Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:33, 19 August 2012

• User talk:Anthonyhcole/Archive1
• User talk:Anthonyhcole/Archive2
• User talk:Anthonyhcole/Archive3

How's it going?

I see you've changed your user page. It makes me wonder if you're preparing for a wikibreak or to leave the project. Are you doing alright? I would have liked to have make progress on a reply to the BMJ with you by now, but as you can see with my edit history, I've been bouncing around other places. Anyhow, I replied to your post at WT:MED, and I thought I'd drop you a note. I imagined a potential letter would say "Come to the talk page of WikiProject medicine to greet us and ask for assistance" as a first point of contact. Maybe it could also include a wisely worded warning about potential pitfalls. For what it's worth, I appreicate your great work here (an example). I just started some scribbles here. Feel free to copy paste or write anything you want in there. Best wishes to you. Biosthmors (talk) 18:27, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I too would like to add that I appreciate your contributions to Misplaced Pages, especially including your obvious concern for the collegiality of the editing environment, and hope that you will not be going anywhere. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'm not going. Biosthmors, I've lost interest in engaging with medical journals about Misplaced Pages while it is so hostile here, that's all. I'm still very interested in making this a place where scholars are happy to argue on our talk pages. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear. =) Biosthmors (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Note:

I have nominated one of your pages for deletion because I don't believe it is appropriate to keep such lists on wiki. You can see the nomination at:

• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/User:Anthonyhcole/Jack Merridew

— Ched :  ?  20:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Saw that coming. If you are attempting to compile evidence for an Arb case or other dispute resolution forum, I would suggest keeping it as a text file on your local computer. Resolute 20:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not really bothered if it goes. It's just a copy and paste from the search results. (Can someone link me to the relevant deletion criterion, please?) I'm not preparing a case. Just getting to know Jack, for now. What happens after that depends on what I find. I'm quite capable of keeping an open mind. To be honest, I'm finding him quite engaging. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If you're not planning to use the page for dispute resolution, then it would be best if you agreed to copy the material off-site. There's a general policy, one which I suspect that you would approve of, that editors aren't really encouraged to keep "dossiers" about one another unless there's a specific reason to. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:03, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

As I say, I'm fine with that. Can you delete it for me? I'd like to see that policy if anyone can recall the shortcut. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll delete it now, and close the MfD discussion. The policy/guideline you are looking for is actually contained in the userpage policy rather than in the deletion criteria, which is why you might not have quickly found them. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Brad. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)x2 Anthony, User:Newyorkbrad mentioned that I did not discuss this with you prior to nominating it. For that I apologize. I'd also mention that I did not WP:CSD delete it or tag it. I'd rather the community at large be allowed to weigh-in on it rather than attempt to impose some sort of rash decision on impulse. As mentioned above, there are many ways to keep links: a file on your hard-drive, bookmarks, favorites, Google Drive (formally Google Docs), OpenOffice docs, etc. If this MfD should be suspended due to my lack of discussion here - then I have no objections; although I still firmly believe it is against our common practices (if not policy). — Ched :  ?  21:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
• I think that the sandbox/namespace indeed has better uses than that - such dossiers may be frowned upon if you're not building a case, and you can be 100% sure people are going to keep asking about it over the next 2+ years even if you take it off today, whenever they have an opportunity. I'm not saying it is fundamentally wrong, but it definitely is not in accord with the custom. Pundit|utter 21:11, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

That's sound advice from both of you. Thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it's any help, you'll know you've reached the end of the ArbCom stuff when you get to this page and this notice. If you research the whole history, you will indeed find Jack to be "intelligent, amusing, somewhat charming and helpful", and a lot of other things as well. I wish you well on your journey. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

There's a lot of reading here. :( Where's the executive summary?! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

He can also be a PITA, but then who am I to talk? ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

And who am I to talk? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

YRC

It's not a matter of rudeness, the issue is that if you are eligible to respond, then so is anyone and everyone else, and then to respond to each other, and then to revisit every single issue. And that way lies madness, particularly if YRC gets provoked to enter the fray. We are done with the issue, right? Also, the discussion was closed with agreement of the original poster before you came along. I would suggest it would be better to leave things the way I did and make your comments elsewhere. TDA was just core-dumping their prior work - you are undertaking new work, and the RFC is closed. Franamax (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not done with it. An editor just brought a large pile of intelligent, diligent analysis to that discussion, and I would like to read it and discuss it with them. May I have your permission? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:39, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

While I would not like having a lot of people coming to my talk page, you can comment there if you like. I respect the desire to avoid tempting Rob to respond.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Let's do it at the RfC. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, I find myself having to balance various needs here and I find that the more important need is to give a sanctioned editor an honest chance at redemption. TDA has given you an alternative, so I will restore my closure of that discussion. I in no way am trying to stifle your opinion, I'm just saying it's the wrong spot for it. TDA's talk page, or WP:AN if you really feel it necessary, please - or as always, AN or ANI if you find me heavy-handed. But that RFC is closed. Franamax (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure.

