Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:06, 16 April 2015

Archives

Older 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Jan - Mar 2012 Apr - Jun 2012 Jul - Sep 2012 Oct - Dec 2013 Jan        2013 Feb        2013 Mar 2013 Apr       2013 May        2013 Jun 2013 Jul         2013 Aug        2013 Sep 2013 Oct        2013 Nov        2013 Dec 2014 Jan       2014 Feb       2014 Mar 2014 Apr      2014 May       2014 Jun 2014 Jul        2014 Aug       2014 Sep 2014 Oct       2014 Nov       2014 Dec 2015 Jan       2015 Feb       2015 Mar 2015 Apr      2015 May       2015 Jun 2015 Jul        2015 Aug       2015 Sep 2015 Oct       2015 Nov       2015 Dec

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Celebrate

	Yoor Know Phool
	Have a humorous day filled with lots of PHUN on this April Fools Day 2015. Any annoyance is purely coincidental.   Bfpage |leave a message  10:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 01 April 2015

• In focus: WMF's latest strategy document shows successes, vagueness, and the need for better data

• In the media: Wiki-PR duo bulldoze a piñata store; Wifione arbitration case; French parliamentary plagiarism

• Featured content: Stop Press. Marie Celeste Mystery Solved. Crew Found Hiding In Wardrobe.

• Traffic report: All over the place

• News and notes: New edits-by-mail option will "revolutionize" Misplaced Pages and its editor base

• Special report: Pictures of the Year 2015

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I figured out how to remove the quotes...

Not that I'm going to add back any of the original contents after the discussions brought to light why it was problematic, I just wanted to let you know I figured out how to eliminate the quotes.

Example with the quotes

If you don't want the quotes, you simply eliminate the code quoted=true after Quote box

Atsme☯ 13:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Atsme for the note. Zad68 13:36, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Gino D'Acampo

Not that I care about that article, but why did you shorten my protection? The article has a history of abuse. Materialscientist (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Materialscientist ah I see I did, I think we were both hitting Go at about the same time, I will adjust my PP to match what you had. Zad68 21:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Materialscientist based on the previous log history and level of vandalism I went with indef semi PP. I'm done changing protection levels and durations so feel free to adjust. Zad68 22:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

The Signpost: 08 April 2015

• Op-ed: We are drowning in promotional artspam

• News and notes: Advancement department to be created at the Foundation, milestone fixes

• In the media: Misplaced Pages on 60 Minutes, Kickstarter, and in the classroom

• Traffic report: Resurrection week

• Featured content: Partisan arrangements, dodgy dollars, a mysterious union of strings, and a hole that became a monument

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Christianity

• Arbitration report: New Functionary appointments

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:38, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

General Sanctions: Electronic Cigarettes.

Please read this notification carefully:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to electronic cigarettes.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs)

SPACKlick thanks for the notice. Was this notification provided in response to any particular edit of mine at that article that you're concerned about? Or was this just a blanket general notice and you do not have any particular concerns about my editing there at this time? I haven't been very active there recently and I haven't edited there in over a week, so I'm not sure why this notice was left today. Thanks... Zad68 11:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

It was left because you pinged as an editor with at least one edit since sanctions came in to force. I have no concern with any particular edit but was notifying all users who had edited at all. SPACKlick (talk) 12:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok SPACKlick so it was a general blanket notice, and wasn't left in response to any edit you thought was problematic. Got it, thanks. Zad68 12:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

As you raised it I've now gone back and looked at your 4 edits in this subject area since April 1st and positively have no problem with any of them, there was slight confusion over the POV tag well handled. SPACKlick (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Community sanctions

