Jump to content

User talk:RegentsPark

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) at 01:48, 13 July 2016 (→Thank you...: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


India League

A certain India League existed in pre-WWI era in England with which Baron Brockway was associated. It seems to be different from the Indian Independence League that was operative in late 1920s in SE Asia. I am unable to find much info about it given its similar name and thanks to various contemporary sports leagues. Can you write about it if its notable and if you get more info? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 12:35, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging others who might be interested in this @SpacemanSpiff and Fowler&fowler: §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism and Sikhism

@RP: An IP is busy re-inserting WP:SOAP and unsourced OR/opinions in Hinduism and Sikhism. Reminds me of someone. Worth a watch, nothing more for now. Thanks, Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jalpaiguri page problem

please, help!!_the page is just getting reverted again & again!! :'( :(

New edits to change the lead of Jerusalem

Hello RegentsPark. You were one of the closers of the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jerusalem which ended July 9, 2013. The conclusion of the RfC placed a freeze on the lead of Jerusalem for three years. Depending on how you interpret that, the freeze either ends in a couple of weeks, or it already expired on 27 December, 2015. That date was three years from the date set in the authorizing Arbcom motion. Recently some users have been trying to edit the lead of Jerusalem again. This was reported at WP:AE#Debresser. It seems possible that the freeze could be extended as a discretionary sanction until a new RfC is held, and there are some ideas on how to go about that in the AE thread. Would be interested in any suggestions from you or the other two closers on what to do next. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Higeru copyvio

Higeru has reinserted the copyvio into Jalpaiguri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) after his/her block expired. I reverted and request RevDel. — JJMC89 (T·C) 09:26, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmir Valley

Sir, can you please look into this and why am I being asked to gain consensus when the burden of changing/removing precisely sourced info is on the editor(s) affecting the change?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 23:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

You may want to look an an ANI notice I placed here Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus on AN/I

Fifteen Seventeen people, one admin included, supported a warning and/or additional restrictions, six eight opposed, and you don't see a consensus? Furry-friend (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2016 (UTC) [I can't count 23:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)][reply]

Consensus is not a vote count. Like I said, I think you'd be better off using DRN. --regentspark (comment) 21:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a content dispute. Perhaps you are overlooking the persistent conduct disputes brought up in "previous issues." Furry-friend (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see anything actionable here. Sorry. Meanwhile, if your interest is in getting your version of the edits into the article, I suggest you focus on DRN. If your interest is in action against BMK, then I'm sure there are other venues available for that. --regentspark (comment) 21:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The content dispute has already been settled. I know this sounds confrontational, but I'm wondering what the bar for actionable personal attacks is. Furry-friend (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Restrictions should not be imposed lightly and not without clear and strong consensus that the restrictions are necessary which is not what we see here. Look, I know you're upset but there is insufficient support for a 1RR and there is no point in a warning when BMK has already said he's going to stay away from furry stuff. The bar for imposing behavioral restrictions is and should be quite high and this discussion comes nowhere near that. --regentspark (comment) 22:05, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, I have never asked for 1RR and I'm getting tired of being accused of saying things I haven't said and doing things I haven't done. Perhaps you only gave the discussion a cursory glance before you closed it, because you attribute to me things I haven't said.
Second, "using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views", "accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence", both brought up in the AN/I, quoted and diffed. Those two were personally against me in this latest incident. There is also a pattern of gaming BRD where the discuss stage is "brick wall"ed as you put it, as a veto mechanism.
"This is a content dispute" is a strange consensus in light of that. Why not make it clear to BMK in no uncertain terms that he does make personal attacks, he does "brick wall" discussions in order to veto content disputes, and both of these behaviors are disruptive and detrimental to Wikipedia? There is certainly community support for that, and it is certainly in line with Wikipedia policy. Furry-friend (talk) 22:13, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furry friend, I haven't said anything about what you have or have not said. The 1RR came up in the discussion and that's about the only restriction that was actionable. Bottom line. No consensus to implement it. If you read NeilN's statement before the survey, it is confined to statements about consensus and reverts. You can't ask for strong behavioral restrictions when the discussion is set up on those parameters. --regentspark (comment) 22:31, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, you didn't directly attribute the 1RR request to me, it only appears to be the case because you put it close together. I never supported 1RR, I opposed it. What upsets me is the following.
NeilN's statement is about BMK "shut[ting] off discussion". You came to the conclusion that BMK is "brick wall[ing]" discussion. A large plurality (could be a majority, I can't count that high) of discussion participants supports a warning, indicating community support. There are diffs of personal attacks. Consensus is "content dispute", nothing to be done? Puzzling. Furry-friend (talk) 22:48, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I would have closed it that way and I think you've made a mistake, though it was yours to make. Based on [1], BMK has no intention of "get[ing] the gist of what people are saying", as he still thinks he's done nothing wrong, now or before. I hope you recognize, and are comfortable with, the fact that your close will be taken as an endorsement of BMK's behavior. If that wasn't your intention then you should reverse yourself. If it was, then I guess we'll just have to live with the consequences, pernicious though they are. I am curious, however, as to why you discounted all the people who thought BMK deserved a warning. Consensus is not a vote count, but if you're closing two-to-one against you need a solid reason to do so. I do however admire dismissing eight years of documented behavioral problems as a "bit of cant." I haven't seen chutzpah like that in years. Mackensen (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --NeilN talk to me 22:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More: I am bewildered that you would dismiss an editor being deliberately misleading, if not outright lying, about consensus as a "bit of cant". To me, that's little better than falsifying sources. --NeilN talk to me 23:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • 17 out of the 24 people who responded favored at the very least a warning to BMK. How could you fail to see that and how is that not a "strong consensus"? This appears to me to be the most inaccurate admin closing I've ever seen on Wikipedia, and I think it should receive a close review if not reverted. Softlavender (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot handle going through a close review of this. If RegentsPark remains convinced this is a content dispute and there's nothing to be done, I'll simply be glad that I have learned much about Wikipedia policy during this discussion, and hope the next discussion is more orderly and succinct. Furry-friend (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about you. Please stop making it about you. You do not have to participate in anything you don't want to participate in. And a close review is just a yea or nay poll to sustain or re-open; it doesn't re-hash the issue itself. Softlavender (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NOTVOTE

