Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GregJackP (talk | contribs) at 21:10, 20 June 2010 (Caution: Not assuming good faith. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Misplaced Pages ads	file info – #46

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Sorry to anyone waiting for a response or assistance from me over the last couple of weeks. I am currently very busy with Wikimedia Australia work and am not available for the immediate future. You are still welcome to leave messages here and I will attend to them on my return, but if you require administrative assistance, you would likely get a faster response by finding an available administrator via the List of Admins or by requesting assistance on the Administrators Noticeboards or one of the dedicated noticeboards listed at the top of that page. Sarah 04:54, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

AfD nom for Valley Entertainment Monthly

Sarah, not sure it means much, but the timing of the AfD of this article is oddly suspicious since it was my first attempt at adding an article to Misplaced Pages and was hard fought to keep, in fact was userfied for a time until I could get all the sources in front of me, which I eventually did and it has 16 legitimate references, including major national publication reviews, but Minor4th has decided that after all that, it should be nominated again. After all the fuss in the first place and the article eventually being kept, why is he again nomming it for AfD? It pretty clear it is a punitive measure in some way related to the Donald G. Martin debacle. I assume he is within his rights but as far as a 'mean spirited' gesture, it doesn't get much worst than that kind of passive aggressive garbage. And it is, unfortunately, why good editors have a tough time staying around and trying to help improve Wiki. It shouldn't be... Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:41, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

WQA for Nineteen Nightmares

I have referred Nineteen Nightmares for personal attacks and incivility at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts#Pattern_of_Personal_Attacks_by_Nineteen_Nightmares. Since you have been involved in this matter, I believe that it is appropriate for you to be made aware of this matter. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 17:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Banning

Sarah, as you might have noticed above, there is an attempt to get me banned. My only concern with this is very closely related to a comment you made to me about the Martin article, that you were concerned if I was gone, it would simply revert to a puff piece. It looks like they are attempting to bring it back and the ban they propose for me is a draconian three months! That should give them plenty of time, but seriously and though I've been prickly here and there, my complaints have been genuine and largely ignored. I think that would get anyone pretty upset. Still, I'm trying to hold it together here. Please be aware that they are also throwing everything but the kitchen sink in there in regards to accusations, but most of it (here we go again) is stuff that all happened before the day ban that GregJackP trumped up with an supe who didn't realize everything that was going on at the time. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 20:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Ninteen Nightmares

Also, a ban doesn't mean all that much to me except that interested parties are going to try and get the Donald G. Martin article back up there in all its Madison Avenue glory. I can still read Wiki and that is my true love. I've enjoyed editing but see it is not so much "come to work and edit," as "see if this group of people who are already established will let you edit." You may not see it that way, being a supe and all, but as a relatively new user, its been difficult, to say the least. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 20:33, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Wow, okay, that seems rather premature but I haven't been closely following developments over the last few days. I thought you were doing much better since the block but it looks like you might have slipped since they AFD'd the newspaper article. I think you might need to acknowledge on ANI that you recognise that and agree to go under a civility parole. Which would mean that you agree to comply with the civility policy and if you violate it, you'll be blocked in incrementally increasing blocks. I would also advise you to not get sucked into arguing with them on AFD - it's really not going to be to your benefit as it makes uninvolved people unwilling to bother with it if they have to trawl through long arguments. You can't be banned on the basis of a so-called "consensus" of people so deeply involved in disputes with you. There must be a consensus of uninvolved and uninvested people. Sarah 00:31, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Sarah. I've decided to take a Wikibreak from editing for a while anyway. It is pretty hard to come here with good intent and have a group of editors conduct themselves this way. Honestly, most of what I am being accused of is patently untrue or is the stuff that I was banned for already. There is absolutely no question they are going gorilla here to get rid of the fly in the oinment, so to speak. Many, many exaggerations and untruths have been told, I suppose in the name of making me look like Frankenstein, but in reality I am only here to improve Wiki however I can.

