Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Marsden (talk | contribs) at 18:10, 3 December 2005 (→Blocked for 24 hours). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives: Archive1

Thanks

Just a word of thanks for your support on my RfA - I don't know if I'm Wikipedian of the year but it sure feels like I've been the Wikipedian of the week ! Thanks again, much appreciated. Ramallite 03:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Recusal

No basis exists for my recusal in the Zephram Stark case. I will not go to mediation, nor will I recuse myself if you bring an arbitration case, see Misplaced Pages:Wikilawyering Fred Bauder 13:55, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment: the above project page was created by the arbitrator the day before your exchange; I'm unsure what this means, if anything, regarding your concerns. E Pluribus Anthony 16:18, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! Understood. I sometimes monitor user communications on Wp, and was intrigued by this. (Yes: though, I do have a life. :)) I merely pointed this out to you since it could be perceived by a neutral third-party as (1) an attempt to develop good Wp policy, and/or (2) a collateral, perhaps abusive and biased, attempt by an upper echelon to use one's position to sequester user commentary, particularly given this user's soon-to-be departure from the ArbComm. I hope this helps. E Pluribus Anthony 16:38, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Here is the proposal we are currently voting on which will probably pass:

Focus of dispute

1.3) Zephram Stark engaged in tendentious (exhibiting a strong POV) and disruptive editing with respect to the article terrorism over an extended period of time, see Talk:Terrorism/Archive_6#NPOV_solutions and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Zephram_Stark/Evidence#ZS.27s_changes_to_Terrorism.

Second block

As an uninvolved admin, I've decided to reblock you for 24 hours for continuing personal attacks like this one, right after coming back from the first block. I'm sure you don't need to be referred to WP:NPA or given a warning by now. You can still edit your talk page (if you keep it civil). Dmcdevit·t 03:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Syria, History of Syria, Syrian occupation of Lebanon

I think you've dealt with this user before. His name is John MCW and he keeps adding right-wing propaganda into these articles. Even though he's being opposed by three editors, he will not stop reverting it seems. Your input would be appreciated. Yuber 01:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration candidate question

It was a perfectly appropriate question as I see trollish behavior as the number one problem impeding building the encyclopedia. There are a handful of editors (i.e. trolls) who focus on other editors (harrassing them) rather than on article contents . This kind of disruptive behavior only serves to chase away good editors and I would like to see the arbitration committee take stronger measures in dealing with the disruptive few who insist on behaving this way. --MPerel 05:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

No, personal attacks are never appropriate, and I’m very disappointed in your tactics which reveal that you apparently believe it’s ok if you harbor enough hate toward the person. Btw, I don’t believe the ranting and spamming of a candidate’s page you and FW are engaging in will gain the effect you’re hoping for. (See zeq’s attempt to negatively affect Ramallite’s RFA, for example). Also, no one expects a candidate to answer "would you like to rebut my character assassination of you?" which is easily recognized as merely an invitation to feed the trolls. --MPerel 18:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

The arbcom nomination pages

Marsden, these are not attack pages, and in fact they were specifically set up to avoid the unpleasantness of last year, which no one wants. You've said your piece and you've asked a question; there's no need for any more aggression. SlimVirgin 21:18, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I have made a suggestion on the associated talk page. I was wondering if you could have a look and consider your "question", which I feel is more a statement. JFW | T@lk 21:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I haven't laughed so much for a long time. The process has clearly totally broken - and the behaviour of "the usual suspects" here illustrates this so well that it's now degenerated into farce. Unbehagen 14:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

question

Marsden, did you watch the HBO series called "Rome". It was pretty good, actually. Anyway, there was this one episode where a main character, "Lucious Varinas", was running for office. It turns out that Ceasar wanted Varinas to win. So, Varinas is giving this speech to the public, and there is some guy in the audience who says Ceasar is a menace and Varinas is a traitor for supporting him. Ceasar sent some of his men to stand in the audience during the speech, and when this guy starts criticizing Ceasar, these guys quietly form a circle around him, and then snatch him out of the crowd. I was wondering if there is a term for these sorts of brute-squad characters. A "shill" is usually a person who pretends to be a customer saying how great the product is, but they're really paid by the merchant. Casino's use them a lot, paying some people to gamble so the place looks busy. Little old ladies make great shills because if people think gambling is safe for "grandma", then it must be safe for them. The problem is that "shill" isn't exactly the right term for brute squad tactics to suppress criticism. I was just wondering if you happened to know a vocabulary term to describe the behaviour. Shoot me an email. FuelWagon 18:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I'm usually pretty conservative in applying the no personal attacks policy, however, this edit is over the line. If I see you make any more like it, you can expect to be blocked. Raul654 19:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

self-hating

I would hate to see anybody blocked. Can you draw more people into the conversation? If you check the Jew/Judaism and related articles you will see a number of people pretty knowledgable on Jewish topics who may provide constructive ideas about how to apporach this, and keep it from descending into a conflict between two editors. This has worked in the past and I really urge you to consider trying it. In the meantime, I will do what I can. I may not simply delete whatever he added, but at least I will try to reword it in a more NPOV way or something. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, take a look at what I did. IF Apeloverage ignores my advice and just reverts my edit, and you feel strongly about this, my suggestion to you is that before starting a revert war you go to the "Request for Comment" page and try to get others to join in the discussion on this matter. The ideal (granted, often not achieved) is for reasonable people to engage in a well-informed discussion leading to something like consensus. Let's at least give it a shot. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, concerning the other matter. And please take this as constructive and well-intentioned, good-faith advice. Jayjg is pretty well-respected by many editors. This of course doe not mean that he is immune from criticism. But whatever issues you have, I urge you to be as careful in providing evidence the interpretation of which is beyond doubt, and/or raise questions, in as dispassionate, respectful, and reasonable tone as possible (which I am well aware you are capable of). And never violate the 3-revert-rule. I am no angel myself and have been blocked a couple of times for violating rules and loosing my cool. I just would hate to see the same thing happen to you, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours

Candidate Jayjg in the December 2005 ArbCom election is a troll of the highest order. He promotes partisan, minority views as being NPOV, and obstructs editing, harasses other Wikipedians, and abuses Admin priviledges in order to do so. He is aided in this by a small but energetic group of other editors.

A serious shortcoming of Misplaced Pages is that interested minorities can often promote biased perspectives as POV. Jayjg is among the worst exploiters of this problem. I urge every Wikipedian to oppose his candidacy to the Arbitration Committee for this reason.

It is likely that Misplaced Pages is approaching the end of its usefulness. It is sometimes an effective resource for non-controversial topics, but on controversial matters very little confidence can be placed in its articles. Eventually a new platform will probably arise that uses Misplaced Pages's free-use content where it is useful, but which replaces POV-ed articles with more professionally produced writing.

It would be better, however, if this were not necessary, and getting Jayjg off of the ArbCom would be an important step toward saving Misplaced Pages from the propagandists for the time being.

Here, by the way, is the question I posed to Jayjg on his candidacy page, the question for which User:Raul654 blocked me:

• Is it true that when faced with criticism, your first reaction is to lash out at your critics, and that when you can't do that you withdraw and are unable to function normally? Marsden 18:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

(This was to highlight Jayjg's reluctance to answer any but the most fawning and toadying questions addressed to him. User:Viriditas has since removed all of the critical questions from Jayjg's page, eliminating even the pretence of open questioning of the candidate.)

Marsden 17:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)