User talk:HighInBC/Archive 8

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Undeletion request

An editor has asked for a deletion review of 1400s. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andre Engels (talk • contribs) 07:01, 4 January 2008

Thanks I will look into it. 1 != 2 16:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion review is unnecessary, it is meant to be done if you cannot come to agreement with the deleting admin(me). If you asked me I would have told you that you can recreate the article anytime you have content for it. No harm done though. 1 != 2 16:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

I'd stand again if they really felt it was necessary. Thanks for your advice and support, I really appreciate it. Regards, Keilana^talk_(recall) 16:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. But I would insist on a damn good reason. 1 != 2 16:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My experience in this situation starts here: [1]. There is also plenty of chatter on the WT:RfA page at around the same time[2]. Pretty much a mirror of the discussion going on there now. 1 != 2 16:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. Also, I have no idea how I got to be noticed; I've flown 'under the radar' for a month now. Keilana^talk_(recall) 16:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe. I lasted 2 days. 1 != 2 16:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch. In retrospect, I'm lucky... Keilana^talk_(recall) 16:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tx for your notice

I wrote a new section for Wikipedia:Evaluating sources [3]
Jossi removed this new section (copy-pasted it to a new page) [4]
I did what I described in Wikipedia_talk:Evaluating_sources#SWOT_analysis [5], which involved:
- Moving Wikipedia:Evaluating sources to Wikipedia:Evaluating sources within the context of Wikipedia's content policies [6], per Jossi "This essay examines how to evaluate sources within the context of Wikipedia's content policies., as per the lead" [7])
- Reinstating the new section (diff erased by Jossi [8])
Jossi deleted the page [9]
Jossi moved the old page back, without the new section [10]

Yes, I'd appreciate your involvement, and gladly accept "My services are still available if you wish." - Yes, I wish.

Peace to you too! --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I will look into it. 1 != 2 17:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tx, also this one, calling my contribution a "brainfart" is a bit over the hill imho [11] --Francis Schonken (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is my opinion. Nothing personal, just my opinion, which you are welcome to ignore. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My take on this issue

Okay, I think that what we have here is in essence a content dispute, one where I do not see the use of administrative tools.

Francis it is fine to make a bold change to a page, but when it is contested you should attempt to seek consensus first before continuing. I do have to say that moving the page to Wikipedia:Evaluating sources within the context of Wikipedia's content policies does seem a little counterproductive. While I can see this being a sincere but misguided attempt to clarify things, I can also see how it can be seen as disruptive point making. Assuming good faith seems to be the best option here as long as it is reasonable to continue doing so.

Jossi, while you are probably correct in that the section does not belong in the essay and have made very cogent points as to why not, this does not in any way justify incivility. I do not think this honest attempt to improve the essay is a "brainfart", nor do I think this longstanding user was trying to troll you.

From Wikipedia:MOVE#Moving_over_a_redirect: "If the new title already exists but is just a redirect to the old title, with just one line in the page history, the creation of the redirect, then you can rename the page. The most common case in which this applies is that of re-renaming a page back to its original name. As mentioned, this works only if the redirect that was automatically created in the first renaming, has not been edited.".

With this in mind I do not think Jossi moving the page back over the redirect was a use of admin tools as a regular user also could have done so. I also don't think this was inappropriate in the scope of regular editing. The fact is that if you make a bold change without discussion it can be reverted.

I suggest that Francis either seek consensus on the essay talk page before attempting to re-add it, or create his own essay on the subject on another page. I also suggest you get consensus before moving essays to different names. I suggest that Jossi use due care in respecting civility, as an admin it reflects on Wikipedia's management as a whole.

Comments or corrections regarding my interpretation are welcome. 1 != 2 18:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi was not moving over a redirect, he deleted the page [12], which also *deleted* my intermediate edit of that page. That intermediate edit had re-introduced the section which Jossi had removed, and had also brought the scope of the essay in accordance with its title, per what I had written on the talk page [13] - of course I can't give a diff for that intermediate edit, while Jossi *deleted* the page.[14] --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think this is admin abuse regardless. Moving a page and then making an intermediate edit prevents a non-admin move back, but this is a technical issue not a policy based decision. It is possible you could argue that this is admin abuse in the most technical sense, but I don't know how far one would get with that as I don't think the events violate the spirit of the rules. I would also point out that any uninvolved admin would most likely have reversed a contested undiscussed move. 1 != 2 19:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do contend this is admin abuse, not only in the "technical sense", but also violating "the spirit of the rules". The rules being, that an admin should refrain from using admin tools in order to win a content dispute in which he's already involved. Compare, Administrative tools may not be used to further the administrator's own position in a content dispute. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is not binding, just an opinion. I really don't think Jossi gained any sort of advantage in that content dispute as bold changes like that are supposed to be revertible. I am assuming that you did not move the page then make an edit in order to prevent it being moved back, that would be disruptive. So I am assuming that making the move-back require admin action was unintentional, and not an attempt to prevent the move being reverted. I suggest you try WP:AN if you seek other people's opinion on this matter and you cannot resolve it with Jossi or let is pass. 1 != 2 19:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked my colleagues informally for more opinions. 1 != 2 19:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for weighing in. I do not think that calling something a brainfart, is uncivil. It is just an opinion on some material added to an essay, which I sincerely believe is just that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Namely, I did not assert anything personal about Francis; I only made a comment about his novel idea of applying SWOT analysis to sources in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that Francis may not be familiar with that slang. A brainfart is less problematic than a brain shart, as the former does not carry any negative consequences, while the latter does. I need to realize that not everybody may be aware of the nuances of slang and be more careful in the future. Well, at least I hope Francis has now learned two new slang expressions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi, you hadn't insulted me yet, but you just did, on this page, uttering innuendos regarding my ability to understand connotations of slang expressions. What bothers me most is not the insult, but that that all results from your own original research, based on nothing.