I'll give you a couple of examples of untruths that are being told about me. Modernist claimed that I "deleted other people's articles" and now "feel sorry for" myself that "my" article will be deleted. First, its not my article. I just put the basic info there. My disagreement has almost entirely been about the publication's notability, which would not have been an issue if I hadn't been opposed to the Martin piece. The only article I ever nommed for deletion (and didn't even do it right) was the second Martin piece and that has been explained as a misunderstanding and mistake. In reality, what I did was decide that after my piece was userfied, I'd join the AfD discussions precisely because of the way I was treated. Yes, I voted delete on some when they were patent garbage, but what Modernist is not telling you is that I voted a number of times 'keep' and incidentally, spent a good deal of time cleaning up this article and arguing strenuously that it not be deleted, and it wasn't: Drum Workshop.

Ban or not, I'm pretty much done with arguing with that group because they are not listening at all anyway, so its a waste of time for everyone involved. There is no dialogue, just "this isn't right...delete!" The site's own rules state you should help someone that doesn't know any better, not treat them like dirt and tag and delete everything in sight, six editors deep! Whether or not these people agree with me or not, I have many times tried to open a topic of discussion with them and my queries go almost entirely ignored or are answered in a way that is no answer to the question at all. The following people were originally involved in the Valley Entertainment Monthly article, all hostile to it at the time:

• Modernist
• Ty
• JNW
• Pdcook
• chzz

The following have been heavily in involved in the Martin debacle and were responsible for my ban proposal:

• GregJackP
• Giftiger Wunsch
• Minor4th

That basically leaves only one individual outside of the discussion, Salvio, who has cast a non-biased vote based on exaggerations of the editors endorsing the Martin piece.

JNW has claimed to be neutral but he was probably the worst offender as far as attacking the VEM piece while it was under construction, though he is making the claim to be impartial now because he came in after the nom and wasn't part of the Martin issue. Anyone can go and look at my edits and see that Modernist is not being entirely truthful here. It is disengenuous of him to make a claim of impartiality here. Same with Pdcook, but I think he's actually one of the good guys. You can see his statement is just his unemotional opinion, which I certainly respect.

I will still be around to read comments, I just feel like this back and forth junk is not productive at all and a waste of my time. I started to edit to make Misplaced Pages better, not argue everytime I correct a spelling error or try to tighten up an article's tone or presentation, which I have done a number of times, even occasionally just a small edit here and there for clarity. That is the whole of my intent and this group has continually antagonized me to the point I say something and then they run off to get me banned. Wow.

But when all is said an done, I'm glad there is at least one person here who sees what is happening: a group of editors with an agenda trying to get rid of one who opposes the article they seek to keep. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

I was just reading the ANI discussion about me and I noticed that several people are now claiming I "threatened" to call a newspaper on Mr. Martin. Not true, but I did point out that since was concerned about his reputation, it wasn't a good idea to make such a stink because journalists will get a hold of it eventually if it goes on. This isn't rocket science: time + controversy = newspaper article. Never did I threaten to call a newspaper on Mr. Martin, and in fact when I saw that, I went to his talk page and told him so because I was concerned he would believe it. In any case, I will not be contacting any media personally, so again, they are seeing exactly what they want to see and not reality. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:34, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Yeah, I agree, I didn't read that was a threat but a warning about the reality of how the press love to create front page scandals out of that type of thing. There have been plenty of cases where people have done the wrong thing on Misplaced Pages and it's ended up being a scandal in the press. And I've actually thought several times myself that I hope Martin understand this, which is why I kept telling him that I hoped he understood that his actions here are publicly viewable. The problem really isn't the central message you are trying to share but the language you use. Misplaced Pages's behavioural policies are pretty clear about requiring people to be civil and if you continue being aggressive, abrasive and uncivil, it's just a matter of time before you do get banned. If you're right about people going after you, you're just playing into their hands and making it easier for them by snarking back at them. Don't give them any excuses and if you feel angry or you think someone's an idiot and you want to let loose on them, it can be best just to walk away from the computer for a while and come back when you've cooled off. I do that all the time! I've got to go offline now but I'm hoping that the involved people will back off now and allow uninvolved people to review and address the issues raised there. Sarah 04:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Sarah for all your work. One last thing: I followed your advice and chopped off about half the data in the Valley Entertainment Monthly piece as you suggested. I also just realized that most of my refs were not refs at all but should have been listed as "notes." This has been corrected and only two references remain, albeit solid ones. Everything else is now a note. All but one external link has been removed as well. No one can say I didn't at least try. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 06:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares

Comments on Socks

I am addressing this here to make sure that you were aware of my response (I've already commented on the AN/I about it).

