Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:58, 9 June 2010

ACME drama rating

NEEDS MOAR DRAMAHZ!

Hello and welcome to my Talk page!

1. If you start a conversation with me here, I'll usually reply here. I like to keep discussions in one place. So, if I've left a message on your Talk page, it may be best if we continue the discussion there. Of course, if you feel I've forgotten about you, please post a reminder here.
2. Occasionally, I may copy a discussion to what I feel is a more appropriate venue, particularly if I think it would benefit from other editors' input. If I do, I'll leave a link here so everyone can follow the thread.
3. Please start new conversations at the bottom of this page by clicking on the "new section" tab above.
4. I reserve the right to revert any edits to this page that I feel to be truly messed up.
   

Archive 1—Archive 2—Archive 3—Archive 4—Archive 5—Archive 6—Archive 7—Archive (N+1)

Anne Maxight

As I said to Baseball Bugs, I'm essentially backing out of the situation; admittedly, the name is an acronym of Axman Eight, and he does tend to make 'hide in plain sight' accounts, but that's basically the extent of my knowledge: he's a long time socker and he tends towards names that are basically puzzle variations on his original account name. Being as I have an issue with the account in question, I feel that involving myself further would be seen in some way as taking advantage of the situation, even if only to me. They may be a sock, but it would seem like I was saying 'I don't like what this account is doing; hey, someone thinks they're a sock. That's a good way to deal with 'em!' So, basically I'm not involving myself any further, whether they actually turn out to be a sock or not. HalfShadow 21:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks for the info. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL 13:49, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've chaged my mind. Given the choice, I'd rather look like a jerk than let a socker get away with it. It wasn't who I thought it was (probably by design), but it was a sock. HalfShadow 16:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Serious doubt about a quiet resolution with BAWAA and JacobiteRepublican

The bottom line is that they are removing all my material that they can find (BAAWA), and then attempting further damage through Misplaced Pages governance. The documentation that I am providing is specifically meant to give a truthful version of the sitution, though, of course, from my perspective.

Further, there is a Wiki research issue here; my area of research is workgroup collaboration in the modern Information Society, and I want to report my experiences as action research. As is, I have moved material to another location outside of the Wikimedia sphere, but I am uncertain as to why I have to remove material that I would want, say, to see so as to see the conflict from my perspective.

I have seen a lot of conflict here on the Misplaced Pages, but this is by far the worst I have experienced personally; simply no comparison. I cannot see a happy ending without completely documenting BAAWA's and RebuplicanJacobite's actions. This happy ending will not be for me -- but for all the others--many others. And then there is the research issue; this material is GDFL and free for use. My desire is to use this research (on another Wiki) to help assure a peaceful Information Society for the future.

This is serious business, and I genuinely hope you can see how serious it is. The bottom line is I cannot let this go; everything these two do seems to be architected to hurt others. Since I am very busy at work at the moment, I am not sure how quickly I can respond to, say, their accusations (and for this reason I may have to back off a little), but I cannot abandon this attempt to bring normalcy to Anarchy discussion.

Thank you in advance for being fair-minded. It you want to discuss anything with me at all, it may be best to contact me through the email system.--John Bessa (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

(Replied on user's talk page, since I've also deleted material from their use page.) SHEFFIELDSTEEL 16:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your attention to the above matter and the manner in which you dealt with it. Much appreciated. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Happy to help. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for Amendment: Derek Smart

Cla68 has initiated a request for amendment requesting that Bill Huffman be banned from editing. The motion is ongoing, but I decided it may be good to have some voices that actually interacted with Bill Huffman (besides myself, as I am not particularly active in wikipedia), as Cla68 doesn't seem to have interacted with Bill Huffman outside of various motions against him. Thank you for your time! 72.192.46.9 (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. Ultimately it is for arbitrators to decide whether Bill Huffman has been editing disruptively or, indeed, outside the best practices recommended in our COI guidelines. I regret that I don't know of any evidence to offer on either of those subjects, and I don't think that a personal testimony (i.e. one unsupported by evidence) would help much, given the large amounts of text already present. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 16:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty. Considering there was only one other person that seemed to have familiarity editing with Bill Huffman on that page, I thought it may have been useful to get perspective from those who have edited in the same space with him, besides myself. I hope you have a good day! 72.192.46.9 (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment needing your input

Hi, I'd like to ask for your input here: Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Minphie. Recently you commented on Minphie's conduct and we ask if you could come and give feedback at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Minphie as the editor appears not to have taken any heed of the community's feedback on his approach to editing. If you don't remember your exact interactions with Minphie, it is detailed in the RfC/U page. Thankyou for your time, --Figs Might Ply (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

John Bessa: my user page

That was a little quick. I was able to accelerate my work schedule to accommodate the development of the material per your suggestions, and I am going to begin that process now.

