Misplaced Pages

User talk:SarekOfVulcan: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:48, 28 July 2009 editTinucherianBot (talk | contribs)134,614 edits Misplaced Pages Signpost - 27 July 2009 - Delivery← Previous edit Revision as of 06:45, 3 August 2009 edit undoSjakkalle (talk | contribs)Administrators33,821 edits →194x144x90x118, should this go back to Arbitration?: new sectionNext edit →
Line 133: Line 133:
<div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ]</div> <div style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;">''']''' &middot; ] &middot; ]</div>
<small> Delivered by -- ] ] - 12:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC) </small> <small> Delivered by -- ] ] - 12:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC) </small>

== 194x144x90x118, should this go back to Arbitration? ==

I am inclined to file an arbitration request. The last time ArbCom rejected it, it was due to this being an apparent content dispute on a single article. This time, it is a clear behavioral issue, because 194x144x90x118 has plunged himself into three disputes, and in all of them there are serious user conduct issues.
*The ] case, which was the main reason for the RFC.
*The ] case which is what I described in my view on the RFC.
*The ] case, where 194x144x90x118 was warned about on talkpages, and returned yesterday with . He has in the intermediary fought a campaign to introduce a "criticism" section to the EU article.
] does not appear to have gotten us anywhere, because the behavior is still the same, and with three cases, I cannot figure out how mediation is supposed to work, so the ArbCom admonition about insufficient attempt at dispute resolution doesn't appear to apply anymore. ] ] 06:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:45, 3 August 2009

Archiving icon
Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27


This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.
Please add new comments in new sections, e.g., by clicking here. Thanks. SarekOfVulcan

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

WP:NODRAMA reminder

Thanks for signing up for the Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout. Misplaced Pages stands to benefit from the improvements in the article space as a result of this campaign. This is a double reminder. First, the campaign begins on July 18, 2009 at 00:00 (UTC). Second, please remember to log any articles you have worked on during the campaign at Misplaced Pages:The Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout/Log. Thanks again for your participation! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 21:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

194 RfC

Please notify me when you have finished compiling your summary so that I can chime in with an endorsement (if appropriate). I assumed something like this might happen, so feel free to peruse and use what you need from this list of DreamHost-related diffs (temporary document). -- Scjessey (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I ever told you guys that I love you?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added my view to the RFC, and may be adding my name to a list of endorsements of the RFC when I have looked more into what has been going on at DreamHost. Remember that you need yourself and another editor to certify the RFC, or it will be deleted. Since I have not been involved in the DreamHost dispute, I cannot do that. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Censorship of newspaper's entries

It appears a small group of Wiki registered users including Sarek are censoring a lot of newspaper's entries - then semi-protecting the pages so they can't be expanded. We all know newspapers are on their way out, but is this 'piling on' really necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.60.1 (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh. You know, if you signed up for an account instead of vandalizing from the library, we'd be more inclined to take you seriously... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


It appears a small group of Wiki registered users including Sarek are censoring a lot of newspaper's entries - then semi-protecting the pages so they can't be expanded. We all know newspapers are on their way out, but is this 'piling on' really necessary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.32.156 (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears somebody has nothing better to do with their time than make stuff up. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I am sorry, I was only looking at your name on the three edits, and not checking who you were reverting or why. Just so you can feel better about my motivations, not trying to attack your position: While I was mistaken in my understanding of the facts, I wasn't trying to accuse you of misconduct, just trying to set the record straight. As it turns out, it was I who was made the record wrong. I wish I had gotten to the AfD page in time to record my retraction there. Good luck to you in continuing to set people straight. Anarchangel (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It's ok, I probably overreacted. Thanks! --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

User:60.48.190.190

Hi, I'm sorry and I know I got carried away somewhat on ANI but the anon IP just didn't want to talk it out with us with regards to the subject page. Anyway, I don't know what to make of it but he had twice repeatedly pasted the same shite on my talk page, you can come over to see it for yourself! --Dave1185 (talk) 19:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You're both wrong: you both reverted twice in 24 hours. Reverting three times is not a violation, anyway -- it's the fourth revert that's the issue. (and I reverted his second addition) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I do understand that and had warned him about it too but he took it personally. Anyway, my fellow editor at that page had reverted as we both understand the point stated in WP:AIRPORT, which the anon IP didn't bother to read through. Hence, why I call him ignorant. Also, I had replied the anon IP. Let's see what he has to say and thanks for the help on my page. --Dave1185 (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
"Hence, why I call him ignorant." Methinks you're missing a point somewhere. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for making WP:NODRAMA a success!

Thank you again for your support of the Great Misplaced Pages Dramaout. Preliminary statistics indicate that 129 new articles were created, 203 other articles were improved, and 183 images were uploaded. Additionally, 41 articles were nominated for DYK, of which at least 2 have already been promoted. There are currently also 8 articles up for GA status and 3 up for FA/FL status. Though the campaign is technically over, please continue to update the log page at WP:NODRAMA/L with any articles which you worked during the campaign, and also to note any that receive commendation, such as DYK, GA or FA status. You may find the following links helpful in nominating your work:

  • T:TDYK for Did You Know nominations
  • WP:GAC for Good Article nominations
  • WP:FAC for Featured Article nominations
  • WP:FLC for Featured List nominations
  • WP:FPC for Featured Picture nominations

Again, thank you for making this event a success! --Jayron32.talk.say no to drama 02:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

clarification please...

Wrt this excision -- could you please return to Talk:Hussein Salem Mohammed and read my comment about it?

Your edit was characterized, as the ruling of an administrator.

