Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:32, 24 December 2014

Template:Merry Christmas Banner

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

“	I order you to be truthful, for indeed truthfulness leads to righteousness, and indeed righteousness leads to Paradise. A man continues to be truthful and strives for truthfulness until he is written as a truthful person with God. And beware of falsehood, for indeed falsehood leads to sinning, and indeed sinning leads to the Fire. A man continues to tell lies and strives upon falsehood until he is written as a liar with God	”
— Saheeh Muslim

“	In matters of truth and justice, there is no difference between large and small problems, for issues concerning the treatment of people are all the same	”
— Albert Einstein

WP:TALK#USE: "Explaining why you have a certain opinion helps to demonstrate its validity.."

WP:CIVIL

P-123 as you know I take exception to your use of anti-ISIL terminology at this point as a sort of call to arms for editors to fly into any level of unresearched argument that you seem to advocate. Again you are using the arguments of discrimination with use of "anti-ISIL" to, I think, push according to your own POV priorities. Its comments like this and comments as you have added to the already prejudiced thread "Ham fisted lead" that seem to me to be aimed at a rounding up of support. I have already raised issue on this so forgive the directness. GregKaye ✍♪ 18:55, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 With what within my content do you disagree. Your thread at Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Pro-ISIL_and_anti-ISIL showed your preference to generally go along with the claims of one rebel group despite a world of protestation. Please consider the appropriateness of what I consider to be a call to arms. Take a look at your text.

• "Do you mean editors who are anti-ISIL are spoiling the article? ... Remember you can add your voice to the Talk page discussions on anything and if you do not agree with what is said there you must speak up. It doesn't matter if you have not followed all the discussion, your opinion will be as valuable as any other editor's."

Which editors are you talking about? GregKaye ✍♪ 19:33, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Ownership

You have gradually been showing WP:OWN in ISIS. You have been able to as there is not much editorial interest any more in the more serious aspects of editing ISIS. I have not mentioned this before as I did not want to inflame matters further. My reasons for saying this? Your beating off criticism wherever it comes from. You simply cannot take criticism, can you? You and Legacypac are the same and both try to beat off criticism wherever it comes from. (See my comment in the collapsed thread.) Felino123, Technophant, Signedzzz, WheelsofSteel0, and now P-123. I do not always see the imaginary consensuses that you and Legacypac note in your edit summaries when reverting. Do you not realise how serious a problem this objection to criticism has become? Another aspect of WP:OWN is collapsing editors' comments. Collapsing criticism, whether it is off-topic or not, is a form of censorship. Who are you to decide what should be removed from view on the Talk page? You are not an administrator. I suspect the removal was just as much about my criticism as it was about it being off-topic or infringing WP:CIVIL (which is always a matter of interpretation). You need to toughen up and stop not just objecting to criticism, but laying down the law about how other editors behave. I may take up this behaviour with admins after the Christmas break. I suspected your olive branch would not last long. P-123 (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Make your criticisms but please, please, cite or otherwise reference them. I will absolutely ignore your unsubstantiated accusations. Please see WP:ASPERSIONS. You promised that this behaviour would stop with your earlier "of course" comment. Live up to your promise and we will be fine. Again I ask please do not edit within my edits. I find it humourous that you can talk about OWN yet you don't even respect this. GregKaye ✍♪ 16:33, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Cuts both ways, m8. It was on condition that you (a) remained civil and (b) stopped the harassment. I have seen neither. P-123 (talk) 17:18, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
  • P-123 It does not cut both ways. Your scattering of WP:ASPERSIONS has to stop as you agreed. If you have an issue relating to civil or harassment. Then make it clearly. State your case. What wording do you object to and why do you think it is unjustified. It's not complicated.

You talk about OWN and controlling editors. You have frequently initiated with editors for them to take other editors to admin noticeboards. As you know this action was very much against my nature yet you pushed me to take one editor who I then thought was responding to written comment to administration. I presented a less that vehement case and your criticism was, "you got him off." How is this not controlling?

On your talk page you still display the text (edited here) "Do you mean editors who are anti-ISIL are spoiling the article? In my opinion at the moment the article is not always spoken in a neutral voice,.. if you do not agree with what is said there you must speak up. It doesn't matter if you have not followed all the discussion" and found in full here. You present a pre-judgement of anti-ISIL views before editors may even get to the article.

On the article talk page you have initiated a string of threads (so to speak) or of suggestions presented on user pages that have either been based on what I consider to be your n-NPOV or which I consider to have been poorly thought through. These have frequently been a considerable waste of time and I know that Legacypac, who has frequently shown notable tact in many editing situations, has occasionally lost patience as have I.

