Misplaced Pages

	Nathan Clark Scheffey  "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under." -- H.L. Mencken

Archives: 1

Signpost updated for July 3rd.

Weekly Delivery

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.

Speedy Keep

Speedy Keep as per WP:POINT.--Nscheffey(T/C) 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC) Upon review I think this AfD nomination might be bad faith. The article's talk page shows that User:Ste4k has been involved in all manner of arguments over the tense of the page, reliable sources, etc, for a week, and now he puts the page up for deletion? Could this be an edit war gone nuclear? --Nscheffey(T/C) 15:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Please back this up now point by point with facts instead of questions. Let me make this simple as you made things simple for me.

• I. What review did you make?

a) How many questions are you prepared to answer regarding that review and how little time will be necessary for those answers to come forth?

b) What is the name of the user whom started the consensus?

c) What was the end result of the consensus?

d) How many points were left unanswered by user JD_UK?

e) According to the History in that article how many times had JD_UK actually committed different sets of 3RR?

f) How many times was he reported for that?

g) What the decision made regarding each of those reports?

h) How many users participated in the consensus?

i) Which user refused to participate in the consensus?

j) How many times has copyright violation occurred on that article?

1. Which violations regarded the photographs specifically?

2. Which violations regarded the article on the whole?

k) How many cited resources are actually used on that page?

l) Which user expressed indecision regarding whether or not the article was considered pure fiction?

• II. What specific characteristics of bad faith did you consider during your review?

a) Can you explain any assumption on your part of good faith on my part per that review of that article?

b) Can you justify your remarks considering the length of time I have been an editor on Misplaced Pages?

c) Can you compare and contrast your recent investigation of me personally to the investigation you performed regarding that article?

• III How accurate do you believe your above statement is?

a) Which specific arguments of mine in Discussion of that article regarding reliable sources are incorrect?

b) Which specific arguments of mine in Discussion of that article regarding tense are incorrect?

c) Which specific arguments of mine in Discussion of that article regarding tense varied from the consensus?

• IV How many users agreed that the page should be nominated for deletion before it was nominated?

Okay, my clock is running now, let's see what sort of review you actually made. I am sure that you will be able to answer all of these questions off of the top your head since you were thorough and haven't made any presumptions. About your earlier comments per what you expect me to reply to, please remember how much you pay me for a salary. Thanks. Ste4k 21:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k, Ste4k, Ste4k. You are starting to embarass yourself. I have watched you have similar arguments with other editors, and I have yet to see you show even the most basic understanding of policy, or even common decency. This sad list of question further illustrates your problems. None of your questions have anything to do with whether an article should be listed for deletion. It doesn't matter whether your arguments about tense were correct, or whether a user commited 3RR, or whether there were copy vio photos on the page. None of these are grounds for deletion! Why can't you understand that? Here's what happened: you nominated one article on one season of a popular TV show for deletion. It was speedily kept. What do you think this means concerning your nomination? Perhaps it was wrong, inappropriate, and a waste of everyone's time? At first I thought I was possibly wrong in suggesting bad faith, and maybe you were just a new user unfamiliar with AfD. But, due to your previous action, which I cited extensively above, I can see now that you are just confused and stubborn. You have never replied to any of my questions or comments, you have obscured the conversation by purposefully referring to an incorrect editor, and now you have posted this embarassing list of questions on my talk page. Ste4k, Ste4k, Ste4k, calm down, think for a second, and say it with me: "My nomination of Big Brother series 6 for deletion was a mistake and I'm sorry." See, don't you feel better now. I'll have my eye on you. Cheers. --Nscheffey 21:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Misplaced Pages.

So in other words, you cannot answer these questions. Do you realize that you made your entire review in 32 minutes while also performing a complete review of WP:CORP, and looking for independant articles about the company Faceo? And you even had time to consider another editor's addition of factual information to an article vandalism? You are truly remarkable in your awesome powers of investigation. You also assume that it is okay to ignore people for days and then come back after the dust is cleared and pick things up again where you left off. I find it interesting that you would make changes to articles that you haven't the slightest clue about, and not leave any indication that you have read the Discussion or even participated in it. Have you ever bothered to read the bottom of WP:VER where Jimbo states it is better to have zero than misleading or false information? Why would you purposely INCLUDE something that is considered by several other editors to be POV? Please take the time in the future to assume good faith rather than make it your personal business to inadequately investigate other editors with prejuidice. Thanks. Ste4k 22:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

What the heck is wrong with you, seriously? The link you provided as my "reversion of factual information" is so clearly vandalism as to be comical. Seriously, was that a mistake? I've seen you misreference things and obfuscate discussions so much that I am now flabbergasted by your capacity for error. What is the deal? -Nscheffey 09:18, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

in other words, you are smart and I am stupid. Ste4k 20:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's one theory. --Nscheffey 17:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

re: your latest addition

Adding unsourced information to an article is distinctly different than removing unsourced information from an article.

