PalestineRemembered (talk | contribs) |
Fish and karate (talk | contribs) policy pages |
||
Line 186: | Line 186: | ||
::It's very difficult to be sure what is going on here, but as best I can see, various editors believe that there is bound to be leakage of WP identities via other sites. They're saying that we cannot bar all linkage to these other sites because many are really quite respectable, and we can't turn our back on them completely. |
::It's very difficult to be sure what is going on here, but as best I can see, various editors believe that there is bound to be leakage of WP identities via other sites. They're saying that we cannot bar all linkage to these other sites because many are really quite respectable, and we can't turn our back on them completely. |
||
::That seems a thoroughly discreditable argument. Wikipedia, more than anyone else, needs to act as if it's a haven of the most academic and professional of all contributors, who deserve the maximum of protection for their privacy. If other sites are not as careful (because their contributors are not as good, or they work in a different way), then we should turn our back on them until they bring their standards up to ours. We should not lower our standards to theirs! I don't understand why [[WP:BADSITES]] was rejected, if we have to make a fuss with Michael Moore or the BBC or other places, then we should do so. Anything else undermines our contribution base and the project. [[User:PalestineRemembered|PR]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:PalestineRemembered|talk]]</small></sup> 06:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
::That seems a thoroughly discreditable argument. Wikipedia, more than anyone else, needs to act as if it's a haven of the most academic and professional of all contributors, who deserve the maximum of protection for their privacy. If other sites are not as careful (because their contributors are not as good, or they work in a different way), then we should turn our back on them until they bring their standards up to ours. We should not lower our standards to theirs! I don't understand why [[WP:BADSITES]] was rejected, if we have to make a fuss with Michael Moore or the BBC or other places, then we should do so. Anything else undermines our contribution base and the project. [[User:PalestineRemembered|PR]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:PalestineRemembered|talk]]</small></sup> 06:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
==Policy pages== |
|||
Per the Arbcom ruling and discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Proabivouac]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#As_an_aside_to_this]], following your wilfully tendentious edits to pages as mentioned above, no more editing of policy (or guideline) pages. If you wish edits made to such a page, suggest them on the talk page. Further editing of policy pages, no matter how innocent you think the edit, will result in a block. This will be noted on the Arbitration ruling. [[User:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; font-family: cursive ;color: #006600">Neil</span>]] [[User_talk:Neil|<span style="text-decoration:none; color: #006600">ム</span>]] 09:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:16, 27 September 2007
Speedy deletion
Is it your intention to leave the project? The only way that this talk page is going to get deleted is by you excercising your right to vanish. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Does WP:HARASS only apply to those who leave the project? Maybe we should include a clause to that effect. Anyhow, I'd really appreciate it if someone more committed to upholding policy (for starters, didn't engage in harassment themselves) were to respond to this request.Proabivouac 10:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Look, I feel for you, but you aren't going to get your talk page deleted per WP:HARASS as not a single person believes you are being harassed. We only delete user talk pages very rarely, as this is used to document past behaviour which may need to be looked at at a later date. The history does not even show up in google searches. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, quite a few people think I'm being harassed. Most of whom have been around a whole lot longer than you. Should I list them? It's at least conceivable that one of them might respond, instead of one who's taken part in it. What's the point of documenting here something you already know? I document all kinds of things I don't post on WP, because I follow the rules. I know the identities of lots of pseuds, including hitherto pseudonymous (and very aggressive) administrators, who've taken part in this harassment, yet to this day, I've followed the rules. If I want to break them, I'll do it on some other site where the rules are different.Proabivouac 10:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- No point in listing them, the point is, this page is only going to get deleted if you vanish, there is no other reason to delete it, and you can keep shouting WP:HARASS all day long, but the fact is, that having your talk page undeleted is no form of harassment whatsoever. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, quite a few people think I'm being harassed. Most of whom have been around a whole lot longer than you. Should I list them? It's at least conceivable that one of them might respond, instead of one who's taken part in it. What's the point of documenting here something you already know? I document all kinds of things I don't post on WP, because I follow the rules. I know the identities of lots of pseuds, including hitherto pseudonymous (and very aggressive) administrators, who've taken part in this harassment, yet to this day, I've followed the rules. If I want to break them, I'll do it on some other site where the rules are different.Proabivouac 10:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Look, I feel for you, but you aren't going to get your talk page deleted per WP:HARASS as not a single person believes you are being harassed. We only delete user talk pages very rarely, as this is used to document past behaviour which may need to be looked at at a later date. The history does not even show up in google searches. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:30, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you are actually going to stop editing for at least a year, you can have the user and talk pages (of both your accounts if you want) deleted. You can also have the accounts renamed if you feel that would help, although renaming will not change the talk pages you have signed. The evidence page of the Arb case can probably also be deleted, although the main page with the opening statements and decision will probably have to be kept. However, if you abuse the right to vanish privilege by editing during the year under a third user name, evading your probation yet again, you will likely end up being banned. Thatcher131 11:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Proabivouac is a perfectly fine name for me; I never had any desire to change it, and I'm not the one who's been doing so. Putting aside the broader question of a global "disappearing," you shouldn't be publishing malicious attacks on anyone anyhow. Is WF a responsible publisher, or an extortionist? If you want to say, "so-and-so can't edit Wikipedia," that's your right, and something to rightly be negotiated. But you have no right to publish malicious and false attacks under any circumstances. If you're getting back at someone, or trying to prove a point about your power to punish your private citizen volunteer contributors, that only increases the appearance of malice.
