Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:19, 28 March 2012

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.I'll still try to keep tabs on issues I'm already involved in, but it's not likely that I'll be able to take a look at anything new for a while. This is not a cry of "Misplaced Pages Is Broken" (although it is kind of broken), just an indication that real life responsibilities need to take precedence. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Notes Normal humans: I'm not around much; if you're looking for admin help, I suggest pinging another admin. Admins: If you think one of my admin actions was a mistake, or is no longer helpful, please just undo it without feeling the need to consult with me or gain consensus somewhere first. Please let me know you've done so. WP:SOLVED WP:LIGHTBULB

Archives Year Zero: 13 Aug 2008 - 12 Aug 2009 Year One:13 Aug 2009 - 12 Aug 2010 Year Two:13 Aug 2010 - 12 Aug 2011 Year Three:13 Aug 2011 - 2 January 2025 This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Hey, gorgeous!

You're a good egg, and all that, and we don't have much "history" so (hopefully) I won't end up being accused of looking for some pro-Pesky support or anything. :D (and I trust your judgment and impartiality).

There's been a bit of trouble brewing between a long-term experienced editor who takes a lot of responsibility for stewardship of WP:EQUINE GAs, FAs, FAC's, etc., and another editor. The Eq. specialist asked me for some input, and was followed over to my talk by the other editor (see the collapsed content on my talk page). I've had to ask the other editor to stay off my talk now, and I feel it's best that they and I try to avoid interacting as it's obviously not going to go well. (You probably know enough about me to realise that having to do that is as rare as a very rare thing, etc.)

I spent several hours going through loads of the history to try and work out the ins and outs of the matter, and discovered that editor 2 (S.) has a talent for misrepresentation of situations, so that's one to beware of. There was definitely some WikiHounding / WikiStalking going on demonstrated by the fact that S. (with whom I have never interacted before) came straight over to my talk intent on prolonging arguments (some of them months old) from elsewhere, and I strongly suspect that that isn't the only time that editor M. has been followed around to prolong arguments.

My own impression, from looking at the long and involved background, is that S. is a bit OTT confrontational, a bit WP:TE (though with good intentions, I'm absolutely sure), and tends to resort quickly to accusations of WP:Ownership etc. I know they mean well and seem to have the interests of the 'pedia at heart, and they've also provided some absolutely stunning Commons contributions and are clearly very expert within their own speciality.

Could you possibly wander over to their talk and have a quiet, gentle chat with them about toning it down a little bit, letting old arguments go, stalking, and generally being a bit nicer? I really don't want to see this situation escalating to the point where we'd have to be looking at RfC/U, or sudden appearances on the dramah board, etc.

All the best, and granny-hugz ;P Pesky (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Just kind of cleaning up some loose ends (including one involving FLM), and then going out for a while, but I'll try to take a look later today or tomorrow. No promises I'll actually do anything, but I'll stick my nose in if I think it will help. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That's great; thanks. Nothing's actually on fire at the moment, so no huge hurry or anything, it would just be good to try and nip any unwanted dramah in the bud. Cheers, Pesky (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to reply here, and use vague wording, to minimize drama; I don't really want to get dragged into this by making direct accusations, and if things have died down there's no sense using actual usernames and notifying people and getting their back up. I also looked into this less deeply than I would if I was going to actually do anything about it. Feel free to point M to this if you think it worthwhile to do so.

Some people are more brusque than others. It's an almost unsolvable fact of life that such people can make other, gentler editors not enjoy working with them. Open, collaborative editing does mean you can't heap personal attacks on others, but it also means you need to have at least a minimally thick skin and accept criticism, even when it is sub-optimally given. (There may be some watching this page who think I should practice what I preach more in this regard)

I think one of the people you're asking about looks difficult to work with, and has personalized disputes that didn't need to be personalized. I don't think I've seen anything lately that could be "sanctioned" per se. I also think (and this is unfortunate) that an unsolicited comment from me would not have any desired effect. This seems a grey area that Misplaced Pages is particularly ill-suited to deal with.