You have set a number of errands for me. I am not complaining but, if you are talking about ownership, its worth noting that the requests have not been going the other way.

Were many of these things at all on your mind when you placed your comments here? You take a very legislative approach to accusation. I consider the reactions that are required to defend against your baseless allegations to be a phenomenal waste of time. "Twisting the tail" may be fun for you. For me what is beginning to feel like an endless tirade of accusation, it is not fun at all. I am meant to be getting on with other things in my life. In cases I have cited and in the recent article thread, Ham fisted lead, your editing practice seems to me to reach "ignore all rules" levels of infringement. It began to feel relentless and, again, a huge waste of time.

In return I have placed good will messages on your talk page and took time to put together information that I thought might be of relevant interest to you. All have been deleted. At the moment it seems to me that you may be obsessed with tearing me down. GregKaye ✍♪ 18:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I have not read that. You have an unhealthy obsession with all this. Has it occurred to you that you might have driven me too far? There is only so much I can, or will, take. I am deliberately not pulling any more punches on the Talk page, as I do with other editors, over your editing (which you have always known I thought questionable). Had you remained civil during our dispute and withheld the WP:PAs, I would have treated you on the Talk page as I do any other editor there, and as I did you before, with some respect. P-123 (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 You say that I "have an unhealthy obsession with all this". It is not me initiating threads here. I have your name as P123ct1 written 379 times in my archive 2 alone. You still do not walk away. You still continue with unjustified aspersions. You have always had a choice of whether to edit on my page. Yes it is very clear that you have been driven too far but I dispute that I am solely responsible for the driving and I have been driven as well. As I have said several times, you can write what you like and (despite what I have viewed as your resistance to criticism) I have said I can reply as I like. You have continued to edit here. At many times I have spent more time replying to and fielding issues raised by you than I have spent on the actual encyclopaedia. When I have not agreed with what you have said, I have, with a generally high level of civility said so. I have also long thought your editing to be questionable and full of bias. You have never cited that I remember (and I have a fairly good memory) cited any particular infringement. I have made many many edits to the ISIL article. You have brought some of these edits, presumably the edits that you have thought to be most questionable, to the talk page. In these cases the resulting consensus has typically gone with me. Over time, and in a context in which I have stated time and time again that I do not agree with your uncited and unreferenced claims, I began to point out your own infringements of policy. There have been clear abuses but, again to save you embarrassment, I have tried to raise these issues in a private arena. By the time that I initiated the sovereign state thread on your talk page which was in response to this edit with its multiple infringements, I was already feeling pretty driven in the context of our long and often relentless debates. In my first post I asked whether you were replying to the right thread and in response to your edit, as containing the comment "Cannot justify this view, just seems common sense to me", I asked "what are your thoughts on following sources on this?" Allowing a rebel group to be classified as a sovereign state is serious. My second post had the text, "The debate on whether how we should describe the group is mentioned elsewhere and I think that those comments are more appropriate elsewhere. Also ping Kahastok to perhaps avoid unnecessary clash. I hope that's OK."