Per policy: Articles should contain only material that has been published by reputable sources. Editors adding new material to an article should cite a reputable source, or it may be removed by any editor. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it.

In the future, please provide reputable sources that justify the link that you provided. And please assume good faith. Thank you. Ste4k 08:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k, chill out. Both of those links obviously belong in the article and your attempt to remove them has been reverted by another editor. You need to seriously calm down, you are not making any friends with your behavior. --Nscheffey 08:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please review this and reconsider your actions from an objective viewpoint. Thanks. Ste4k 08:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Please, please, for once, make a cogent argument as to why these links should not be in the article. I am familiar with all of the policies you have linked to, and I still see no basis for many of your actions. I'm also not the only one to think so. You need to calm down and be reasonable. --Nscheffey 09:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not uncalm. I don't know why you would think I am. I don't know this man, and I don't dislike him, and I don't like him either way, he is just another human. He was involved in a one-million dollar law-suit. I think that if he knew that you purposely just added a direct link associating his biography (as an author) to a book that he didn't write, and he was sued a million dollars over, that he would probably make it worth some litigation on the part of the encyclopedia if he was so inclined. Don't you? If you have not been reading the ongoing conversation, then please do so since it is at least four or five screens long now. Thanks. Ste4k 09:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Not only have I read the talk page, I've commented on it. The link to ACIM should be on there because he was involved in a one million dollar law suit over it. That makes it relevent to the article. What about that don't you understand? I have yet to see you directly reply to a point I (or any one else) have made. Try it. --Nscheffey 09:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Your statement is incorrect. He was not involved in a one million dollar law suit over that book. He was involved in a one million dollar law suit for his book, a different book, one which does not have the content that the book you are pointing/associating him with has. At the time of the lawsuit the book that you are pointing to did not even yet exist. Now that I have responded to your point please be kind enough to respond to mine. I think that if he knew that you purposely just added a direct link associating his biography (as an author) to a book that he didn't write, and he was sued a million dollars over, that he would probably make it worth some litigation on the part of the encyclopedia if he was so inclined. Don't you? Ste4k 10:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

First you say he was "not involved in a one million dollar law suit over that book", then you say that I added a link to a book that "he was sued a million dollars over." This is within the same comment. Do you see how I have trouble following your logic? The point is, he is associated with the ACIM movement because of this lawsuit. A link to the ACIM page deserves to be in this article. Your idea that he would litigate over this link and so we shouldn't include it is lunacy. --Nscheffey 10:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed the trolls

I see you've met Ste4k. From her comment on my talk page "Hi, it's me the unprofessional bored sitting at home lady again" and her provacative behavior on the wiki, I have concluded that she is a troll. My advice: don't feed her. However, if that doesn't work, RfC may be necessary. JChap (Talk) 12:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I ran into Ste4k on Dissident Voice - the individual does seem like a troll and reported me twice for 3RR, both reports were found lacking by admins. She is going to be a long term problem because at her core she is behaving with minimal coherence and lots of agenda, whether by intent or not -- its the hardest type to deal with. Many individuals are aware of her now. --Ben Houston 01:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I seem to be having similar problems with her as everyone else. I cannot get any constructive work done as all my time and energy is draining dealing with her obsessive edits and discussions. It seems that she has learned that it is much easier to destroy than build so she spends her time in destruction.--Who123 18:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Though it is hardly the most important article, I thought her attempted AfD of Big Brother (Australia series 6) ] was pretty outrageous, and clearly misinterpreted the policies quoted in the AfD (Like, sure the contestants on the show are not notable in themsevles, but the article is not about those individuals, it is about an actual television show, and most TV shows have acticles.) This AfD came after lots of lengthy arguments conducted on that article's talk page. Asa01 04:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. That was the AfD that first brought ste4k to my attention. It was a blatantly inappropriate nomination, but every time I discussed it with her she refused to listen to what I was saying, instead replying with things like "Please see WP:VER, thanks." Her behavior has certainly not improved since then. You may be interested in commenting on an RfC on her behavior that is being prepared at User:Will Beback/Sandbox. Thanks. --Nscheffey 02:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Edit warring

Even when you're right, don't edit war. -Will Beback 08:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

What should I do?-Nscheffey 08:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

