Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Durova (talk | contribs) at 02:08, 19 November 2007 (→Refactoring: no offense meant). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Misplaced Pages. (see: block log • contributions • deleted contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

Feel free to leave a comment or start a discussion below - thanks for dropping by;

Sounds good to me, this user account is expressive but not disruptive. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Squeak, we've not been around each other too much, but yours is a voice I respect - Privatemusings 02:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back... don't do anything I wouldn't do!  :-) *Dan T.* 02:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

It's doing things you would do that got me into this mess! - thanks for the note though... Privatemusings 02:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I have seen trusted admins screw-up and say as a penalty they will do such and such that everyone agrees is good for creating an encyclopedia. You would prove a lot if you would undertake to unambiguously act to improve the encyclopedia. Ask others for what such acts might be if you have doubts. Hint: red links. WAS 4.250 06:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

For every typo... I try and correct two via Special:Random.  :) Mercury 15:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I do that on occasion, when I realize my recent activity here has been almost entirely debate-related rather than actually improving the encyclopedia; hitting "Random" a few times usually finds articles that can be copyedited. Any other suggestions of productive things to do to get out of a rut? *Dan T.* 15:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey PM,

I noticed your recent drama and just wanted to say I was entirely sympathetic to you. Like you, I created this SPA account so as not to let my "political" opinions get in the way of my editing activities. However, I didn't care about publicly revealing my old account when asked about it, as I was dealing with a different set of people than I was previously, and when I resumed editing articles under that handle I rather more rigorously kept this account confined to policy discussions, so less "drama," as it were, seems attracted to me. Still, I support your basic "right to privacy," to the extent the concept exists in any practical way in an environment such as this.—AL 18:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

I have doubt to you ability to reliably source biography's of living persons and I don't find how this account is operating under a legitimate use of an alternate account. Regards, Mercury 05:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Privatemusings (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Gosh - please take a look at this. I'm trying to work out the sourcing policy on Giovanni di Stefano, but regardless have made no controversial edits whatsoever. This is, of course, my sole account. No note about an impending action was given, and of course this is a bad block. Please undo, Mercury

Decline reason:

I don't find your description of your behavior matches what you've actually been doing, and you've continued to mess with Giovanni di Stefano after being warned not to, a number of times. I don't feel you are here to help, but to cause drama and dispute. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Privatemusings...would you care to comment on Fred Bauder's post from the RS talkpage?--MONGO (talk) 07:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I hopefully will comment in due course - in the interim, could I at least ask for a note of review to be posted to AN/I - an administrative consensus with the ink barely dry has been missed in good faith by Mercury, and apparently wholly ignored by Morven. I wish to be unblocked, and am staggered that these users somehow believe that this is minimizing drama.

Please, all uninvolved editors, review all edits - get in touch with any / all concerns, and behave decently - not this crazy uber aggressive misquided nonsense. Privatemusings (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a small additional point, but the unblock review seems to give no credence to the possibility that Mercury, as blocking admin, was unaware of the previous administrative consensus. I really can't comprehend how anyone could assert that I am not trying to improve the Giovanni di Stefano article - please just take a look at the edit history and talk page. If you do wish to assert that there is any block worthy activity (or better yet, activity worthy of a no-discussion, indef. straight away) then please please please provide some diff.s or reasoning beyond terse, discourteous notes.

As a good friend is want to say - How fucking rude (no desire to cause offence). Privatemusings (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the action that would be in accordance with your stated wish to avoid drama would be to e-mail a request for review to the Arbitration Committee, although I doubt an outburst like that would strengthen the appeal. Durova 07:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Outburst? Can't see it myself, but apologies regardless. I really do try and stay calm at all times (and I think I'm calm at the moment, but upset again none the less). The expletive above isn't intended to offend, the phrase is intended to be ironic, as well as make a point.

Regarding AN/I - my stated goal is to be unblocked, and I have no ability to be involved in, nor will I take pleasure from another AN/I thread. It's just that admin.s talked at length about this very very very recently, and to ride roughshod over that consensus (let alone trampling all over me) is just plain wrong.

