Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:06, 22 December 2008

Caveat arbiter?

I was encouraged by your somewhat bold and certainly frank comments in the context of the recently concluded election for members of the Arbitration Committee.

In my view, your observations represented a constructive step forward in a number of on-going discussions in which too much is left unsaid. They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but I don't know that I'm quite ready for that. I admit that I liked the tone, but I'm still pondering the substance. --Tenmei (talk) 20:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I ran because I thought I had something to offer the community, and I still do with or without a seat on ArbCom. The holidays are catching up to us, but I expect I'll be rather active with my ideas during the next year. — Coren  04:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The essence of judgment

In this interval between the close of Arbcom voting and whatever comes next, this could be a timely opportunity to share a bit of wisdom attributed to Tokugawa Ieyasu, the founder of Japan's Tokugawa shogunate. I modestly offer a translation of the calligraphy -- with an emphasis not in the original:

Life is like walking along a long road shouldering a heavy load; there is no need to hurry.

One who treats difficulties as the normal state of affairs will never be discontented.

Patience is the source of eternal peace; treat anger as an enemy.

Harm will befall one who knows only success and has never experienced failure.

Blame yourself rather than others.

It is better not to reach than to go too far. --Tokugawa Ieayasu, 1604

I hope this becomes helpful in the year ahead. --Tenmei (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

本当にありがとうございます. 私はそれらの賢明な言葉を探ってみる. — Coren  17:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

flaminglawyer is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Request for help with a distruptive editor

Hello Coren,

You gave me some advice a couple months ago on how to avoid 3RR when dealing with disruptive editors while I was temporarily blocked. I'm on the brink of the 3RR on the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 article and do not want to violate it again, so I'm asking for your assistance because of your previous advice to me and because you're a third party. But it has more to do with just the 3RR. I've been dealing with a disruptive editor for the past few weeks who is completely unopen to compromise, revert wars, and now is !vote counting on an RFC he started only a couple days ago, amongst other things -- and I've completely lost my patience with him. I do not believe that the disruptive editor, Commodore Sloat has been exhibiting good faith for some time during this dispute (as well as other disputes on the article, but that's neither here nor there). I've been pointing this out multiple times -- admittedly snidely and with sarcasm but my patience has been thin for a while, and he regards it as personal attacks even though there's plenty of evidence. I probably should've asked for assistance sooner, but better late than never, and I'm now officially convinced that there's no appeasing csloat because he has no intention of being appeased or reaching consensus.

As I said, this is related to the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 article, particularly the World opinion subsection. This was a section that I created as part of an enhancement effort after the election, but it was also part of compromise to a major content dispute related to an edit that csloat made which was ultimately reformatted, reduced, and moved to the end World Opinion section. Everyone from both sides of the argument over exclusion/inclusion of the material supported the compromise, except csloat. Shortly afterward, he aimed most of his interest at the rest of the World Opinion section, focusing on removing content related to polling data about world disinterest in the election. But this isn't a content dispute (or just a content dispute, rather), this is about disruptive behavior both in editing and discussion.

First and foremost, I believe there is simply no appeasing him. I've made numerous compromises, and he has made absolutely none. This is best illustrated by comparing my original version and my most recent version. Here's a list of the compromises I've made:

1. Added information about a statistically insignificant margin for Laos in the 2nd paragraph; a slight modification of one of his edits.
2. Changed the lede sentence for the 3rd paragraph since it was not sourced with a more neutrally worded lede sentence; per his request.
3. Removed any reference to "apathy" and replaced with "no opinion" in the 3rd paragraph; per his request.
4. Provided separate sources from the main source for China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Latin America because these poll results weren't specifically mentioned in the main source's summary; per his request (which I'll elaborate on shortly).

As for Csloat, he hasn't made any compromises. All he's done is remove content and claim that I'm drawing conclusions outside of source material and distorting data. Here's the diff of his first edit/content removal where he pastes over data displaying various countries' disinterest towards the election with a redundant quote (all the information was already in the section's lede paragraph). Here's the diff from his most recent edit/content removal, and here's all that's changed:

1. After having it pointed out that his pasted quote was redundant with the first paragraph, he simply removed the first paragraph.
2. After pointing out the hypocrisy of him calling poll data about China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Latin America "cherry picked" but condoning inclusion of data about the European Union, Africa, Canada, Australia, Japan, and South Korea which came from the same source, he simply removed everything and replaced the entire paragraph with his original pasted quote.
3. Per a token compromise that I never asked for and don't support, he pasted a sentence about China after the quote.

