Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:20, 30 April 2015

	Fragmented conversations hurt my brain.
	In an effort to keep conversations together, I will likely respond on this page if you begin a conversation here. If I've begun a conversation on your talk page, I'll watchlist that page until you respond.

Archives

2006-7
Nov-May May-Aug Aug-Dec
2007-8 Dec-Feb Feb-Mar Mar-May Jun-Jul Aug-Oct Nov-Dec
2009 Jan-Apr May-Sep Oct-Dec
2010-12 Jan 2010-Apr May-Jul Jul-Dec 2012
2013-2015 -Apr 2015

24 December 2024
News and notes: Responsibilities and liabilities as a "Very Large Online Platform" Op-ed: Beeblebrox on Wikipediocracy, the Committee, and everything Opinion: Graham87 on being the first-ever administrator recall subject In the media: Delhi High Court considers Caravan and Ken for evaluating the ANI vs. WMF case From the archives: Where to draw the line in reporting? Recent research: "Misplaced Pages editors are quite prosocial", but those motivated by "social image" may put quantity over quality Humour: Backlash over Santa Claus' Misplaced Pages article intensifies Gallery: A feast of holidays and carols Traffic report: Was a long and dark December
Single page Front page About Subscribe Suggestions Archives

Todo list

• Currently at FAC: Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Battle of San Patricio/archive1 (article)
• Next up: Battle of Agua Dulce or Welcome to Temptation or Vision in White
• Review Battle of the Alamo and create comprehensive list of what needs to be done on the talk page (back to the library!)
• Create articles for books that received the Romance Writers of America's RITA Award.
• Tornel Decree

Rationalobserver

Hi Karanacs, also pinging admins @Cassianto: and @Dennis Brown:, and my fellow "kicked off the talk page" editors @Sagaciousphil:, @Victoriaearle:, and @Giano: just to keep the discussion confined to one thread (sorry to hijack yours, but had to pick someone!) Rationalobserver has banned the four of us from posting on her talk page and reverts/removes anything we post. (you noted this on her page) But as Dennis has offered support for the concept of an interaction ban between RO and some of us, I realize that important voices have been silenced. Given that there is no forum where we four can interact with RO to discuss this matter, such a proposal could, in theory, be passed without any of us having a fair chance to weigh in, and so I am posting here so that someone has a heads up. Montanabw 19:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
I cannot speak for the other three editors, but I for one am not at all comfortable with the idea that those of us who have been - legitimately - critical of the problems Rationalobserver is causing could be asked to unilaterally disarm when we happen to be the people who are among the most cognizant of the issues. RO may call our comments "harassment" - while viciously harassing others such as Victoriaearle in particular (and also Eric Corbett a while back) - I call it "pointing out legitimate concerns." To be prohibited from calling it as one sees it raises a risk that this editor could continue to seek the unwary and present her usual MO for getting articles to GA status: Making it sound good, but using a lot of offline source material and when one actually goes into the source material, it is discovered that research materiala are misunderstood, misattributed, misstated, or just plain unverified. Montanabw 19:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
While RO has complained that people (including me) are stalking and harassing her, I must point out that she WAS the person who posted that Irataba was up for FAC on a wikiproject page where I am a member, and I went over there because I am qualified to review the topic. Her behavior aside, I am particularly troubled by ROs article writing: at Irataba, I commented upon a troublesome tip that - post0block - led to the discovery of a huge iceberg of problems with the article - it has since been subject to an extensive rewrite by two of the other FAC reviewers to resolve many of the problems, and due to the changes and need for a new review, the FAC coordinators withdrew it from consideration. Some of her other articles, such as Rose-Baley Party also had problems. Montanabw 19:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
So, long story short, while I oppose lifting the block on RO due to clear evidence at her talk that she hasn't changed a bit, even if it is, I also think that the IBAN question should not be discussed there without the input of the people most likely to be involved - I personally think RO does need significant restrictions placed upon her if she is unblocked, (in particular she should not be allowed to interact with Victoriaearle at all) but I think it is important that the people who are the innocent parties not be subjected to a "you are all equally responsible" false equivalency. Montanabw 19:25, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you, and I've argued the same in other cases not concerning you. Without commenting specifically on this case, while a mutual interaction ban often sounds like a great idea to stop the disruption, I believe it's often suggested (or embraced) as a way to hide the cause of the disruption. Me reacting poorly to something that you say in no way means that you were disruptive, a fact that some seem not to see. Karanacs (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. Interaction bans, in my view, are counterproductive, perpetuate divisiveness in an environment of collaboration, and should only be imposed in the most egregious of cases, which this doesn't even come close to. I wouldn't agree to one under these circumstances. Victoria (tk) 21:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, usually just a source for more trips to the drama boards. Montanabw 03:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Cheers for the ping Montanabw, and I'm in total agreement with you about RO. They are a nasty piece of work and I can never forget the disgusting comments made about me in January when OrangesRYellow accused me of glorifying the act of rape. RO was instrumental in that arguement and sided with the the other two filthy specimens who made the comments. This resulted in a block for me, a month or two away from the project, and a lasting reluctance to return to FA writing. RO is a toxic personality. They should have been banned months ago, and this block has been a long time coming. The Iritaba article is was, in my opinion, a load of old rubbish and certainly not worth the paper it's written on. The last time I looked in, it was littered with mistakes and needed a complete rewrite; something that has since taken place, and all the better for it. I'm not to up to speed with the dispute with Victoria but to me, it sounds like she has discovered what sort of person RO truly is. By the way, I'm not an admin but I wish I was because I'd have blocked them indef months ago. ;) Cassianto 06:08, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all the above comments. A disruptive attitude combined with content that requires constant in-depth checking and major re-work by others is just going to keep leading to more drama. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

fyi

- request for iban against Scalhotrod, in case it gets deleted from LB's page.

evidence, now deleted by LB, that LB's request was discussed by arbs and turned down. EChastain (talk) 23:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Sent you another one. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Team editing experiment

FYI, this was on my talk page. I'm assuming because I subscribe to Tech News. — Maile (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Elephant in the room

I believe you are in the US. Are you familiar with the saying elephant in the room. Our article suggests that it is an English phrase, which is somewhat ambiguous (British? English language?) I ask because I've got the horrible feeling that someone thinks I am talking about their weight or looks, even though I've never set eyes on them and would be highly unlikely to comment as such even if I had. - Sitush (talk) 13:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)