Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:07, 13 January 2008

12 December 2024
News and notes: Arbitrator election concludes Arbitration report: Palestine-Israel articles 5 Disinformation report: Sex, power, and money revisited Op-ed: On the backrooms by Tamzin In focus: Are Misplaced Pages articles representative of Western or world knowledge? In the media: Like the BBC, often useful but not impartial Traffic report: Something Wicked for almost everybody Opinion: Worm That Turned's reconfirmation RfA debriefing
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Consensus on Policy for Natalee Holloway exists per Elizabeth Smart

We need consistency on Misplaced Pages. SesameRoad (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Consistency and fewer sockpuppets. SesameRoad is now blocked as an abusive sockpuppet per Misplaced Pages:Suspected sock puppets/WatchingYouLikeAHawk. - auburnpilot talk 22:25, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Doublechecking myself

I got myself blocked about a month ago for "edit-warring". I still have a dispute with the admin that instigated the block, so I would like someone else to look and see if my version of events is just wholly self-serving and I'm too involved to see it, or if I've got a valid point.

The touch-off point: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know%21%3F&diff=172185534&oldid=170851863

An editor changes "They also maintain that quantum effects have little influence on everyday objects like stones, and only apply to sub-atomic particles" to "They also point out that that quantum effects have a vanishingly tiny influence on everyday objects like stones, and only apply at sub-atomic scales".

Dreadstar reverts, citing POV

I recognise that the new language better represents the source than the original, so I revert Dreadstar's revert.

TimidGuy re-reverts.

I find the direct quote from the source, and put it in place of the summary.

So, here we are, that I made two edits ... one to protect another editors change, and one to solidify the change by quoting the source. I feel like the ice under my feet is extremely thick at this point.

From here on, I admit that it gets a bit thinner, but I'm not at all convinced that it is too thin.

I object to the word "fictional" being used to describe only a subset of the movie, so I remove it.

Dreadstar reverts again.

I reinstate it.

Dreadstart reverts it again.

After proposing "narrative" as a substitute for "fictional", and receiving no objection, I change "fictional" to "narrative".

At this point, Dreadstar conflates the two events, and reports me for a 3RR violation (despite the fact that I hadn't violated 3RR). When I point out that I hadn't violated, my block was sustained for "edit warring." Perhaps ... I grant at the very least that I walked up to the edge, and am interested in whether I crossed. I am also extremely interested as to whether I came any closer to that edge than Dreadstar.Kww (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm out of town right now and don't have access to my computer (I'm responding now using my blackberry). When I get back in town, I'll be happy to take a look. - auburnpilot talk 05:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, officially back in town. I've looked at all of the diffs, and I'm actually quite surprised you were blocked; especially for 3RR. You did not violate the 3RR by any stretch of the imagination, and I wouldn't have called it edit warring either. You have one editor (unfortunately an admin) reverting changes due to NPOV concerns while you were attempting to improve the section by adding direct quotes and language used within the sources in order to address those concerns. From my perspective, you only had two reverts that day ( ). Your other edits were related, in that they added additional content, but they were not reverts. In my opinion, the block was not warranted and the decline was a bit hasty. - auburnpilot talk 04:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Callmebc

I've started a discussion about unblocking Callmebc, per a discussion I've had via email with him. There's a thread here which you, as a blocking admin, might want some input in. --Haemo (talk) 08:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've just left a comment. - auburnpilot talk 03:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for unprotecting my page!

Even though it was in late October, thank you for the very early Christmas present! Merry Christmas, and happy New Year. Cowboy Rocco (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Tally-ho!

You have (semi-urgent) email. Merry Christmas! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 20:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Responded by email. - auburnpilot talk 03:31, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Foxnewsalert.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Foxnewsalert.png, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ilse@ 10:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Ilse@ 10:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, but I was merely reverting vandalism to the image. I have no real opinion on whether it should be kept or deleted. - auburnpilot talk 03:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fight Songs

Hey Auburn, I just wanted to let you know you're not the only person who has noticed the deletions of fight songs from university articles. I've posted a response in the discussion area you were directed to by Violet/Riga. It seems the editor in question doesn't have good knowledge of the role of songs, at least in the SEC schools. I warrant an even stronger, negative reaction would occur if they had deleted songs from more major universities, especially with strong athletic traditions.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 05:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you and I see this from the same perspective, and I completely disagree with Violetriga's belief that fight songs detract from articles. I've added a comment to Misplaced Pages:Centralized discussion/Fight songs and it looks like Autiger (talk · contribs) has notified a couple relevant Wikiprojects of the discussion. - auburnpilot talk 22:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotection of IPCC