- "…you will likely end up being banned."
- Who contributes here is up to you. That has no bearing at all on your (lack of a) right to publish attacks on them. If anything, blocking them or banning those who try to remove them would be strong evidence that your hosting of the material is a deliberate organizational decision, not mere negligence ("we can't help what anonymous people post!")
- I certainly don't wish to be banned. However, from a certain perspective, removing all attacks and then (and only then) banning me would be a legitimate solution. A stupid one, as few thusfar have claimed my contributions have hurt the project, and many say they've helped. However, WP has the right to make stupid decisions of this kind. What WF/WP does not have the right to do is to threaten its contributors (or anyone else) with attack pieces to accomplish its own internal goals.
- In the meantime, it makes a ton of sense to create at least the appearance that WF/WP honors its own written understandings with its volunteer contributors. If you want to change them, do so, inform everyone of the change and give them a chance to leave if they don't like them. Don't just make up unwritten clauses with non-trivial personal consequences and apply them retroactively. I'm not certain if you've the right to do this, but it doesn't look good. Wikipedia should be trustworthy, even if/when you don't find it expedient.Proabivouac 11:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- If you are actually going to stop editing for at least a year, you can have the user and talk pages (of both your accounts if you want) deleted. You can also have the accounts renamed if you feel that would help, although renaming will not change the talk pages you have signed. The evidence page of the Arb case can probably also be deleted, although the main page with the opening statements and decision will probably have to be kept. However, if you abuse the right to vanish privilege by editing during the year under a third user name, evading your probation yet again, you will likely end up being banned. Thatcher131 11:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish. Active contributors simply do not get their user talk pages deleted. You are not obliged to keep conveniently searchable archives on subpages, as long as the history of the main talk page is intact, but you must keep your main talk page. If there are selected edits that you feel are harassing, they may be removed by either deletion or Oversight without deleting the whole page. You will have to point out the revisions you want deleted by time and date so an admin or oversighter can find them. If you want content on other pages deleted or oversighted you will need to be specific. I have seen you argue many times that Wikipedia is publishing attacks on you but the only example I am aware of is the evidence page, which are not attacks by Wikipedia but by another editor who, by the way, has been banned for being a persistent troublemaker. If you want some pages or edits considered for removal you will have to be specific.
- I'm afraid I don't understand your broader point, "create at least the appearance that WF/WP honors its own written understandings with its volunteer contributors." If you had changed user names while not under probation, there would be no question that attempts to link your old name and your new name would be removed. If someone told you differently, they owe you an apology, but at least until Sept, 2008 there needs to be some record of the fact that the probation formerly applied to user:X is now applied to you. Thatcher131 12:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- You bet someone told me differently: see WP:HARASS, and the representations of many administrators (who, let's not forget, are sysoped by the bureaucrats), while there is nothing at all contradicting it in WP:PROBATION, and the relevant decision. WP is also responsible for the historical wording of WP:Username. I reiterate that WP is free to put anyone on probation or ban them for any reason, however capricious (with only a few well-known exceptions, e.g. "she's black") If anything, you should ban far more often (and for better reasons) as WF/WP is responsible for what it publishes, and is expected to apply caution (if it even 'kind of sort of vaguely seems that someone might add problematic material, ban them before they do - course you-know-who would have been banned straightaway and we wouldn't be talking about this.)