Deconstruction is how I build articles; from sparse but highly structured information derived from prose, I build support for the material, and then I reintroduce prose in a wiki format. Generally I build the structure above the original prose, and then insert the information from the original prose into the structure. Because there are two threads here, my own research and the research necessary to support my arguments of NPOV and other POV related abuses by "BAAWA" and "RepublicanJacobite."

Any experience with the WP will tell you that there is endless conflict across the wiki, and any experience with knowledge construction will tell you that the conflict can only hurt the information, and hence the Wiki's place in the world--which is not necessarily always positive. To support this, and to show how widespread this conflict phenomena is, the structure here will evolve in the way you have suggested. For instance, cited incidents will use "diffs."

The other thread will be action research. Any experience with action research should tell one that it is social research, and that the phenomena is studied as it plays out and documented by at least one participant, which is me. All participants are legitimate components of the "action," and that all information presented by them is valid. This will certainly strengthen my case.

Since the initiating incident focuses on a political issue; the role of the WP as an entity specifically with respect to political bias, or how the WP "cloud" of information communication (as we say in network technology) that hovers above so much of humanity is controlled by that bias will be the material that makes the research valid, and hence widely applicable. While this type of material has to be introduced at some point, I am stating this here specifically for your personal benefit--and for no other reason.

Methodology and my user page

I first have to design the research structure, and then insert the prose from the bottom of the page into it. Then I will introduce the supporting "diffs," and then finally bring the material forward in ways that I think will the changes necessary to mitigate bias and conflict here on the WP, and ultimately bring those benefits to the Information Society, which is, of course, the modern world we live in. I will put the structure at the top of my page, and then insert the prose and citations into it, which I will keep at the bottom of the page so as to make the process easy. I have done this a thousand times, from my experience these processes are by far the most efficient ways to develop wiki articles.

A final note: if there is something important, please contact via email per the note at the top of my talk page.--John Bessa (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Before you being a lengthy process that seems unlikely to result in a viable Misplaced Pages article, I suggest you review the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Notability. This will give you some understanding - I hope - of what is and is not appropriate subject matter for an article. I would also like to remind you of our guidelines regarding inappropriate use of your user page. It is a great page to talk about yourself; less so, about other people. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 17:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

GregJackP (talk) 14:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Closing of Discussion on Don Martin - Lawsuit Section

This is to advise you that consensus was achieved on the section in question, thanks to an outside suggestion by SheffieldSteel. Comments on the section have be tentatively closed, baring objection from those involved. I for one appreciate the efforts of everyone that worked on this, even though at times it did get contentious. All involved editors are receiving this notice. GregJackP (talk) 06:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Don Martin (public affairs)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		I meant to award you this sooner, for your re-draft of the lawsuit section of Don Martin (public affairs) which helped to finally resolve a long consensus discussion. GiftigerWunsch 22:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for your feedback and for discussing this so productively. It's you people who've solved this problem, not me. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 18:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Paraserv

Hi
I can say with a reasonable degree of certainty that they are not the same person, both based on technical and behavioral evidence. Also note that Paraserv was actually already registered back in early May.
Unless you see a smoking gun that I missed I'll unblock them. It is of course possible that they coordinate off-site, but I don't see disruption in this one article that would warrant a block.
Amalthea 18:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Paraserv's first edit was to remove a speedy tag from an article that Pa1985 had removed several times, and been warned about: "Do not remove a speedy deletion tag from an article that you have created." Paraserv's only edits have been to that one article, which is also the only article that Pa1985 has edited. The two editors' edits on that article have been (in terms of character, content and POV) essentially identical. No smoking gun, just a loud and clear quacking. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Coordination is a given – and admitted in the unblock request, where Paraserv comments that he'd be in a different state than Pa1985. I can confirm the geographical distance with, as I said, high confidence, it's unlikely (albeit always possible) that one person would have made the technical evidence look like it did. Furthermore, Pa1985 has continued to remove the speedy tag even after Paraserv did it once for him, the interleaving edits on June 4 are at the very least unusual if they were one person, and I think that Paraserv's wiki-code skills are noticeably better than those of Pa1985. Amalthea 19:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Hoped to find you still online, but alas. I have unblocked the account. Cheers, Amalthea 19:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

All we can do is what we think is right. I hope that in this case it's you that's correct. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL 19:24, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Nutriveg

Thanks for trying to be be helpful. I hope you will see that I neither reverted nor re-added a comment at User talk:Nutriveg. Here are the diffs:

• my note asking him not to edit war and to respect the discuss part of WP:BRD.
• his reply the edit summary of which accused me of edit-warring although I only made the single revert to his bold edit.
• my response where I noted my assumption that his removal indicated he had read it, and referred him to Talk:Abortion where I had opened a section asking for reasons why he had removed reliable sources from the text.

