User talk:UndergroundRailroad

The AFD consensus pertained to whether the article would be deleted or not; the AFD consensus does not permit you to remove discussion from the talk page. The only Wikipedia process which would permit the removal of past talk page discussion would be to have an administrator review it for personal attacks. And even then, only the administrator would have the power to decide what discussion can be removed. You are not under ANY circumstances to remove ANYTHING from the talk page again; you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia if you do. Bearcat 01:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Pm shef
Could you please move the comments you just left to User talk:Pm shef, which is the correct place. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have moved the comments over to his talk page. Could you please provide me with the user that Pm shef made the personal attack on and where. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I din't notice that he had done the same to your user page. I have left him the same remark that I left here. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. pm_shef 17:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks?

 * I saw you left a warning on my page, may i ask what incident you're referring to? I don't remember attacking anyone on here... Thanks. -- pm_shef 17:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't act ignorant. UndergroundRailroad 18:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not acting ignorant, I would honestly like you to explain to me what your warning refers to. If you don't have any examples, and can't show that I have made personal attacks (which I honestly can not think of) then I will have to report it to an administrator and have the warning taken off my page. pm_shef 22:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've checeked around and I can't find where Pm shef has made an attack on another user. I did see somewhere that he had referred to a person named in an article as non-notable but that is permitted. For an example of this see Articles for deletion/Log/2006 March 10 wher several people and groups are called non-notable (nn). The speedy delete tag CSD A7 reads "non-notable biography / vanity." If he has attacked another editor then please provide me with the deatails. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:09, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:NPA does not cover attacks against "subjects" of articles, ONLY against editors. I have not attacked any editors, thus your warnings are completely unjustified. -- pm_shef 04:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Can you show me where he called user Elliot Frankl and user Mario Racco these names? Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 05:37, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to echo Cambridge's request — I'd like to see the evidence. And in fact, I'm going to be more blunt about it. You have two, and only two, choices in the matter: either produce the evidence (and not just repeating what he said in a hearsay kind of way — show us actual links to the specific edits you're disputing), or stop alleging that he made personal attacks. At this point, you're coming far closer to breaching WP:NPA than anything I've seen pm_shef do or say — what you're doing is itself treading dangerously close to the personal attack line. So if you make the allegation so much as one more time without providing proof of it, you may be temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for violating policy. Bearcat 06:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

--- These attacks were posted by Pm_shef here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eyeonvaughan&oldid=41257881

Quotations:


 * "Meanwhile this "reputable candidate" you keep referring to, Elliot Frankl, is a nutcase"


 * "Sure maybe she's not as intelligent as someone like Elinor or other MP's, but she's a hell of a lot better than Racco, a sleazeball to the nth degree"

Pm_shef has already received his second warning. He should remove his many personal attacks soon, or otherwise some of these attacks will be removed and he will receive his third and final warning. UndergroundRailroad 01:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * OK I think you may have a slight misunderstanding of No personal attacks. It refers to attacks on other contributors which is not the case here. The possible attack there is on User:MSJapan who is indirectly called a "trouble maker". I have left a message on User talk:MSJapan asking for their opinion. AS far as I can see there should only be one warning for personal attacks. As such I have removed the NPA2 tag from the top of Pm shef's page and warned him of it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * For the final time, WP:NPA does not apply to the subject of an article. It applies to users and editors, which neither of those qualify as. While the comments may have been innappropriate, they do not infringe on WP:NPA. I respectfully request that both warnings be removed from my page, as they are both groundless - if they are not removed, I will be applying for arbitration. -- pm_shef 02:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * See the reply from MSJApan on User talk:CambridgeBayWeather. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:37, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's been explained to you that the remarks Pm shef made are not covered by WP:NPA to put that on his talk page is begining to look like harassment. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:39, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

As noted above: WP:NPA refers to other editors. It does not mean that one cannot express a negative personal opinion about an article subject on a talk page (even if the words are a bit ill-advised, they're not off limits). And secondly, even if there are personal attacks being made which violate the NPA policy, the correct procedure is to advise an administrator. We will review the situation. We will determine whether a warning (or two, or three) is necessary. We will determine whether the situation warrants a stronger response. It is not your right as a novice editor to impose warnings or punishments for what you deem to be a policy violation — you notify an administrator of what you believe to be a violation, and then stay out of it while the administrator deals with it. Bearcat 10:40, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

"For editors who want to get an administrator to have a look at a personal attack situation and consider action .... 2. Make sure the editor has been warned with the {npa}, {npa2}, and {npa3} templates as appropriate. "
 * Bearcat: Your comments above are incorrect. According to WP:PAIN:


 * I am an editor.


 * You are somebody who uses draconian administrative powers to enforce the rule-breaking of people who agree with your viewpoints.


 * And that's against wiki policy.

UndergroundRailroad 10:59, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

You are somebody who uses draconian administrative powers to enforce the rule-breaking of people who agree with your viewpoints.

I am nothing of the sort; I use administrative powers to enforce the rules. I don't know pm_shef. I have no idea what his viewpoints are on most matters, and have no vested interest in whether he likes me or not. I have no personal bias toward or against any of the political candidates involved in this dispute — I don't live in Vaughan, so they have no impact on my life. I don't even know who most of them are.

All I know about pm_shef is how he's conducted himself in the disputes that have been brought to my attention — and while it's true that he's broken minor rules on occasion, none of them have been bannable offenses, and when he's been advised of his mistakes he's always been polite about it and sincerely attempted to learn Wikipedia's rules and policies. While on the other hand, in the past couple of weeks there's been this endless parade of brand new editors breaking much bigger and more bannable rules themselves in the process of carrying out what's looked for all the world like a personal vendetta against pm_shef or his father. And whenever one stopped or was banned for their rule-breaking, another brand new editor would suddenly pop up and start breaking the same rules.

Frankly, it's none of my concern whether anybody on Wikipedia likes me or not — as an administrator, my concern is ensuring that the rules are followed. While it's true that expressing personal opinions to the effect that an article subject is a nutcase or a sleazeball isn't really the best idea in the world, Wikipedia does not have any policy preventing it. Wikipedia does, however, have a policy against blanking pages; it does have a policy against harassing other users; it does have a policy against being disruptive; it does have a policy against sock puppets. Bearcat 18:48, 13 March 2006 (UTC)