I think the quiet sensible path to resolution is for me to be unblocked. Privatemusings (talk) 07:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

<sigh> Would someone mind informing me of the correct procedure to email ArbCom? Are there any other channels that may be appropriate to pursue, such as getting an uninvolved admin. to take a look first? <ability not to be sarcastic fails> I dunno, perhaps we could leave a message at, you know, some sort of noticeboard? Discussions there sometimes form consensus in a few hours, and after all, this is an open project? Privatemusings (talk) 07:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Just go to the userpage of one of the clerks and use the e-mail feature. I don't think your access has been disabled. And if it has been, let me know and I'll make the adjustment. The outburst was the f-bomb that left a crater just above my post. Really, I can't find a reason to lift this block. You've been around a while - this isn't your first account - so you know your options. I'll cut my standard offer in half for you: if you register at another Wikimedia project - let's say Commons - and do some good work over there you could e-mail me in three months and we'll talk. That's really the best I can see my way clear to extending. Durova 08:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, sincere apologies for my language upsetting you - I can't abide discourtesy. I would ask you to consider how it feels to be treated like this - and the fact that I am very upset.

You are, of course actively refusing my request for an AN/I note - and though I thank you for your clarity in saying 'go away' I sincerely believe in this project, and am very alarmed at the way this is panning out. I would like to stay. Privatemusings (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I am advising you of the action that would be most in accord with your stated wish to avoid drama. Since that point appears to be one of the reasons for this block, it would seem to serve your own interests more to pursue the quieter option. Durova 08:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

No Durova, I do not accept any blame in 'creating' the drama that may ensue from a note on AN/I mentioning another stupid indef. block. I hate it, and wish that it wasn't necessary. But it is. I wish to be unblocked. Privatemusings (talk) 08:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#Privatemusings Mercury 08:20, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

BTW if this hadn't appeared on a noticeboard pretty soon I would have posted it myself. I'd just really have preferred if you'd refactored that profanity first. Durova 08:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the courtesy, Mercury.

A note has been posted at AN. I probably would have thought that AN/I is a more appropriate venue, and it probably would have made more sense to post a note before taking such an unusually extreme action - but thanks none the less. Privatemusings (talk) 08:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

to those who have been in touch showing support, on and off wiki.

I very much wish to be unblocked, and feel incredibly bullied here. There are once again serious misrepresentations occurring, and this situation is very confusing.

Please please please provide some specific evidence that something block worthy has occurred at all, and discussions may move forward from there.

With regard to the various accusations against me, including those of not being able to follow sourcing policy, here are my thoughts on the matter.

Please unblock me. Privatemusings (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't purely your thoughts on Misplaced Pages sourcing, those are also pretty thinly vieled personal attacks on several administrators. I would refractor that or completely gid rid of it if you even think you have a chance at being unblocked at this stage. — Save_Us_229 20:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Re factored the above per your valid point. I have been entirely honest on wiki, and now in a calm space which I control. You really must examine when WP:NPA can be misused to stifle critical discussion. I'm afraid I stand by my every word. Privatemusings (talk) 20:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

What you could have done to not stir things up, what you did, and what to do next

Above I said to you:

I have seen trusted admins screw-up and say as a penalty they will do such and such that everyone agrees is good for creating an encyclopedia. You would prove a lot if you would undertake to unambiguously act to improve the encyclopedia. Ask others for what such acts might be if you have doubts. Hint: red links.

Your response was to act like a "bull in a china shop" on a very sensitive BLP article that was already a troll magnet; then to act surprised when people who already thought you to be a troll acted like this attraction to a troll magnet provided confirming evidence that you were indeed a troll.

Durova has made a wise and kindly offer to you to edit pages on another WikiMedia site (may I suggest Wiktionary?) for three months to prove we are wrong about you; and your response to that is to "mix it up" or "throw mud" at a few troll attracting wikipedia editors above. You are digging yourself deeper. Stop digging. Well, unless you really are a troll, in which case; may I say, sir, job well done. WAS 4.250 (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Fires attract fire-fighters, lurkers (watchers), news reporters, and fire-starters (pyro-maniacs). You can tell who is who by watching how they act. Same with troll magnets. We want people who deal with troll magnets in a way that defuses them, not pours gas on a fire (to mix three metaphors in one sentence - "lessens instead of strengthens their magnetic field"?). WAS 4.250 (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments WAS, and value the fact that you have continued to come here and talk reasonably. I just wanted to respond a little;

My editing at Giovanni di Stefano predates your post to me above, and it's important to me that you don't consider my decision to remain involved there as a reaction, or failure to digest your points - I was involved there, and still seek resolution of what I see as the important issues surrounding that article.

