User talk:Pathoschild/Archives/2005-11

Traditional Catholic

• This discussion concerns an article (article, talk).

Pathoschild, Dominick -- for weeks and weeks-- has been saying things such as I don't "exhibit any evidence of a good faith effort," that I engage in "childish mocking" (not when I am -- and when I do, it's a survival tactic, at this point -- but when I ask questions he can't answer), that I engage meat puppets and sock puppets when I'm not busy astroturfing, that traditionalist Catholics like me aren't "official Catholics" but are "militant Catholics" instead. He says I'm "obstructionist" after I've been here for a month now trying to sort through such typical sentences as "One definition is best without referral to a yet unwritten article is required" -- and then accusing me of "baiting" when I ask him to explain what the heck he means.

He's been engaging in deceptive reverts -- that is, actually reverting while pretending to make minor adjustments (see 13:17, 2 November 2005), snipping discussions in the Talk Pages (three times that I am aware of), listing -- for some unfathomable reason -- traditionalist beliefs in the section "Relations with other Catholics" and insisting it stay that way, etc., etc., ad nauseum, and I mean that almost literally.

He and Lima ask questions. I answer. Dominick says I didn't answer when the answer is right above his post. I have put up with sort of Twilight Zone RIDICULOUS stuff, aimed at me repeatedly, for weeks now.

He's been adding sub-sections to an already agreed-upon outline -- and the sections are ridiculously named, e.g.:

3.1 How militant traditionalists view "official" or "mainstream" Catholics

3.2 How "official" or "mainstream" Catholics view militant traditionalists

3.3 How non-militant traditionalists view "official" or "mainstream" Catholics

3.4 How "official" or "mainstream" Catholics view non-militant traditionalists

He's since dropped the "official" part, but -- what, will he be hanging on to the "militant" crap for another month?

He said nothing about a summary I proposed (the one jokingly called "Operation Cuttlefish"), but the moment it goes up -- which happened only after Lima started in on the page -- he reverts -- and then continues to edit to exclude those he calls "Feeneyites" -- traditionalist Catholics he doesn't agree with (and who, BTW, are in full communion with "Rome"). He is a POV-ridden vandal and needs to be stopped.

Further, what I say about his agenda -- his hatred for "traditionalist Catholics of the second definition -- is clear as all get out (read his previous versions of the article!). If he were writing anti-semitic stuff on an entry about Jews, something would be done. Used2BAnonymous 13:56, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Dominick has already agreed to delegate the removal of personal attacks to a neutral third party (at the moment, that would be me) to prevent conflict. I'll henceforth also watch edits to ensure honest edit summaries. I can thus help with those two points.

The other points I can't help you with. A discussion on incidences of astroturfing and meatpuppetry has already taken place, and was resolved by implementing a rule that negates any possibility of abuse. Accusations of meatpuppetry and astroturfing are thus considered personal attacks unless there is evidence of negative consequences. However, personal attacks are difficult to control because they are often embedded in otherwise meaningful comments, or implied rather than stated. A more proactive solution would be to remove subtle or implied attacks from comments, rather than simply archive blatant attacks, but this would in all fairness require consensus I doubt could be achieved. If you feel it necessary, you can also call for official mediation.

I can do nothing to prevent edit warring, either. There is no version consensus to follow, so any editor making significant changes to the article can expect disagreeing editors to do the same. If you wish, feel free to suggest the protection of the article after reverting it to a version agreed to as the lesser-of-evils. Even if I should wish to do so, I can't support or oppose any particular point of view without, by definition, no longer being a third-party. // Pathoschild 00:20, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Categorisation of protected template

• Portions of this discussion have been merged from Jtdirl's talk page.

I'm categorising user warning templates into w::Category:User warning templates for the Wikiproject on User Warnings, but you seem to have protected w:Template:Test. Would you mind adding the following code? It must be on the same line, since new lines break lists. Thanks.

<noinclude>[[w:Category:User warning templates]]</noinclude>

// Pathoschild 03:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

That's done and protection removed. I have no idea why I would protect a template like that. To be honest something strange has been happening with protections all night. I protected one page from vandalism and told a user I had done so and their page, not the page I had protected, showed up as protected. It took 8 attempts to protect another page being targeted in an edit war. I'd type in the reason why and the page would go blank!!! What is going on with this system??? FearÉIREANN 04:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't know, having no admin access. You might try asking in the IRC channel. // Pathoschild 05:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

User warnings cat

• Related links: w::Category:User warning templates, WikiProject on User Warnings.

Hi there! I just wanted to thank you for creating the user warnings category, it's an excellent idea and I know it'll make WP better. It certainly is super useful to me, there are templates in there I didn't know existed, and I use the warning templates all the time. Anyhow, super neat #1. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) You might also want to take a look at the WikiProject on User Warnings sometime; one of its goals is efficient organisation with good documentation. // Pathoschild 18:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)