Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:49, 25 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)

I'm not a stranger to off-wiki abuse, either (though noting on the scale that some of the editors in this topic area have had to deal with), and the deleted revisions of this talk page contain plenty of material that makes the gamergate crowd look like girl scouts (I'm not joking!). I guess after a while it just becomes background noise. A lot of what I do as an admin Yes, ArbCom can and perhaps should note it as a mitigating factor, but it's not a blank cheque. At the end of the day, we're all responsible for what we write. Being a bit terse or jaundiced as a result of harassment I can entirely understand, but when somebody fails to realise that they're at one end of a spectrum of opinions and starts lumping in everyone who doesn't agree with them with people who write shit from behind a computer screen on some effluent tank of the Internet or other, I'm afraid they're part of the problem, not part of the solution. I'm fond of comparing the Misplaced Pages versions of gamergate and the Arab-Israeli conflict, because the latter is probably our most problematic topic area over the long term and the conduct issues are similar. Just substitute "misogynistic" for "Israeli" or "Palestinian" or "occupied" and the issues are essentially the same: both are plagued by single-purpose accounts trying to push their POV, both attract plenty of vandalism, sockpuppets, and generally unhelpful edits and talk page threads. Most of the editors in both topic areas have a POV, but neither side entirely succeeds in getting their way, and the constant discussion on the hot topics often results in a better article. It keeps AE busy, but editors who ask honest questions and accept the consensus survive, while those who try to force their preferred version, or dismiss all divergent views as trolling, end up topic-banned or blocked. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Well-stated, HJ. I'm of the opinion that since the heat on GamerGate is already much less than it was around November 2014, it will continue to lessen over time. I doubt that the Israel/Palestine area will ever cool down. And now I come across battles about the Ukraine or Assyrians/Chaldeans and these ethnic/national divisions make war over gender topics look almost well-mannered (well, if you don't look at those off-wiki forums). This whole bitterness about "Social Justice Warriors" reflects a clash over cultural values and it might erupt on other sensitive subjects such as politics, race, equality or class. It was this bit that really hit a nerve and continues to generate such virulence. I'm not sure if this is as big a deal in the UK but I can see it coming up in the future in the U.S. Liz 20:34, 25 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)

Thank you for taking a look. I should have thought of this earlier, but interested writing a paragraph about it for ITM? Or handle it in the Arb Report since you're writing that anyway? Gamaliel (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I could chip in on ITM. It wouldn't be til tomorrow morning my time, though—I'm just about wrapping up for the night. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:54, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. No rush, we likely won't be publishing until Thursday. Gamaliel (talk) 02:42, 25 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)

What gives you the right...?

... to block whole swathes of users/editors of Misplaced Pages? Are you 'elected,' what qualifications do you have? Are you qualified to be judge, jury, executioner? I really am curious regarding the motives of self-appointed people like you who seek to manage information/thought just as much as the 'old elite.' A genuine question from me. Your responses below rather confirm to me (a true professional) that you have some form of personality disorder. If so, then you need help, not my ridicule... Strange too how the most agressive Wiki-Controllers are interested in military matters and are American... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.42.119 (talk) 20:03, 25 March 2015‎

American? If you're going to attack an editor at least get your facts straight. — Strongjam (talk) 20:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Admins are elected by the community and their actions are reviewable by the community. Your diagnosis is rather unprofessional to say the least. --NeilN 20:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Elected by the community? What does that mean? You do not address the crux of the question. People get to control Misplaced Pages by some arcane 'lord of the jungle' process. As it happens, the spelling of behaviour as behavior rather indicates an American. Secondly, my views about people like you are shared by the true academic community - and no Wiki-controllers ever answer the questions. What 'kick' do you get out of this? Why do you do it? What right have you to control? That is why I made the blunt statement I did. It's a genuine concern - but no answer will be forthcoming. You live in a world where you have admitted your actions are supported by the'community' (=people exactly like you). You are not the worst offender. And what are your academic qualifications?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.42.119 (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

This page should answer most of your questions. Gamaliel (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

And Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship should help you understand the process, too. There is an RfA going on right now, 94.197.42.119, why don't you stop by and look at the process in action? Liz 20:39, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/HJ Mitchell 2. And really, you're not fooling anyone into thinking you're a professional academic. --NeilN

I dunno, I've seen worse from some professional academics... Gamaliel (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

But this rather cofirms my 'fears.' The process you mention is self-serving. It is set up with the ultimate result of supporting the self-appointed structure of Misplaced Pages-Controllers who themselves can set up the rules, the structure etc. It is not democracy, or even a meritocracy: it's the strongest and loudest who win. I do not want to win; all I want is for some idiot who (not here) wears combat outfit, carries a machine gun, has a basic high school education, has an extreme Right Wing agenda, banning us for correcting non-contenious articles about (say) opera singers. It's madness and there is nothing we can do about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.42.119 (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2015‎

"And really, you're not fooling anyone into thinking you're a professional academic." that rather proves my point. Inane insults rather than answering the fundamental question. As it happens I do not have to fool people - I am an academic at a real university and have been for twenty years. But I am not better than you or anyone else.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.42.119 (talk) 20:59, 25 March 2015‎ (UTC)

If you think admins are our "strongest and loudest" editors then you really haven't done your research as as professional would. --NeilN 20:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I have an easy life compared with most people and I am well paid BUT I must publish articles every year, must attend conferences, I must justify everything I do or say with evidence and if I mess up I will be criticised. I must travel the world to see different viewpoints and must argue my case, again with evidence. What do you people have to face? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.42.119 (talk) 21:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Constant anonymous harassment. Gamaliel (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Constant non-anonymous harrassment, personal attacks, more complaints than thanks for the volunteer work they do. Amortias (T)(C) 21:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget the free psychological assessments! --NeilN 21:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Harassment??? - what you mean is that you do not agree or rather do not want to think. Complaints? Yes, why not? Are you saying that whatever a volunteer does or says is right just because they are a volunteer? As for anonymous, do you really think anyone who dare ask questions is going to post with a registered address? He's going to be banned for life for daring to ask those questions. Finally, in all my academic career I have never accused someone of 'harassment' with whom I have disgreed (and keeps disagreeing!). I have certainly not banned them from speaking out - nor can I ban their publications. That is my point and the difference between us.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.42.119 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 25 March 2015‎ (UTC)

The difference between us is that I (and i dare say many others as you can see here) will quite happily spend all day refuting anything you have to say that you cant provide evidence about someone who I have never seen carry out anything but positive contributions to a piece of work that they receive no renumeration for. You may quite posibly be a competent and productive member of whichever academic community you work for but we have no evidence to prove this. We have plenty of evidence to prove that HJ Mitchell is a net positive to this project. The admin proces is in many ways similar to the process that you will have gone through for any job you may have applied for . You submit your application and the evidence you have provided is assessed and if suitable then you may be offered that role. If you cant see that this is what happens here then it may be you need to find another project to work on as the administrators are one of the most useful resources we have to ensure this project keeps running as it should. Amortias (T)(C) 21:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Um, guys? You know you're being trolled, right? I mean, if you're having fun, feel free to keep arguing with him, I guess. But this guy is just yanking your chains. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:30, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oh, yeah. I was curious where he was going to go with this. Gamaliel (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

• just a hunch — Ched :  ?  21:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)