I'd also like you to really examine whether or not you believe I did act like a "bull in a china shop" - because hand on heart I feel my editing there was calm, courteous, and justified. Please please please try and find any diff anywhere that can remotely justify the label 'trolling' because I am really and truly yet to understand the merit of those claims, beyond the meaning I can clearly ascertain which is 'I disagree with you, and you're not welcome here.' Privatemusings (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

A better approach here would probably be to go ahead to Wikitionary, Commons, or Wikiquote and demonstrate your good work. In good faith I'll accept that you didn't mean any harm and it would probably earn some clout among experienced Wikipedians if you either accepted this feedback and made use of that option, or else filed a formal request with either ArbCom or the Foundation. Durova 23:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova, do not confuse disagreeing with you with not listening. Noble though your offer is, "In good faith I'll accept that you didn't mean any harm" of course implies the premise that I have caused harm. I see that your judgment has been flawed recently, for which you have apologised, and I would invite you to consider bringing your analytical skills to bear on my contributions, and for that matter, would welcome you to provide some basis for your assessment that it is my contributions which are the problem, beyond a rather lofty 'because we say so'.

Simply put, a couple of diff.s - an indication of where a policy has been broken, an indication of where the spirit of a policy has been broken, an example of not seeking constructive development, or hey, something just plain rude or obnoxious. I am clearly asserting that you are incorrect to hold your position, and would like it to be justified somewhat more rigorously.

An indef block was, and is, way out of line.

And just one bit further - I have been angered hugely by the way I have been treated, and believe that some very powerful editors here are contributing to a dynamic that ultimately can harm this project incredibly. I have tried to remain polite throughout, and have never, never, never made a single edit with the intention of disrupting. Not only do I assert that all my edits have been constructive, I freely acknowledge that I'm human and may make mistakes, and I'd like to talk about it. I do not recognise the authority of a few to slap me, and then say what amounts to 'run along'.

I hope and pray that this will all come out in the wash in relatively short order, because there is some truly alarming behaviour occurring.

Not one single person has submitted any instance of indef block worthy behaviour (just one diff?), not one of the editors who banned me first came here to begin a discusison, not one of the reasons stated has ever been substantiated, and I'm mad about that.

-( Privatemusings (talk) 23:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In terms of the net drain on volunteer time, yes I do consider harm to have been done. And the BLP issues concern me also. You already have the best part of whatever advice and input I can give. I've responded to all of your queries promptly, but I doubt there's much more I can add at this point. Best wishes. Durova 00:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough - you do have the choice to leave, to edit elsewhere. I'm afraid I don't agree that your position has been thought out, nor that your responses have been substantive in addressing the serious concerns. From this post (which to be honest, I found genuinely confusing) I have found you more to be representing an entrenched position, rather than willing to engage productively. Of course you're free to seek clearer air, unlike me at this point. Take care, Privatemusings (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Small Example

Here's a post from Durova, who you might expect would favour an evidence based approach;

"The element here that is on topic is that WP:BLP is a policy best applied conservatively. At best, Privatemusings had shown a consistent inability to recognize that."

Leaving aside the fact that the block rationales just seem to be spraying so widely as to utterly befuddle, could someone (Durova, please please?) just pop up a couple of diff.s or any kind of evidence to support this assertion which I wholly reject. Privatemusings (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Per this request, I've done so on the WP:AN thread. Durova 23:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My Talk Page Deletion

(again)

A concern over BLP has led my talk page to be deleted once more.