The thread covered the very serious matter on whether 'SIL could be entered onto threads such as the list of sovereign states and yet, after your vote, your reply included the text, "Am not really interested into getting into it, wanted just to make a broad observation." I have to admit that I then felt somewhat affronted when, after I had raised the very same points with you, you then said: "Ate my words! Did respond as the editor made an interesting point." It was content that had exactly the same nature as the content that I had presented to you and yet, despite our long history of dialogue, your response was to a new editor on the scene. None-the-less, on a subject that you did not even agree on you had left the text and which you had struck your opposition to the motion here and yet you still left an argumentative text which I interpret to be POV pushing for other agendas, "Any lawyer can weasel out of it, but these are all hard facts, and they have to be dealt with as such in this article. These facts should not be twisted or denied with sophistries". At this point, and in the context of a long history of trying to get various aspects of Misplaced Pages's guidelines through to you I began by saying, "I do not doubt that you will not be happy with what I say here but you continue to argue dirty", as in this edit. We did not enter dialogue at this point and while I think that my wording remains representative of the situation I did not get to apologise for my specific choice of words. You then deleted the thread and then revived it in what I considered to be a lynching format in which you had directly edited within my response here. I then redacted my response to its additional state here and I also added a reference to the "how" issue and regiged the opening statement to read, "I do not doubt that you will not be happy with what I say here but (add: in my view) you continue to argue dirty (add: unfairly). We never entered discussion over this. I admit to WP:PA over this but only in regard to the initial phrasing of the statement. In my view the argument on unfair approaches to editing, including direct and WP:INDCRIT and attacking the editor and not the argument, are very valid. With your deletions and resurrections of the thread, I never got to apologise for my initial phrasing of that opening sentence but, please note, my edits were made on your talk page in a context in which you had control of the content. You now allude to my PAs. Cite them. In my edits I have always come to you directly and have always regarded you with respect. It seems to me that you give unquestioning respect to the claims of a reportedly un-Islamic group who are engaged in ethnic cleansing and your edit above displays that, dispite my continued efforts to do the right thing, you now give no respect to me. I don't understand. Please don't give me further unsubstantiated content here. It is difficult to respond to. I really do not want to take any more. GregKaye ✍♪ 06:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This is crazy, Greg. You must not keeping going over this, it is not good for you. You are getting things badly out of proportion now. We have both said some things we have regretted in this dispute, or I have, and I think it is time to stop now. I do not bear you any grudges and am prepared to forget all this. I really think that analysing it any further will do more harm than good. I know you are still upset but am hoping that my goodwill here will help you to stop feeling that way. I do not like to think of you brooding on this indefinitely. Neither of us is a bad as the other makes out. I do not know what more I can say to help. I have no idea how you will react to this message, but am hoping it will not be badly. P-123 (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 I agree its crazy. You say "I do not know what more I can say to help". PLEASE cite or otherwise reference your criticisms. I don't know what you are talking about. I am BEGGING you, please cite or reference. I have repeatedly pleaded with you for unreferenced accusation to stop.

Please do not forget the situation here. Don't ignore it. Please give it attention and analyse to whatever level necessary. I do not want situations like this to be raised again. We cannot just go backwards and forwards. At present I have little hope that things can be resolved. Please don't edit here if you don't want to. I have no reason to think that you have acknowledged anything that I have so far said. When I do something wrong I acknowledge and apologise.

How have I made you out to look bad? Why have you done this to me? I have not opened multiple titles with your name on them on admin talk pages while regularly adding multiple edits to each. I have not launched derision on article talk pages. Even when it started I began by trying to laugh it off, still you persisted. Please also check what you are saying. It was a new proposal. I do not want things to go on indefinitely but at the moment I see no reason for hope. I have made the same repeated request and it has been repeatedly ignored. Goodwill is more than just a word. I have put effort into making subtle and thoughtful interventions with a number of editors to make sure you were presented in the way that you have wanted and even to the extent of editing WE's content. (This is another instance of editing that "must be against WP policy". I did it for you). I vehemently and persistently defended you when you were faced with accusations of vindictiveness. When there were article issues I wanted to raise with you I did this privately on User talk pages so as to save from public discord. I have previously also responded to your concerns about eavesdroppers. I feel that the huge store of goodwill that I used to have for you has been thrown in my face. I have lost patience and trust and remain wary. How you respond is up to you. GregKaye ✍♪ 08:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You ask me to cite criticisms. I have responded on those about controlling editors. Do you mean criticisms mentioned in our Talk pages? They are all there, Greg. You cannot expect me to trawl through every page and extract them for you when you can read them for yourself. I think that is unreasonable. I was always very plain when I made them. I have never made indirect criticism. There are no criticisms other than those I clearly outlined on our Talk pages. I am wary of doing anything now as it always results in long screeds from you, which I just cannot take any more, my nerves cannot take it. It is that bad. P-123 (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 Please read WP:ASPERSIONS. I do not accept many of your interpretations and your pinning onto me all responsibility for various situation when there were others also involved. Please do not edit here unless you are prepared to follow the Misplaced Pages guideline mentioned. Either analyse, resolve and comply or leave me alone. If I am in the wrong about something I will admit to it. As it is all I have is your interpretation and your say so. If a claim is not worth justifying then, in my book, it is not worth making. On my side of things such claims just contribute to aggravation. Please, I am BEGGING, can they stop as you promised they would? GregKaye ✍♪ 09:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I am more than happy to leave you in peace. P-123 (talk) 09:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Deleting content