I think the other person you're asking about is kind and generous, but probably takes brusque criticism too hard. If I were assigning relative blame, this editor would not be who I would focus on. However, since I suspect they are open to advice, I'll say that it's best not to try to pick unnecessary fights with people, even when you are technically right, and even when you think they're a jerk.

So, for example, when someone who annoys you has created a page at a title that is not quite correct, MOS-wise, but isn't really hurting anything, it really isn't a great idea to try to fix it, or file a move request. Misplaced Pages is far from perfect, so fixing a small imperfection you found a detractor make is going to end up doing more harm than good. It certainly sets the stage for them to do the same thing to you further down the road. Someone else will no doubt notice it eventually, well before Misplaced Pages is finalized, and it will ultimately be fixed without your direct action.

This isn't great advice for people who have a black and white view of right and wrong. But it is probably at least semi-decent advice for people who are less interested in "justice" than they are in enjoying editing.

FWIW. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

There, you see! I knew I could trust you to say something sensible :D Pesky (talk) 21:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Note to self

A nice cool beer for you!

This is to help the stuff which you've bitten off, and don't think you can chew, to go down more easily ;P Pesky (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the thought, Pesky. I'll have to drink it later, tho. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Need Some Help

Hey Floquenbeam, how's things? Good I hope. Need some help with 74.60.24.250‎ who continues to readd a large swath of original research to the WRIR-LP page. I have posted to the anon's talk page with no response. We are both at 3RR (I have issued a warning to him) so I can't revert any further, so I thought an admin talking to him would help. Take Care....Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:36, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Neutralhomer, I'll look into this, but after you consider and answer a semi-rhetorical question: are you looking to win an argument, or are you looking to improve the article? One more: do you have any reason to believe the information is incorrect? And a comment: It's a pet peeve of mine when people who are currently engaged in an edit war give the other editor a edit war template. Please consider not doing that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The short post on the talk page is my way of leaving a "short and sweet" post about what the problem is. I didn't want to TL;DR the new editor with a lengthy post. Plus, I am kind of a "short and sweet" person when it comes to speaking or writing. I like the short version of things, I tend to write that way. Will keep in mind the "no 3RR template when in an edit war" thing for next time as well. Thanks...Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:19, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Revert if must

--George Ho (talk) 00:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Will you please delete two revision logs of Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) that I made for the sake of privacy? --George Ho (talk) 01:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good idea, done. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The war isn't yet over, it seems..

Hi. Today should be a very good day for me.After a calvarious path, the Hunter in Swiss Air Force is finally saved. But.. it is happening something different now. Someone is never happy enough to play with rules. Next time i'll have the insane idea to write a new article in the aviation section, i'll surely think twice and more instead. Regardless of the 'legitimate sources' i think it is really borderline, if not worse, to question the basis of an article just saved today! And by who, then? A guy that cannot even understand that the sources are 'PD', and shouts about 'copyright issues'. Shall i presume 'good faith'? There is definively the need of some advisors, as i fear to be involved in a very murky dispute. I don't know how it would end, but if interested, the discussion continues here: Stefanomencarelli (talk) 21:18, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any real interest in getting involved in a content dispute on a subject I know nothing about, but I'll quickly note here that:

• An article being kept at AFD has absolutely nothing to do with whether the state of the article is acceptable or not. You can't argue against change in an article just because the AFD was closed keep.
• If you consider it a "war", I suspect you're not approaching it with the right attitude.

There are multiple avenues available to you at WP:Dispute resolution. If conversations on the talk page stall, you should pursue them. But give the talk page a chance first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

UTRS email

Hey Floquenbeam, the email address you entered for your UTRS account doesn't appear to be valid, we got a bounce notice from the toolserver when TParis approved your account just now. Could you send me an email so I can update your email address in the database? Thank you! Hersfold 01:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Sent just now, thanks. --Floquenbeam (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Mail!