- "If there are selected edits that you feel are harassing, they may be removed by either deletion or Oversight without deleting the whole page. "
- That's a fantastic idea. Should I send you a list?
- "not attacks by Wikipedia but by another editor who, by the way, has been banned for being a persistent troublemaker."
- See "en.wikipedia.org". See the logo on the upper left. See the fact that those who participated were officially invited to so, and in one case was specifically unblocked to do so. See the fact that an official motion to remove them was ignored. Only in Wikiland are those in positions of responsibility somehow not responsible for contributions not just passively allowed (as most on WP) but officially solicited (see the vote), for what happens right under their nose, on their very own dedicated pages, despite repeated complaints and very obvious expressions of distress. Whoever believes that this doesn't add up to direct personal and organizational responsibility has been sorely misled.
- And yes, you do owe me an apology.Proabivouac 12:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you should send a list of revisions to your user talk page that you would like removed. If it is too extensive I will forward it to the oversight mailing list, or you can send it directly to the oversight mailing list yourself (see WP:RFO). Admins are just ordinary editors who a majority of other editors think will be responsible with some extra tools. (This is not always the case, see Wikipedia:Former administrators, as well as the recent edit warring over the BADSITES and NPA policy and removal of web links in articles.) No one but ArbCom can approve a modification to a sanction such as probation; if an admin told you otherwise, they were wrong. If an Arbitrator ok'd your name change, that person owes you an apology. Changing names and following the rules does have the same net benefit to the project as keeping the same name and following your probation, however, if ArbCom simply looked the other way on your evasion it would open the floodgates for a whole host of editors who have also changed their names while under sanction and then continued to edit poorly. The harassment policy does not say anything about users under probation but policies are meant to be implemented with common sense. You on the other hand seem to be advocating for a "real name" exception. That is, if a user edits under his real name and gets into conflicts, he can change accounts and get a fresh start no matter what has gone before. Imagine applying that rule to Fairness and Accuracy for All, or NuclearUmpf. Thatcher131 12:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- And no, I don't owe you an apology. I have been more than patient and fair with you. I saw some edits being deleted to protect your privacy that also had the effect of hiding your evasion of your probation, and I forwarded that to Dmcdevit, who forwarded it to ArbCom. I took no other action and was silent when other editors, who also watch WP:AE, asked me what was up. Thatcher131 12:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't mean thou, Thatcher131, but you WF/WP. To my knowledge, you've been completely fair to me. Blame this unfortunate ambiguity of our language. Those representatives of WF/WP who didn't honor the policies, didn't publish responsibly and paid no heed to principles of common decency owe me an apology.Proabivouac 13:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Two more points: 1) Neither FAAFA nor ZF/NU contain personal information. If they did, WP:HARASS as it's written (apparently no one cares if we tell the truth, as no one has changed it) would plainly forbid posting this information on-wiki: an e-mail would have been appropriate. 2) nothing at all in WP:Probation, or in any ArbCom decision, required a notification of anyone in particular (other decisions have imposed specific conditions in this respect.) In contrast, violating a ban (FAAFA) or block (ZF/NU) isn't just "evading" them by not telling anyone you're doing it, but literally violating them. One violates probation not by editing pseudonymously, but by disrupting pages. If one doesn't disrupt pages, there's no substantial "evasion" of anything.Proabivouac 07:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- And no, I don't owe you an apology. I have been more than patient and fair with you. I saw some edits being deleted to protect your privacy that also had the effect of hiding your evasion of your probation, and I forwarded that to Dmcdevit, who forwarded it to ArbCom. I took no other action and was silent when other editors, who also watch WP:AE, asked me what was up. Thatcher131 12:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, you should send a list of revisions to your user talk page that you would like removed. If it is too extensive I will forward it to the oversight mailing list, or you can send it directly to the oversight mailing list yourself (see WP:RFO). Admins are just ordinary editors who a majority of other editors think will be responsible with some extra tools. (This is not always the case, see Wikipedia:Former administrators, as well as the recent edit warring over the BADSITES and NPA policy and removal of web links in articles.) No one but ArbCom can approve a modification to a sanction such as probation; if an admin told you otherwise, they were wrong. If an Arbitrator ok'd your name change, that person owes you an apology. Changing names and following the rules does have the same net benefit to the project as keeping the same name and following your probation, however, if ArbCom simply looked the other way on your evasion it would open the floodgates for a whole host of editors who have also changed their names while under sanction and then continued to edit poorly. The harassment policy does not say anything about users under probation but policies are meant to be implemented with common sense. You on the other hand seem to be advocating for a "real name" exception. That is, if a user edits under his real name and gets into conflicts, he can change accounts and get a fresh start no matter what has gone before. Imagine applying that rule to Fairness and Accuracy for All, or NuclearUmpf. Thatcher131 12:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
I think part of the problem is that some of the people you believe to be harrassing you have been lectured by you in the past about minute points of Wiki-etiquette and warned repeatedly by you about various possible policy violations.
