Revision as of 19:48, 3 October 2008 editJw2034 (talk | contribs)1,582 edits →talk hisory← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:24, 3 October 2008 edit undoCrossthets (talk | contribs)522 edits →request for feedback: thxNext edit → | ||
Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
Futper is an admin who no doubt is going to try and pull in other admins to come to his aid. If you are going to fight this fight it might very well get ugly. What it comes down to is do you believe Futper's angry dismissive newb-trolling narrative... or do you think my verifiable points are unworthy of even being visible on the talk page relating to the Macedonian Naming dispute? My fate is largely in your hands Todd. --] (]) 07:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | Futper is an admin who no doubt is going to try and pull in other admins to come to his aid. If you are going to fight this fight it might very well get ugly. What it comes down to is do you believe Futper's angry dismissive newb-trolling narrative... or do you think my verifiable points are unworthy of even being visible on the talk page relating to the Macedonian Naming dispute? My fate is largely in your hands Todd. --] (]) 07:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
:The "he" I was in referencing was Futper not you Todd. You've been extremely gracious and patient with me even though I'm a newb who has put you in an awkward position with an established admin. | |||
:My primary goal was that any blocking be left to another admin (less involved with me and the articles in question) so I am free to edit without issues of conflict-of-interest arising. Your acknowledgment of the history between Futper and I and your and leave it to other admins is greatly appreciated (without even taking sides... nicely done). | |||
:I have some unfinished business with Mark (looking for the same sort of admin paper trail acknowledgment he reviewed my concerns) but you've effectively done far more than I expected so I don't think I have a need for the ANI process at the point (unless Futper wants to go down that road again). I will go back to focusing on my contributions to Misplaced Pages. Thx so much Todd.--] (]) 20:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
==Jimmie Lee Jackson== | ==Jimmie Lee Jackson== |
Revision as of 20:24, 3 October 2008
Toddst1 is taking a short wikibreak and will be back on Misplaced Pages at some point. Too much wikidrama and wikipolitics these days, not enough common sense. |
This is Toddst1's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Auto-archiving period: 1 day |
Todd
How did u become an administrator.--Entect (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Correspondence course. 8-) Toddst1 (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Trivia
This isn't a spelling correction. Flaunting and flouting are both correctly spelt. You have, instead, changed the meaning of what you wrote; and I don't think you should do that. FWIW, "flouting your disregard" is wrong; flaunting was what you meant William M. Connolley (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Flaunting is incorrect usage. Flouting is correct as was pointed out. You seem to share the incorrect usage of the term. See dictionary definition. I have corrected what I wrote to say what I meant, and you interpreted from my incorrect usage. Toddst1 (talk) 19:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Pointed out? I missed that. But no: you can flout rules, but you flaunt your disregard of rules. Either way, its a grammar correction not a spelling correction William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Pointed out here. You correctly interpreted what I meant to say. Did you read the dict def? You and I disagree (spelling/grammar), but I DGAF. Toddst1 (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- You've missed context. In the diff you cite, N is correcting you when you say "flaunting wiki policy". As I said, you don't flaunt policy, you flout it. In your "correction" on E's page, you've changed "flaunting your disregard of Misplaced Pages's rules" to "flouting"; what you're missing is the addition of "your disregard of", which makes flaunting correct in that instance William M. Connolley (talk) 20:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Pointed out here. You correctly interpreted what I meant to say. Did you read the dict def? You and I disagree (spelling/grammar), but I DGAF. Toddst1 (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Pointed out? I missed that. But no: you can flout rules, but you flaunt your disregard of rules. Either way, its a grammar correction not a spelling correction William M. Connolley (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I was correcting NoCal, not, I believe Toddst1, and this might be the cause of Toddst's misprision. Gentlemen, let us concur that Eleland was flaunting his flouting of wiki policy, this is objectively true, and grammatically indisputable. Regards Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks you
Thank you very much for the barnstar. We can only hope. --S.dedalus (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
IP vandalism
About this : Thank you very much ! :D Rosenknospe (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
request for feedback
Hi Todd,
I had made an appeal for a block by Futper (an admin that I feel keeps harassing me) and you declined it replying "solid block".
To be frank, I don't think you know the facts in this instance and you're seeing only one side of the story here. I realize Futper is an established admin and I'm a newb (which makes this an uphill battle) and if my points should have been made elsewhere I apologize for that (I'm still learning Misplaced Pages rules). However, I still think the points themselves are valid (and verifiable... if someone spends time to throughly review them. There are a group of FYROM nationalists on Misplaced Pages promoting misinformation and deleting pertinent facts (including possibly a certain admin). I don't mind regular contributers but when an admin appears to be one of them it creates a problem.,
(And it isn't just me saying there is currently hostile propaganda against Greeks occurring. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hr110-356)
FYROM citizens live on formerly Greek lands. As do some Bulgarians, Turks, and Albanians. I have no issue with this and wish them the best. However, since the break up of Yugoslavia they are trying to be known as "Macedonians" (relating to ancient Macedonian Greeks) This is unacceptable to someone Greek because the denial of Greek Macedonian history is like denying Greeks were Athenians and Spartans. I sincerely feel like the target of bigotry and my ethnic identity is under attack. (like someone Jewish being Moses was Arab.. or someone Italian being told Romans were Albanians... or someone American being Washington is Mexican). These sort of things can and do lead to real wars.
