Greglocock (talk | contribs) →HiLo48 blocked for a month: new section |
Bladesmulti (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tag: contentious topics alert |
||
Line 138: | Line 138: | ||
That looks suspiciously likely punishment not preventative precaution to me. Disgusting. I am glad you thought along the same lines. [[User:Greglocock|Greglocock]] ([[User talk:Greglocock|talk]]) 20:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC) |
That looks suspiciously likely punishment not preventative precaution to me. Disgusting. I am glad you thought along the same lines. [[User:Greglocock|Greglocock]] ([[User talk:Greglocock|talk]]) 20:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC) |
||
{{Ivm|2='''Please carefully read this information:''' |
|||
The Arbitration Committee has authorised [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] to be used for pages regarding [[pseudoscience]] and [[fringe science]], a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience|here]]. |
|||
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means [[WP:INVOLVED|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behavior]], or relevant [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policies]]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions|editing restrictions]], [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of bans|bans]], or [[WP:Blocking policy|blocks]]. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. |
|||
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. |
|||
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> |
Revision as of 16:06, 13 December 2014
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Blocked
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. I've blocked your account for 24 hours for the latter part of this comment. I don't especially care what you think of me or my motivations, but you will not disrupt this article's talk page with comments on the motivations of other editors. On your return, please use article talk to discuss improving the article, and raise any concerns about editor behaviour in one of the other locations for this. --John (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
{{unblock}}
John -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Note to reviewing admin
- Roxy the dog made these comments in full knowledge of the editing restrictions I placed here. I would rather see an acknowledgement that the comments were out of order than an appeal based on the legitimacy of the block. --John (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, and I was very very careful not to make personal attacks or to harass anybody. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- In my view you crossed the line I drew when I said "No name-calling, however mild, from either side. No use of terms like "quack" or "censorship", including in edit summaries, or any reference to any editor's supposed affiliations or motivations." when you said " ...the only people who like it are the fringe pushers who don't have the good of wikipedia as their highest priority". --John (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying your reason for my block. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Further note to potential reviewing admin If we have interacted in the past, thank you for your interest, but allow an uninvolved admin to review this. I will of course accept any further review. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:38, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying your reason for my block. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- In my view you crossed the line I drew when I said "No name-calling, however mild, from either side. No use of terms like "quack" or "censorship", including in edit summaries, or any reference to any editor's supposed affiliations or motivations." when you said " ...the only people who like it are the fringe pushers who don't have the good of wikipedia as their highest priority". --John (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- Indeed, and I was very very careful not to make personal attacks or to harass anybody. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 20:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Fair warning to any reviewing admin; I am considering taking this block to arbcom for consideration, as an initial request to the blocking administrator has not met with a helpful response. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Demiurge1000:- in my humble opinion, a WP:RFC/ADMIN in regard to the whole thing, including the 0RR restrictions, Bladesmulti's block and QuackGuru's block would be more constructive. PhilKnight (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- You were warned before.[1] What about "fringe editor/s",[2]-[3] irrelevant use of the word quackery[4]. After seeing your unblock request, I would just say that you clearly don't understand that why you were blocked. You have accused other user of vandalism when those edits were not vandalism and you have claimed that I do things underhanded.[5] That all comes from hardly four pages that I have viewed. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Roxy the dog:- from my perspective, the comment you were blocked for does seem to be assuming bad faith to other editors. I'm not saying that you harassed anyone, and I don't consider that your comment was a personal attack. Nevertheless, my advice would be to rephrase your unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am unable to thank you for your review using the normal method PhilKnight, as I believe my block prevents those links appearing. As it is very early in the morning here, and I haven't yet had my necessary amount of tea to enable proper cognitive function to set in, I will take your sage advice under advisement, and merely strike my appeal comments. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 06:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- Welcome back after your block. PhilKnight (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I am unable to thank you for your review using the normal method PhilKnight, as I believe my block prevents those links appearing. As it is very early in the morning here, and I haven't yet had my necessary amount of tea to enable proper cognitive function to set in, I will take your sage advice under advisement, and merely strike my appeal comments. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 06:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- @Roxy the dog:- from my perspective, the comment you were blocked for does seem to be assuming bad faith to other editors. I'm not saying that you harassed anyone, and I don't consider that your comment was a personal attack. Nevertheless, my advice would be to rephrase your unblock request. PhilKnight (talk) 03:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
