| Revision as of 15:05, 23 June 2007 editCrossmr (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers18,925 edits →Bad faith assumed← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:30, 26 June 2007 edit undoSelmo (talk | contribs)4,698 edits Arbitration notificationNext edit → | ||
| Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
| :Your response only clarifies the issue. Several editors have tried to address your uncivil behaviour with you and you responded with further uncivil behaviour. No one here "touched" you. My only interaction with you was seeing you behave uncivily towards others and attacking them. I reminded you (politely) of the policies and was prepared to move on. In fact a year ago I did. You said you always tried to behave well, I assumed good faith then, but obviously I shouldn't have. We don't continue to assume good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. When I spoke with you a year ago you claimed to always be a diplomat, but your language and behaviour couldn't be any further from that. The RFC has absolutely nothing to do with any of the issues in the various articles. The INtellexual.net article is meaningless in the context of this issue, the labeling of Rebbecca, is meaningless, the Singaporean anon is meaningless. They are all meaningless. Because your behaviour doesn't change no matter what the issue is. You behave uncivily towards any editor who opposes you and you attack them. You threaten edit warring until your position is accepted and occasionally you finish off with a threat. I will repeat this one more time so its absolutely clear here and there is no chance for confusion: The issue is your behaviour and how you handle confrontation. The fact is you've demonstrated yourself incapable of doing so in a civil manner in a group setting. That is the issue plain and simple. The moment you are questioned you lash out. You refuse to discuss anything and have made your position quite clear. You feel yourself to be above the policies and guidelines of wikipedia and that you should be allowed to do whatever you want to achieve the end you feel is correct. In the context of wikipedia that is unnacceptable behaviour.--] 07:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | :Your response only clarifies the issue. Several editors have tried to address your uncivil behaviour with you and you responded with further uncivil behaviour. No one here "touched" you. My only interaction with you was seeing you behave uncivily towards others and attacking them. I reminded you (politely) of the policies and was prepared to move on. In fact a year ago I did. You said you always tried to behave well, I assumed good faith then, but obviously I shouldn't have. We don't continue to assume good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. When I spoke with you a year ago you claimed to always be a diplomat, but your language and behaviour couldn't be any further from that. The RFC has absolutely nothing to do with any of the issues in the various articles. The INtellexual.net article is meaningless in the context of this issue, the labeling of Rebbecca, is meaningless, the Singaporean anon is meaningless. They are all meaningless. Because your behaviour doesn't change no matter what the issue is. You behave uncivily towards any editor who opposes you and you attack them. You threaten edit warring until your position is accepted and occasionally you finish off with a threat. I will repeat this one more time so its absolutely clear here and there is no chance for confusion: The issue is your behaviour and how you handle confrontation. The fact is you've demonstrated yourself incapable of doing so in a civil manner in a group setting. That is the issue plain and simple. The moment you are questioned you lash out. You refuse to discuss anything and have made your position quite clear. You feel yourself to be above the policies and guidelines of wikipedia and that you should be allowed to do whatever you want to achieve the end you feel is correct. In the context of wikipedia that is unnacceptable behaviour.--] 07:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::unfortunately you're working in a group. No one needs to harass you for you to go off. So "staying away from you" won't solve the problem. You've demonstrated in the past that you attack people who don't even speak to you because they've done something in an article you don't agree with. The only way you're going to get people to "stay away from you" is if you download wikipedia to your hard drive and edit it locally. There are tens of hundreds of thousands of editors here. Its impossible for all of them to stay away from you, nor is it a reasonable request. One of them is going to edit an article in a way you don't like, and you do not ] the articles you work on. As soon as that happens, you will attack them again. So no, we're not going to ask several thousand editors to give you a wide berth because you can't handle having your edits questioned.--] 15:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | ::unfortunately you're working in a group. No one needs to harass you for you to go off. So "staying away from you" won't solve the problem. You've demonstrated in the past that you attack people who don't even speak to you because they've done something in an article you don't agree with. The only way you're going to get people to "stay away from you" is if you download wikipedia to your hard drive and edit it locally. There are tens of hundreds of thousands of editors here. Its impossible for all of them to stay away from you, nor is it a reasonable request. One of them is going to edit an article in a way you don't like, and you do not ] the articles you work on. As soon as that happens, you will attack them again. So no, we're not going to ask several thousand editors to give you a wide berth because you can't handle having your edits questioned.--] 15:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC) | ||
| == Arbitration notification == | |||
| Considering your attitude in the above section, I have filed a ] regarding your behavior. Please note that this is not an attack against you, as this is the standard protocol for all uncooperative users. Regards, — ] <sup><i>(])</i></sup> 00:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:30, 26 June 2007
| This is Mark Kim's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
I prefer clean comments. Please don't watch this page as I consider that to be harassment. The additional rules I have is no name calling and no "wiki-bullying". Thanks.