Devil's Advocate. Man, that's amazing. Truly excellent. Thank you. That was my impression of him. You paint well the guy that I bump into from time to time.

I'm fairly confident YRC will not breach the civility restriction, and your superb survey of his past behaviour predicts that. And I'm very confident he won't breach 1RR. I'm half-convinced the 1RR will help him in the long run by maybe forcing him to hone his rhetoric for a while. I thought the wikibreak was either too long or unnecessary but YRC didn't seem as concerned by the prospect as I would be. He seemed to think a break might do him some good; that was my reading. So, on the whole, I think he'll sail through this. Meanwhile, I'm hoping ArbCom will take a close look at X-tagging, so that when YRC gets back into BLPs, they might at least be free of that irritant. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Honestly, I can trust that he won't breach 1RR because that's something that is clear and unambiguous, but the civility restriction bothers me the most. I have a hard time seeing how that will not be wikilawyered to death in order to get a site ban.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

That's possible. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Whatever makes you happy

but this is arse-about-face. And re this; you might want to stop stating that Tim riley having a break is due to a particular editor. pablo 12:25, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I can't remember why I did that. Undo it for now if you like and I'll restore it if I can remember why I did it. It was something about transparency.

So, User:Jack Merridew is a sockpuppet of User:Davenbelle, but the category Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Davenbelle is a subcategory of Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Jack Merridew. If Davenbelle predates Jack Merridew, why isn't the master category Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Davenbelle? And why is his sockfarm split three ways into

• Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Jack Merridew
• Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Davenbelle
• Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Alarbus?

I'm trying to decide if he's worth the trouble he creates here, and that arrangement makes it very difficult to see what he's done here. Regarding your second point, no, because he did drive Tim off. He and several others. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I have an email from Tim saying that he didn't, do you believe me? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

In that case, I withdraw and apologise. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Technically they are all sockpuppets of Davenbelle, but users "of a certain age" will know him best as Jack Merridew. Another group of users know him best as Alarbus. So I think that's why it was set up that way. You will find the material on this user to be labyrinthine and near-endless, no matter how it is organised. -- Dianna (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That it is labyrinthine is why it ought to be clear. Should I just scoop up all the socks I can find and put them in Davenbelle, or is there some board I should go to and discuss this first? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I will say it a little clearer: No matter how you try to rearrange things, the material will still be labyrinthine and near-endless. So to do so would be a waste of your time, as enlightenment will still be elusive. Your remarks below to Br'er Rabbit are a personal attack, and I suggest you withdraw them or strike them out immediately. -- Dianna (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Is that better? I understood you the first time. I'd like to see one category with all his socks listed; and every sock declaring all the other socks. I don't think that's too much to ask. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not what I choose to do, however. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Kindly do not mess with my user spaces ;) Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Are those categories in your userspace? (Seriously, I don't know.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

To change what's in those categories, you would have to edit my user spaces, which you may not do. And you may not edit my category pages, either. Best you don't try and mess with what you don't understand. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Right. So, how about you doing what I suggested; for clarity and transparency: one master category, and everybody in it, and a simple note and nothing else on all your sock and sock talk pages listing your socks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This is getting rather creepy, Anthony. And as as for your repeated comment re Tim, they are a) not true, and b) a personal attack. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You're calling me my behaviour creepy; you who slinks around here insulting and goading people, hiding behind different masks? Would you please take all the shite off all of your sock and sock talk pages and replace it with a simple statement that you "edit or have edited using (complete list of socks)"? Then I might think you your behaviour a bit less creepy. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I care little about what you think of me and less about your ideas about my user pages. ;> Br'er Rabbit (talk) 18:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This interaction is becoming (or long since became) unhealthy and should probably be discontinued. I've already had to remove a quotation from this page that was highly inappropriate, and another admin has rev-deleted an edit summary. Br'er Rabbit, whatever it is you think you are doing vis-a-vis Anthonyhcole, stop it. Anthonyhcole, while you're not the only person to have serious concerns about Br'er Rabbit, I can tell you from seven years of experience that discussing them with him in this way is not likely to be productive. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Anthony, I apologise. I in no way support the addition of violent quotations on your talk page; that was out of line for him to do that. -- Dianna (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm reading Dave/Jack/Alarbus/Br'er rabbit's history. This seems to unsettle him. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 20:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)