@John I've been trying to understand your reasoning for this block. My best guess so far is that Roxy the dog used the phrase "fringe pushers who don't have the good of wikipedia as their highest priority" in this edit, and that you interpreted that as name calling in defiance of your editing restrictions here. Was that your reasoning? Cardamon (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
- I, too, am curious about the reasoning behind the block.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- Does this explain it a bit more? The admin John was not interested in this topic area. He became interested in this topic area because of me. It appears he got angry at me after I told him to stop restoring comments on my talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- John's a passive-aggressive character underneath that veneer of gentility. Your best bet is to lobby other admins to join in supervising the article, the way Bladesmulti has lobbied John. (See John's talk page -- Bladesmulti has handled him well.) 216.3.101.62 (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
- Does this explain it a bit more? The admin John was not interested in this topic area. He became interested in this topic area because of me. It appears he got angry at me after I told him to stop restoring comments on my talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 00:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- I, too, am curious about the reasoning behind the block.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 00:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
John
I think John violated the guidelines in several ways when he blocked you. He failed to warn you as required by WP:BEFOREBLOCK. As one of the participants in the debate, he shouldn't have been using the tools anyway per WP:INVOLVED. More fundamentally, I don't think you did anything deserving a block even if warned and even if imposed by someone not involved. I just do not believe your comments were sufficiently rude and directed to clear the hurdle as personal attacks.
When I tried raising my concerns about the block with John (twice! 1, 2) he simply refused (twice! 3, 4) to discuss them in violation of WP:EXPLAINBLOCK. I've never crossed paths with John before to have any personal knowledge but my guess is that if it's that easy to pick out problems in John's decisions, this is not the first time he's shown poor judgment. I'm guessing that if he makes it worthwhile to investigate, for example, by carrying out his threat of new blocks on similarly specious grounds, there's probably a treasure trove of bad decisions to be found and documented.
Since this was only a 24-hr block and it's over and given also how notoriously difficult it is to hold admins accountable for anything, I expect you'll probably decide to let this drop. That's probably the best course. But should you decide to pursue the matter or if he carries out his threat of another block I would be willing to certify an RFCU or to make a statement in support as an involved party in an ArbCom request. Msnicki (talk) 16:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
- John has taken the discussion to my talk page, starting here. I am now satisfied that John was not WP:INVOLVED. Msnicki (talk) 19:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
User:Msnicki, in May, I complained to the admin John that he was reverting on my talk page. He then immediately blocked me. This is a violation of WP:INVOLVED.
In November, after I reverted my edit at Ayurveda and was waiting for consensus I got blocked without any prior warning of the 0RR restrictions at the article. This is a violation of WP:BEFOREBLOCK. Note: The admin John has been notified of the sanctions. Any uninvolved admin can sanction the admin John from this topic area at this point. Roxy the dog disagreed with the actions by the admin John. Now the admin John suggests there should further sanctions against both me and Roxy the dog. That is "problematic". QuackGuru (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
- If I may, I was persecuted by this admin and his cronies from day 1, arbiters of all things Scottish and everything scientific that they are. The unremitting threats (sorry, friendly pointing out the inevitable consequences of my actions) etc caused me to stop contributing to WP shortly thereafter. He is not interested in improving WP as an encyclopedia, only in exerting control over others. Entertainingly, on his talk page he rails against the 'arrogant and incompetent Wikimedia Foundation and its complete disregard for those of us who actually build this encyclopedia'. His hauteur is matched only by his hypocrisy. Flagators (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
- There is a major difference between you and I. I believe in following the rules. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 16:55, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Rolfing
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Rolfing requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.playnlive.com/blog/rolfing/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bfpage |leave a message 14:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Are you mad? Why have you posted this here User:Bfpage -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- On further investigation of this, in other words a couple of clicks, it appears that User:Bfpage doesn't have a clue what is going on. I will watch developments with interest. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 14:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Advice
