| Revision as of 22:16, 2 September 2010 editHupHollandHup (talk | contribs)1,565 edits →Describing living people with derogatory labels in edit summaries← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:18, 2 September 2010 edit undoRolandR (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers32,330 edits →Describing living people with derogatory labels in edit summariesNext edit → | ||
| Line 173: | Line 173: | ||
| :::HupHollandHup has decided that the truth about Steven Plaut is "derogatory", so we must refrain from expressing it. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC) | :::HupHollandHup has decided that the truth about Steven Plaut is "derogatory", so we must refrain from expressing it. — ] <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::::it's actually not me who decided that. I asked for community input on your actions, and the consensus was that they were inappropriate. You, as an administrator, should know better. ] (]) 22:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC) | :::::it's actually not me who decided that. I asked for community input on your actions, and the consensus was that they were inappropriate. You, as an administrator, should know better. ] (]) 22:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::As I have already told you, I am not, and have no desire to be, an administrator. Please do not make derogatory comments about me on my talk page. And, by the way, I see no consensus, and barely any discussion, on the noticeboard. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 22:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Yes indeed, sometimes the truth is derogatory. In the same edit summary, I described Plaut as a "known libeller"; I note that our friend does not even attempt to challenge that true statement. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 22:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC) | ::::Yes indeed, sometimes the truth is derogatory. In the same edit summary, I described Plaut as a "known libeller"; I note that our friend does not even attempt to challenge that true statement. <span style="font-family: Papyrus">] (])</span> 22:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 22:18, 2 September 2010
 Archives | ||||||||||||||||||
Index
|
||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 26 July 2010
- News and notes: New interwiki project improves biographies, and other news
- WikiProject report: These Are the Voyages of WikiProject Star Trek
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Discussion report: Controversial e-mail proposal, Invalid AfD
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 2 August 2010
- News and notes: Canadian political edits, Swedish royal wedding, Italian "right of reply" bill, Chapter reports
- In the news: Gardner and Sanger on why people edit Misplaced Pages, Fancy and frugal reading devices, Medical article assessed
- WikiProject report: Always Expanding: WikiProject Images and Media
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution
- Technology report: Major MediaWiki release, password security, vulnerable MediaWiki installations, and more
The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 9 August 2010
- News and notes: FBI requests takedown of seal, Public Policy advisors and ambassadors, Cary Bass leaving, new Research Committee
- In the news: Wikinews interviews Umberto Eco, and more
- Sister projects: Strategic Planning update
- WikiProject report: Chocks away for WikiProject Aviation
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Tricky and Lengthy Dispute Resolution
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Discussion on closure of Israel and Aparthied mediation
Current consensus seems to be to move the article to Israel and Apartheid with an appropriate disambiguation line to prevent any misinterpretations. Please weigh in over the next few days. --Ludwigs2 17:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 11:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 20:12, 13 August 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Signpost: 16 August 2010
- WikiProject report: A Pit Stop with WikiProject NASCAR
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: ArbCom releases names of CU/OS applicants after delay
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Vandalism cleanup
I'm back to about October 2009. Basically, every time our vandal gets in his few attempted changes (and they're easily apparent now with the pending changes flag), I'll wipe about 5 or 6 old accounts. So every time he posts, it's a net loss for him.
Also, what would you think about blanking the category of his sockpuppets per WP:DENY? It's not like we need any help identifying him. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think it is still necessary to identify him. There are clearly editors who are not yet aware of this vandal; see for instance this report from last week. RolandR (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
You are mentioned
Hello, just wanted to make you aware that you were mentioned by the first poster in the comments section in this news article: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. It's clearly more of the same harassment I have encountered on- and off-Misplaced Pages for several years now; it doesn't bother me. These juveniles are wasting their time, but at least this keeps them out of mischief. RolandR (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- What harassment have you encountered off-Misplaced Pages? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- The same person who stalks me on Misplaced Pages has created an offensive blog about me, and has sent countless comments in my name to loads of internet forums and blogs, trying to smear me as an antisemitic, anti-Muslim, anti-Arab terrorist with homoerotic and anal fantasies. It says more about him than about me. Most websites (even thoise unsympathetic to my political views) delete them on sight. If you email me, I can tell you more; I don't want to give more details here. RolandR (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- What harassment have you encountered off-Misplaced Pages? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
return of Drork?
