Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:08, 13 March 2012

Falklands

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi, The content you have just restored on the Falklands page is entirely irrelevant to the article. It also contains personal attacks. It's your decision of course but I reverted the inclusion of that content twice for good reason. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 21:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

P.S. it might be good to cast some admin eyes over that discussion, despite exhaustive attempts that discussion is just going round in circles - there was talk about closing as no-consensus (although that didn't go down well with some). Any insight you could provide to help resolve that discussion would, I'm sure be welcome. Cheers Polyamorph (talk) 21:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Todd. Thank you for not blocking me. Both me and Poly reverted Keysanger's edits based on WP:TALK guidelines and WP:NOTFORUM. His message has nothing to do with the Falkland Islands. I apologize for the inconvenience, but thank you for taking the time to deal with the situation. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | 01:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Todd, Thank you for restoring the Rule of law. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 11:45, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

As you can see here Todd (), people are discussing the information above Keysanger's disruptive posting (which has nothing to do with the discussion). Removing it is the most sensible thing to do as it is making it difficult to discuss the subject.--MarshalN20 | 14:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Can it at least instead be included in a collapsible frame, so as not to distract readers from the continuity of the discussion? Polyamorph (talk) 09:33, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Polyamorph, I have to remember you that editor MarshalN20 introduced the WotP issue in the discussion:

...The "nationality" of the settlement is particularly dubious given the actual background on the subject. A similar situation happened in the War of the Pacific article, where Keysanger kept pushing for the inclusion that "Bolivia declared war on Chile" because a series of sources repeated the same thing (I called them parrot sources as they only repeated something without providing any insight). Yet, not only did other authors contradict this idea, but actually taking the time to read the literature demonstrated that Bolivia indeed never declared war on Chile. It turned out that Bolivia had only announced a state of war in response to Chile invading their territory; so that is what, by consensus, we wrote (albeit "announcing a state of war" is practically the same thing as declaring war, a slight difference exists)... () MarshalN20, 04:13, 7 March 2012

Do you remember it now?, Should this also be deleted or only included in a collapsible frame?. Why should editors read MarshalN20's opinion but not Keysanger's opinion about the same issue?. In my opinion, the editors have the right to be informed about the course of the discussion, about the background of the given opinions and first and foremost no censorship should be apply. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 10:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Collapsing it seems reasonable. Let me know if further disruption occurs. Toddst1 (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Skirmish over collapsing

Hi Toddst1,

would you be so kind as to answer two questions about your shift of opinion:

• whose opinions are to be hidden from others editors?
• why are these opinion to be hidden?

Please, be exhaustive in your answers. I want to state that I consider your solution very discriminatory.

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

What opinion? I have no opinion on the article. I do have an opinion on edit warring and WP:TPO. Toddst1 (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

In your response at 15:31, 9 March 2012 (UTC) you wrote "Collapsing it seems reasonable. Let me know if further disruption occurs.". What did you mean?. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 16:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

It means that it's not uncommon to collapse long invective on a talk page after the discussion has completed. However, continuing to delete it / re-add it, edit-war or other disruption on that page may result in one or more editors being blocked (or re-blocked). Toddst1 (talk) 16:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is my contribution concealed from the editors and not others?

--Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 17:01, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it comes down to several parties' WP:TE on that page (you being one). I think folks are tired of the bickering. Toddst1 (talk) 17:08, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

And if "it comes down to several parties' WP:TE on that page", why do you conceal only my contributions? --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 17:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but *I* hadn't concealed anything. My only edit was to restore a large chunk of text that was deleted (and shouldn't have been). Let me wade in and fix it. Toddst1 (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree your solution. Thanks for your time and your work for Misplaced Pages. --Best regards, Keysanger (what?) 17:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Toddst, I do not mind your decision, but I am disappointed that it came as a result of Keysanger aggressively pushing you to do it. Whereas both Polyamorph and I kindly notified you of why we thought your decision was incorrect (which instead caused you to ignore us), in this case you allow Keysanger to browbeat you into falling for his demands. I do not blame you, but I do find it rather dreadful that you don't find Keysanger's actions in your talk page at clear fault of WP:Wikiquette. None of us deserve to be bullied.--MarshalN20 | 21:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I don't feel bullied. After Keys asked me to look further, it's clear that the partial collapse isn't fair. In fact I wonder whether I should have collapsed more of that petty bickering going on. Toddst1 (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The Brotherhood of Eternal Love

Hi,

I saw that there was an editprotected request for this, and then saw that you'd fully protected it for six months. That's more than a little extreme for POV-pushing which started less than a month before the protection kicks in. Care to reconsider the duration? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Given the threats of violence associated with editing this article, I don't think it's extreme at all. See this discussion. I've made the requested edit. Toddst1 (talk) 14:44, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I've had a look through the talk history and didn't see threats of violence; same with the edit summaries in the article history. Am I looking in the wrong place? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:18, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive737#Threat_of_bodily_harm. Toddst1 (talk) 15:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

One revdelled diff is sufficient these days to lock an article for six months? That's astoundingly unusual. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

It strikes me as odd that even after it became obvious you didn't do your homework, you're coming in with such a strong opinion. Had you taken a cursory look at the history, you would have found reference to the ANI discussion. That's not the best position to argue that your judgment is better than the consensus formed from multiple discussions that have gone on around that page.