As of June 17, 2007, heated discussions are no longer archived.
Page last archived by — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 13:21, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Notification AN/I
You should be aware that Crossmr (talk · contribs) has requested administrative intervention regarding your past incivility:
You're a valuable contributor usually, but it appears that you're often provoked by others. I was reading what people have said to you people said to you and some of the comments were very upsetting. However, it is very, very important to stay civil in the face of such behaviour. Your opponents can use it against you to ignore and dismiss your arguments.
Regarding this AN/I request that Crossmr posted, don't worry too much about it. You won't be banned or indefinitely blocked just from this, though continuing on this road will lead to more trouble and eventually an indefinite block. Just focus on your future behavior and you'll be fine. –Gunslinger47 18:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- Can you provide any diffs of the comments you find upsetting? I was reviewing this case on AN/I and the diffs provided there by Crossmr only show Mark is very easily provoked. Maybe you would like to tell your side of the story at AN/I.
- On an unrelated note: no one needs your permission to watch your talk page, since you don't own it.--Atlan (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Anon from Singapore
Note: This topic was originally called "Civility"
In the future please refrain from referring to editors as "untrusted". An editor is by no means considered untrustworthy just because they don't have an account. A minor change such as that didn't warrant such a negative labeling. .--Crossmr 14:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- It was likely a vandal who did excessive cruft-editing. At this point, I'm going to have to consider this as being harassment. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 15:34, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- You can revert that and make that change without referring to the editor as such. Regardless of who you think the editor might be, a change of "a bit" to "a lot" is not vandalism. That is a content dispute.--Crossmr 15:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I take editing patterns very seriously, and that anon's editing pattern was noticeable. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 18:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- His edit pattern is immaterial. Referring to an editor as "untrusted" in an edit summary is neither civil nor necessary to fix the content issue.--Crossmr 18:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- I take editing patterns very seriously, and that anon's editing pattern was noticeable. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 18:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- You can revert that and make that change without referring to the editor as such. Regardless of who you think the editor might be, a change of "a bit" to "a lot" is not vandalism. That is a content dispute.--Crossmr 15:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Still, this IP should not be reverted without prejudice due to its edit history alone. Misplaced Pages is ideally very leniant and forgiving of its contributors. This idea is partially covered under WP:AGF. –Gunslinger47 22:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- The user, known as "S8823140F", a.k.a. Denise Christie Chan, apparently utilized that IP address to "fly under the radar" to damage the IP's reputation for being a good editor. There will be people who will have a wanton disregard of WP:Verifiable, WP:NOT, even WP:VSCA. Some users who have created Misplaced Pages accounts in the past decided to demonstrate their wanton disregard by editing as anons. There are also responsible anons who don't commit such wanton disregard.
- There has been some good anons who are resourceful and try their best to keep their cool here in Misplaced Pages (I've seen some good anons in some articles that I watch), but this anon from Singapore, who is usually Denise Christie Chan (wikipedia account S8823140F, likes to "fly under the radar" as an anon) likes to demonstrate their wanton disregard of WP:NOT and WP:VSCA by putting nothing but cruft on the article, even damage the talk page with all crystal-ballism that I had to revert/remove a couple of times. Because I know what this anon has been doing on Time Crisis 4 pretty much before (and judging from the cruft removal notices this anon has been receiving), I believe that caution should be used and anons be monitored heavily to ensure that they do not damage Misplaced Pages. Wordiness also came to mind as well, as all RVs/RMs had been WP:VSCA.
