Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:46, 24 March 2015

Admins: If one of my admin actions is clearly a mistake or is actively harming the encyclopaedia, please reverse it. Don't wait for me if I'm not around or the case is obvious.

This talk page is archived regularly by a bot so I can focus on the freshest discussions. If your thread was archived but you had more to say, feel free to rescue it from the archive.

Off-Wiki GamerGate behavior

I know you aren't going to reconsider your decision regarding Mark Bernstein, but when I read "armies of Mordor", I assumed that Bernstein was talking about off-Misplaced Pages GamerGate sites and message boards which watch these half dozen articles like a hawk. I didn't think he was referring to Misplaced Pages editors. He's talking about folks that post in threads like this and this (just two examples from this week and things have died down). That was my take on that reference. Liz 01:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I read it as a direct attack on the editors who complained about the last link, but even if it weren't directed at any Wikipedian, it's not a helpful comment, and it really was the straw that broke the camel's back. I'm all for second chances, but I let somebody talk me into reconsidering last time I blocked Dr Bernstein and Dr Bernstein hasn't given an inch since so—as much as I'd like nothing more on a personal level—I'm not going to be reconsidering this time; in fact, I think I was perhaps unduly lenient. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I knew you wouldn't reconsider because it was clear you were pretty fed up with his edits. I just think that a problem with the ARBCOM decision is that they didn't take into sufficient consideration the amount of off-wiki collaboration and harassment that was going on and directed specifically at editors who were trying to combat violations of BLP policy. I've spent time on the worst of the worst of these forums (which I won't link to) and the language is coarse, pointed and aggressive towards individuals the members view as blocking their POV in the GamerGate articles. I know that all of the editors who've received topic blocks (including Bernstein) are aware of how they are targeted on these forums and those are really the people they are opposed to, these message board trolls, whether the individuals come to edit Misplaced Pages or just talk about disrupting the encyclopedia on their own forums.

While this off-wiki activity has recently lessened in its ferocity, having also been harassed in late 2014, I know it is extremely difficult, when one is being targeted and outed, not to view the whole topic area as a battleground. But seeing the abuse directed at several admins, I know that you are not a stranger to this behavior (while in this case, it is on-wiki) and since most admins find a way to disengage from personal disputes, you all provide an example we could follow. Liz 19:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Andy Warhol (infobox)

Hey HJ. I'm a five-year, 100+ edits editor, and therefore believe I'm "autoconfirmed"; but after I added Andy Warhol's religious affiliation in the infobox of his page (Ruthenian Catholic - he was devout), the edit did not appear on the "finished product." While excusing my dearth of Wiki lexicon, can you facilitate my rights to edit the top portion (mast?) and infobox of his page? And, yes, I do need to spend some studying Wiki-ese.

I also removed the "ethnicity" entry, for no other reason than it was not appearing on the actual page, and so (I assumed) must have had improper formatting. Please restore it as you see fit.

Thank you,

Dave Peters (talk) 08:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The reason it didn't show is because The "Infobox artist" template doesn't have a "religion" parameter. For a list of the parameters that do exist, see Template:Infobox artist - only those will show when the template is used, and if you add anything that is not in that list it will be ignored. The "ethnicity" parameter wasn't showing for the same reason. Squinge (talk) 09:30, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

(watching) consider to use {{infobox person}}, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking at these templates, it's a shame the language they're written in (whatever it is) doesn't appear to do inheritance (like a number of oo languages do). If we had that, we could say something like "{{Infobox artist extends Infobox person | newparam1 | newparam2...}}", and Infobox artist artist would then have all the parameters of Infobox person plus its own new ones. As it stands now it's an either/or choice and you'd have to decide whether the Infobox artist paramaters (eg notable_works, style, patrons) are more or less important than Infobox person parameters (eg religion, ethnicity) in terms of the person's notability as an artist. Still, I guess this isn't the place to discuss that (and I'm sure it must have been thought of before). Squinge (talk) 11:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I've just seen the "module" parameter - you can embed another template and add its extra parameters! Squinge (talk) 11:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

You can try but infoboxes are a pretty divisive subject in the music area. Editors are strongly discouraged (prevented?) from adding personal information like ethnicity, spouses and family which are standard for actors bios (and they are also "artists"). Liz 19:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Laurence Olivier

Hi. I don't think the article ought to be fully protected, or that the tag at the top is necessary -- it is an FA article, and the only edit dispute was regarding some hidden text, so the tag is not needed to warn readers of anything. Can you please look it over again and see if you agree? Thanks! Also, since the involved admin protected the page to lock in his last edit, I think that edit ought to be reversed. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree hat edit-warring over hidden notes is silly, though I've seen sillier (I once had to break up an edit war over the placement of a single comma!). Nonetheless, I think it should stay protected for a day or two to let tempers cool. Much as I'm loathe to slap a great big protection tag like that on a featured article (I know I'd hate it on any of my FAs), it seems a better solution than blocking editors. And I'm not going to revert anything—the point of the protection is to stop the edit war, not to endorse one version or the other, which is inherently controversial (see m:The Wrong Version). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:45, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Wifione

If you have time, as our resident Arbcom expert, would you mind glancing at this Newsweek article before I run it in ITM. See if anything jumps out at you as inaccurate or worth commenting on. Thanks. Gamaliel (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

They seem to have their fats straight, and they've obviously spoken to some of the major players, so there are no glaring inaccuracies. I might have mentioned the manipulation of articles about rivals, but that's their prerogative. It seems to suggest that Wifione abused his admin status, whereas it was more his manipulation of policies that were at the root of the problem, but it was a problem that he managed to become an admin and that's a subtlety that would probably be lost on all but veteran Wikipedians. The only possible inaccuracy I spotted was that the article seemed to imply that the abuse only started, or stepped up a gear, after the RfA, but I believe most of it happened in 2009/2010 and after the RfA he used his position to maintain the status quo (at any rate, it was definitely there before the RfA). All in all, this kind of thing is rare, but I agree with the fundamental point that there aren't enough people being sceptical enough to keep track of the vast number of articles and edits, and subtle stuff like this is hard to detect so it's certainly possible that it could happen again. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:28, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

note

Please see this. Also, I will be sending an email (pretty sure I have you addy on file). — Ched :  ?  23:46, 24 March 2015 (UTC)