CSloat came up with multiple reasons that my contribution was against policy. The accusations would come iteratively as each subsequent accusation was either disproved or addressed, and the accusations got more far-reaching each time -- to the point where his complaint had no valid basis in any Misplaced Pages policy or guideline. Here's how it unfolded:

1. Claimed my contribution was original research. I explained to him that this was not original research since everything in the contribution was backed by the source.
2. He then changed to claiming that my contribution was synthesis. I explained to him that this claim has no basis since synthesis requires multiple sources.
3. He claimed that the source drew a conclusion and that my edit was contrary to it. I explained that the source didn't draw a conclusion, it merely summarized poll data; I also pointed out that article specifically said that the majority of the world expressed disinterest, which is the material he was adamant about excluding.
4. He started an RFC where he claimed that since the poll summary article is titled "World Citizens Prefer Obama to McCain by More Than 3-to-1" that citing any information that is not about this is against policy (again claiming original research). Now this is just plain ridiculous, and I flat out called it the worst and most transparent excuse that I've ever heard for exclusion of material. But since I realized that simply explaining this to him wouldn't be enough, I appeased his ridiculous claim and went and found articles that supported all of the polling statistics that he wanted excluded. I hoped that this would finally bring a close to this.

So now, he's just saying that he simply doesn't like it. His most recent post to the RFC said that there are still "multiple issues" even though he didn't bother to list any, and that I have no more valid points.

But it's more than just his overt resistance to compromise and the various reasons he's come up with for exclusion. During the dispute, when he was on the brink of violating the 3RR rule, he instead placed a totally-disputed tag on my version of the World opinion subsection multiple times; since this was obviously not true and was clearly way too severe a tag, I regarded it as vandalism and removed it each time. During his countless reverts, in the edit summaries he'd often put "per talk", claim his edit was the "consensus" when the dispute was between just us two, claim his edit was "preferred" when again it was just us two, and claim my edits were "disruptive" when his edits were the ones removing content. The last straw was an RFC that he started, with a very slanted paragraph explaining the issue. After two days and only two other opinions voiced, he counted !votes and declared consensus and unilaterally reapplied his revert -- and this was only sixteen hours after my latest version which addresses all of his stated concerns. It became evident at this point that he was not interested in compromise or consensus, he simply wanted my contribution excluded and intended to count !vote as a basis for the exclusion.

The problem is, now one the people who expressed an opinion in the RFC is engaging in the reverting as well. I don't think this person is a sock puppet, but it honestly wouldn't surprise me at all if it turned out to be one.

If you made it through this entire post, I thank you since I know it's a lot to read. But I wanted to be as clear as possible what my reason is for needing help, because this has gone on for too long and I need help since consensus and compromise have proved impossible.

Thank you, and I appreciate any help you can offer. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 03:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm about to go to bed, but I'll look into this tomorrow morning (GMT-5) to see what help I can offer. — Coren  04:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That's okay, it's late here too. I appreciate any help you can offer, and I know it's a long read but I wanted to be concise. As more easy-going Misplaced Pages editors remind me: there's no time limit on Misplaced Pages, so it can definitely wait till tomorrow. Take care --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 04:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, and judging from the history, this is still pretty much a straight-up content dispute. You might want to look into formal mediation, which usually does a fairly good job of helping everyone reach consensus amiably. Political topics are amongst the most difficult to reach neutrality on because of... well, the politics.  :-) MedCom can help there. It's a strictly voluntary step in dispute resolution but the most powerful one.

In the meantime, you may want to "allow" the version you are displeased with to stick around; edit warring isn't going to help resolution and may end up weakening your position (especially if you get sanctionned for it). Like you've said yourself, there is no deadline. Even if it takes a while to get mediation winded up, it'll help reach an acceptable result for everyone. — Coren  15:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Suffice to say that the above is a complete misrepresentation of my position by Amwestover -- it is such a distortion that it borders on sheer sophistry. Other editors have seen this pretty clearly, as the discussion has shown that the only other editors who have shown an interest preferred the version that I've suggested rather than Amwestover's. (And Coren is right to conclude that this is a straight-up content dispute). I've tried several times to suggest that Amwestover read such gems as WP:AGF and stick to arguing the issues rather than hurling accusations of "disruptive editing." I've been more than reasonable in the discussion, and the version that is currently in place has the virtue of being supported by consensus. That said, I'm happy to look at any new version suggested by anyone. But I implore Amwestover, please stop running around Misplaced Pages attacking me as some kind of disruptive editor or vandal when you know very well that neither of those things is true. If you don't want to discuss the issues in talk, please don't engage me at all. I have been very restrained about reporting your behavior -- you blatantly violated 3RR a few times now, and you have laced nearly every comment to me with sometimes vicious personal attacks, and you even filed a phony AN/I report on me and used part of your userspace to host an attack page setting up for another phony AN/I, and yet I have held back from reporting this behavior in the hopes that you would eventually realize the virtue of civil discussion. I ask you once more, please stop turning everything into an attack on my character. Thanks. csloat (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder

A discussion of Guido den Broeder's conduct and status as an editor has begun at http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:ANI#Improper_use_of_MfD_page.3F

I've alerted you since you are on his "respected user" list WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 02:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikiproject Outreach

WP:OUTREACH now exists in larval stage. Please visit the talkpage to help it pupate. // roux   21:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Special Olympics Illinois

I got a message to her becasue of the work i am doing for Special Olympics Illinois (SOILL). I am an employee of SOILL, the Area 18 Director- Ethan C. Bontly. Since we do not have anything in Misplaced Pages i am working on adding information.