They are (I am) not harassing you so much as trying to pick up the relationship as members of the reality-based community ... to establish whether you intend to continue both violating rules (like probation) and advocating sternly, at precisely the same time, for the importance of other people following them.
Perhaps you could comment on this. Since you mention so prominently the importance of apologies above, I wonder about the degree to which you feel one might be appropriate in your own situation, and to people with whom you have disagreed in the past.
It sounds like you plan to stick around, and if that's the case, I think there's a good chance that could be a net benefit for the encyclopedia. For my part, I am certainly sorry about problems I may have brought to this editing relationship, and hope we can begin, as it were, with a clean slate. At the same time, I think I would like to hear directly from you about the issues I've raised here. BYT 13:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- BYT, I think you can be pretty darned difficult, but you know, whatever, we talk that out like normal people. Generally, we should all be looking at one another as colleagues whenever possible, and I think you'd agree that I do that at least. Arguing about things is no big deal. Taking it to the next level of hatred (as seen in the background of this case) I don't understand, and isn't compatible with the mission. I wouldn't think to libel or harass you or to accept others subjecting you to that kind of thing. You're operating under your real name (or at least real pen name) and anything people say about you here ought to meet the standards of a responsible publisher or be deleted on sight.
- "Probation" is one of the dumber ideas we've had around here, and I don't recall pressuring anyone about it. It suggests that the 99.9% of users not on "probation," which include the very most disruptive users (who are only very rarely taken to Arbitration) can freely disrupt pages. Every contributor should be on probation, or let me reframe that: Wikipedia should always exercise diligence in what we publish (whether users are punished is actually a secondary point.) If we publish bullshit because a contributor isn't on probation, well, that's a really stupid reason to publish anything.Proabivouac 13:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
a) It's my real name, not my pen name.
b) The specifics of your case, or its background, aren't what I'm asking about. I hope you will clarify for people that you don't believe I am "taking it to the next level of hatred." I'm not.
c) I don't believe that any user's belief that a policy is "dumb" should be a reason to ignore it. The encyclopedia wouldn't function that way.
d) I didn't say you pressured anyone about probation specifically. What I mean to say is that your standing as someone who advises other people about the importance of understanding and adhering to, say, WP:POINT is undermined when you yourself are cherry-picking the rules you choose to obey or discard. BYT 13:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you hateful - this referred to a certain notorious banned user. Nor did I break any rule, except one that's just been made up and is being applied post-facto as if it were there all along (even so, no one has yet thought to update the relevant policies.) All this neglects the very strong possibility that someone might actually read the supposed policies and decide to follow them.Proabivouac 23:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Outing threats
Threats like this one on this page above are completely out-of-line and will not be tolerated by our community whatsoever. Threatening to reveal sensitive information of pseudonymous is completely unacceptablev and disruptive to the project, regardless of whether the threatened posting are to be done on- or off-wiki. Cease these threats immediately. --krimpet⟲ 20:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- That wasn't a threat at all. He said he would not break wikipedia policy on wikipedia. He didn't say that he would post such information off wikipedia - he only said that if he chose to post information against wiki guidelines (without specifying which ones - for all I see, he could be talking about WP:NOR), he would do so off wikipedia. He did not say or indicate that he was planning on doing so, only that that would be his only option if he chose to.