These aren't discretionary sanctions. If you look at WP:GS under community sanctions you'll see that WP:AN is the appropriate place, although I think ANI gets used at times in error. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Dougweller Are you sure? At the e-cig entry at WP:GS it says "Community-authorised discretionary sanctions" and the instructions at WP:AE say AE can be used to "request discretionary sanctions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions". If AE isn't supposed to be used, some verbiage somewhere needs to be adjusted. Also to me AE just seems like a logical place to request it, so I think the existing wording should be seen as correct. Zad68 19:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, more confusing wording. Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Electronic cigarettes does say that "Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the administrators' noticeboard." Not to us. WP:AE says "For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard." Although the link to Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution in fact doesn't mention community sanctions. However, the link to discrestionary sanctions above that goes to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. I'll see about sorting this all out. I hope I've been clear. I think the key is "community authorized discretionary sanctions", the problem being the use of the phrase "discretionary sanctions" in a context where on its own it might be ambiguous. Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Doug please do let me know what the resolution is here. I need to know: 1) Specifically, whether standard Discretionary Sanctions are in force at e-cig, 2) Generally, whether editors at article under DS can bring up what they perceive as behavior problems at AE. If the answer to 2) isn't Yes I'd like to know where I can propose a change to DS so that editors can. Thanks... Zad68 00:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorted. Another Arb has removed 'discretionary' from the list of community sanctions, which were either typos or some sort of confusion. I've added /Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Community_sanctions] to the page on dispute resolution. Does that answer all your questions? Dougweller (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

That's incorrect. There are such a thing as community discretionary sanctions. They simply cannot be enforced at AE or by ArbCom. There are many types of community general sanctions. Discretionary sanctions are just one type. Others include page probations and revert restrictions. The root of "discretionary sanctions" as opposed to other kinds of CGS is that they enforced at the "discretion" of the imposing administrator. I've left a note on Mr Davies page, to clarify. Enforcement for community DS takes many forms. In some cases, specific enforcement pages are set up, like WP:GS/GG/E. In other cases, AN/I and ANEW are used. In this case, no enforcement board was established, so we can presume that one should use the normal channels, merely making mention that CDS apply. RGloucester — ☎ 13:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Can someone then please correct the wording at WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY to reflect the current reality??? Bah!

The distinction that some DS are Arb-related and so can be reported at AE and other DS are not was the key I was missing. I thought DS were in and of themselves essentially Arb-related, no matter how they got activated. Thank you RGloucester and Dougweller, this is as much of this as I'm willing to try to do this morning. I'll help suggest a more clear presentation of the instructions, but not right now. Zad68 13:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Lol. Of course you think that, as that is what Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions suggests. "This page in a nutshell: Discretionary sanctions is a special system that creates an acceptable and collaborative editing environment for our most contentious and strife-torn articles." Dougweller (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Invitation

I'd like to invite you to join the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music. We are currently on demand for new members, the project was dying, but with your help we can revive it and make it one of the best WikiProjects. Make me sure that you'll think about this and remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Dfrr (talk) 05:40, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Misplaced Pages:Advocacy quacks

Your summary in the log doesn't seem to fit the essay. It certainly was not a reproduction of "The Litmus Paper", more like a stunningly accurate parody, and deserved at least some time for consideration. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 12:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

In my evaluation, it was too substantially like the original essay to avoid a G4. If any admin would like to undo my action I'll have no objection. Zad68 12:23, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. For the record, I shall certainly not be trying to find an admin that will re-instate the essay. I stand by my comments above though. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 12:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Understood, Roxy. Seriously, I'm not suggesting trying to find a back-door route to have it recreated, but am stating genuinely that if you think G4 shouldn't have applied, that's a totally valid concern and I'm happy to see my action reviewed, either at WP:DELREV or WP:AN. Zad68 12:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Zad. What he did was nothing short of plagiarism, right down to the formatting of the images. Put yourself in my shoes and imagine how you would feel after what felt like mob attack got through with their harsh criticisms, only to turn around and plagiarize my work. We are still working on the essay and mulling over the advice of some of the GF criticisms made during the delete discussions. See User_talk:Atsme/sandboxCOIduckery - your input would be most welcome. I have not reintroduced my original essay into the SandBox based on some of things Jytdog mentioned here . Your suggestion would be most welcome regarding what I can or cannot add back in an effort to avoid such issues in the future. Thank you again. Atsme☯ 12:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest Atsme but at this time I'm not interested in getting involved in the content of these essays. Zad68 12:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