Please please please could someone review the material which led to this deletion - this is chilling. Privatemusings (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed it, and I endorse the deletion. You have been repeatedly warned that this is a sensitive and highly complex BLP issue. I don't fully understand the intricacies myself, but when someone like Fred Bauder warns that we have to tread carefully, I don't rush in and start reverting and arguing. Don't post that (or similar) material here again, or your page may be protected. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I won't repost the material (of course) - but do want it on the record if possible that this indef. block does seem to be related to a good faith attempt to gather previously submitted sources (that material was all posted by good standing users, including Fred, on the very page that suddenly required deletion upon collation) in a clear way. Believe it or not, your post above is the clearest indication so far that I've had personally that the mere mention of these sources is the cause of the problem, and the root of my block. When the dust from all this has settled, I would like the opportunity to contribute to a discussion in a wider forum about the consequences of us as a project adapting this practice as policy. It is that aspect that I feel incredibly passionately about, and thank you thank you thank you for at least beginning a discussion here. Privatemusings (talk) 00:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats

I would appreciate it if you and others don't do anything that could result in me or members of my family in being sued by di Stefano. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Squeak, I've got heaps of time for you, as I've said before. I won't intentionally ever do anything that could result in you or members of your family being sued. If, for you, that means that I simply can't edit the GdS article ever again, then I'll do it. Immediately and permanently. What I am passionate about, and insist on discussing, is not the activities of GdS but the horrible way that I've been treated (am being) - and the fact that the calm discourse trying to resolve the serious question marks over the entire project (such as when reliable sources become utterly unmentionable) has been met with horrible horrible indef blocks without the involved editors showing me the same human decency and courtesy that you, as an uninvolved person, have done - that reflects terribly on them, and is just plain wrong. Privatemusings (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Refactoring

Privatemusings, removing the indefblocked template, the block notice, and the unblock request doesn't really make a good impression at this stage. Suggest you restore them as a gesture of respect for process. Durova 00:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

That may be a result of the page deletion, and not connected to Privatemusings. ElinorD (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Durova, my talk page has just been deleted yet again for reasons I assert are not the strongest, and you seem to be blaming me for creating the wrong impression as a result. I don't really know how to go about templating appropriately - but remain happy for someone to do so.

You implication that this is nefarious is odious if intended, and unnecessarily clumsy and aggressive if in error. Privatemusings (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, it looked like a result of your edit. Thanks for the clarification. In that case, no worries. Durova 00:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well no worries indeed, have you considered that an apology is appropriate in such circumstances? You see 'no worries' tends to mean that you are no longer concerned about your mistake. That is discourteous. Privatemusings (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for any discourtesy. It has not been my intention to offend. Durova 02:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The Age of Reason

From AN;

Normally I wouldn't take it upon myself to supply diffs for another administrator's block, but Privatemusings specifically asks for my input. So I'll provide something brief. I full protected the Giovanni di Stefano article yesterday because it had been a locus of BLP concerns. Although I'm no expert in any legal system, common sense tells me to treat BLP issues conservatively. And if that isn't generally the way to handle things in some editors' views, a biography of a controversial legal professional is probably not the place to experiment with the outer limits of WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS. This was a normal and routine protection, yet Privatemusings tried to get the protection lifted repeatedly and implied on the article talk page that I didn't know what I was doing - before asking me anything about the decision. One might suppose that Privatemusings would be more circumspect, particularly in light of the caution Fred Bauder delivered at WT:RS at about the same time: Privatemusings was approaching the level of disruption that merits an indefinite block, in Fred's opinion. Then, having been blocked for BLP and sourcing issues, and the block already having been declined by another member of the arbitration committee, this editor renews the problem with a post that SlimVirgin steps in to refactor. I won't post those diffs here per WP:BEANS but they're in today's user talk history. Durova 23:27, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

He simply thought you stated reason for protecting the article ("BLP edit warring") was inaccurate. That's not really disruptive. Privatemusing seems to believe, although this information keeps getting removed from his talk page, even in redacted form, that otherwise easily sourcable information is being forbidden from the article. I understand this editor keeps picking controversal areas of the wikipedia to edit, but he has a point. We don't have a separate policy called WP:Biographies of living lawyers, which makes clear not to mess with any "biography of a controversial legal professional" though maybe we should. -- Kendrick7 23:51, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hear Hear.

I've just deleted a more lengthy explanation, because Durova's assertions, and diff.s above are so weak in my opinion. There was no 'implication' in my post, I stated clearly that I disagreed with your assessment (I still do, but no biggie!) - you've actually written up quite clearly that the basis of this block is dissent with powerful users.