- (I have no connection to either of these editors, nor do I recall ever interacting with either of them. I just stumbled across this conflict and felt it was worthwhile defending this editor against what could harm his reputation by people who don't read the edit.) TJ 20:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with TJ. Krimpet, there are times when such posts are better ignored. That was obviously an angry reaction from someone whose privacy has been violated, and who has had his nose completely unnecessarily rubbed in it, and who is a staunch upholder of people's right to anonymity, even when he is in dispute with them. I am known to have no tolerance for outing editors, and I saw Proabivouac's post, and thought he's not helping his case; but I saw it as a simple angry reaction from someone who would never violate his principles by doing what is being done to him, and since it is my hope that Proabivouac will remain here and that the whole fuss will die down, I think it's really better if people don't keep coming to his page to argue with him or warn him or ridicule him. If you have concerns, it would be better to raise them with Proabivouac by private email. Believe me, if Proabivouac were the kind of person who might start stalking and harassing editors, I'd be the first person to turn against him. Please just let this situation calm down, and if you think a post from a user upset and angry at having nasty stuff posted about him and left there with his real life identity is unreasonable, just turn a blind eye to it for the sake of peace, or, if you really object to it, try and start an email discussion. The people who are in danger of having their personal information revealed are not in danger from Proabivouac. ElinorD (talk) 20:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- That sums it up for me as well.--MONGO 20:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I too didn't read it as a threat to "out" anyone. As Elinor said, it was obviously a distressed post but here is no threat to reveal identities. Sophia 23:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- As much as I would like to assume good faith and brush it off as an understandable frustrated reaction, the fact that Proabivouac has been making direct personal attacks against fellow editors -- including myself -- on Wikipedia Review (which you yourself, MONGO, noted in the ongoing Attack sites RfAR was "primarily a blog forum that has postings that attempt to identify the real life identities of Wikipedia contributors"), makes me nervous that there may be a clear cause for concern. --krimpet⟲ 10:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Krimpet, you yourself are a member of Wikipedia Review, and you yourself brought WR outing charges over here. That's beyond a "clear cause for concern." It's time you deleted your own outing posts.Proabivouac 10:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- As much as I would like to assume good faith and brush it off as an understandable frustrated reaction, the fact that Proabivouac has been making direct personal attacks against fellow editors -- including myself -- on Wikipedia Review (which you yourself, MONGO, noted in the ongoing Attack sites RfAR was "primarily a blog forum that has postings that attempt to identify the real life identities of Wikipedia contributors"), makes me nervous that there may be a clear cause for concern. --krimpet⟲ 10:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I too didn't read it as a threat to "out" anyone. As Elinor said, it was obviously a distressed post but here is no threat to reveal identities. Sophia 23:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- That sums it up for me as well.--MONGO 20:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Krimpet, based on the very valid principle you've represented above - which is also Wikipedia's written policy - don't you think it's time you deleted some of your own posts?Proabivouac 09:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, I did not know anything was going on with Proabivouac, but he is a fine editor and has conducted himself as an editor par exemplar. Looking at the above, I also do not think that he made any threat, but is rightly upset at actions which he feels is harassment and violation of his identity (both serious issues that we must take seriously). I hope that this editors rights will be respected and that we have some empathy and understanding for his stressful predicament. I hope people do see the value of this editor and take appropriate steps not to drive yet another good user from this project. I say this as someone who is looking at what is best for WP, and note that he and I differ politically.Giovanni33 02:39, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Proabivouac. The arbitration case in which you commented to has opened. Please provide evidences on the evidence page for the Arbitrators to consider. You may also want to utilize the workshop page for suggestions.
For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 21:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
WTF?
I have just reviewed, for purposes of responding to your post on probation policy, the response to the discovery that Gwen Gale had also evaded her probation by dropping one account and adopting another. See especially Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive247#Unwarranted__and_repeated_incivility_by_User:Gwen_Gale. I am truly astonished at the responses to that situation by Fred Bauder and especially Morven, who is the arbitrator who announced your own evasion and re-imposed your probation. As a matter of policy I believe that probation applies to the person, not the account, and as you got caught (and especially since you got caught on the basis of similar editing behavior), you need to serve your probation. As a matter of equity I am simply at a loss. I have rarely been moved to shout "What the fuck?" at an arbitrator, but this is one of those times. Thatcher131 12:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Gwen Gale's case was much more serious, as it included a violation of a topic ban. Many editors also thought that Gwen Gale was disruptive, which was the initial reason for that AN/I thread. Now is there any evidence that Proabivouac has been disruptive or at least are there any users, not counting banned editors, who think Proabivouac has been disruptive? The community is wiping its feet at a great contributor with a spotless block log, who helped, for instance, to expose Oldwindybear's sockpuppetry. If Proabivouac leaves, as seems most likely now, Wikipedia will be able to congratulate itself for driving away another dedicated volunteer. Beit Or 21:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- To the best of my knowledge, no one has pointed out one single bad thing Proabivouac has done, and the incredible amount of good work he has done is being ignored. It is very sad. John1951 03:29, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Agree completely. - Merzbow 07:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I completely agree, too. See my comments above.Giovanni33 02:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Agree completely. - Merzbow 07:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- There is the matter of this blatant but unpunished violation of 3RR at Kaaba:
- 1st revert: 07:18, 10 July 2007
- 2nd revert: 07:27, 10 July 2007
- 3rd revert: 09:44, 10 July 2007
- 4th revert: 10:34, 10 July 2007
- ... which reverts addressed, not vandalism, as Pro claimed, but the deletion of specific content (namely, a disputed image) in accordance with a discussion that was taking place on the Talk page at the time. [1] Yes, the (new) user was in violation of 3RR, too.