When cleaning up my userpages just now I found this. This must be against WP policy. You made no request to do this and did not inform me of this removal. You need to give an explanation. P-123 (talk) 16:22, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 This was in a time in which we were still relatively good friends. You had content that meant that your user name was spamming, I counted, 22 category pages. I don't know why Misplaced Pages allows User pages to get listed but it was clearly disruptively included content. GregKaye ✍♪ 16:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. It was disrespectful and probably against WP policy to go over the head of an editor and alter their userpage without permission or explanation. It fits in with your other attempts to control editors, which have been much in evidence lately. It seems you may be one of those editors admins have to keep under surveillance. I feel like I never knew you until recently. P-123 (talk) 16:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I have called editors to contribute in accordance with WP:POLICY and I have cited clear infringement. I also spoke candidly to you in a situation in which you edited against a consensus that you had personally pushed for. I cannot think of any other time that I have edited content like that and, on what seemed to me to be an absolute no brainer issue, I edited the content knowing that the system should notify you of the change and not wanting to bother you further. When you saw the ping it would be easy to revert and I left an explanatory note. You still have the option to AGF. I have been the same person as you have always known. I stand for policy, against misrepresentation and against manipulative arguments. I keep and protect confidences, I edit directly without spin and I present myself as I am. When you say "other attempts to control editors which have been much in evidence lately", please cite. You are making serious allegations. GregKaye ✍♪ 17:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Had no ping, never received an explanatory note. That I "push" for consensus is petty misrepresentation.
I see as attempts to control editors (all within the past few months):

• Closing down discussion by collapsing discussion mid-flow as today on main Talk page.
• Remonstrating with editors who disagree with you by quoting policy at them and trying to bring them to heel.
• Telling editors who disagree with you how they should behave (Felino, Technophant, WheelsofSteel0, P-123).
• Blackening of editors' reputations with scurrilous charges of manipulation and misrepresentation. These are attempts to control and bring editors to heel. (Editors see through this and walk away. Unfortunately for you I did not; I am not a pushover. T. would have had an IBAN imposed on you had he not been banned himself.) You are the same person but not fully revealed until now. Drop it now, please. P-123 (talk) 18:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 I did not ask you to list those four points. Regarding pushed, you were the one initiating with me to ensure consensus against Felino. I do not want anything to have to reply to but still you persist.

• (You said please cite. This what you requested.)
• Greg, you really can't get away with that. I did my utmost to be fair to everyone in those Talk page discussions on edits and never attempted to "ensure consensus again Felino". I was trying to be scrupulously fair and make plain to Felino what was happening at every stage of that consensus-gathering. The Talk pages will show that. It is this kind of below-the-belt and unjust charge you often make now that I find extremely hard to take. But perhaps you meant something else, the 3RR noticeboard he was taken to before that? I remember supporting you in that, and may have been the first to raise it, I can't remember now.

P-123, You practically wrote the rules of Misplaced Pages citation. Did you know the meaning as within the supplied link? Have you read WP:ASPERSIONS? For a different word please think in terms of evidence. I have most regularly mentioned this in terms of substantiation. If you have any doubts in what you think I am asking for then please ask. I have been asking for this for what seems to me to be a great age. I have been asking for citation or reference to content. Again I am BEGGING please understand. Surely this was clear. GregKaye ✍♪ 20:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC) Content added in response to late addition

• Collapsing a discussion that was way off topic and which continued regardless under the hat. As I made the collapse I also added a thread on Lor's talk page to ask for advise about the thread. I am open to guidance. You added further content out of the hat and then moved your content inside. This was your choice.
• Remonstrating, when? how? in what way was my content wrong? What is wrong with quoting policy? This is something that you do yourself. Should it be disregarded?
• Requesting that editors behave according to WP:GUIDELINES. Show instances where this was not the case. I think that editors, myself included, should behave. With regard to Technophant you said that you did not understand why he was acting to me as he was and I think that was in thread Guido in the archive of ALL my talk page content. With WheelsofSteel0 you said that s/he was full of PA.
• Blackening, Please see all of the above. You are mud slinging without providing justification. It does not feel good. From my perspective I have been aware of the need to tread on eggshells with you for too long. I may have lacked subtlety but everything later was done and said with good intention. There came a limit where I was not prepared to tolerate your constant stream of unsubstantiated aspersion. I also chose to engage with you privately on other matters of infringement of policy so as to minimise your potential embarrassment on more public talk pages. The points that I raised were proven to be right time and again but the debates that ensued were a phenomenal waste of time. As time went by, with various other issues also being raised, I have lost patience. Even now you seem to me to be relentless. Please justify the things you say. GregKaye ✍♪ 18:42, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You asked for a straight answer, you got one. Don't cry and call it mudslinging when you don't like it. It is how I personally see it, others might not. The "constant stream of unsubstantiated aspersion" is imaginary, as I have explained many times. It is on the record, or should be. Please do not try to turn the tables by playing the ingénue in the hope that some admin will take pity on you. It will be seen through. I have answered all your questions, many times. I am relentless because I will take no more bs, I have had enough. I will not be pushed. I do not like confrontation, but I am not the sort to walk away in a situation like this. (Which I have never in my life been in before.) You know how to stop it: stop commenting. P-123 (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 Merry Christmas. I genuinely wish you well in substantiating at least this. GregKaye ✍♪ 19:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I hardly liked to mention this before, but the way you express yourself is often quite difficult to understand, Greg. (You have noted it yourself, and it is not a criticism.) I think some misunderstandings have arisen from this. It may be why I have never been able to understood why you put so many questions. I should have asked you to specify exactly what you meant when your meaning was unclear. I privately call it "rune-language" but that is affectionate more than critical. P-123 (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I suggest we cease hostilities for the next few days at least. Try to forget the monster in me recently and remember the nicer person. It is still there. Merry Christmas! ~ P-123 (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 I am unsure on the parameters that you associate with hostilities. I will continue to point out infringement of Misplaced Pages policy and what I consider to be unfair tactics. I will continue to raise these matters with editors and will also continue to engage in the debate on NPOV. If you want to interpret this as: Remonstrating with editors; Telling editors who disagree with you how they should behave and the blackening of editors' reputations then that is up to you. On I hope rare occasion I may have phrased things badly but I am doing nothing wrong.