Hi Roland, I wasnt around when most of the IPs Drork was using were brought to SPI, but what do you think the chances are that this IP is another sock of Drork? nableezy - 06:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think so. The IP is in the same range as several of Drork's blocked socks; but these seem to be assigned to Bezeq, so many editors in Israel could be usiung them. Drork never edited the Golan article, and the style of argument does not sound like him. It is reminiscent, though, and I will see if I can recall who it reminds me of. RolandR (talk) 11:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Drork edited that article, see here where the same argument over "settlement" is made. Or here where a "retired" Drork edits as an IP and makes the argument that "occupied" cannot possibly be an accurate or neutral description (collapsed section on that page), a continuation of this (also collapsed). nableezy - 12:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I missed that. You may be right; but the tone and obsessions do not seem the same as Drork's. Certainly no smoking gun there, as far as I can see. RolandR (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Im not sure either. The arguments over "occupied" and "settlement" have a Drork taste to them, but a lot of people are opposed to using those words. Combined with other factors such as a clear familiarity with wiki syntax though this is clearly not a "new" editor. nableezy - 13:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure of that. But proving it is another matter. RolandR (talk) 13:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Im not sure either. The arguments over "occupied" and "settlement" have a Drork taste to them, but a lot of people are opposed to using those words. Combined with other factors such as a clear familiarity with wiki syntax though this is clearly not a "new" editor. nableezy - 13:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I missed that. You may be right; but the tone and obsessions do not seem the same as Drork's. Certainly no smoking gun there, as far as I can see. RolandR (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
- Drork edited that article, see here where the same argument over "settlement" is made. Or here where a "retired" Drork edits as an IP and makes the argument that "occupied" cannot possibly be an accurate or neutral description (collapsed section on that page), a continuation of this (also collapsed). nableezy - 12:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Drork returned some days ago on wikimedia --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 23 August 2010
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Cryptozoology
- Features and admins: The best of the week
- Arbitration report: Proposed decision of climate change case posted
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
template
Roland there is no need to keep that template their at all. Off2riorob (talk) 15:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Why is there no need to keep the template? The SPI is still ongoing, it has been established that at least three accounts are socks of Appletree, and several editors have expressed their suspicion that one or other of these is a sock of Einsteindonut. So why did you remove the template, before the investigation is completed? RolandR (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
The sock issues with David have been resolved, the user continues with this single account in a good faith way and as such there is no benefit in labeling him like that, the user is also identified and has safety issues as noted on his user page and exposure of what may be related IP addresses have perhaps personal safety issues. Off2riorob (talk) 15:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Since Einsteindonut has been banned by the communmity, this is certainly not resolved. If Appletree is, as many believe,, another sock, then he cannot be allowed to edit by an admin; this will require a further community discussion. RolandR (talk) 15:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I concur with Off2riorob. The purpose of the templates is to help in tracking down sockpuppets, not as a badge of shame. In this case, David has admitted to prior sockpuppets and under the eponymous user account is working on rehabilitating himself back into the community, which also means that whatever ban applied to Einsteindonut is being "lifted" for JUST the DavidAppletree account. As long as he is not violating wikipedia pricnciples, we should be encouraging him, not the opposite. I understand that your political viewpoints are rather opposed to his, which is fine, but he should expect the same courtesy that you do, for now. He goes back to sockpuppettry, all bets are off; and the same applies to you, me, or anyone. Please remember, wikipedia is not an arena where he or you can continue your political struggles; it is an encyclopedia, and people who cannot abide by those terms may have their privileges removed. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- But Einsteindonut is a banned user. As such, it is not open to an admin to allow him to edit again under another name. Only a further community discussion can revert this ban. RolandR (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to take that route, there is no hard evidence that DA is ED, so the ban does not apply. -- Avi (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have raised this for discussion at ANI RolandR (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Great, check the history and see who raised the discussion there to beging with
-- Avi (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think that was me; but it seems that there have been several edit conflicts there, with editors simultaneously posting similar comments to different sections of the case. This one looks set to run for ages! RolandR (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Here, let me help you :) http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=381894717. -- Avi (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- OK, I was posting (in a new section, which you later incorporated into your own) at the same time as you. Anyway, my brother is bigger than yours, so there! RolandR (talk) 17:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- OK, UNCLE, you win, stop him from beating me up!!!