- Therefore, I believe that anons have to be monitored carefully to ensure they do not damage Misplaced Pages, as there have been anons who've been showing wanton disregard by vandalising and/or damaging the articles. Dell and Bose are high-profile brand names and in the past they've been severely damaged. Other articles also have been damaged as well, though articles that have been damaged in the past was not from a resulting vandalism act, but rather a heated dispute. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 00:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, User:S8823140F appears to have a history IP sock puppet abuse, as seen here. As for the IP, it appears to belong to SingNet meaning it's likely utilized by many more people than just S8823140F. You're right that this situation and others like it should be watched very closely to preserve the integrity of articles. It's very important, and is good work. However, you cannot be indiscriminate. Look closely and try to keep any good edits. If you don't like an edit, revert it and explain what's wrong with the contribution itself in your opinion. –Gunslinger47 01:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Comment
The reason why that anon's edits were easily reverted is because of a couple of things: wordiness, cruft, crystal-ballism, WP:VSCA, WP:Verifiable—the anon had a wanton disregard of WP:V and WP:NOT. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 23:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- All those things clearly don't apply to this very small edit you reverted. Also, who is to say this IP address is always used by the same person? An anon's long-term edit history is irrelevant because IP's aren't bound to a person. Anyway, you failed to assume good faith, which is considered a paramount principle of Wiki-editing. No need to keep defending it, just let it go and don't do it again.--Atlan (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Your edit was to restore a sentence to equally fail WP:V. Whether that sentence read "a lot" or "a bit" it was inherently unverifiable. If you were that concerned about the edit meeting WP:V you should have removed the entire sentence. Instead you changed it to read what you wanted, and insulted the editor while doing so.--Crossmr 03:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, the anon apparently did not know how to spell. Judging that you won't stop your wikibullying, I am going to have to declare your act as being harassment Crossmr. Sentencing DOES COUNT in Misplaced Pages. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 04:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- Don't let other editors upset you. Crossmr is not going away, so you'll have to find a way to work with him peacefully. If you get upset, then you lose virtually by default. –Gunslinger47 05:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
- No, the anon apparently did not know how to spell. Judging that you won't stop your wikibullying, I am going to have to declare your act as being harassment Crossmr. Sentencing DOES COUNT in Misplaced Pages. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 04:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
RFC Request
I'll second the request. Be aware that if you refuse to participate in the RFC and do not change your behaviour the next stop will be the arbitration committee. Their ruling on your behaviour will be binding and will be enforced with blocks and bans if necessary. It is in your best interest to participate in this process because long term incivility coupled with a refusal to take part in the dispute process generally only leads down one path with the arbitration committee.--Crossmr 04:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Bad faith assumed
That stupid RFC I am only going to assume bad faith on that one because it's an act of prejudice. — Mark Kim (U * T/R * CTD) 05:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- Your response only clarifies the issue. Several editors have tried to address your uncivil behaviour with you and you responded with further uncivil behaviour. No one here "touched" you. My only interaction with you was seeing you behave uncivily towards others and attacking them. I reminded you (politely) of the policies and was prepared to move on. In fact a year ago I did. You said you always tried to behave well, I assumed good faith then, but obviously I shouldn't have. We don't continue to assume good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary. When I spoke with you a year ago you claimed to always be a diplomat, but your language and behaviour couldn't be any further from that. The RFC has absolutely nothing to do with any of the issues in the various articles. The INtellexual.net article is meaningless in the context of this issue, the labeling of Rebbecca, is meaningless, the Singaporean anon is meaningless. They are all meaningless. Because your behaviour doesn't change no matter what the issue is. You behave uncivily towards any editor who opposes you and you attack them. You threaten edit warring until your position is accepted and occasionally you finish off with a threat. I will repeat this one more time so its absolutely clear here and there is no chance for confusion: The issue is your behaviour and how you handle confrontation. The fact is you've demonstrated yourself incapable of doing so in a civil manner in a group setting. That is the issue plain and simple. The moment you are questioned you lash out. You refuse to discuss anything and have made your position quite clear. You feel yourself to be above the policies and guidelines of wikipedia and that you should be allowed to do whatever you want to achieve the end you feel is correct. In the context of wikipedia that is unnacceptable behaviour.--Crossmr 07:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
- unfortunately you're working in a group. No one needs to harass you for you to go off. So "staying away from you" won't solve the problem. You've demonstrated in the past that you attack people who don't even speak to you because they've done something in an article you don't agree with. The only way you're going to get people to "stay away from you" is if you download wikipedia to your hard drive and edit it locally. There are tens of hundreds of thousands of editors here. Its impossible for all of them to stay away from you, nor is it a reasonable request. One of them is going to edit an article in a way you don't like, and you do not own the articles you work on. As soon as that happens, you will attack them again. So no, we're not going to ask several thousand editors to give you a wide berth because you can't handle having your edits questioned.--Crossmr 15:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration notification
Considering your attitude in the above section, I have filed a request for arbitration regarding your behavior. Please note that this is not an attack against you, as this is the standard protocol for all uncooperative users. Regards, — Selmo 00:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)