That being said, I would consider unprotecting it if you commit to the Pottery Barn rule. Toddst1 (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

This is one of those articles that will probably explode into yet another mass of mess if left unprotected. On the other hand, it's also clear that it needs at least some expansion. Chris, if you want to roll with it, you have my blessing. Remember when we had an experiment with stable versions (what was it, "flagged revisions"?)? It may be that the current version will be reverted to a few times. Good luck with it, Drmies (talk) 22:27, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that the article will need watching. I was just somewhat taken aback by a three-paragraph article having been given the sort of protection we normally reverse for child abuse victims and then having been snarled at for daring to question the responsible admin's judgement. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I asked you for some background. You pointed at a single diff which I wasn't at liberty to read. You now insinuate that I'm somehow at fault for not doing my homework, having followed all available content. What gives? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 22:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Chris, I would suggest that it's generally bad form to label the actions of other admins as "extreme" unless you know the facts - which you could have easily gathered by reading through the talk page and edit summaries. Despite that charming opening, I've twice politely answered your questions. Your continuing that line of questioning here had become tiresome. My third answer expressed that but could have been worded better.

You've been made aware of discussions with consensus and been given my go-ahead to change the protections (which you don't really need). Drmies has weighed in on this as well. If you choose to insert your judgment over previous consensus on that article, I have asked that you manage the expected disruption on the article. I think that's only fair. Toddst1 (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Your warning

Regarding your message to my talk page, I'm a bit lost. Am I suppose to let this IP user (who has been blocked for doing this exact same behavior on three different articles) repeatedly change the tense without bothering respond to messages/warnings? I was under the assumption that their behavior was disruptive and that reverting disruptive edits did not fall under edit warring. If not, I'll just dewatchlist the article and let them have at it. Pinkadelica 23:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:3RRNO is worth reading. In many cases, one person's disruption is another's constructive editing. Toddst1 (talk) 16:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Angardn2

Hi Toddst1, I left a message at the spi case linked above, please take a look at a time convenient for you. =)
Cheers,
Spitfire 22:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Fixed and commented. Toddst1 (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

User:CEBR

Hi, Toddst1. Thank you for blocking User:Freedamordistat, although there is a chance that the user may add similar material as an IP or register for a new account. I also see that you blocked CEBR in 2009 on suspicion of WP:Sockpuppetry. I take it that WP:CheckUser wasn't involved or was somehow inclusive if it was? Anyway, after unblocking CEBR, you said, "I have unblocked you per your assertion of not being a sockpuppet. I am taking this on your word and will re-block if I see evidence of sockpuppetry or other disruption." Well, CEBR seems to be engaging in some sort of disruptive behavior since the unblock, such as removing things because he doesn't like them. With that first diff, I am inclined to agree that the source, while reliable for some things, isn't reliable for that particular material. And with the second diff, he did take the matter to the talk page beforehand and waited days for replies, but his reasoning for removing the text doesn't seem very strong, and this led to him being reverted. Perhaps you wouldn't mind taking a look at this situation to see if his removal has any merit, but also whether or not his other recent contributions are abiding by the unblock? He seems to at least need some counseling on not removing things because he doesn't like them. 23.20.10.162 (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

A reasoned expansion would be appreciated

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi Toddst1, can you explain, with reference to quotes from the discussion and cross-referenced to appropriate policy sections, the comment "5:1 sounds like a rather strong consensus" that you left on my talk page, under the edit summary "clue", please.

As far as I can see, with reference to the policy clauses on achieving consensus, the discussion has not concluded yet, and no reasoned consensus has yet been achieved. True some editors have refused to engage or negotiate compromises, but that surely means that their voice is lost, and that their initial unreasoned POV is discared. -- de Facto (talk). 10:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consensus Toddst1 (talk) 14:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Which takes precedence - a free online dictionary or Wiki policy? WP:Consensus says very clearly: 'but as consensus is determined by the quality of arguments (not by a simple counted majority)'. Don't you think it a bit harsh to judge a perceived policy transgression, not by what the policy actually says, but by an unrelated definition of a word? I thought I was adhering to policy, and indeed its wording supports my case? Here are some other quotes from the policy for your future reference:

• Consensus is determined by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Misplaced Pages policy.
• The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. -- de Facto (talk). 19:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Apparently you are correct and everyone else is wrong. Toddst1 (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Freedamordistat again

He's back, just like I predicted. 107.22.58.115 (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

He's been blocked again, but would you not mind semi-protecting the article since he's likely to return either as an IP or registered user? 107.22.58.115 (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Canvassing

Hi Toddst1 , do you think it's a good idea to WP:Canvass all the editors who opposed my views in the recent bitter consensus dispute in Metrication in the United Kingdom for their opinion on whether I should get a topic ban for that article? It sounds like a recipe for a rigged consensus to me. -- de Facto (talk). 16:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)