What I'm looking for here is an open ear... and advice into writing a complaint in a format that Wi:AN would find acceptable. I originally tried to make an anon comment about the issue to WI:AN (without naming any names).... instead I ended up getting blocked by Futper (who appears to be a FYROM nationalist himself based on his lopsided editing patterns against Greeks). You declined to unblock me will only add to the perception that I'm trolling when my beef can be validated with a little sincere effort.... and why I've come to you.
Please... I'm asking you for your help here. I realize that it might put you at odds with another admin (who little doubt is monitoring my posts... including this one given he's patrolling even my user page). If you do help and I am not saying the truth. at worst it will mean you wasted a little time with me. If you don't help and I am saying the truth... you will done your little bit in spreading hate and propaganda.
I can only hope given these options you are willing to listen at least a little to the other side (especially given the gravity of the issues). Thanks -Crossthets (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not really sure what I can do here. However, this might be relevant:
In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If editors engage in repeated inappropriate behaviour in this area, they may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban.
- It applies to admins as well. Perhaps you need to file a WP:RFC about the situation. If I misread the situation, I apologise. At this point, I don't know what to think. Toddst1 (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
No need to apologize Todd. I very much appreciate your balanced down-to-earth response (and plan to read up on RFCs). I understand given the severity of the charge the onus is still on me, a newb, to prove what I say is true (which is despite that he occasional deals with extreme cases of FYROM vandalism... his lopsided editing and hostility towards the Greek POV on WIkipedia puts him in a conflict-of-interest as an admin)
I am already aware of the arbitration case via carefully examining Futper's diffs. I'd like to point out in the comments of the project page you'll find Futper (who appears to have been a key pusher for those discretionary powers and now seems to use them to the max) said the following about Greek contributers at that time...
- "Greek tendentious editing can generally get away with murder" (Replace that with "Jewish" tendentious editing can generally get away with murder" to see how "neutral" he sounds)
In addition about half of the official statements in support of Futper's desire for discretionary powers (judging by the comments intended primarily to silence Greek contributers and to a lessor extent Bulgarians) come from Misplaced Pages contributers that seem to be FYROM-supporters (possibly nationalists). Please note though my complaint is SOLELY about Futper. Other admins appear far far more balanced in their editing towards Greeks. I am not looking for special status only not to have my edits targeted for blocking solely based on my ethnic background or because the facts are unpleasant for an admin with an anti-Greek agenda.
To understand how Futper targets me... he wasted no time threatening me yet again (for allegedly using the fricken talk page of an article as a "forum" and saying "last warning")
What would really help at this juncture is putting a visible retraction on my talk page that notes after spending time reviewing my case in detail an admin does see potential merit in my claims (to help reduce the newb-is-instantly-wrong railroading effect I am currently experiencing). When I am ready to proceed forward with WI:AN it will hopefully show other admins my issue with him aren't remotely as cut and dry as he tries to portray them.(a statement in itself)
And thanks so much for taking my time to review my concerns Todd. --Crossthets (talk) 04:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- Taking a look into the matter here. Toddst1 (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks Todd. While you're at it can you perhaps ask him about these offensive comments he made to me on out first encounter as well... a newb... with no prior history. (Futper was coming to the alleged aid of someone who appears to be a FYROM national)
As you can see I already asked him on his talk page... and he completely ignored the question. I'd ask again but he'll just use it as an opportunity to suggest I'm "harassing him" and threaten me again. (or get an unsuspecting admin at ANI to do it for him) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crossthets (talk • contribs) 05:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Unsurprisingly yet another threat/rant from him against me... in the middle of another admin investigating a claim of bias against him?
- Admins are entrusted with additional abilities, but do not have special rights beyond those of regular editors. Like everybody else, admins are expected to behave in a civil manner, to not engage in revert wars and to not claim ownership of articles. With regard to simple misbehavior, admins are treated identically to regular users;
- Admins should never use their admin abilities to intimidate others. For instance, threatening a user with an inappropriate block is just as bad behavior as actually making that block.
- An admin should not block a user if they are not neutral with respect to that user, or have a conflict of interest.
Futper is an admin who no doubt is going to try and pull in other admins to come to his aid. If you are going to fight this fight it might very well get ugly. What it comes down to is do you believe Futper's angry dismissive newb-trolling narrative... or do you think my verifiable points are unworthy of even being visible on the talk page relating to the Macedonian Naming dispute? My fate is largely in your hands Todd. --Crossthets (talk) 07:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- The "he" I was in referencing was Futper not you Todd. You've been extremely gracious and patient with me even though I'm a newb who has put you in an awkward position with an established admin.
- My primary goal was that any blocking be left to another admin (less involved with me and the articles in question) so I am free to edit without issues of conflict-of-interest arising. Your acknowledgment of the history between Futper and I and your suggestion to Futper to step away from blocking me and leave it to other admins is greatly appreciated (without even taking sides... nicely done).
- I have some unfinished business with Mark (looking for the same sort of admin paper trail acknowledgment he reviewed my concerns) but you've effectively done far more than I expected so I don't think I have a need for the ANI process at the point (unless Futper wants to go down that road again). I will go back to focusing on my contributions to Misplaced Pages. Thx so much Todd.--Crossthets (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Jimmie Lee Jackson
Hi. Here, , you accidentally removed the vandalism which 65.66.39.1, removed. It might be a good idea for you to remove the warning you gave that ip--Jac16888 (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- good point Toddst1 (talk) 18:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
talk history
thanks. my point to that user has been made. Jw2034 (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)