-- Avi (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- Great, check the history and see who raised the discussion there to beging with
- I have raised this for discussion at ANI RolandR (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- If you want to take that route, there is no hard evidence that DA is ED, so the ban does not apply. -- Avi (talk) 15:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
_(A).jpg&action=historysubmit&diff=42396156&oldid=26543941){kind=link}
David Appletree
I have just blocked User:DavidAppletree. His presence on Misplaced Pages is unlikely to contribute to harmonious editing towards NPOV, indeed it was likely to stoke conflict and drama. This is a place for collaboration and not for political agendas. In the spirit of that, I am asking you to respond by removing your remarks concerning him from your userpage, and large, rather provocative image too. A userpage can usefully declare your biases, but it not best used as not a soapbox.--Scott Mac 21:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I have no remarks about David Appletree on my user page. RolandR (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- And the image does not relate in the least to Appletree, or any other Zionists. It is about antisemites who pretend to espouse the Palestinian cause -- a group I despise just as much as Appletree does himself. RolandR (talk) 21:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- My apologies. I saw appletree's site and followed the link to your userpage and assumed he was responding to you, or vice versa. However, I'd still ask you to consider whether using your userpage to respond to off-wiki attacks, and to host provocative political images helps this project's aims of neutrality and collaboration. --Scott Mac 22:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
- I am with Scott on this. It would be nice if you could tone down your userpage significantly. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Steven Plaut
Hi RolandR! Thanks for adding a source for the claim about Plaut's involvement with websites. I've raised a concern about it at ] and would welcome your comments. Cheers -- Timberframe (talk) 11:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
The Signpost: 30 August 2010
- In the news: Agatha Christie spoiled, Wales on Wikileaks, University students improve Misplaced Pages, and more
- WikiProject report: Studying WikiProject Universities
- Features and admins: Featured article milestone: 3,000
- Arbitration report: What does the Race and intelligence case tell us?
- Technology report: Reusability of MediaWiki code, Google Summer of Code: Interwiki transclusion, and more
Rats
Thanks mate, sorry I beat you to the draw. I'll flip a tinnie and have one to your health now.Nishidani (talk) 20:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Describing living people with derogatory labels in edit summaries
I have asked for input on your recent actions here. The consensus of opinion from uninvolved editors there is that what you are doing is inappropriate, and that I should ask you politely to stop, which is what I am doing here. HupHollandHup (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- What action are you talking about? Please specify. RolandR (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- As the section header says, the actions are the labeling of living people with derogatory descriptors in edit summaries, such as the one where you called a living person an "extremist agitator". I am asking you politely to stop doing that. HupHollandHup (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- HupHollandHup has decided that the truth about Steven Plaut is "derogatory", so we must refrain from expressing it. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 22:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- it's actually not me who decided that. I asked for community input on your actions, and the consensus was that they were inappropriate. You, as an administrator, should know better. HupHollandHup (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- As I have already told you, I am not, and have no desire to be, an administrator. Please do not make derogatory comments about me on my talk page. And, by the way, I see no consensus, and barely any discussion, on the noticeboard. RolandR (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, sometimes the truth is derogatory. In the same edit summary, I described Plaut as a "known libeller"; I note that our friend does not even attempt to challenge that true statement. RolandR (talk) 22:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)