User talk:Ncmvocalist/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] TheNautilus RfC

In response to your comments, I've added some diffs showing revert warring. I'd only concentrated on his inability to understand policy as I thought this was the most serious problem. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I've updated the RfC with examples of similar behavior in other articles. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, just a note to say that I've moved the order of the sections in this RfC, to try to focus discussion on the user rather than details of the articles. This means that the section numbers you refer to in your comment are now shifted down one. Sorry for any inconvenience. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stop that

That is your view of administrator scope, and I cannot believe that any view that requires ignoring core policies is valid. Please stop removing my section. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if in the process of restoring your complete removal of my view, I accidentally removed an edit to yours. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Greast. So there's different views on the topic. We can discuss them.

I did not misrepresent policy, and the changes to your view was unintentional. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not misrepresenting policy, have a read of WP:BLOCK "persistently violating other policies or guidelines, where there is a consensus among uninvolved users that the violation is disruptive." WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR are policies. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

No, edit warring is SPECIFICALLY covered in a different bullet point. Have you read WP:BLOCK? In any case, all I'm saying is that it's perfectly reasonable to discuss gross and repeated violations of policy at RfC. I don't see how th e community gains a jot by saying that such issues can never be discussed. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to have to politely decline, as I feel that they are relevant points in this case, and that policy backs me. It is, perhaps, possible that I was unclear, though, so I've clarified my view. However, threatening someone with sanctions for stating opinions as opinion, and objecting to your misconduct in deleting it on a relevant page, when others had supported the view, is really not the best way to deal with a situation, or to try and get a view clarified. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Show me one place, in policy, where it is specifically said that repeated and gross violations of WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR are not sanctionable. Otherwise, stop flinging about accusations of bad faith on my part. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do not edit my talk page again.

I consider your behaviour harassment, and have opened a thread on it. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Bullying_and_threats_by_User:Ncmvocalist Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 15:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Please don't remove other people's comments

As you did here. Friday (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked for a period of twenty-four hour cool-down period from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Orange Mike | Talk 16:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to remove the comments and signature of an editor in good standing from an RFC. [1].

--Orange Mike  |  Talk 16:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): I've unblocked. The user has agreed not to act disruptively again, and has been made aware of teh reasons for the block. Also, we don;t tend to do cool down blocks, although I think we can simply assume good faith all round, learn from mistakes made and move on older and wiser. Hiding T 20:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC) Request handled by: Hiding T 20:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving a comment to a talk page was borderline, but also removing an endorsement from an RFC was over the line. The editor was in good standing and had every right to endorse a statement if he chose. Durova^Charge! 17:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Even to openly misrepresent policy and what an arbitrator said? Look at the quotes for yourself:

Despite the fact Kirill confines the comments to discretionary sanctions, Holiday misrepresents it as absolute for all admin decisions. Those who endorsed it were unaware of the misrepresentation. I moved the view (for the second and last time to the talk page) and and showed him this:

He moved it back in WP:POINT making minimal attempts to make his statement accurate (and the other endorsers misinterpretation is clear on the talk page of the RFC). Misrepresenting policy or what an arbitrator has said is unacceptable anywhere in Wikipedia, including in the dispute resolution process.

I emphasized again and again he can make an endorsement or view, as long as he indicated he was involved (as there was evidence he was but he kept calling himself outside), and as long as he did not misrepresent policy, or what was said by an arbitrator, and as long as it was concerning the Rfc (not made in WP:POINT to an outside view). He refused to at least correct the misrepresentation, so I said I'd take it directly to the ArbCom as it involvese their statements, and so I did. And then I'm blocked for trying to ensure he is not sanctioned at a later date for misrepresenting arbitrator's views? Do I need to pull up the case to demonstrate this occurring? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The normal way to deal with policy disagreements at RFC is by rebuttal, not to move material off the RFC and erase endorsements. Durova^Charge! 17:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Durova's right, Ncmv. "You're wrong" is much better and far less presumptuous than "you may not say that at all". Time to back down on this; you've overstepped. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I moved it twice (even then, to avoid a dysfunctional case like with the requests for arbitration page) - and no more after that. If I moved it again, particularly after I was left a note/comment to the effect that I should not move them (whether it is misrepresentation or not), then the block would be warranted. [[WP:CB|Cool-down blocks are not allowed, and this is clearly punitive. FloNight hhad not responded yet, and I continued giving opportunities for him to modify his misrepresentation. Had Holiday left a comment not to visit his talk page again, then it would've ended there. Instead, he says "I consider your behaviour harassment. I've launched a threat at ANI (see above) and his threat has been taken in full now. Thanks a lot. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If someone removes a thread from their talkpage, you can assume they don't particularly want you to immediately restore it. If they remove it a second time, then you can be absolutely sure they don't want you to immediately restore it again, even without an explicit note saying so. Likewise, one would hope you'd review the RfC guidelines and standard practice before removing a view endorsed by 2 experienced editors, particularly before edit-warring over it. Agreed, this should not have been phrased as a "cool-down block", but that's a secondary issue. Do you understand how these actions were problematic? If so, I'll unblock you right now. If you're going to continue arguing the letter of policy to an increasing number of experienced editors, then I'll move on. MastCell ^Talk 19:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BLOCK#Cool-down_blocks says "Brief blocks for the sole purpose of "cooling down" an angry user should not be used, as they inevitably serve to inflame the situation." Without opinion as to whether or not Ncmvocalist's original edits were correct or whether a block was justified in general, a "cool down block" is never appropriate. My unsolicited advice as a not at all uninvolved admin is that the blocking admin consider either removing the block or at least modifying the block text to better express what behaviors the block was designed to prevent. --B (talk) 18:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly encourage you to listen to MastCell's advice and, despite the unfortunate phrasing of the block, "cool down". --B (talk) 19:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I also would like to see you unblocked if you agree to stop editing disruptively. Please agree to make your thoughts known through your own comments and not through altering or removing others, okay? I said I would look into the situation, and I will. We can discuss the key issue that has you concerned, alright. FloNight♥♥♥ 19:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I agree. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You're unblocked. (I went to do it and Hiding did it already after you agreed). FloNight♥♥♥ 20:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Hiding beat me to it as well! I've noted and supported this unblock at AN/I. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 124.169.233.175 lifted or expired. Request handled by: Kuru talk 12:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)