The administrators I know best spend most of their time participating in the[REDACTED] as plain ordinary contributors, the same as everyone else, editing articles, participating in editorial discussions, and only occasionally put on their administrator hat. And, when they do, they do so in a way that makes clear they had put on their administrator hat.

Since you didn't state you put on your adminstrator hat I am going to assume this was the edit of an ordinary editor. Geo Swan (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hussein Salem Mohammed

You have removed the medical records from this page. The problem now is that Geo Swan has move them to the talk page. Not even that. There he lays out all details of the records. And start speculating about the health of the individual and wants us to discuss his health. That needs to be removed as well. Iqinn (talk) 03:41, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Your assistance please...

I saw this comment, which closes with a rhetorical "... it stays out. Clear?" and, no offense, found it quite unclear.

I didn't know this comment followed this edit. I had been trying my best to find a tactful way to explain how unclear I found your comment. I spent about 20 minutes on that reply:

No, sorry, what you wrote is not clear.
If you are agreeing with Iqinn that the article shouldn't say he was confirmed to have "reengaged in terrorism", you are agreeing with a straw argument. I am not arguing the article should state he was confirmed to have "reengaged in terrorism". As I wrote on BLPN I am concerned that Iqinn's concerns are partially based on a no-doubt well-intentioned misunderstanding of how limited the NYTimes ombudsman's apology was.
Clark Hoyt, the NYTimes ombudsman, acknowledged that the May 21 article headline, and its first paragraph, stated, or strongly implied, that all 74 of the former captives had been confirmed to have reengaged in terrorism. He pointed out that buried in later paragraphs in the article it did make clear that some of the 74 former captives were merely suspected of having reengaged in terrorism.
This is a very limited retraction.

Your comment, while still not completely clear, is a lot clearer now that I know it should be read in the context of the edit you made a minute earlier.

What I am going to request is, if a comment you leave on a talk page should be read in the context of an edit you made to the article, as a courtesy to other readers, could you please give some indication of that, in the comment? And, if you make an edit to an article, that you plan to expand on, on the talk page, could you indicate that in the edit summary? I know I am not the only contributor who thinks that sometimes it is best to simply put an edit summary that says something like: "reverting -- see talk", or "excising due to WP:ABCDEF concerns -- see talk".

The final aspect of your comment -- "... it stays out. Clear?" This could be interpreted as a warning from an administrator. I am going to assume that when a[REDACTED] contributor who is also a[REDACTED] administrator, feels they have to don their administrator authority, to make a ruling, or issue a warning, they will do so in a way that makes clear that they are doing so as an administrator.

Iqinn has already characterized your edits as administrator's rulings. They characterized you as "an uninvolved administrator". But, if your initial edits of yesterday were edits made as an ordinary[REDACTED] contributor, and then today, you thought administrator intervention was called for, you couldn't assume administrator authority to make those edits yourself because you aren't uninvolved. Do you think I have that right?

It seems to me that if you thought Iqinn, or myself, or some other contributor to this article or discussion merited an administrator warning your choices would be the same as any contributor who wasn't an administrator. You'd have to either let it slide, leave a note on one of the noticeboards, or contact another administrator directly -- do you think I have that right?

I don't remember crossing paths with you before. Hello. I do my best to take all civil, serious comments about my contributions to article space seriously. If you have serious concerns I will take them seriously, and give you a serious response, without regard to whether you are in a position to assume administrator authority.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello. :-) The thing is, accusing someone of being a terrorist and being wrong is one of the biggest BLP violations we can come up with these days. Even saying they're suspected of terrorism is beyond the pale, unless there's really good information to back it up -- and a single line in a report with no supporting details is not "really good information". Hence, the BLP policy demands that we leave it out -- and if necessary, I will claim administrative authority here. Since my reasoning was the same both times, and I haven't done anything else on the article, I still consider myself uninvolved. (As opposed to the Ireland articles, where I started out enforcing an Arbcom decision, and then found myself interested enough that I recused myself from (most) admin action.)
The other edit we've crossed paths on today, the medical information implying force-feeding, I'm not as sure about. As a programmer for a medical practice, I take medical privacy very seriously. On the other hand, this is information that's been released by the US government, and would therefore be public domain. It's an interesting conflict -- never mind when you start including other countries' laws as well. On that one, I'm just acting as another editor.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Duly noted

Duly noted. See my recent explanation on User talk:Wperdue for why I am so frustrated with the vandals and keep losing my temper. Yes, I know that I need to keep it civil regardless, but the admins have got to start imposing semi-protection on a lot more articles because the vandalism has really got out of control this year. --Coolcaesar (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages SignpostMisplaced Pages Signpost: 27 July 2009

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe

Delivered by -- Tinu Cherian BOT - 12:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

194x144x90x118, should this go back to Arbitration?

I am inclined to file an arbitration request. The last time ArbCom rejected it, it was due to this being an apparent content dispute on a single article. This time, it is a clear behavioral issue, because 194x144x90x118 has plunged himself into three disputes, and in all of them there are serious user conduct issues.

  • The DreamHost case, which was the main reason for the RFC.
  • The Bobby Fischer case which is what I described in my view on the RFC.
  • The European Union case, where 194x144x90x118 was warned about this soapboxing on talkpages, and returned yesterday with this. He has in the intermediary fought a campaign to introduce a "criticism" section to the EU article.

The RFC does not appear to have gotten us anywhere, because the behavior is still the same, and with three cases, I cannot figure out how mediation is supposed to work, so the ArbCom admonition about insufficient attempt at dispute resolution doesn't appear to apply anymore. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:SarekOfVulcan: Difference between revisions Add topic