roots of the edit war. SirFozzie 23:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Ye, I see the present difficulties, and I'm basing my my case above on what went on immediately before he was blocked, it's on his talk page. Remember he wasn't blocked at that stage. As I said in the Arb, that aspect can only mitigate, but Vk's outburst, or whatever label one wants to call it, doesn't absolve everyone else involved. Personally speaking, I have lost a certain confidence, maybe I'll get it back. User:Gold_heart23:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Just one other question. You say, "I fought my hardest, and had to convince other admins privately that VK could be a net benefit to the project". Who were the other admins in question that you fought so hard to convince? I thought that you were in charge things at that stage. Were, what I referred to as the "SirFozzie Parameters", your input solely? User:Gold_heart 02:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

GH. I was the blocking admin therefore, by convention, I suppose I was "in charge" at that stage. At least, inasmuch as I was responsible for the block and it was unlikely anyone was going to unblock without consulting me first. I did however make it clear I would support the consensus decision.

As an aside, going though some of Vk's old edits, I noticed this edit, the significant of which hadn't occurred to me fully previously. The meaning behind Tiocfaidh ár lá is obvious enough, but the suggestion YA@LL GET WHAT BILLY WRONG DID went over my head to begin with. That is, for else intents and purposes a death threat. And while not quite as overt, the same sort of coded message led to the block this time. The reason I bring this up is because I have heard a number of people suggest Vk's block(s) were as a result of reactions to provocation. I wasn't involved in any editing dispute with Vk prior to that first threat, and the recipient of the second threat wasn't involved in the controversial block that you refer to above. Therefore I struggle to see how the direct link between the reason Vk is blocked (making threats of violence) and the provocative editing that he and others engaged in. The threats were aimed at the wrong people.

I am all for using this juncture to focus attention of all those who edit provocatively and disruptively. I really am. While I agree Vk's actions "doesn't absolve everyone else involved" neither does the actions of anyone else involved excuse Vk's. It works both ways. Rockpocket 05:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, it somewhat explains a bit better some items regarding the process. Everything seems "behind closed doors", and instead of the community managing WP, sometimes it appears to be run by admins emailing each other behind the scenes, not a great method of building community confidence. Also your quote, "neither does the actions of anyone else involved excuse Vk's. It works both ways", it would be an error to suggest that I haven't looked at both sides of this equation, which I am still trying to do now. I am not excusing anyone's action in all of this, but it still perplexes me that an editor with over 12,000 edits, and the vast majority of them unquestionable, was not helped by WP to iron things out. The conditions last month stank, and anyone could have seen that, I tried to have some input, but I was ignored. I suspect Machiavellian Strategy at play here. It sends out the message that Misplaced Pages doesn't value its editors, and maybe it doesn't, for there are lots of them. Being pretty much a pacifist, I wouldn't shriek in horror if someone "lost it" a bit, sometimes it's good to get it out. Really, I think that is all it was with Vk, just a mouthful. Think it was Churchill who said jaw jaw, is better than war war, that would be my motto. My angle on this is that the "rules" of WP need further formulation, some other day perhaps. User:Gold_heart 11:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Part of the reason things are done behind "closed doors" sometimes, is because when they are done on wiki it turns into another partisan, insult-throwing contest. Admins are trying to discuss how to deal with this escalating situation, meanwhile each side are sniping at each other and accusing any admin that dare take action against one of their own, of being biased. Then, for example, Vk gets more and more worked up at the discussion he sees on wiki and starts lashing out. So we discuss things on-wiki and we are guilty of provoking Vk into action and we discuss off-wiki and we are guilty of a cover-up. Honestly, you can't win. Add to this the fact that an individual's person details are involved, and this individual already has a fear for his or her personal safety. If I was to explain Vk's actions I would have to reveal that person's private details, thereby leaving me in violation of WP:HARASS and liable for a block myself. In that situation, what would you do?

Regarding the conditions of Vk's parole. As far as I'm aware SirFozzie came up with those by himself and, don't forget, Vk himself was happy to adopt them. Moreover, apart from the subject specific ban, those conditions were not particularly restrictive beyond how every editor is expected to behave around here. There was no Machiavellian plan behind that other than what I expressed quite openly. If Vk can adhere to these behavioural guidelines then our problems with him are solved. If he can't, then he will be blocked, and our problems with him are solved also. Of course that sets up a scenario where inciting Vk might pay dividends if your goal is to get him blocked, but Vk got himself into that position with, literally, years worth of prior bad behaviour. So I have little sympathy for his situation. In addition, no-one actually invoked the restrictive conditions of his parole. No admin banned him from a talk-page, no admin extended the subject specific aspect of his ban, no admin warned him when he actually did edit one or two Republican related articles. I was watching all of these things, and if my goal was to get him blocked could easily have played hard-ball with him on all those conditions. The only time I commented was when Vk started being abusive again, unacceptable behaviour from any editor and completely irrespective of the conditions of his parole.

Finally, regarding your last point. That is an interesting proposal - that we permit, encourage even, those to "lose it" because its "good to get it out". That Misplaced Pages is not therapy notwithstanding, if everyone did that it would be carnage.But of course everyone wouldn't fo that, what I think you are really proposing is that certain editors be permitted extra leeway because thats the sort of person they are: a bit excitable. We do not and can not make exceptions for people. Everyone must be held the that same standard. Vk's behaviour has been over that line for so long that we have all began to accept as normal behaviour that is already against our policy. The real question here is not, why is an editor with 12,000 edits blocked? The question is how on earth did he managed to stick around long enough to amass 12,000 edits with his history of awful behaviour. You might note that the genuinely uninvolved editors that stumbled upon his page over the last week or two actually expressed that very question. Rockpocket 18:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Because many of those edits are nuisance edits, or otherwise tiny and meaningless. An edit does not always mean ten paragraphs. David Lauder 19:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)