Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:44, 1 May 2007

For older history, check as well as the archives:

1. /Archive 1

You asked a great question

You asked:

Do you think you're capable of writing it from a neutral point of view?

This is really the best question ever in Misplaced Pages. After all the basic NPOV policy require us to "write from the enemy POV" but no one actually does.

Here is what I do with my kids:

say we have many sweats and each of them wants more. I tell one: You split the heap into two and your brother will choose which half-heap he takes. This guranties a spilt right at the middle (quality and quantity) because each knows that an unfair split will work for his disdavntage.

In wikipedia w can do the same:

Two , 1 from each side, will be rquired to write an article. A vote would be taken which article is more NPOV and that article wil stay for 6 month.

After 6 month updates will be allowed. This will guranty NPOV.

Best, Zeq 08:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

• This might work if the issues involved had two sides. They don't, in general; most issues, when properly examined, have multiple points of view to consider. Voting in no way guarantees NPOV, not even close. --jpgordon 15:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

True, but currentt system failed in most ME articles (endless edit-wars) where there are usually two clear and opposing sides that need adult supervision on every edit. Maybe voting is not the solution but an edit behind the scene (i.e not availble to the viwing public - just to participating editors) and involvment of 3rd nutral party prior to "publication" will improve the situation. Zeq 06:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Might be interesting and useful, but it won't happen on Misplaced Pages. --jpgordon 06:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Too bad, because the endless fighting over tough ME issues such as Nakba makes good editors go away from these articles. (I don't count my self as such - I don't shy away because other push their POV) There are editors much better than me that avoid editing those articles and this is how it became even more POV. Zeq 13:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jokum

Could you please elaborate on why you declined this case? These people were on AIV the entire morning and now they're discussed at ANI . - Mgm| 10:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sure. The requester is himself a sockpuppeteer and a spammer -- or someone is a very very convincing liar. Answered on ANI. --jpgordon 15:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Francisco Gil-White mediation

Hi Josh, thought you might like a heads-up on this. You may recall User:Ryan4, who repeatedly tried to spam links to http://www.hirhome.com to various Misplaced Pages articles - you tackled him about it on his user talk page (User talk:Ryan4#Stop spamming) and on AN/I (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive123#User:Ryan4). He appears to have learned nothing from the experience and has now brought a mediation case, singling me out for some reason. See Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 ChrisO‎. Given your previous intervention in the matter, I've added you as an involved party. My response is at Misplaced Pages talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 ChrisO#ChrisO. Naturally I think the whole thing's a waste of time and I'm encouraging the mediator to dump it on the grounds of Ryan4's bad faith, but it would be helpful if you could add a comment or two so that we can have a record of where things stand. Unfortunately I don't think this will be the last we'll hear from the hirhome fan club - Ryan4 now appears to be coordinating with fellow hirhomers. -- ChrisO 18:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. Waste. --jpgordon 22:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed, though knocking it firmly on the head will help in dealing with the hirhomers in future. Thanks for the comments. -- ChrisO 22:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

arbitration

Hi there, I don't understand why my arbitration request for University of Wisconsin redirect was not accepted. The bad behavor of other parties is POV and ingoring facts backed by authoritative sources. Miaers 03:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Arbitration is not for content disputes. --jpgordon 03:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Then what do you arbitrate? It is clearly indicated in wikipedia that arbitration is the last resort for dispute. Besides, this is not just content dispute. It is about violation of NPOV.Miaers 03:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• Which is also a content issue. See Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes. --jpgordon 04:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Tor nodes

I dunno how recent the blocks were, but recently I've run into at least 5 or 6 Tor nodes which you blocked in such a manner as to not allow logged-in editing; blocking policy as far as I can gather seems to encourage blocking them in a way that allows folks like me to edit through Tor. So in the future I guess I'd appreciate it if you didn't so block them? --Gwern (contribs) 04:16 19 April 2007 (GMT)

Erhnam

Point taken. I felt "Banned by a cabal of bigoted Jews, Brits, and assorted liberal zealots whom fill wikipedia full of lies and bias?" demanded some response, however you're right that it isn't worth the effort, and also right that I'm open to allegations of "taunting". Thanks. Mark83 15:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

• "Never wrestle with a pig. You get covered with mud, and the pig enjoys it." --jpgordon 03:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Jail (American)