Thanks. He's an extraordinarily persistent disruptor of various global warming related articles. I count at least 27 different sockpuppet accounts he's used over the past few weeks. As a frequent editor of those pages I'm hesitant to take administrative action, so it's good to see an uninvolved admin stepping in. Do be aware that he also lets socks "age" to circumvent semiprotection. Raymond Arritt (talk) 06:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Anytime. I'm not familiar with this particular sock puppeteer, as global warming is not an area where I edit, but the sockpuppetry in the recent history of that article was beyond obvious. I'll try to familiarize myself with Obedium (talk · contribs) over the next few days and see if I can lend a hand in the bagging and tagging.- auburnpilot talk 06:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

BlueMarine

Your unblock declination I have actually removed. I will send you email if you require more information. I'm really sorry. M-ercury at 19:09, January 5, 2008 19:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You will send me an email? You better do so now, as it is quite inappropriate for you to first edit my decline of his request, then remove it entirely. Please explain yourself, as I'm really not even sure why you are reviewing unblock requests when you have no power to act on them. - auburnpilot talk 19:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently reviewing a complaint. You comment reads funny I don't particularly want to see this editor/user pissed off any further. I'd like to diffuse the situation a little. being admin has nothing do with it per your edit sum at this time for this issue. Matt Sanchez is now protected at my request. Apoligies for mixing up the gender. Thank you for your help. Regards, M-ercury at 19:16, January 5, 2008 19:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your belief that my comment "reads funny" doesn't allow you to remove my decline of an unblock request anymore than being an OTRS volunteer does. Legal threats are not tolerated and the user has been blocked previously for making such threats (rightly or wrongly, he is aware of the policy). Regardless, this is a minor issue and not really relevant to the block itself. - auburnpilot talk 19:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm just asking for you to think about this logically. If I has thought being an OTRS volunteer gave me the right, I would have used the ticket number as the only reason in the edit summary. I did so as a regular editor. The user has been appropriately blocked, yes, and the declination, yes. But your message is a bit terse. Please rephrase it, or replace mine. Please diffuse the situation. Thanks for your help on this. M-ercury at 19:34, January 5, 2008 19:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to rephrase or replace my comments with yours. I've responded to your email. - auburnpilot talk 19:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Got it and agree. Thanks, M-ercury at 19:42, January 5, 2008 19:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The unblock message seems fine to me, even after looking at the OTRS side of things. 1 != 2 19:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. While I of course understand the need for confidentiality within OTRS, being unable to see the requests occasionally makes things a bit more difficult. - auburnpilot talk 20:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It does make things difficult :) As far as OTRS, I'm only interested in the BLP aspect. I think that if we were to encourage meaningful dialog on the user talk, versus, what the unblock message said, this would be helpful to me. The two are very loosely related, and I'm trying to get him to talk now. The unblock message was me as a regular editor. I should have made that clear. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Regards, 20:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)M-ercury at 20:12, January 5, 2008

Re: China

Thank you for bring that to my attention. I did not get any messages concerning this request before you brought it up. nat.utoronto 21:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Your support was somewhat surprising, but very appreciated. I will endeavor not to be so quick to stomp on toes or break the china (so to speak). Thanks. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 18:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I was happy to help in any way I could. I didn't agree with the circumstances surrounding your block, and JzG's protection of your talk page was ridiculous. The only advice I can give you is to learn to ignore comments such as the one made by UBeR (talk · contribs) on your talk page. Somebody will always try to provoke a response, and it looks like there are few admins out there just waiting to pounce. - auburnpilot talk 22:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

People trying to provoke me? Admins waiting to pounce? Perish the thought. I'll be a lot more chill this time in my actions. My old tactics only ended up getting me banned and nearly every one of my past edits reverted in the meantime, so the bottom line was that basically nothing was accomplished. And Misplaced Pages is "private property" after all, with a pile of rules and guidelines governing not just editing but user behavior. If I'm going to hang around these here parts to try to do good, I really should try better not to be an overly disruptive guest while doing so. We shall see. Thanks again for the support, and the heads up as well. -BC aka Callmebc (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:SufferTheFools as a likely sock of User:L.L.King

This user registered today and began editing the same articles in the same way as L.L.King. It may be easier to block King's IP at this point, though I leave that up to your discretion. Thank you for your help. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:56, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the account as an obvious sock, but cannot block the IP. I am not a checkuser and do not know what IP is being used. Alison (talk · contribs) is the checkuser who confirmed the other accounts and may be able to help with an IP block, if necessary. - auburnpilot talk 01:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'll notify Alison, in the meantime, here's another one: User:ExceptionalMadness and (as below) User:Everydayanothersin. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Alison took care of a couple socks and IP addresses and I've blocked User:ExceptionalMadness. Since Alison's blocks of the IPs have disabled account creation, this should slow L.L.King down a bit. - auburnpilot talk 04:47, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• That seems to have pretty much brought an end to it. Thank you both for all your help. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