The thing that I can't agree with is that G4 (I am normally dismissive of using PAG like this, as interpretation is always subjective) allows for quick deletion of a reproduction of something deleted, and QG's essay was diametrically opposed to the Litmus Paper, and not a reproduction at all. It was styled the same, and parts that were the same, in particular the edit summaries, were crucial to the inherent debunking of the "Litmus Paper". I am hoping that my balanced, earnest, constructive, polite truthful and above all accurate comment here can perhaps persuade you to change your mind. Let the community decide after some consideration. I reckon you are right, but it is too soon. Many of the editors who ought to be able to at least read that, are still in their beds, and never got the chance. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 12:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Roxy, possibly. I might open a discussion myself at WP:DELREV if there are still nagging concerns. Zad68 12:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It was my essay, my idea, QG criticized it suggesting a trout and block of the authors supporting it. That is exactly what should happen to him now for plagiarizing it. The only reason l have not pursued further action is because Zad68 deleted it. Zad if you intend to open discussion or are even considering undeleting it, I will take this issue to ANI. Atsme☯ 13:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Well Atsme, come on, you can't take me to ANI for thinking about something! :) Seriously though, all admin actions are open to community review. While I still believe I did the right thing here, it normally helps to seek out independent review if an action is questioned. Zad68 13:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Zad my comment about taking it to ANI was not about you. I understand the pressures you are under and have no criticism of your work. The ANI, which I had already started when I got notice of the delete, would have been against QG's plagiarism, and your involvement would not have been mentioned beyond the diff showing the current conversation by Roxy who is pressuring you to undelete. I am quite familiar with the behavior of Roxy regarding other issues. Atsme☯ 13:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Atsme. Zad68 13:13, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Roxy, please let this go. The delete was unambiguously good. And Atsme, the thing existed for a few hours and was deleted first thing in the morning US time. In my view it is unlikely anyone will find it actionable. if you want to spend credibility at ANI over the parody or Roxy's comments you are free to do so but it will not help you in the longrun. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

A Wikipedian walks into the bar, and says ... "What is the difference between plagiarism and parody." -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 13:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah i know. but it was also as invalid as the original one, and on top of that was POINTy and provoked drama, and we need less of that not more. Jytdog (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Zad68, can you start a WP:DELREV? The new essay was reworded and made a very different point. It was about advocacy not COI. For the deletion review the new essay should be undeleted for others to know what it was about. QuackGuru (talk) 18:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru are you sure? I will start a WP:DELREV if you insist but I'd like to encourage you to think about it first. Also, consider having me userify it for you instead so that you can rework it so that it doesn't appear to copy the old essay. That said, I'll do whichever you ask but would really like you to consider it first. Thanks... Zad68 18:17, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

QuackGuru You had your fun but let it go. Please. You are working on turning some POINTY fun you had, into some ugly drama, and nothing good can come out of that for you, your targets, or Project Medicine. Please withdraw your request. Thanks. Doc James would you please back me up here. thanks Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, honestly: why calling him back? You need QG for something ? And calling Doc James: No ganging here? --Wuerzele (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not clear on what you want to know, would you please clarify? thx Jytdog (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to create an essay like this. I just reworded something that I thought was salvageable. I would like others to work on it. Not sure how to proceed. QuackGuru (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen User:John Carter/Self-appointed prophet ? Alexbrn (talk) 04:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe some info can be added to that essay from advocacy quacks. QuackGuru (talk) 05:51, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Inquiry about the one-week ban on Caucasian Albania

Dear Zad68,

I would like to inquire with regard to certain aspects of the one-week sanction I have been placed on:

1. Why exactly is my revert qualified as baiting? If I wanted to bait Ninetoyadome, knowing his predisposition to revert edits, would I not have rather done it when the discussion started, instead of giving him a 'grace period' of two weeks to explain his edits? The user has already a history of edit-warring and none of the other users involved have ever been suspected of baiting him into it.
2. Do three reverts in a three-week period really qualify as "edit-warring"?
3. Why does the sanction mention "failing to cite reliable sources", if I was not the one making changes to the article? The template was added by Ninetoyadome; the burden of providing sources was technically on him.