I noticed you alleged at the admin's noticeboard that I have "stated that he does not watch the page". Could you be careful about making inaccurate statements like this in the future please? A good tip is for any claim about another editor's behaviour you should always give a diff, as I have modelled for you here. If you can't (or can't be bothered looking), it's worth considering not making the claim. This is just friendly advice by the way, to avoid the risk of you looking foolish to others. Cheers, --John (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- I'm fed up with faux politeness. What do you want me to do? and do your daft sanctions extend to this or other pages outside the Ayurveda article and Talk page? cheers indeed -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:30, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Consider that my politeness may not be faux. I respect your good intentions as you should respect mine. Politeness and regard for editing process are necessary if we wish to make progress, especially in difficult areas like the one we are currently discussing. I am sorry if you think that my sanctions are "daft". What do you not like about them? I'll take your declining to comment on the comment and suggestion I made as implying that you acknowledge your mistake and you will try not to repeat it. That would be great. I do not hold grudges and I look forward to your continued contributions at Talk:Ayurveda, so long as you can avoid insulting others. Best regards, --John (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- WP:Lunatic charlatans deserve contempt. People who enable them also. The fact that I am worried that posting such a comment will lead to further sanctions from you is very very sad. So, should I consider my own talk page subject to your sanctions or not? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 19:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- And how about userpages? Because there's a userbox for the lunatic charlatans comment, I think it's amongst mine. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
- Its the only one on my userpage ! -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 00:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, so it is. Could I persuade you to adopt any of mine? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- I notice you continue to misrepresent my statements. You really do need to be careful about that. I will not block you for making false statements about me but if you continue it is likely that others may. My advice would be to let this aspect of the situation drop. Others will (mostly) have the intelligence to read the diffs and see what I actually said; by stating I said something I did not you will only make yourself look foolish and devalue any future points you may wish to make. --John (talk) 07:42, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- How about disagreeing with you? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Disagreeing with me is fine, over matters of opinion or interpretation. Stating I said something which I did not say is a no-no, especially at an Admins' Noticeboard. --John (talk) 23:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
- Whether it is a matter of opinion or not could be argued, for example at arbcom or in the RFC/ADMIN that another admin has suggested might be appropriate. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- It could, but not with any prospect of success. One of the problems this noise is causing is that, while my patience and ability to assume good faith are large, they are not infinite. In a situation like this, when a mis-statement is made, it is either malicious or incompetent. In either case it does not reflect well on those making it. In the diff Roxy the dog quotes, I said I had not been (past tense) watching the AN/I discussion, which was true; the discussion had been open around 24 hours at that point. Your friend has used it to support a claim that "he does not watch the [talk] page [of the article]" (present tense, and an entirely different page). When someone makes a false claim like this, whether it is down to incompetence or malevolence, it does do harm, because there is a danger that someone who is pressed for time will take it at face value. That is why such false claims will not be allowed to stand; even although minor misbehaviours will likely be ignored, something like this will not be. My preference would be that Roxy let this drop, correct the mistake (let's assume that's what it was), and try not to repeat it. If you, he, or anyone else thinks there is an RfC against me in any of this, while I cannot see it, obviously that is an option open to you, though as always there may be a danger of being hit by the WP:BOOMERANG if you are seen as filing in bad faith. --John (talk) 07:31, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- John, speaking of explanations, is there one for why you have not been able to give this up? A few days ago, I accepted that you couldn't possibly be involved because Roxy stood up for you and said you weren't. But the whole point of this thread seems to be to take Roxy to task for saying basically that very same thing, but not at a time when it would get you out of trouble. Should I unstrike that sentence after all? If Roxy says something about you in a talk page discussion that you think is incorrect, I think you should offer the correction at the time and on that same page and be done with it. What you're doing here looks like it's become way too personal to you and you'd like to make it personal for Roxy, too. That's not good. Msnicki (talk) 08:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) John, I am a bit confused about the precise nature of your objections, and if you would kindly answer two questions, I would be happy to help bring this thread to a close. Two questions:
1) The 2nd statement you objected to is this: "Here is a diff from John's talk page, following a comment from John on my talk page". The first dif is indeed from you and is from 13 November 2014; the second dif is actually by Roxy and is from 19 November 2014. Is what you are objecting to, that the second diff is not by you, and actually after the first (the first did not follow it )? I imagine that is the case, and if you confirm, I suggest that Roxy just strike the comment.
