| Revision as of 04:33, 14 February 2014 editPrecision123 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users4,094 edits →Dispute resolution← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:48, 14 February 2014 edit undoSean.hoyland (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers34,758 edits →Dispute resolutionNext edit → | ||
| Line 69: | Line 69: | ||
| :Friendly update: Good news, an editor appears to be toning down on his opposition to mediation. Let me know what you think and if you might help. Thanks. --] (]) 04:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC) | :Friendly update: Good news, an editor appears to be toning down on his opposition to mediation. Let me know what you think and if you might help. Thanks. --] (]) 04:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC) | ||
| ::I am not refusing to "cooperate in any form of dispute resolution". I am refusing to cooperate with you. I explained why in some detail at ]. This is a matter of principal and practicality and a position that is based on years of experience dealing with countless disputes and editors in the topic area. I also don't cooperate with advocates of Intelligent design, Holocaust deniers, a variety of editors who deny the existence of evidence, because it is a waste of time. ] is policy. I take it seriously. From my perspective I cannot cooperate with you because to do so violates policy. When you have stopped writing falsehoods about what sources say and you are ready to accept the reality of the diversity of information in RS without prejudice and accept that there is, as far as many sources are concerned, an entity called Palestine, you will be able to resolve the dispute in a way that complies with Misplaced Pages's rules. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - ''']'''</small> 07:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:48, 14 February 2014
|
"It is the stupidest children who are the most childish and the stupidest grown-ups who are the most grown-up."
This is the user talk page for AGK. You can also send this user an internal email. I have taken 68,260 actions on Misplaced Pages: 54,362 edits, 3,301 deletions, 2,661 blocks, and 7,936 protections. You are welcome to reverse any of them, except if my reason mentioned "checkuser", "arbitration", or "oversight". |
Comment placed on Roger Davies' Talk page
I've placed the comment below on Roger Davies' Talk page under the heading 'Correction to collapsed discussion' and am copying it here because the point is obviously one of vital concern to all arbitrators. NinaGreen (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
| Collapsed for readability's sake. AGK 22:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC) |
|---|
|
Roger, Could you please correct this comment you made at :
Your statement is inaccurate. I made only a single comment after I was told my comments were unwelcome by AGK yesterday, and that comment was made in reply to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Can another editor no longer ask me a question, and receive a reply? The four 'edits' were merely 'fixes' to that single comment, as is obvious from the edit history. Please correct that inaccuracy by removing your statement which implies that I made four separate comments after being told my comments were unwelcome, and which fails to recognize the fact that I was replying to a question asked of me by Robert McClenon. Your statements that I have 'derailed discussions' or 'stopped others in their tracks' are also both inaccurate. I have never done that, nor have you provided an example of either. I have merely raised questions, and in almost every single case an administrator, either you, AGK, or Salvio has abruptly shut down any discussion of the questions I have raised. The questions I've raised are valid ones. Perhaps they seem 'inquisitorial' to you and to other administrators because you are committed to discretionary sanctions and you cannot look at them from the point of view of the vast majority of Misplaced Pages editors who find DS strange, unjust, and harmful to the project. Also your own comments which you later added to that section directly contradict the information provided to me by Robert McClenon, so why has Salvio been permitted to collapse the discussion with the comment 'Asked and answered' when the question obviously hasn't been answered? You state unequivocally earlier in the discussion that I was the only one ('one notable exception') who didn't understand the difference between the powers exercised by administrators in DS and in non-DS situations, and Salvio rudely told me that my question had been answered before, and that I was exhibiting 'supine ignorance'. The discussion now shows I was clearly not the only one who didn't understand the difference, since your later comment completely contradicts the explanation of the difference given by Robert McClenon. It is not healthy for Misplaced Pages when even an experienced editor like Robert McClenon obviously doesn't understand the difference between the powers, and when you have to tell Robert that his explanation is completely wrong, and when no Misplaced Pages editor can find anywhere on Misplaced Pages a clear difference and distinction between the powers. The only way to fix this is to set out on the DS project page a clear explanation of the difference between the powers of arbitrators, the powers of administrators in DS situations, and the power of administrators in non-DS situations. At present the differences are completely blurred, and no Misplaced Pages editor has access to a clear statement of what an administrator is actually authorized to do in DS situations as