Hello Floquenbeam, you've got mail. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

read it but running out door and reply will have to wait. but generally agree and have been watching on and off already. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:33, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

• Fun times. If you manage to find the time, your observations are most welcome. Thanks. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Commented. Generally I think you haven't done anything wrong here. I suspect you're frustrated, but please bend over backwards to not let this turn into a crusade of some kind. That's the fastest way to get people sidetracked. Not saying you've done that, just asking you to keep making sure you don't. It's been my experience with others that it becomes more and more difficult to stay polite, and once you get snippy, people seize on that and lose track of the actual issue. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks. I take your point, I've seen that happen before as well, so will try to avoid it. Have to say though that it feels, to me at least, that Abhijay's looking for trouble where there isn't, because I've not done anything related to him (until today) after his last request to leave him alone. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 March 2012

• News and notes: Controversial content saga continues, while the Foundation tries to engage editors with merchandising and restructuring

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Rock Music

• Featured content: Malfunctioning sharks, toothcombs and a famous mother: featured content for the week

• Arbitration report: Race and intelligence review at evidence, article titles closed

• Recent research: Predicting admin elections; studying flagged revision debates; classifying editor interactions; and collecting the Misplaced Pages literature

• Education report: Universities unite for GLAM; and High Schools get their due.

• Technology report: A busy week: Git switchover, mobile site upgraded, and still time for three security releases

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• EdwardsBot (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Re:ANI links displaying offensive image in popups

Re:ANI links displaying offensive image in popups

It was my edit, sorry - I am not sure why this thing happened - but I think that it is a bug - this image is on MediaWiki:Bad image list +(second bug - it was in nowiki). Bulwersator (talk) 07:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Yep, probably (at least) two bugs. I reported the problem here yesterday. Thankfully Floq has made AN/I (relatively) penis-free in the meantime. 28bytes (talk) 07:28, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Bulwersator, I meant to let you know I fiddled with your edit, but got sidetracked. I was able to make ANI penis-free, but it would be too big a task to try to make it dick-free. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

More Frivolous accusations

Hi Floquenbeam, I noticed your block here on one of the SPA. However the other one has not only kept this frivolous complaint up but has repeated it on numerous talk pages. I would suport the call for a CU to be done. --Domer48_'fenian' 11:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Domer, from what little I've seen, I suspect you're right, but I don't have much time to look into yet another editor's edits, nor much experience dealing with this contentious subject area. If Gravyring had kept his head down and been less public and blatantly obvious about his disruption, I wouldn't have noticed. Isn't there a noticeboard somewhere that specializes in problems in this area? Or AE? I guess I'm saying you probably do need some help, but I'm not going to be able to be the one to provide it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