I do not see a monster in you but view your actions as clearly fitting your "twisting the tail" description. Please think on this. I think that your, "I would have treated you ... with some respect" statement is also something that I would like you to keep in consideration. I am open to criticism and, as you know, I will happily admit to my own wrongs even in public and especially if the related statements might provide a guide better editing practice in others. Please cite or otherwise reference your criticisms. Please, again I am BEGGING. This last day has been horrible for me. It has also cost me hugely as there were other things I needed to give my attention to. There has been nothing here that I have enjoyed or regarded to be fun. GregKaye ✍♪ 07:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I have never deliberately set out to upset you, Greg, it was all in reaction to being driven to distraction by this dispute. If I may, I would advise just letting editors be and not pursue them for what you perceive as bad behaviour, except when there are clear infractions such as infraction of the 1RR or sock-puppeting. You do not do this as often as you used to which is a good sign. I do not want to criticise you any more and want to revive the mutual respect we once had. I have clearly upset you far more than I thought I had and regret this. P-123 (talk) 08:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 I would advise editors in Misplaced Pages to edit within Misplaced Pages guidelines. I would also ask other editors to support me in this. You cannot pick and choose the rules and then bully an editor for the sake of censorship of hard fought over principles that are blatantly right. I also need to follow these rules but, if you are not prepared to follow the various principles of the Misplaced Pages guidelines, what are you doing here? Please also show respect. You have repeatedly edited within my edits which is something that I had never seen you previously do and had never noticed anyone else doing. Was this a deliberate provocation? GregKaye ✍♪ 08:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

It was not deliberate provocation. I thought it was permitted. Do you mean comments added before you had finished your own comment? If you really think this badly of me, Greg, I suggest we cease contact. No one in my life has ever thought as badly of me as you do, apart perhaps from Worldedixor, who I still maintain had we known each other properly there would have been no trouble. I have never had this kind of trouble with any other editor, but you have had similar with other editors. I admit to some bad behavior with you but as I said before it was deliberate because I had had enough. I am not proud of acting in that way. Don't strain my goodwill by more criticism. I have said I am willing to forget this, but you are straining it. P-123 (talk) 09:11, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I have just re-read your last comment. You are on the attack again. I have more self-respect than to take any more of this from you. I have shown you goodwill today, you will not accept it. You come back with lists of where I could "improve". Have you any idea how insulting it is to talk to another adult in that way? I am not surprised some editors who cross you ignore you and walk away (Felino, WheelsofSteel, Technophant.) I think I should do the same. A final word of advice: stop hounding editors who cross you or do not meet your expectations of correct behavior, stop trying to "cure" others of what you perceive as bad behavior, and concentrate on editing. You show no respect for the dignity of others and I will not tolerate it. P-123 (talk) 09:31, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

P-123 Which part did you take as attack? Why? In summary, I would advise editors in Misplaced Pages to edit within Misplaced Pages guidelines... You have repeatedly edited within my edits... Was this a deliberate provocation? You always have the option to leave me alone. GregKaye ✍♪ 09:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, I am more than happy to leave you in peace. P-123 (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Even though we have had major disagreements on the editing of this article, Greg, I have long thought you deserved this for your work in the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. P-123 (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)