Thank you.Parishan (talk) 22:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure Parishan what came across as baiting and edit-warring were your two reverts at the 1RR article, spaced just 28 minutes outside the technical 1RR mark, with no attempt to focus the discussion on reliable sourcing or use the available dispute resolution pathways. You're the more accomplished editor here and you should know better. I believe the sanction is appropriate and its intended effect is to stop disruption at the article by redirecting editor energy back to sources and dispute resolution instead of reverting. I'm looking forward to seeing you lead by example the next time this sort of issue arises. Zad68 12:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

As a more accomplished user, I made a sincere effort to warn Ninetoyadome to make better use of talkpages on AA2-related articles instead of reverting them blindly. I certainly did not wait around for the 1RR restriction period to expire to make that edit; if you look in my history, that was my first edit on that day (not counting a small edit I made just a minute prior). If I had had an interest in baiting Ninetoyadome, there was the perfect opportunity (in fact, several of them) weeks earlier. It does not make much sense for someone who is baiting to give so much chance to the 'baited' user to redeem themselves. I also do not see how I was expected to focus more on reliable sourcing than I had already done. I was one of the few users who actually did refer to reliable sources and suggest that others had not done so. What more could I have done? Like I said, it was not me who added new information to the article. Hence it was not up to me to provide sources to substantiate it. I am not being a pest; I do honestly struggle to see how "failing to provide reliable source" pertains to the sanction applied to me. Parishan (talk) 20:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I should also precise (which I did not do in the original report and the admins seem to have missed that) that Ninetoyadome had already been on a one-revert-per-week restriction, supervised editing and civility supervision since March 2014. Just weeks prior to my report, he had violated this restriction at least three times, not counting his reverts on Caucasian Albania: and , and , and . This user had deserved a sanction a while ago, regardless of whether he seemed to have been baited into it on Caucasian Albania or not. Parishan (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Parishan I did not know about either the 1RR restriction or those edits. The editor did not make it easy to find their Talk page archive, the restriction was not logged at the appropriate sanctions log page, and as you noted you didn't make mention of it in your report. I will take that information into account now. Regarding your restriction I've explained my thinking already, you may appeal the restriction using the instructions left on your User Talk. Zad68 04:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I have appealed the case at WP:AE, and I am required to notify you of this: . Parishan (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Potential article

Hi Zad68. I am currently writing a piece on the Bull of Navan and when I searched it using Google Misplaced Pages is the second site provided. However the page doesn't actually exist. Two question, 1. What was wrong with the article? The Bull probably is significant enough for a page. 2. If the topic meets encyclopaedic standards do you mind if I make a page. Having an empty result is a pain. Thank you.Trout71 (talk) 22:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi there Trout71... scans through contribs... nothing fishy going on with your editing, is there? Looks up from frowning at AGF-o-meter... Say, how do you feel about German politicians?

If you feel you've identified sufficient sourcing for such article, feel free to go ahead and start it, nothing is stopping you. Happy editing... Zad68 12:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay thank you. Just wanted to make sure. I can source it although there is a lot of bias against it because of the price. I am taking it I cannot use my own article as evidence? Also can I get a copy of the last article or does one exist. Whatever my be wrong with I can still read the opening on google and it seems alright. As for my edits, They are all fishy. I am Trout71. There would be a probelem if they weren't. Are you from Germany or something? I don't mind German politicians. My only issue with them is that they are politicians. Thank you Trout71 (talk) 18:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC).

Also whats an AGF ometer? These acronyms are difficult.

No worries Trout71, don't worry about what was there previously. Just go ahead, I'd be happy to review when it's ready if you'd like. Zad68 18:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)