I saw your message at Talk:Jail (American). I agree that the article should be merged into Prison, since they are the same thing. For example, in South Asian countries, "jail" is a word in local languages, which if we go by this type of precedence, will result in yet different article! What do you think? Your message has not been replied since a long time. If you agree, I will go ahead and merge it. Please reply on my talk page.--Scheibenzahl 20:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok! Will do in coming days.--Scheibenzahl 20:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I have looked into the links referring to Jail, and many times they are referring to places for detention. I was disambiguating the links with Jail (American) for now, thinking to merge it later some time, but I realized that this distinction is made in many more articles which are not related to USA (Mongolia, for example). In this case, I suggest that we create an article Jail, very much like Jail (American) but without "american" heritage, and merge Jail (American) to it. Then, we move current Jail to Jail (disambiguation). Is this a good idea?--Scheibenzahl 20:37, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Jail and merging it

Hi! I think I have not done a clean job in merging/moving stuff. Can you do it for me? Here is what I did:

1. Moved Jail to Jail (disambig)
2. copy/pasted Jail (American) to Jail <- this is where I messed up :(

Copy pasting has left the page without any history or talk page (which I have copy/pasted for now).

Could you do me a favor and delete the article Jail and move Jail (American)? This will, as far as I understand, merge the history and talk pages. I will then modify the (current Jail) article again. Thanks! I am waiting for your response.--Scheibenzahl 22:04, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

No problemo! It was just for facilitating previous editors.--Scheibenzahl 19:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't file the request in the first place . Blame Newyorkbrad. (It may have been a mistake to give a clerk's hat to a real life lawyer. ;) Thatcher131 00:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

75.109.91.52 (talk · contribs) block review

Could you review the unblock request at the talk page? I don't know if this is an arbitration or checkuser issue, but the circumstances and reason for blocking are a little fuzzy. John Reaves (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• Abusive sockpuppetry. Checkuser block. --jpgordon 21:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Good comment about "punishment", too. --jpgordon 21:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. User talk:FoxAtomic is autoblocked because of 216.205.224.10. The checkuser block says don't undue any blocks that occur as a result of checkuser, so I assume autoblocks fall under this category. I'm not even sure that this is an autoblock since the IP's block isn't anonymous only. John Reaves (talk) 18:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I just came over to ask the same thing about FoxAtomic. I told them I'd ask you to look at the block. — coelacan — 20:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the block log for that IP. It's been blocked for vandalism close to a dozen times in less than a year. I don't know why there's been so much vandalism from that IP; perhaps it's a compromised server. --jpgordon 23:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I forgot about User talk:FoxAtomic for a bit... this user does not appear to be a vandal, but apparently they can't edit. Would it make sense to reblock the IP, allowing already-registered users to edit, but disallowing account creation? ··coelacan 08:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• I'll give it a try and see what happens. Usually, though, that just results in a pile of abuse. --jpgordon 14:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

RE:JuWiki Checkuser

Thanks for looking at the case. I filed the request to see the whether it would be useful doing the checkuser. I filed as more of a formality, and highly doubting myself that it was a case of impersonation. Anyways, thanks for looking at it. Evilclown93 15:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Duck test

Hello. You refused a Request for CheckUser as "unnecessary, duck test". Would you mind clarifying what you meant? User:Odbhss and User:Pannonia have been accused of being new sockpuppets of a banned sockpuppeter User:VinceB. If they are, their contributions should be deleted and the accounts blocked. If they are not, other users should stop claiming they are. I hoped a CheckUser would make clear how we should react to them. Since I am not completely sure what you meant and I do not want to base my behavior on misinterpretation, I would be very grateful if you could explain your words here or on my talk page. Thank you in advance. Tankred 16:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• Just as on your previous RFCU, you don't need a checkuser for this; I quote Please request admin action, not an unnecessary checkuser. --jpgordon 17:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again. Tankred 17:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi I know for a fact that I am not VinceB, so what can I do to prove this? The issue here is that Tankred holds ultra nationalistic views about Slovakia (such as that it existed in 1100). Of course there are more than 1 hungarian alive who will take issue with attacks like that please at least give the benefit of the doubt and do the checkuser. I will explain this whole issue at length in email if you require. Odbhss 19:12, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, refrain from personal attacks and address you case where it is suitable: at WP:ANI, not here. Tankred 19:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Podcast37

I ask you to reconsider... AIV declined to block Ciaranph for longer than a few hours and there may be more socks. Nardman1 19:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

question about case you solved at RFCU/Case/Codeplowed

Hi - I realize you're busy, so I'll try to be brief. This regards your "confirmed" determination at Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Codeplowed.

I'm a non-involved editor who showed up to help, responding to Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette alerts#Edit War Brewing on DeVry University.

I have no experience with RFCU procedure. Are there further steps we need to take to request blocking of the confirmed sockpuppet accounts, or is that part of the RFCU procedure that will happen on its own schedule?

There have been complaints about User:Codeplowed on several noticeboards by more than one editor (as documented at the checkuser case). Your response is the first definitive action on any of those reports and much appreciated.