As I just said at the noticeboard, if you're going to look into so called SPA's, you should also look into the history of Domer, otherwise your blocks look extremely one sided and short term self-defeating, if they are intended to prevent POV editing in the Troubles area. If Domer wants to present themselves to you as someone who has interests on Misplaced Pages outside of the Troubles, then you'd do well to investigate that. He is an SPA as far as this topic area goes, you don't have to do much investigation to come to that conclusion. And if you did do any further investigation, you'd see how little effort he expends in actually discussing issues like the one Gravyring is upset about properly, in the manner that consensus building is supposed to occur. Hence when you block one side without looking at the other, you're not doing anything really to settle the dispute long term. I just examined Domer's last 5 edits to actual article talk pages (which are very hard to find in amongst postings to user pages and noticeboards looking for action of the sort above, or the rest which are just article reverts, mostly as part of slow-motion edit warring of the type seen at the Loch article). Not one of those 5 can be described as genuine attempts at consensus building at all, not in my book. . It probably goes on like this through his history for quite a while, and the general quotient of reverts to talk page edits should concern anyone considering his block log. I would be cautious about believing him if he tries to claim every one of these is an article where he is fighting against disruptive SPAs like Gravyring. I'd say it's more than likely he has more than a hand in precipitating these disputes himself, through either the nature of the actual edits, or his methods of ensuring they remain in articles. Neetandtidy (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Floq, but Neetandtidy has a previous account, which he has not named or linked his account to, I have asked him to e-mail an admin to clarify he is cúla-búla, the admin would let us know that he is not a sock. He has also questioned whether or not my account is my first, I have stated yes and would e-mail an admin if required to prove this here. Let me know what info you would need of my real self to varify this. Murry1975 (talk) 15:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Murry, the question has to be asked...why are you getting involved? Asking other users to prove their identity not really your place.Hackneyhound (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Hound the question has to be asked, are you telling me what I may and may not do on the project? A user has to connect his accounts, if they wish to edit on the project, if it is a case of identity protection they can choose to start a clean account but they must inform an admin to give it the ok. This stops socks. AGF, I am asking for clarity, not accussing. And that is my right, not to know who they are, but why they are not connecting thier accounts. If it is an ID or outting issue I have no problems with that and I would not ask anymore info from them if an admin cleared it. Murry1975 (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• I've neither the time nor inclination nor dispute resolution skills nor patience to get involved more deeply with this topic. I really have no idea how to solve the complex problems with editing in this area, and I'm not saying there are no long term editors who also cause problems. I don't know Domer, and have only had a passing interaction with Murray on an unrelated issue. They could be the good guys, the bad guys, or somewhere in between, I don't know or care. The best I can do is solve the small, easy-to-identify, obvious problem of an editor who is only here to argue about one contentious topic, who made clearly bad-faith ANI reports to try to "win", and who is clearly a returning previously-blocked editor. If I was truly taking Domer's side in this, I'd block you two as obvious returning previously-blocked editors as well, but since I'm not familiar with who's who in this area, and don't have the time for some kind of investigation, I'll leave that to the braver souls who deal with this issue more often than I do. But no one is going to convince me to play cop more often in this area, for either "side", so you should really think about whether further posts here are a valuable use of your time. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Question

When an editor is blocked, should a regular editor leave a blocking template on a blocked users talk page or should an admin do so? Ab hijay  ☎ 13:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, three issues. One, if we're talking about the {{indef}} tag-of-shame on a user page, I don't even think they should be used at all, but if they are, it should always be the blocking admin to do it. Two, both {{indef}} and {{uw-blocked}} templates should match reality (i.e. no indef-blocked templates on a page of someone blocked for a week). And three, it's almost always better to leave it to the blocking admin's judgement. They probably have reasons for doing what they did. Even if it was an accidental omission, the blocking template doesn't really do very much; all the essential information for the blocked editor is in the block message they get when they try to edit. In the very rare case of the tag being necessary, and not placed by the blocking admin, leave it to a very experienced editor. So to answer what I think is your underlying question, no I don't think there are any situations where you should place such a template on someone else's page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:08, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Floquenbeam. Ab hijay  ☎ 14:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Abhijay, clearly I don't want you to believe I'm hounding you, but I think Floq's quite clearly said above that you shouldn't ("I don't think … you should place such a template on someone else's page") be making edits like this. —Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 15:07, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Abhijay, I'm... speechless. I am quickly coming around to the possibility that you may be trying to be disruptive on purpose, or see what you can get away with. Still assuming for the moment that you aren't, you need to start thinking much more carefully before making edits like that, or you will find yourself blocked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:26, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• Both of you, chill out, I'm sorry, OK. I'm sorry. I didn't know a rule like that even existed, until today when you guys have brought it to my attention. I wasn't being disruptive neither trolling. I didn't know I was doing the right thing, until now. Chill out, both of you. Ab hijay  ☎ 15:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

• • That isn't really true, is it. I said you shouldn't do it, you acknowledged that, then you immediately did do it again (incorrectly), saying "per discussion with Floquenbeam". In those circumstances, I am having a very hard time imagining any good faith reason for that edit. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)