I see that the article has been plagued by edit-warring in the past and there is a sense of ownership about the article. I have carefully read the talk page, including Nutiveg's objection to a phrase that was sourced to one of the three sources he removed, but fail to see any reason why he believes he can be the arbiter of what sources are acceptable, solely on his personal preferences. The only way that article is going to move away from the warring is by establishing reliable sources and reporting them accurately without personal bias. As you can see from my contributions to the debate on that talk page, it has been my consistent view throughout.

There's my take on the issue, and I'd like you now to reconsider, please, your comments on my talk page. I would prefer it if you struck or refactored those assertions which have no basis in fact, and either substantiate or retract your warning concerning harassment, as you understand how serious that is. Regards --RexxS (talk) 13:56, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I've responded on your Talk page, since that's the locus of this issue, and I agree that I ought to clarify my statement there. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 14:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll repeat my thanks (at the risk of 'harassment'!) for your efforts to calm down the dispute at Talk:Abortion. It is heartening to see that Nutriveg is working to incorporate the sources into the article, as I really believe that the content issues there will only be solved by a strict adherence to reporting reliable sources neutrally. I do sympathise with you, in that it cannot be easy trying to steer the right course when warning or sanctioning other editors. FWIW, I have "no dog in this race", and I will take your general warning at Talk:Abortion seriously. I've now realised that English is not Nutriveg's first language, and I'll make doubly certain not to be so blunt with him in future.

Looking ahead, perhaps you can answer a couple of questions: is there any way that the article can be protected from revert cycles – in other words, after the first (or perhaps second) revert (in the broadest sense), an obligation is imposed to take it to the talk page without further reverts? I've seen ArbCom impose those sort of conditions on topics (Macedonia, Israel-Palestine, etc), but could that be requested from the community without the drama of an ArbCom case? Any advice or thoughts would be most welcome. --RexxS (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have to bring this to your attention so soon, but I'm going to be in dispute with Nutriveg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) again - and for the same reason: removing sources. I'm sincerely not asking you take sides - and if I'm in the wrong I'll apologise - but you are familiar with the issues, and an outside opinion from someone both parties respect might resolve it. I've laid out my complaint (probably too extensively) at Talk:Abortion#Use of MEDRS. I know it's an imposition, but I'd rather try an informal mediation first than start formal dispute resolution. If you are able to 'referee', it would be appreciated and could eliminate the potential drama that none of us need. --RexxS (talk) 16:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Note on my talk page

I have made one recent edit to abortion. I do not see how this is in any way edit warring. Thus I consider it strange that you would consider blocking me. I see you bring up my misinterpretation of an abrcom remedy a year ago that resulted in a block. Please WP:AGF. BTW I would appreciate a clarification of your statement and how you think I broke Wiki policy. Unless you find policy backing up your assertions would appreciate a retraction of your statement.

I see you involved yourself in the recent edit war, and that you've been sanctioned (and subsequently blocked) in the past for reverting. I've just blocked the editor who reverted you, and have spent some time considering whether blocking you would ultimately be constructive. Your recent contributions and talk page history seem to show that your reverts, though many in number, are essentially productive rather than disruptive. Hence, please consider this a "word to the wise" rather than a draconian warning. I honestly think that the issues at Abortion will only be resolved by compromise, which is why I try to restrict myself to making uncontroversial and pro-discussion statements on the article's talk page. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 12:55, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:33, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

The edit that you made was a revert. It was a revert of an edit that other editors had reverted back and forth several times. If you compare this with Misplaced Pages:Edit war I hope that you can see why I described your action as getting involved, and why I described what you got involved in as an edit war. I am sorry if you got the impression that I was not assuming good faith on your part, and I'm sorry that you feel unable to accept that advice in the spirit in which it was offered. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 15:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the heads up. Just a note on the usage of blocks as per here . Those who are involved in the debate are not to use admin tools but to defer to another editor. Looking at your history you appear to be involved in the abortion debate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)