Above I said "calling my contribution a "brainfart" is a bit over the hill imho", and that's the only thing I said about it. The rest is Until(1 == 2)'s interpretation. That I used the expression "over the hill" could have hinted you that I can handle subtleties of various English expressions. --Francis Schonken (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, Francis. It was not my intention then to insult you, neither it was now. I sincerely thought that the nuance of that slang was missed by you, otherwise why would you be upset about it? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW, " Over the hill" means something passe, old, or past the peak of one's youthful vigor and freshness. "Over the top", is what you meant maybe? ) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "over the hill" --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi used admin powers to influence another content dispute

Jossi also used admin powers when another editor labeled me a troll, Jossi enclosed the troll remark in an archive box then warned me not to remove it, in an apparent attempt to discredit my position in a content dispute.

The original sentence below was from the original editor who labeled me a troll, and I replaced his word "Christianity" with "figs" since in an ongoing disagreement over views of fig symbolism in the Bible, he insisted that his OR that all Jews have the same views of figs was correct and my sourced from rabbis saying otherwise were wrong. So here he argued about a different issue that Jewish groups have many different views, and with that sentence I pointed out his contradictory positions.

So Jossi made sure the troll label stuck apparently so his OR would be used over my sourced statements, a clear abuse of admin powers. Admittedly by then I was becoming increasingly frustrated and went "over the hill" myself. However this does not excuse using admin powers to force a content dispute, especially in favor of pure OR rather than valid sources.

Talk:Glossary_of_Jewish_and_Christian_terms/Archive_2#WP:DNFTT

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:DNFTT

... if you can limit yourself to different views of figs, and accept that different groups have different, even opposing or contradictory, views, and that it is not for Wikipedia ediors to decide which view (if any) is right, then you will be complying with NPOV and avoiding unnecessary conflict with other editors.

LOL :) -Bikinibomb (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 03:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Warning me not to remove the archive box:

dif 04:21, 3 January 2008 Jossi (Talk | contribs) (226,769 bytes) (→WP:DNFTT - a word of caution. Don't.)

Bikinibomb (talk) 06:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What admin action took place? 1 != 2 07:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If an admin cautions not to remove an archive box so that someone in a content dispute can't remove it and violate orders from an admin, isn't that an admin action cautioning that you'll be blocked for violating the command? -Bikinibomb (talk) 07:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, anyone can caution about a potential block, I used to do it all the time before I became an admin. Any issue here is not one involving special admin powers. I suggest checking out the options at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution if you want. It is generally a good starting point when you have a disagreement with someone that you need help resolving. It has done wonders for me in the past. 1 != 2 08:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying if an admin places an archive box around something anyone can remove it with no repercussions? -Bikinibomb (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admins don't have special authority in archive boxes or block warnings. Like I said if you have a dispute you can go through the steps at dispute resolutions which range from attempting to talk to the person to seeking further involvement from the community. Remember, admins have special tools, but the community decides how they are used. 1 != 2 15:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jossi also used admin powers when another editor labeled me a troll, Jossi enclosed the troll remark in an archive box then warned me not to remove it, in an apparent attempt to discredit my position in a content dispute. What? I just archived the discussion... I think you may be terribly mistaken, Bikinibomb... If you have a problem with an editor calling you a troll, raise that with the editor that made that statement, not with me.≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You archived the section he created for my comments entitled WP:DNFTT then cautioned me not to remove it, apparently for no other reason than to create a permanent and prominent announcement that other editors should disregard my comments in the dispute between their OR and my sourced content, they provided no outside sources whatsoever to support their arguments against mine. If you have no special powers what was the caution for, what would you have done if I removed it? Are you saying your caution was just intended to give the appearance of special powers and a bluff? -Bikinibomb (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not caution you about anything, I used a standard template to archive a discussion that was off-topic and not pertinent, and that template carries the wording about not modifying it. You are seeing things that did not happen, simply because you are assuming way too much. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was pertinent that for one argument he said all Jewish views are the same, in another he was lecturing that they were different, since he hauled in a consensus of all Jewish editors to tell me, the only Muslim and non-Jew there, that their views were the same. Although they just had OR and say-so, and I had real sources. Are you saying editors who point out inconsistencies with the basis of content dispute arguments need to be archived as trolls? If you didn't think it was pertinent why didn't you just delete it instead of making sure every subsequent editor that came to give a consensus saw that an admin labeled me as a troll? Don't you think that kind of action can influence a content dispute?

What were you warning about in the edit summary of applying the template when you said "a word of caution. Don't." You must have thought something would happen to me if I removed it. Are you saying you would have done nothing if I removed it? If you would have done nothing, what would happen that you would caution me about it? -Bikinibomb (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I said was "a word of caution, don't" meaning do not disrupt a debate to make a point. In any case, we are stretching Until(1 == 2)'s patience here with our length debate... I would suggest, you drop this and move on. If, on the other hand, you want to continue this, we can do so in your talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Until(1 == 2) can tell us to go elsewhere if he wants, this is an important problem that another editor thought he experienced too, discussed on this page. I don't intend to move on from the issue itself, no matter where it is discussed further, until I've completely understood your motives. How was it disruptive if my point addressed inconsistencies in his argument at hand, as well as the other issue? First his argument is all Jewish views are the same, then it is that they are all different. If you really thought it was disruptive and you weren't just trying to discredit me, why did you archive it to make a point which only caused further discussion about the archive? Why not just delete it and express your concerns that it was disruptive? -Bikinibomb (talk) 03:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.