- Personally, I feel that violating the terms of probation (and, I might add, dismissing WP's probation apparatus as a whole as "dumb") also constitutes a "bad thing."
- As far as evidence that Pro has been disruptive, I believe he and User:Karl Meier combined their efforts to inappropriately remove material from my userpage without any comment or request ahead of time, with Meier making the deletion and Pro leaving a message defending this action. [2] [3] If you don't like what's on someone's userpage, leave a message and discuss it beforehand. To do otherwise is disruptive. BYT 12:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- BrandonYusufToropov: Can you please substantiate your strange conspiracy theory, which seems to include me, or back down from your baseless accusations against my person? Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, and not a soapbox for your personal fantasy world of conspiracies. That nonsense and the fact that you constantly, and during several months, have insisted on referring to a single revert-incident which involved Proabivouac amount to trolling. Your own log include a 3RR block. Do you want me to mention that on every possible occasion today, tomorrow and next year? As for removing the highly inappropriate hell-fire message on your user page, I would gladly go it again. Also, if you should insist on adding it again, I will bring it to the attention of a wider range of Wikipedians. -- Karl Meier 21:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- With all respect, in reviewing the material in question, I just don't agree.
- In reviewing the issue with the material Meier removed, I don't see any proof or even evidence that Pro and Meier were working in concert. (Which leaves the issue of the removal as something that needs to be discussed with Meier)
- As to the image you brought up, a lot of people, (myself included) felt that was vandalism.
- The issue with the probation is not a matter of probation - any editor realistically should be on continuing probation in an organization which depends on civility and basic rules of editing - but that any mention of real world identity should be off limits in any article, talk page, or public content of any sort in wikipedia. There are simply too many lunatics in the world today to risk your safety, or your family's, with revelation of real world identity. It is sad that things have worsened considerably since people used to publish real names, but things have worsened. I think the issue in the probation is not disruption, but a right to protect one's identity. Surely there can be a way that such pages are taken offline, and made accessable to administrators internally without publishing someone's real world name! This is such a huge issue that I cannot overstate it.
- Which returns to what I said previously, that I honestly do not believe this editor, who has been an incredibly productive and valued member of the community, should be driven off because he wants to maintain his privacy, and the privacy issues concerns all of us. John1951 14:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's time for some adults to step in here. Arrow740 05:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Alright, i'm totally confused. What is going on and where can I read more about this issue? MezzoMezzo 19:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Which returns to what I said previously, that I honestly do not believe this editor, who has been an incredibly productive and valued member of the community, should be driven off because he wants to maintain his privacy, and the privacy issues concerns all of us. John1951 14:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- Pro is smart. Pro is capable of good edits. Pro should not have been outed.
- In discussing his case, people questioned whether there was "one single bad thing" the Pro had done, and asked whether Pro had ever engaged in disruptive activity.
- Guess what. He has. Even though he should not have been outed. And is smart. And is capable of good edits.
- a) Violation of WP:3RR, as evidenced above. (Cue doubletalk machine from Pro and/or Karl and/or Arrow.)
- Whether you like what is on someone's page or not, you don't rip stuff off userpages. You leave a note beforehand engaging in dialogue. Otherwise you cross the line into being disruptive. Which is what people asked about.
- Or do I get to redesign Pro's page now, or Karl's, without their permission?
