Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:28, 9 September 2013

You're adopted!

While I apologize for the delay, I'm excited to announce that I have now set up your adoption center. For my adoption program, I'll be using the Misplaced Pages Education Program. This presents a great new way to be accessible to others while allowing everyone to complete independent work and not over-utilizing Misplaced Pages server resources. To get started:

1. Enroll
2. Follow the directions at Education_Program:Western_Michigan_University/Wikipedia_(2013_Q2)#Lesson_1:_Five_Pillars_of_Wikipedia.
3. Visit User:Jackson_Peebles/Adoption#Current_Adoptees when you're ready to take the test, and click the appropriate link and edit the applicable page.

Thanks, and good luck!

3RR at Swaminarayan

I came very, very close to blocking you for your reverts at Swaminarayan - I counted 5 in the space of a couple of hours but for now I'm going to assume good faith and give you the benefit of the doubt. Although I'd agree that the edits at Shake Weight are blatant vandalism and so fall under one of the 3RR exceptions the edit to this page are not, nor do they full under any of the other exceptions. As such you have broken 3RR and could be blocked, but as I believe you may have misunderstood what constitutes an exception to 3RR I'm not going to at this time. Please be more careful, and seek admin help in future, rather than continuing to revert as you did here. Dpmuk (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Dpmuk (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

PantherLeapord (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to apologize for my disruptive edit warring earlier (Ether today or yesterday depending on which timezone you are in!) and I can promise that it will not be happening again. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 02:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The block has expired. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I normally like to let a different admin deal with unblock requests where I did the block so as to allow a second opinion. However as no one else has been along yet I will comment here. In general we like to see an explanation of your understanding of why what you did was wrong as well as an undertaking not to do it gain as if a user doesn't understand why their actions were against wikipedia policy then we can't be sure they won't do it again. Dpmuk (talk) 21:24, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Considering the block has already expired it's kind of a moot point by now anyway PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User talk:Apteva. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. This is just about the most pointless edit was I have ever seen. It makes no difference either way, so why fight about it? Beeblebrox (talk) 15:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Administrative Actions and Practical

Hey, I was just looking through some of the administrative actions, above, and I just wanted to remind you that you can always approach me or another editor for help if you're in a multi-reversion situation and that you can report the user to AIV. I'm sure you've already had quite enough lecturing, so I'll stop at that, just know that we're here to help.

Finally, remember you ONLY have the practical left. Considering how much work that you've done, it shouldn't be a problem for you, at all. I want you to graduate! --Jackson Peebles (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I am just waiting for another RfA... PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 21:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hasteur (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on graduating

Congratulations on graduation from my adopt-a-user course! I consider it to be the most rigorous on Misplaced Pages, and I really am proud of the work that you've done. Please keep it in mind in your edits on Misplaced Pages. You're listed permanently at my adoption center as a graduate, and here are some awards to go along with it:

		The Adoptee Graduation Diploma
		Congratulations on completing all components of the Adoption/Education Course of Jackson Peebles successfully. This is a testament to enhancement of your knowledge of Misplaced Pages and serves as evidence of completion of a Mentorship or a strong dedication to helping the project. This course has covered both theoretical concepts and practical applications. I am proud to confer this diploma upon you. --Jackson Peebles (talk) 19:52, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

This user has graduated from the adoption program by Jackson Peebles! Kudos!

Thanks! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 23:40, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Barnstar for Jackson

Wow, that was very nice of you to make that barnstar for Jackson. What a really great idea. I agree with you that he is a great mentor and happy that you took the time to give him a thumbs up. Good job!! Oh and congrats on doing so well on your exams in the adoption program too. You are an incentive to me to do the best I can on my exams. Thank you!! Tattoodwaitress (talk) 14:59, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

D'aww thanks! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

User talk response on Homewrecker ANI

I've responded to your notice on my talk page. Thank you. Dovid (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

FOUR

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thanks for requesting my feedback. As with the prior RFC, it is difficult for someone who has been uninvolved to fully understand all the issues and present the most useful questions. Do you want me to a.) respond to problems with the RFC? b.) suggest further issue c.) try to refine it d.) other?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

a and b if you can please. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:44, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Am I up for a topic ban now. Last I looked that was neutral although I think I am going to be interaction banned.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:47, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

At this stage the topic ban discussion could go either way (Or just no consensus), but the I-ban is not between us so you can still provide feedback if that passes. I just want to make sure that we both agree with as much as possible before the discussions are closed. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 22:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I expect the topic ban to be NC (plus time served), but who knows.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