You stated here "I actually don't blame him for those sock/meat puppet views as I reached similar suspicions entirely on my own when I first read the AFD and became involved with the Martin dispute and I very nearly included a couple of the accounts he's now apparently expressed suspicions about in my SPI evidence. I don't think they're socks of Martin or they would have come up in the check of Martin's IP, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn there are other socks being run here."

The only ones that 19N had suspicions on were myself, Minor4th, and Giftiger. As far as this goes, if you have evidence to support the innuendo that I am a sock, meat or puppetmaster, then file a report with WP:SPI. Otherwise, this appears to be borderline violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. You are an admin, I'm a mere editor, you can do whatever you want with relative impunity, but it is not right for you to insinuate that any of the three of us are socks. Just because you disagree with some of my positions is not grounds to trash my reputation on Misplaced Pages. Regards, GregJackP (talk) 05:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Greg but it's rubbish to say that I suspect further socks because I disagree with some of your views. It's an outrageous violation of AGF. You haven't even bothered to ask me why I think that or what evidence I might have come across - you just instantly assume that it comes from bad faith motives - exactly as you did when I endorsed the DRV and exactly as you did on ANI when I opposed the ban. These accusations from you are tiresome and they're constantly assuming bad faith of me. Please stop it. Sarah 06:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Since I'm included in the innuendo about Martin socks, I would like to ask you why you think that or what evidence you might have come across. Thank you. Minor4th (talk) 06:35, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not going to oblige you at this point. Per WP:BEANS. Thank you for your understanding. Additionally, I'd like to ask all the Martin-related users to refrain from posting on my talk page for at least the next week. I am preparing a Misplaced Pages training program for curators at a museum in Melbourne and I don't have time for these constant interruptions. If you have a complaint to make about me, please feel free to open an WP:ANI report. If you wish to discuss or respond to comments regarding the Martin DRV, please do so at the DRV. If you wish to comment on the 19Nightmares ban request, kindly keep it to ANI. These split discussions, responding to comments posted to noticeboards on personal pages and whatnot and conversations being fragmented and spread all over the site as you guys do is something I've never encountered to this extent and it's not at all helpful. Any further comments posted to my page about either the DRV or the Ban request will be ignored. Thank you. Sarah 07:26, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

I'm a bit nervous, as a new admin, and I just blocked a user for creating hoax articles after a final warning. Do you think that an indefinite block was good, or is that going too far? The user is Okfaizok (talk · contribs). —Soap— 17:51, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. Sarah, you have not assumed good faith. See the following:

• "I find that suggestion really insulting of my integrity as an editor and an administrator." Note that an attempt on my part to clear up the misunderstanding were ignored.
• "It's very unhelpful this business you have of making allegations but not giving us a diffs" Note that the diffs in question were already on the page.
• "were involved enough for Greg to think they warranted notification of this discussion" - ignoring the fact that I also notified you and other users that were on not going to be supportive of the position that I was taking.
• "but I'm not the one trying to orchestrate a ban for someone I've been in disputes with." - I did not take this to AN/I, I took it to WQA, which does not have the authority to enforce blocks. It was brought to this page by another editor, at the suggestion of a third editor. I did not propose a ban nor a block, but I did support it when it was proposed.

You have made comments that insinuated the the accounts mentioned by 19N as possibly being socks, which means myself, Minor4th and Giftiger. Close to a violation of civility and NPA - especially since this was a continuation of the personal attacks being made by 19N You were asked by two different users that you insinuated were socks about your so-called evidence, and that if you believed it, to take it to an SPI. Your response was to tell them to go away.

You have made comments that others need to declare their involvement, but you don't declare yours - "the involved parties should have the personal integrity to be clear in their comments that they're involved" - assuming bad faith on the part of everyone else.

Please stop. GregJackP (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2010 (UTC)