Please let me know what needs to be done so i can get our information in Misplaced Pages.

Thank you,

Ethan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prosoc3 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Please read the guide to donating your own copyrighted material to Misplaced Pages. Note that, in addition to copyright requirements, the article must still comply with notability guidelines, advertising prohibition and avoid conflicts of interest. — Coren  14:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Notify

Don't forget to formally notify Moreschi. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Nope; him an AN/I are next. — Coren  15:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

;-) — Rlevse • Talk • 15:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

how many?

I may be misunderstanding how it works, but in the motions on Moreschi, how many arbs are a majority? Tom Harrison 15:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Over half of the acting ones on the case/motion, which in this case was 10 active, so 6 were a majority. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't 1.3 have only 5 net supports? Tom Harrison 15:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration votes generally pass by raw support, not net support. The only things that net support is used for is opening and closing cases (and that uses net-four, not net-majority). Kirill 15:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, surprising it's not net, but however you choose to do it (but "generally"?) Anyway, thanks for checking. Tom Harrison 15:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

It's strict supermajority, simply enough. The point of 6 (for ten arbs) being that even if every other arb would vote against, there would still be enough votes in favor. — Coren  15:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Right, fair point. Thanks, Tom Harrison 16:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Schermerhorn Hall

WikiCU is under the GFDL (see the bottom left of their pages). Thanks.--Pharos (talk) 17:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

 Added to the list of known GFDL sources. — Coren  17:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

You made it :) Sceptre 23:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Coren. :) All the best, — Aitias // discussion 00:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Best wishes.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes from me too, even though I opposed your candidacy. Tried to spare you the torture, but would the community heed my acts of mercy? No! :-) Anyway, do a great job. That's what everybody wants, no matter how we voted. Best of luck to you. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 09:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Echoing Heimstern, and though I personally disagreed with some of your positions I think you'll do well. Just keep ArbCom away from making policy and/or expanding BLP... Seraphimblade 09:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Fez

OK, you traded in your clerk fez, not get that arb fez on! — Rlevse • Talk • 11:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have expected it to be an arb capirote!  :-) — Coren  14:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Arctiid moths

Your bot is throwing a tanrum over a bunch of arctiid moth stubs I made. :O Abyssal (talk) 15:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! <3

Pulley system

Sorry about that. Meant to change it and forgot. Changed it a bit but still have to edit more. Have a nice Christmas! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmendonc (talk • contribs) 19:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day Of Winter!

Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Winter 2008! Mifter (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on your appointment to the Arbcom and Best of Luck :)! --Mifter (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Mount Naeba and Naeba Ski Resort

You bot noticed the similarity between Mount Naeba and Naeba Ski Resort. I was in the middle of splitting the two articles so they did seem similar for a short time. I removed the tag.--imars (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ping

Your Checkuser access has been granted per request at Meta. Please check your mail for validating access to checkuser-l. Thanks and best wishes. ++Lar: t/c 05:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Validate-schmalidate. Let me in! :-) — Coren  15:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Your bot

Yes, Jean-Jacques Ekindi is (right now) a substantial copy of Progressive Movement (Cameroon) (which I also wrote), but surely that is not a problem? We need articles on both, and it made sense to use the relevant content in another article as the starting point for the new one. Everyking (talk) 07:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it and just axe the warning; in-wiki copy notices are there to help catch cut-n-paste moves or forgotten GFDL attributions during merges neither of which apply in your case. — Coren  15:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

weaksauce

just for clarity should I assume "weaksauce the board" = "Hobble the board"? Not a phrase I've come across - global communities are great. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:48, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, "weaksauce" is online-gaming jargon for "make weak". Aka "Nerf".  :-) I guess sometimes my hobbies percolate through. — Coren  15:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist RfAr

Comment left for you in the "Clerk Notes" section of the User:ScienceApologist request for arbitration.

JFYI.

AGK 21:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFAR#user:ScienceApologist

An editor that you have been involved with in the past has been taken to WP:RFAR#user:ScienceApologist. You are welcome to express your comments at the specific RFAR case. Thank you, seicer | talk | contribs 21:06, 22 December 2008 (UTC)