- Recapping our top story: Pro is smart. Pro is capable of good edits. Pro should not have been outed. Pro has also engaged in disruptive activity. BYT 11:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Who hasn't petted a pet goat? It's a matter if degrees, repeated and sustained disruption; not an isolated incident or two. El_C 15:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- With respect, that's a different question, that goat thing. :)
- What people said was that there was nothing on the record indicating spotty behavior from the Pro persona that connected in any way to spotty behavior from this user under another name.
- And that is simply not true.
- Maybe it's all a big coincidence, though. BYT 14:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. Toropov's continued trolling about the fact that he is not allowed to post threats about hell-fire on his user page, is actually getting rather boring. -- Karl Meier 20:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, isn't saying someone will burn for disagreeing with you a threat? Should wikipedia publish such threats? No. It wasn't 3rr, it was reverting vandalism and enforcing the results of the mediation. Arrow740 22:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- Indeed. Toropov's continued trolling about the fact that he is not allowed to post threats about hell-fire on his user page, is actually getting rather boring. -- Karl Meier 20:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
BYT, I'm happy to take your statement that I shouldn't have been outed on its own merit and put the rest aside for now. Thanks. If you can could accept that I'm not in any kind of mood to discuss these details, that'd be great, and likewise others can do their part by not arguing back. If Wikipedia publishes statements about how non-Muslims will burn in hell, that only makes Wikipedia look ridiculous, in my opinion. I don't like it, but I can live with it. There are a lot of sites which bear this message: most of them don't single me or anyone else for attack. When Wikipedia becomes an attack site against its own volunteer contributors, all these other details seem to me quite minor and negotiable.Proabivouac 07:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Like I ever gave you any grief about wanting that text back in. What I objected to was the Keystone Kops routine you guys used to delete it, without prior discussion on my talk page, and the Bushian refusal to apologize that has followed.
- Aaanyway. Thanks for the sage advice above. I have an idea of my own to wrap up the relationship-counseling portion of our show here.
- If you want to keep editing Islam-related articles, PTriom, and I assume you do, and you don't want any further weirdness between us, and I assume you don't, because I don't, then don't ever advise me again on whether you believe I am following, or likely to run afoul of, any WP policy or guideline.
- Given your documented and brazen flouting of the disciplinary system here, and your pattern of behavior across multiple usernames, you have proven yourself to be a complete hypocrite when it comes to discussions of such matters. So skip it.
- With those ground rules in place, we'll probably get along fine, regardless of whether you are editing under this present Proabivouac username or any other handle that you and the boys may choose to employ. Bye. BYT 14:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be best if we just quit feeding BrandonYusufToropov and his trolling. It seems that it just make him growing and growing, and now he is not just incivil, but has also started with his well-known personal attacks, calling editors that he disagree with "complete hypocrites". -- Karl Meier 16:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Michael E. J. Witzel
So I scanned the history and checked some diffs, and I can see how you could be frustrated. It seems to be a common problem that editors use citations of people's opinions as justification for stating those opinions as facts. Perhaps there needs to be an explicit page about citing opinions (Perhaps there already is?) I've come up against this a few times. Revert wars don't seem an effective way to deal with this. I'd suggest leaving the citation whenever possible, and re-writing it instead of deleting it, If these citations are clearly presented as example of criticism and clearly represented as opinions, there is nothing wrong with them. Even better is to add a counter claim or rebuttal, which makes the first one look ridiculous. By taking this tact, the article expands, is no longer a POV problem, and there is no revert war. The problem with this approach is that sections can get too long, and there is too much weight given to the opinions. But if you refrain from deleting these opinions, it is easier to have the discussion about how much weight to give the topic. Also, it is typical that many of the people who make these POV additions have a very difficult time dealing with someone who is accommodating and reasonable. I have seen editors like this loose it and get belligerent and abusive with their edits. Taking the accommodating approach makes it really clear who is being difficult, and often the problem editor is quickly shown the door.