The next step would be to create an an RfC regarding this user's behavior. I expect that there are many users who will contribute if you get the ball rolling. You can scan a couple of existing user RfCs to see how they're put together. The important parts are researching the "diffs" in the user's contribution list which are problematic behavior, stating which policies have been violated, and seeking input and a solution. There's a template, and a time limit (though that won't be a problem). Let me know if you have any questions. -Will Beback 08:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

PS (after reading your latest comments on my talk page): Disputes are not uncommon, which is why we have a dispute resolution process. I can't say as I've ever seen an editor exactly like this one. Every unhappy editor is unhappy in her own way (forgive me, Tolstoy). The great thing about Misplaced Pages is that it, and its articles, rise above the limitations of its contributors. -Will Beback 08:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure I want to open an official RfC on this user yet, since I can't point to one exact violation of policy. But I think there are many editors (Mboverload, Antaeus Feldspar, etc.) that would agree with my general view. At this point I'm just pissed at the removal of my comments from her page, and her refusal to even address the issue. Isn't there a more streamlined way I could deal with this? --Nscheffey 08:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ther are many ways of dealing, see Misplaced Pages:dispute resolution. Even so, my opinion is that the appropriate next stage is to seek community input through an RfC. This is not an issue tied to one article, but rather it is an issue tied to one user. -Will Beback 09:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you "can't point to one exact violation of policy" then be open to the possibility that this is a difference of interpretation, not a policy violation issue. Have you tried dialogue to explore the reasons behind the behaviour you consider problematic? Just zis Guy you know? 12:42, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k

Nathan, take care - as you are no doubt aware this editor is somewhat sensitive; I see strong evidence of good faith in working through some things that need doing, the project will benefit more from being kindd than form being aggressive here, I think. I do not think she is a troll. I have not yet figured her out at all, to be honest, but I think she has the potential to be a valuable contributor, as evidence working through the merge backlog, which is horrible scut-work with little hope of thanks and great potential for backlash. Count to ten, eh? I think you're right about Sculpture of Ancient Greece and have told Ste4k so. Just zis Guy you know? 12:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I just saw your reply on Ste4k's Talk. I salute you. Just zis Guy you know? 12:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No prob

It's no big deal...I let schoolyard stuff like that go in one ear and out the other. And I can sympathize about your roomate hijacking the computer--I had a roomate in college once who I think broke into my computer and sent nasty e-mails to our Complex Director -- almost got me kicked out of the dorms because of it. So don't worry about it, and apology heartily accepted. Have a good one, and hope he hasn't been too much of an annoyance to you :) Pat Payne 15:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 17th

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. --Michael Snow 05:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k RfC

I am compiling information for an RfC regarding user:Ste4k's behavior. Frankly, there is a lot to document. I thought you might be more familiar with the page merge and edit warring issues than I am. If you're interested in contributing, the draft is at User:Will Beback/Sandbox. I've drawn up an outline of some issues, but it needs to be filled-out. Feel free to add to it as you see fit. I expect to post the Rfc in a day or two. -Will Beback 05:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I've got lots to add. --Nscheffey 05:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Do what you can to fill in the blanks. A couple of disputes may be left off entirely. I haven't even begun to list all of the editing tag battles, or the use of templates to communicate. However the picture is clear even without every bad edit shown. I'd like to get the RfC posted in the next day or two. Will that give you enough time for what you want to add? We can still add more after it's posted, of course. -Will Beback 10:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and post it now. Feel free to keep making revisions. -Will Beback 21:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

ACIM

You may wish to vote in the "straw poll".--Who123 02:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope you do not mind but I liked your signature as a template for my own. If you do mind or have any suggestions, please let me know.--Who123 00:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of this? Suggestions?--Who123 01:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. They say imitation is the highest form of flattery, so thank you. Maybe you could have the 123 part link to your talk page, that might be useful. --Nscheffey 01:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I do like your sig. I think I will stay with this for now as it uses different colors than yours. Good sugestion on the 123 link but I think I will leave as is for now. Thanks for the help by example.--Who123 11:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• The ACIM article is no longer protected. I have done some basic housekeeping that was, IMHO, logical and well documented. I would appreciate your help.--Who123 22:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Signpost updated for July 24th

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. --Michael Snow 04:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Notification of Arbitration

I have asked for arbitration. See here Ste4k 08:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Ste4k's block

I didn't realise you were an admin. I was wondering if you would be able to tell me why you blocked Ste4k. I'm not trying to stick up for her or anything like that, I'm just genuinely curious. If you're not able to tell me, no worry. —JD 21:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)