opposed to non-DS situations, or how the powers of administrators differ from those of arbitrators. Robert McClenon stated that administrators in DS-sitations have been given 'arbitrator-like powers'. By what authority has this happened, since administrators were not elected to be arbitrators? This blurring of powers, the refusal to clearly set out for the benefit of all Misplaced Pages editors the differences between the powers exercised by arbitrators, administrators in DS situations and administrators in non-DS situations, and the handing over of arbitrators' powers to administrators who were never elected to exercise such powers is not healthy for Misplaced Pages, nor is it healthy for Misplaced Pages for you, AGK and Salvio to shut down discussion of such a vital point. Nor is it healthy for Misplaced Pages for you to shut it down on the basis of an inaccurate statement about my comments (see above). |
Kumioko
You want to know something funny AGK, I only created three and only then because my IP was blocked. It has just been unblocked so I have no further need to have an account. I do want to clarify something though for the sake of the project. I created 3 accounts. Dontbeacritic to comment on NinaGreens talk page and it was blocked immediately by Jehochman. I created Seemoreevil so that I could add a couple more comments. That account was also quickly blocked by Jehochman. Then I created the ChickenWalker to comment on the Arbcom page. So if you blocked more accounts than those, which it seems apparent you did, you are proving my point that the checkuser program is a crap application full of false positives. We both already know that application is questionable at best, this just helps to prove it. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- I also want to note that its only possible to create 6 accounts from an IP to prevent people building throwaway account armies. Its a technical limitation in the software like using captchas.108.45.104.158 (talk) 01:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
block
Re -- how is Kumioko "evading scrutiny," given they signed their contribution? NE Ent 01:09, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Dunno. Perhaps because the throwaway accounts aren't linked from Kumioko, which makes it impossible to scrutinise the full extent of his activities? This is clearly a problem. Roger Davies 10:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Also, Misplaced Pages:SOCK#ILLEGIT prohibits editing "project space" and "the same page or discussion with multiple accounts" on the basis that it obstructs scrutiny and gives the impression of greater participation or support for a position. AGK 11:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
No, it doesn't:
- Editing project space:
Undisclosed
alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections. - Contributing to the same page or discussion with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion
in a way to suggest that they are multiple people
. Contributions to the same page with clearly linked legitimate alternative accounts is not forbidden (e.g. editing the same page with your main and public computer account or editing a page using your main account that your bot account edited).
- Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to
confuse or deceive editors
who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.
{{tq}} emphasis mine, of course. So the only provision that arguably could apply is third one -- if you legitimately think K is creating the accounts to confuse / deceive editors. Is that what you're asserting? NE Ent 15:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- @NE Ent: don't worry about me. AGK is a good guy and isn't one of the bad admins, his only problem is he doesn't have the desire to do anything about them. Which unfortunately is the case with the rest of Arbcom and most of the rest of the community. So I can't really fault him for his complacency. I have been hyper critical of admin abuse and the Arbcom for a while so I knew it was only a matter of time before they had a reason to ban me from the project. The Ban discussion was closed as no consensus but believe me, I was contacted by just as many people by Email as there were in the discussion that didn't vote in the discussion, and the clear intention is for me to leave. Most just didn't want to get involved in the discussion for various reasons. But forcing non conforming editors out of the project is what this community does to editors who criticize the system. See also the recently indefinitely banned User:NinaGreen. They are clearly tired of being questioned and criticized and they are sending a message that those who do so will be dealt with. That is much easier than actually dealing with the problem of abusive admins and making it so that there is a culture of trust. Trust takes time to build, so its too much work. With me basically gone, the will be looking for the next target, don't let that be you NE Ent. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
@NE Ent: Undisclosed indeed, but I think you place too much emphasis on that one word. Our policies are not exhaustive. You cannot reasonably assert the community would allow me (for instance) to use a new account every time I edited the project space, particularly if I used obscure usernames (ChickenWalker?) and buried my actual username somewhere in a long comments.
In a way to suggest that they are multiple people does not say the socker has to intend to deceive, which is the test you are attempting to apply. The test is actually whether a reasonable user would look at these edits and think they were not made by Kumioko; I think they would.