• Personally I don't even understand some of the RFC topics as you wrote them and I am the person most aware of the issues. E.g., issue 1 juxtapposes the nominations area and someone wantonly listing articles. That is not what the issue is. The way it is written, it is so confusing it sounds like someone told you to write something on a subject you don't understand. Even with use of the nominations area, someone could wildly list articles without regard for merits. See below. Active use of the nominations area does not oppose willy nilly director, it opposes passive nominations by category. Basically, since you are no more familiar with the issues than the previous RFC creator, you are likely to waste another month of debate without resolving anything if you don't revise your issues. You need to learn what this issues are so that we don't waste another whole month.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:51, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

starting my list

1. Presentation: I think there should be an introduction that says. Something like this RFC is intended for the projects and editors affected by the mission and administration of this award. This includes WP:FA, WP:FAC, WP:GA, WP:WGA, WP:GAC, WP:DYK, WP:CREATE and the 168 editors who have received the award. You may also be here because you want to lend an objective eye toward a controversial issue and your input is sought as well.
2. (say what FOUR is) You may want to state that the project serves as encouragement for people who have a strong interest in and/or a deep understanding of redlinked topics to advance them to a very high level of quality. There should be a statement that FOUR has been awarded as recognition of editorial activity that has supported a current WP:FA by strong editorial involvement in all stages of the development of a FA. I.e., it recognizes that an editor helped 1.) create it as an encyclopedic topic, 2.) expand it to the point where it was recognized for having interesting content (DYK), 3.) expand it to the point where it was comprehensive (GA), 4.) expand and refine it the point where it upheld WP style guidelines and policy at the highest level (FA).
3. Then there should be a statement that the award has existed since early 2009 as an editorial merit- and criteria-based one-shot peer reviewed award. I.e., selection has been based on a set of criteria that are reviewed by a volunteer for a final decision. The criteria leave little room to "fix" a candidate and are reviewed as a one-shot application. There has been much discussion as to whether FOUR should go forward as a barnstar type award given by and to any individual editor who the award is relevant to or whether it should continue as a merit- and criteria-based award.
4. There should be a statement that recently, highly-contentious discussion has revolved around the criteria. Specifically, the first stage of the FOUR which is the creation stage has been hotly contested. All 800+ articles have been evaluated officially evaluated (FAs that are former DYKs and GAs) and a total of about 2000 articles have been evaluated based on the creation stage meaning an editor was involved before the article had encyclopedic content. I.e., those in support of the historic criteria (namely TonyTheTiger, who has reviewed about 2000 articles based on this criteria) says changing this criteria would change the award and all articles would need to be reviewed because another criteria is essentially another award. Others have stated that although no articles have used any other criteria in the past, FOUR should be awarded based on creation being determined by when an article appears in mainspace (if it was created in userspace or a sandbox) with a 24 hour window.
5. Active or passive nominations. (strongly suggest rewording current presentation because the role of a director is under strong challenge). Currently all articles that appear in Category:Possible Misplaced Pages four award articles, which is a category populated based on being a current WP:FA, former WP:DYK, and former WP:GA according to T:AH, are considered nominated and moved to either Category:Misplaced Pages four award articles or Category:Misplaced Pages articles rejected for Four awards. I.E., every article that gets promoted to FA with the proper history is evaluated. Many of you likely received a FOUR without ever nominating an article due to the passive nomination based on T:AH. The vast majority (likely well over 90%) of all current FOURs have been awarded without an active nomination. The project does have a nomination section that predated the creation of the category. Formerly, nominations had to be sought by an active nominator. Should the awards be limited to those actively sought or continue with those passively identified as candidates.
6. Currently FOUR has a Misplaced Pages:Four Award/Records, which is a historical record of the project. Currently, four editors have withdrawn some of their articles from the historical listing. This has also been contentious. There has been a lot of drama about this. Essentially, once I refused to acknowledge a candidate based on different criteria than the other 2000 candidates were evaluated against, several editors wanted to disassociate from the project. Edit warring began. The issue that remains is whether an author should be allowed to remove all information of his article from the history or whether the article should remain with the editors name replaced by .
7. Currently, FOUR has a stated policy of being open to collaborations although no collaborative award has been recognized. The openness to collaboration is dependent on the definition of the creation phase of the article since all other phases of the article are clearly open to collaboration. Currently, by defining the creation phase as all those involved prior to the first encyclopedic content (readable prose that defines an encyclopedic topic) allows multiple users to contribute to an article prior to it having readable prose (creating a redirect, adding infoboxes, section headings, categories, etc.). The proposed alternate definition of those involved prior to it first appearing in the mainspace with a 24-hour window also allows collaborative creation. Some argue that only one person can create an article and that is either the person who makes the first edit or the person who makes the first edit with encyclopedic content. Should FOUR allow collaboration?