2) The first statement by Roxy that you objected to, was his statement that "(he) has stated that he does not watch the page" which Roxy wrote 19 November 2014 in this dif. However, on your talk page on 13 November 2014 you wrote the following when asked about the discussion on the Ayurveda talk page, in this dif: "Really? I haven't been watching." Would you please explain what you find inaccurate about Roxy's comment? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC) (striking this, thanks to Roxy's comment below Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC))
- John is unlikely to answer based on previous behaviour I'm afraid Jytdog, however, if you take a look at the first diff again, you will see that User:Kww and John are discussing WP:ANI#Ayurveda not the Talk:Ayurveda page. It took me a considerable amount of time to figure that out. I do appreciate your interest. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for that correction, Roxy. I believe John will respond. On the second issue I raised (the first one John raised): do you have a diff, for the place where John actually said he was not watching the page? thanks Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Again, I had thought that that first diff meant that John said he was not watching the Ayurveda Talk page, but it actually meant he was not watching the Ayurdeda ANI thread, a very different but related thing. If I had a diff of John admitting he wasn't watching Talk:Ayurveda I would share it;) --- Are my diffs all wrong and messed up? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- i see. that is an honest mistake. in my view you should strike both comments and apologize, as both seem inaccurate in one way or another. it is actually a good thing, when you are in a dispute with another editor, to show you are not a crazy person and can acknowledge mistakes. helps make the other party look even more inflexible and unreasonable. :) Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Again, I had thought that that first diff meant that John said he was not watching the Ayurveda Talk page, but it actually meant he was not watching the Ayurdeda ANI thread, a very different but related thing. If I had a diff of John admitting he wasn't watching Talk:Ayurveda I would share it;) --- Are my diffs all wrong and messed up? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for that correction, Roxy. I believe John will respond. On the second issue I raised (the first one John raised): do you have a diff, for the place where John actually said he was not watching the page? thanks Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
- John is unlikely to answer based on previous behaviour I'm afraid Jytdog, however, if you take a look at the first diff again, you will see that User:Kww and John are discussing WP:ANI#Ayurveda not the Talk:Ayurveda page. It took me a considerable amount of time to figure that out. I do appreciate your interest. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 18:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Straw Poll
There is a straw poll that may interest you regarding the proper use of "Religion =" in infoboxes of atheists.
The straw poll is at Template talk:Infobox person#Straw poll.
--Guy Macon (talk) 09:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Ayurveda stuff
Best not to revert when another party adds content in violation of the sanctions. No, make that "best not to revert especially when the other party adds content in violation of the sanctions." By keeping your own nose clean the other party's misconduct is clearer, rather than turning it into a back-and-forth. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm so bloody angry ! -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I can imagine. John's administration of the article has been considerably sub-optimal, but unfortunately there's nothing that can be done about it. I've tried to get other admins to join in and none are willing. But you don't want to give any excuses to block you. Like my dear sainted mother often said, "life isn't always fair." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
- I have decided on a new strategy for tonight. I shall now turn off the computer and go and watch MOTD. Bye. _Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 21:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
As a dog, it's best not to have an argument on the talk page of someone who has you on a short leash. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Rewriting Chopra
[Inappropriate comments deleted.] Manul 01:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Roxy, check your email. Manul 00:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) this sounds a big load of hookum, and borders on WP:OUTING as well. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
- [6] (second paragraph) :) And no this is not WP:OUTING. Please read Tumbleman's OWN post signing his comment with his real name [7]. I can give you loads more diffs, check his talk-page he admitted to being that person. Goblin Face (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
HiLo48 blocked for a month
That looks suspiciously likely punishment not preventative precaution to me. Disgusting. I am glad you thought along the same lines. Greglocock (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding pseudoscience and fringe science, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.