The third bullet point was introduced by you; my argument did not rely on it, so I will not rebut it. AGK 21:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Well, a reasonable person wouldn't edit Misplaced Pages, so that's not a very good test. The third point was implicitly introduced by yourself in the block summary. "evading scrutiny. NE Ent 22:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
- Just a note AGK but your statement above that our policies are not exhaustive would see to indicate that if no other policy applies, one can simply make one up. I also don't use a new account every time I edit. But when I am blocked simply to prevent me from responding to a discussion about me then I feel like I have no choice. As I mentioned in another venue, its a simple matter of an admin using their tools to bait someone into a situation where they can either violate policy, or not be able to defend themselves. Also, since it has been allowed that I have been labelled as a sockmaster for editing from an IP (not socking), having a bot account (also not socking) or trying to create a new account as a clean start (also not socking) then it doesn't matter anymore because the damage is already done. I noticed you still didn't unblock those other account you accused of being e, which they aren't. If you look at the contribution history you will see most have edited periodically over time and do not even match my editing pattern. The only reason they even got blocked was because the checkuser program is complete garbage. Don't believe me, create a couple of accounts from any public IP and see how many false positives appear. It might surprise you how many editors we have blocked over the year and accused as socks that have no association to each other whatsoever except they both edited from that location. I was very surprised when I first saw it, I always thought it was the gospel until we tested it out one day. 108.45.104.158 (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Dispute resolution
Dear AGK,
I noticed you were an admin who volunteers help with dispute resolution. I appreciate your guidance. I have politely the discussed a recent addition to the article Israel on the talk page. They in Talk:Israel#Palestinian state are refusing to cooperate in any form of dispute resolution. I strongly believe this issue requires the assistance of an admin and I favor dispute resolution and/or mediation, but they do not want to participate. I summarize the dispute and my position as follows:
There is currently a dispute as to how to describe the geography of Israel in the lead of the article. Originally, the article read that Israel shared borders with the West Bank and Gaza Strip (among other borders). Some editors have insisted on adding "the Palestinian territories (or State of Palestine) comprising the West Bank and Gaza Strip on the east and southwest respectively."
All reliable secondary sources put forward do not refer to the territories of the West Bank and Gaza as Palestine. In addition, encyclopedias and other sources that have country profiles for Israel do not refer to Israel as bordering "Palestine," nor do they have entries on any country called Palestine. (See, e.g., Encyclopedia Britannica;Encyclopedia Columbia; Library of Congress Country Studies, Washington Post Country Profiles; Infoplease).
All sources indicate a Palestinian state is yet to be established, and it does not appear on any mainstream maps. AP, NY Times. The sources likewise never use terms like "president of Palestine," etc. In addition, they identify incidents originating there as from the West Bank or Gaza Strip, never as Palestine.
Indeed, discussion of the prospects of Palestinian statehood is important, and it is included in the following paragraph, where it discusses the status of Israeli–Palestinian negotiations in the lead. Further explanation is included in the body. But the intro describing Israel's geography should be kept neutral and factual. Reliable secondary sources guide us and they are in agreement with their terminology.
The editors are unfortunately not willing to engage in any sort of dispute resolution, mediation, etc. I strongly support resolving this issue peacefully and I ask for your assistance and/or advice. --Precision123 (talk) 01:22, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- Friendly update: Good news, an editor appears to be toning down on his opposition to mediation. Let me know what you think and if you might help. Thanks. --Precision123 (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
- I am not refusing to "cooperate in any form of dispute resolution". I am refusing to cooperate with you. I explained why in some detail at Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Israel. This is a matter of principal and practicality and a position that is based on years of experience dealing with countless disputes and editors in the topic area. I also don't cooperate with advocates of Intelligent design, Holocaust deniers, a variety of editors who deny the existence of evidence, because it is a waste of time. WP:NOTADVOCATE is policy. I take it seriously. From my perspective I cannot cooperate with you because to do so violates policy. When you have stopped writing falsehoods about what sources say and you are ready to accept the reality of the diversity of information in RS without prejudice and accept that there is, as far as many sources are concerned, an entity called Palestine, you will be able to resolve the dispute in a way that complies with Misplaced Pages's rules. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)