This proves I can't count. 17 support warn, 6 oppose warn, 2 are ambiguous; I choose to err on the side of oppose, for a total of 8.

  1. There is apparent community support for a warning, which is actionable.
  2. Both you and NeilN stated that BMK "brick wall[s]" or "shut[s] off" discussion. NeilN specifically names it as disruptive.
  3. Personal attacks.

Conclusion: content dispute, nothing to be done. Furry-friend (talk) 23:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC) and 00:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Katie supported a warning -- she said "Support close", which would entail all that NeilN proposed; plus her entire post was a warning. Softlavender (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I came here as figured there would be complaints...and BMK is already getting into it with somebody again at Otto Bismarck (nothing improper yet I don't think)...but what I don't understand is why someone like NeilN doesn't just block BMK for "disruptive editing" if/when you think it's warranted...it's perfectly allowable for you to do so as an admin...blocks are the only thing that will affect him..the ANI process is pointless and nothing an admin even needs to justify such an action...68.48.241.158 (talk) 23:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, any user may issue a warning in good faith. There does not need to be a consensus at ANI for a warning. HighInBC Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}} 00:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It means next to nothing for a "regular" editor to leave a warning to a long term editor. You know that. --Majora (talk) 00:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...

...for the close of the AN/I thread about me. If I would make some comments. however, they would be these:

  • The consensus discussion I referred to exists. True, I could not, and cannot, find it, but it was had, and exists somewhere - and Furry-friend certainly must know this to be the case. I thought it was just above on the talk page, but that was obviously incorrect, and in dealing with POV SPAs I don't spend a lot of time doing new investigating - too much else to do. As mentioned here I do not lie on Wikipedia. I can, of course, be mistaken, but I would never make something up in order to gain the upper hand in a discussion.
  • The point which seems to have been completely missed by most editors, is that as the author of a reverted Bold edit, it was Furry-friend's responsibility to build a consensus for his edit, and not mine to build one for the long-standing status-quo. He took absolutely no steps towards doing so. He did not go to WP:3O, nor did he post neutral comments on relevant WikiProjects. All he did was to go to AN/I and file a vindictive report about me, despite the fact that a third editor had also reverted his edits.
  • When I feel considerably better than I do now, I hope to work up an essay on just exactly what "civility" means. To me, it doesn't mean everyone going around say "And how are you today, Madame? Did you realize you just ascribed a quote by Mark Twain to Einstein? If you should have the available time, it would be most gratifying for you to correct that error." And yes, my remark to Furry-friend about "My Little Pony" was uncivil and deserving of a slap on the wrist. On the other hand, digging back 10+ years for an RfC (which was never closed, incidentally), or an editor with 2 topic bans coming to a discussion about my with only retribution in mind are way, or an "IP" (sure) with multiple blocks for disruptive and harassing behavior showing up to uphold Wiki-morality are also way beyond the bounds of "civility" as well.

At this point, that's all water under the bridge. Furry-friend and Furry fandom are now someone else's problem, not mine. I only hope that you do not receive too much negative response because of your actions. Thanks again, and best, Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RegentsPark&oldid=729561322"