And dissent should not be block worthy, let alone indef. Privatemusings (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You have not been blocked for dissent and your claims that you have just dig yourself deeper. Contribute at Wiktionary, please. Your continued efforts here only show that you are unwilling to accept that opinions of others matter as much as yours when you are sure you are right. People who insist on their right to fight the good fight as defined by themselves against the opinions of many others here are shown the door. It simply is unworkable to allow every self-righteous warrior to continue editing in a single space - even if they are right. I'm sure you see the truth of this in the behavior of others. That they have gotten away with it so far is no reason to let you act that way also. This self-righteous warrior disruption has got to be brought under control. I hope both you and worse examples of this learn from your mistakes. Your current strategy (or lack of one) is a mistake. Stop what you are doing and do something else; because what you are doing is not helping. A person that insists on their right-of-way at a traffic intersection is a fool. I'm done here; some people get it and some don't. You decide by your behavior which you are. WAS 4.250 (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Here lie the bones of Solomon Gray,
Who died defending his right of way.
He was right, dead right, as he sped along,
But just as dead as if he'd been dead wrong.
-- Kendrick7 01:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, WAS - I see your points, my agitation believe it or not isn't that I'm right, and all are wrong, it's that I'm having trouble parsing what's happening to me. I'm upset.

I would however, willingly, and happily stop discussing 'why I think I'm right' and would prefer to respond to reasoned, evidence based discussion about ways in which my edits have crossed the line. It's just that absolutely no evidence is forthcoming. Thanks heaps for coming by anyway, and sorry to have shared an unpleasant experience. Privatemusings (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

What's happening to you is that people have it in their heads that you are a troll and you are not taking their perception into account. Your behavior confirms for them that you are a troll, just as a police suspect's refusal to behave in a compliant way with the officer's requests confirms for him that the suspect is up to something. You should have gone out of your way to change people's minds. You did not. You are not. You insist that what counts is what is in your mind and we should all jump through hoops proving stuff to you. Just more confirmation that you don't belong here, thinks those you are trying to convince. WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Your police analogy is spot on - and I really hope that I haven't crossed the line from calmly wanting my rights to be respected (in general terms, you know - what have I done? Why do you think that? etc. etc.) into being a bit of a prick. The block I'm currently under is partly justified by 'illegitimate use of alternate account' for goodness sake! I don't want any hoops to be jumped through, just blatant mistakes like that to be corrected. (on a cheesy personal level, discussing this even in these small terms is helping me to calm down, and is appreciated - thanks.) - Privatemusings (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A Request

I would appreciate a note being left at User_talk:!! inviting comment on both this page, and the AN thread. My feeling is that !! is a very well established editor, and having experience an unwarranted indef. block may be able to pass useful comment on my situation, which i consider analogous. A copy of this note would of course suffce, and many many thanks. Privatemusings (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

While I'm being bossy, I also think that the AN thread should be at AN/I - partly because I feel this is very closely related to the matter above, and partly because I feel that it is absolutely the correct forum - the long standing area where administrative consensus should be quickly formed. I may need a new foil hat, but I'm beginning to feel that the selection of forums was also a choice made with questionable motivation.

Oh, and I want pizza and a helicopter by 8.30, and to be unblocked. Privatemusings (talk) 00:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Dominoes will never make it in time, but I've passed along the request. -- Kendrick7 00:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Right then, the budgie gets it.

Another idea for consideration - I would like to be unblocked with a promise to only edit on Socrates pending sensible discussion and resolution of these issues. The risk to the project of my editing being enabled is tiny, and the personal cost i'm finding hard - it's stressful and upsetting.

<spits feathers out, and dreams of pepperoni.> Privatemusings (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I had an unjust indef block by an arbcom member that was lifted almost immediately. Perhaps you can learn from it (see User talk:WAS 4.250/Archive 04#Indefinite block). WAS 4.250 (talk) 01:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks WAS, I'll take a look... Privatemusings (talk) 01:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

"Indefinite blocks need to be very well founded. I have done a few and always wonder if I have been hasty" - that's what leaps out at me immediately. I think your advice (above) is very very good though - sometimes the frustration at not being heard is one's own issue to deal with. It will all come out in the wash. best, Privatemusings (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

A note for Kendrick

sorry for any confusion - have a look at this.

• Temporary Wikipedian userpages