contesting being blocked

how does one fight being blocked? i followed the problem with the paris hilton page and saw how an editor had a blocked a lot of people for being puppets. fine. whatever you guys do there is your business. but then i saw this person flag 2 articles for deletion because he did not like where they came from. wiki guidelines state that such a tag can be removed if someone objects to it for any reason. under a now-defunct username, i objected to them. the actor is notable and funny. the video is popular and hilarious. within a few minutes, i was myself blocked as being a puppet. how can disagreeing with someone and following wiki set guidelines make someone a puppet? the only claim that could possibly be made is that my account was new and those were the only 2 edits made. well, duh. he just got a slew of people blocked... and then he got me blocked. i had to make an end run just to be able to get on and send you a message. i don't think these actions are right. i don't think personal feelings should interfer with what is right. if the article is to be deleted in 5 days, how can a newcomer someone come on and make a correction? if making any correction to this editors edits causes a person to be blocked, why would anyone come forward to fix anything he edits? you set the blocks, so you make the call. read the articles... and do not consider who put them up. read the articles. if they are suitable for wiki, please tell this editor to use a cooler head and not use interest in the video as cause to block any newcomer trying to save it. and yes... i know that my own name will be up for blocks within a few minutes... and for the same reason. and king made edits to lots of places on wiki. why single out only the video and one of its actors? SufferTheMadness as Everydayanothersin email:esotericvisions@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Everydayanothersin (talk • contribs) 03:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as a sock of L.L.King (talk · contribs) by Alison (talk · contribs) due to checkuser evidence. - auburnpilot talk 04:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

John Day (printer)

Do you know why it has been de-scheduled for the front page? User: BuddingJournalist and I have been working hard to get it ready for its big day. qp10qp (talk) 04:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Raul654 (talk · contribs) swapped it for Oregon State Capitol less than 24 hours ago. I presume he did it because of the review, but since he rarely uses edit summaries, I'm only guessing. I'm sure if you leave a note on his talk page, he'll respond as soon as he gets a chance (he's usually quite busy). - auburnpilot talk 04:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

rights

Thank you. Got my new shiny feature, and I think I might RC patrol later. Perhaps even unload the rc script. Best regards, M-ercury at 02:12, January 10, 2008

Actually, I just got done looking at the noticeboard. I don't think there is a settled consensus on any of this. Can you take it back for now? Regards, M-ercury at 03:29, January 10, 2008

Switched off. If you want it back, just let me know. - auburnpilot talk 03:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, as soon as stuff with regards to the rights get settled, I will. I just don't want to take advantage of the situation before those folks discussion this have fully finished discussing and implementing what policy the community deems to implement, or not implement. Would not be fair to be "grandfathered in" if you know what I mean. But I hope it gets resolved soon, the tool sure would make things faster for me. Regards, M-ercury at 03:33, January 10, 2008

I understand completely. I don't like how the rollback function has been implemented, but I'm sure people will eventually realize it isn't the end of the world. - auburnpilot's sock 03:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

George W. Bush

If articles are not fully protected based on vandalism from registered users, then what gets full protection? Oh, and why should I be told to stop requesting protection for this page? Footballfan190 (talk) 02:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:PROT#Full_protection gives several examples, including content disputes, copyright reasons, high visibility pages, disruptive behavior on the talk pages of blocked editors, protected titles, office actions, and several others. You'll notice vandalism is not one of these reasons. However, George W. Bush is listed as the example of when indefinite semi-protection (not full protection) should be used. The reason I asked you stop stop repeatedly requesting protection for the same pages is because it is disruptive and a waste of our administrators' time. Please familiarize yourself with our protection policy before making further requests. - auburnpilot talk 02:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Austrian School

Please be aware that you have clearly violated the three revert rule on the Austrian School article. I encourage you to revert yourself, and avoid any further reversions to this article. Continued edit warring will result in a block. - auburnpilot talk 19:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert myself? If the policy has been violated, what difference should it make whether the current version is my edits or the others' edits? I feel that my edits are justified, so I think that it makes sense for me to not revert. To do so otherwise seems to give in to intimidation by vandals and isn't found on 3RR. This is deeply troubling because I have taking a college-level course in Economics, I have an economics textbook, and I study economics as a hobby, so I am knowledgeable on the matter, and I have to face bullying like this from people pushing what's regarded as pseudoscience. Zenwhat (talk) 19:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

As I am many others have pointed out to you, this is not vandalism but a content dispute. You are in violation of the 3RR, and a self-revert is really the only way to save yourself from a block (that or pray another admin doesn't notice). - auburnpilot talk 19:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for your help with getting my user name and password set up. Learjetsuperkingairmechanic (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration involving you.

A request for arbitration involving you has been proposed. See Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Austrian_economics Zenwhat (talk) 15:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Your request has no merit, but I've commented anyway. - auburnpilot talk 15:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say one thing on my talk page, but another thing on yours? You were nice to me there and I was about to say, "Thank you for letting me know about the facts I got wrong." Then I come here to find this comment which isn't there. Zenwhat (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Take care! And that's not sarcasm. I mean it! Zenwhat (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)