• Tony, you do realise that the most recent withdrew after you called him racist, right? That's in no way related to how Ian and Nick were treated. I withdrew not because of how they were treated per se, but because your reaction and instant assumption of bad faith showed that FOUR had become your personal fifedom and was flying in the face of consensus. When someone with (13?) such awards decides "I don't want my name associated with this", generally that's an indication that there's a problem.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• I don't understand how your withdrawal is different from Ian's and Nicks. They were all because I refused to evaluate their article with a different criteria from the other 2000 articles that I had evaluated. You call this refusal a fifedom issue.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:36, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• They were all because you refused to listen to consensus, a policy, and instead treated every new opinion with a heaping dose of bad faith with a side of personal attacks. Had you, you know, listened and acknowledged that either a) there should have been no collaborations or b) the wording of the FAQ was unclear, the issue would have been defused immediately. Once you get to the point where spamming personal attacks in an RFC notification seems like a good idea, then calling a random editor who disagrees with you racist, then calling an admin the same on ANI (neither times offering any proof), you've left "constructive disagreement", flown past "debate club", "Congress", and "husband and wife arguing", and reached "MAD". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Panther, I think the question of the director should go first. The current wording of question one ("should it be the way it is now with the director listing articles as they see fit?") presupposes the existence of a director. Question 1.5 is too vague, needs to be more direct (and if its a criteria change, I still strongly suggest dealing with the leadership issue). What's with the term "listed"? :If I were to write my own RFC, it would probably be based around

1. Should WP:FOUR be run by one or more directors?

1.1. If yes, should WP:FOUR also be run in consideration of a consensus established on the talk page?

2. Should all articles that meet the criteria be listed, or can articles not be included despite meeting the criteria?

2.2. If articles may not be included, should WP:FOUR be run on an opt-in (nomination basis) or opt-out (awarded writer asks for award to be withdrawn) basis.

3. Should collaborations be recognised by WP:FOUR?

3.3. If yes, how should the appropriateness of an award for a collaboration be determined?

Something like that. It's not perfect, but... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Part of the reason the last RFC was withdrawn I believe was that it devolved into a vote about something that was never discussed or even propounded for discussion. Now, you are again trying to insist on voting about the organization of the project without describing different parts of the role. Voting on a director should not come before understanding the role and the issues related to it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Tony. Reread Khazar's withdrawal statement. That's not how it was, and you know it. Now, some of us are trying to get FOUR out of the hole you dug for it with your sticks, stones, and hardened heart, so please either work constructively with accurate facts or make like Tipu's Tiger and stand very very still. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:41, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Panther, I don't think asking Tony for feedback is likely to be productive (see the implicit "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" above). The replies to my attempts to be constructive and help you with the RFC make this perfectly clear.

Tony, I never said there would not be an introduction. You are putting words in my mouth. Stop, now. That's not going to get any work done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Apologies

• Sorry if you found my above posts either offensive or disruptive. I hope we can work out a reasonable solution to issues at WP:FOUR, and overall bring the award to a consensus. It's patently clear that numerous editors (including myself, at one time) find it beneficial, and I would hate to have this 2-month debate ruining things.

If you do not mind, I may suggest further revisions to the RFC. As you're still plotting out the questions to ask (and I agree, multiple RFCs may be for the best) I have no further suggestions just yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:07, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• Both you AND Tony need to SERIOUSLY work on your interactions with the other! Both of you are free to suggest changes to the RfC as I work on it but if discussions turn into mud-slinging then they will be shut down without hesitation. I do NOT need to be pinged for arguments here! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 11:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• ... Right. And if one user or the other includes information which another believes to be inaccurate (or can show to be inaccurate) do you consider that "mudslinging"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• No; that is debate. Mudslinging is when you assume bad faith of another person with remarks such as "I don't think asking Tony for feedback is likely to be productive (see the implicit "I'm right and everyone else is wrong" above)". PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 11:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• So, in other words, you disagree with the assessment and have a different reading of his comments. Fair enough. I may have been a little harsh, though I should hope that it was not at the same level as some of (both editors) earlier arguments. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:55, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Reversion of MR close and threat on my talk page

You reverted the Move Review close and then made a threat on my talk page to try to coerce undoing the Move Review close. You then characterize this as a request to engage in discussion. -- Jreferee (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Wikipedians who have graduated from Adopt-a-user