All that said, I haven't spent enough time with the history to see all the problems. Let me know if anything new comes up, and I'll take a more detailed look. If so, I request that you leave me links to the diffs with the problems. It makes my life much easier, and you're much more likely to get my quick response. I've gotten many people who leave me a comment "Take a look at the history of this page, it's appalling." When I look there are hundreds of edits. Do people really expect admins to go step by step through the history? -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I sent you one. Arrow740 23:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
block
As an editor with no prior involvement in your circumstances I have reviewed the recent edits you made, at the request of others, for an independent double-check on them. This is my view:
It may be that you feel roughly treated by others, or in the past. But you do know that your edit is not consensus, and policy is a directive not a commentary. This is clearly a disruptive edit, and its purpose is to make a point. Although talk page discussion is usually unrestricted, it is clear your edits here are also likewise, inappropriate to that page. This isn't a matter of censorship, or attack. It's a clear and simple matter. You know it's inappropriate and unhelpful. You did these edits anyway. You knew that you already had problems with breach of policy, and that there is a ruling He may be banned by any administrator from any page which he disrupts by edit warring, incivility, or other disruptive behavior. And you edited in an unhelpful manner anyway, based upon your personal grievance, instead of simply settling down and accepting you have made mistakes (who hasn't?), learning from them, and setting the past aside to do better.
I take no pleasure from this block, my feeling is other editors working on policy pages should not have to have hassle because you feel upset, or have to deal with knowingly unhelpful edits because you feel wronged. Thats not fair to them.
So I am blocking you for a week.
Please accept my regrets, and my intent that this seems the way to be fair to others, and help you avoid problems you will otherwise fall into moreso and maybe get more harshly treated for by others. FT2 11:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. - I did not edit war, was not disruptive and was not uncivil. All you've prevented is discussion. Thus, I ask you to unblock me. Just tell me what you want and I'l follow it. If Wikipedia insists on tricking volunteers into believing that personal attacks aren't allowed here, that's Wikipedia's dishonesty, and not mine. I'm not ultimately responsible for this, I've done my part and then some and am content with that. No need for further "preventative" measures. Once a prolific contributor, I hardly edit here nowadays anyhow. I'm totally fine with not editing for a week, if that's what you want. No need to stain my log again.
- Oh, and p.s. - did these requests, by chance, come via IRC?Proabivouac 12:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have unblocked you. I encourage you to seek consensus on the talk page, but I do not see how a series of edits which have not even met the 3RR threshold constitute disruptive editing. There needs to be a larger pattern of disruption to justify a block - and be sure your edits do not provide evidence of such a pattern. For now, however, there is none so I have unblocked you. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks.Proabivouac 12:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- I have unblocked you. I encourage you to seek consensus on the talk page, but I do not see how a series of edits which have not even met the 3RR threshold constitute disruptive editing. There needs to be a larger pattern of disruption to justify a block - and be sure your edits do not provide evidence of such a pattern. For now, however, there is none so I have unblocked you. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, I've dropped a comment at User talk:Slrubenstein. FT2 (Talk | email) 14:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
Pro, review WP:POINT carefully. Even if you have a good one, I urge you to seek run your proposed edits by others, get input, and try to construct a consensus. It is the only way to make stable edits. And if you do not demonstrate an earnest desire to do that, people will conclude that your edits are only meant to make a point (cause you know they will be reverted) and then you really WILL be guilty of disruptive editing and no one will unblock you. Be warned, and take this seriously. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
This is an example of a violation of wp:point, and it is disruptive editing. Do not do it again. If you don't understand why not, ask me. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:25, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- Though my other policy edits were meant very seriously, and I believe would improve the project, I agree with you that the edit to Attack Sites was, indeed, intended to make a point. For that, I apologize; it won't be repeated.Proabivouac 20:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's very difficult to be sure what is going on here, but as best I can see, various editors believe that there is bound to be leakage of WP identities via other sites. They're saying that we cannot bar all linkage to these other sites because many are really quite respectable, and we can't turn our back on them completely.
- That seems a thoroughly discreditable argument. Wikipedia, more than anyone else, needs to act as if it's a haven of the most academic and professional of all contributors, who deserve the maximum of protection for their privacy. If other sites are not as careful (because their contributors are not as good, or they work in a different way), then we should turn our back on them until they bring their standards up to ours. We should not lower our standards to theirs! I don't understand why WP:BADSITES was rejected, if we have to make a fuss with Michael Moore or the BBC or other places, then we should do so. Anything else undermines our contribution base and the project. PRtalk 06:53, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Policy pages
Per the Arbcom ruling and discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Proabivouac and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#As_an_aside_to_this, following your wilfully tendentious edits to pages as mentioned above, no more editing of policy (or guideline) pages. If you wish edits made to such a page, suggest them on the talk page. Further editing of policy pages, no matter how innocent you think the edit, will result in a block. This will be noted on the Arbitration ruling. Neil ム 09:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)