I have no agenda about this particular article and am not involved there myself - my only concern is to protect the editors of that page from the disruptive actions of User:Codeplowed and his sock accounts. He is a COI single purpose account and has caused a lot of disruption on the one article's talkpage, interfering with at least six good faith editors, as well as posting warnings and essays on editors' user and talk pages (including mine, from when I tried to assist in calming the situation). Here's an example of one of his disruptive essays: ; (he uses his user name sometimes, but also signs with "Veritas Longa" rather than his user name).

Please let me know if you plan to block the puppet accounts or what we would need to do to request that in the proper forum.

If you would be willing to warn User:Codeplowed to calm down his aggressive ways and edit more collaborativelty, that would certainly be appreciated as well.

When I tried to communicate with him, it quickly went beyond my ability to deal with his behavior so I had to back off, and the editors on that page are still struggling with his disruptions.

Thanks for your help. --Parzival418 _Hello 22:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but once I've acted in my role as checkuser person, I really prefer not to do related administrative things like blocking and warning. You'll need to get someone else. --jpgordon 01:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, no problem. Thanks for your reply. --Parzival418 _Hello 02:26, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Short Strohs

Hi. Your comments on my talk page are perhaps <adjective here>, but also perhaps not <adjective here>. Tone down the comments, please, or someone (who knows?) is going to get sufficiently pissed off to leave mocking messages on your talk page, which would be a loss for Misplaced Pages (and a waste of your time.) Just because you have a keyboard doesn't mean you have to leave patronizing messages for every Tom, Dick and Harry -- at least, not here, where we try to keep things at a less ridiculous level. What's the point of sullying your own good name that way? 24.243.187.152 02:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• Shrug. Take it as you will. --jpgordon 04:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Check User

Could you please provide a reasoning for the rejection of the case for ProtectWomen and Karl Meier? Doesn't code D apply? Thanks --Aminz 05:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying back. The case is now closed and I now think that the two users are most probably not the same ;), but it was never my intention to harass. The bitter reaction and accusations of users: Proabivouac and Karl Meier made it appear so. --Aminz 22:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Checkusers!

JP, thanks so much for the quick responses on the astounding 10 CU cases in one day! Do you know when the IP cases will be completed? Real96 15:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

• As soon as someone feels like doing it. It's basically a volunteer job, as you know, and the tools are so weak that those IP cases are astonishingly and mind-numbinly tedious. --jpgordon 15:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Whoo, thanks. ;) That's quite a few cases resolved. Largely thankless work, but a few people notice and definitely appreciate it. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but it is not good to decline without giving any reason when the report is file while giving proper reasoning. I am reffering to Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Karl_Meier. This time we have given your difference even then decline? and it is even without writing a single word of reasoning? --- ALM 17:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please check!

Dear Jpgordon!

Please check my IP, or User name or I dont know what, because some users think, that I am a sockpuppet of VinceB! User:Tankred asked this from you too. Please do it for mee! Give me the chance to prove that I dont lie!

I dont speak english so good, but this is what happened:

I wrote into the Benyovszky Moritz article, about the origin of the family. You should know, that according to the article, 3 nations children claim him as their own (slovak, hungarian, and polish). This is the part when it's started to get interesting: to keep the articles neutrality I deleted that sentence which said that he was hungarian. Later, I found that the first sentence claims, that he was slovak. I deleted this to, and I said, that it wont bee a logic thing to claim that he was slovak (right in the first sentence), because it's against the articles other sections (nationality, origin). Still, user:Juro, and user: Tankred removes my edits. I already wrote them, but they refuse to answer. Please help my! What should I do? How can I ask a third neutral person to make decision about this? Is there any template to put into the article? And if there is, where? How can I protect the article? 2) I wrote to these users in several times, but theydidn't even answer to me. 3) I told them, that I am not a sockpuppet, and I just want to keep neutralit.

Thank you:Pannonia 08:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: even if IP of user:VinceB and user:Pannonia does not match, it is still possible that user:Pannonia is a sockpuppet of user:VinceB - VinceB was known to use dynamic IP adress that was different almost every time and if he changed Internet provider then he could have completelly different IP. There is certainly same pattern of behaviour among these two users. PANONIAN 09:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Aha, so by this logic, you were the one, who threned VinceB with death. Checkuser - Per duck test, User:Juro is in the same IP range , with an absolute similar block log, and style. The key is here: "Dinamic IP". Please, rethink your standpoint, and initiate that ckeckuser, including my IP, since maybe I'm VinceB too. Does it really takes that much time away from your life? --> --195.56.51.196 13:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)