| Revision as of 21:59, 28 February 2007 editRyan Postlethwaite (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users28,432 edits →Outside Statement of fact from []: agree← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:28, 28 February 2007 edit undoJmax- (talk | contribs)910 edits add outside viewNext edit → | ||
| Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
| # ] - ] 21:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC) | # ] - ] 21:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| # ]<sup>See ] or ]</sup> 21:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC) | # ]<sup>See ] or ]</sup> 21:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ==Outside view from Jmax-== | |||
| Before I begin discussing the issue, please note that I am a friend of the requester, and helped him with this RfC. My total involvement in filing this request can be found in the history. I will disclose the facts as I see them, however biased that may be. We are all biased in one form or another. | |||
| As far as I can tell, ] and many other contributors, some without usernames, have been adding information on a few shock sites, including such shock sites as "hai2u", "meatspin", "buster.tk", "fuck.org", and "deadbabies.com" (I'm sure google can provide links). I agree that many of these are un-notable, and probably shouldn't be included in this article. However, "hai2u" and "meatspin" are quite popular websites. | |||
| :*<code>"meatspin.com"</code> has "about 2,110 results" . | |||
| :*<code>"meatspin"</code> has "about 52,400 results" . | |||
| :* Meatspin.com has an alexa rank of and increasing. | |||
| :*<code>"hai2u.com"</code> has "about 6,830 results" | |||
| :* Hai2u.com has an alexa rank of and decreasing. | |||
| Of course such statistics are not the only factor of notability. However, there is no real news source that covers such anomalies; And most turn to wikipedia for such information (as noted by ]). It is unfortunate that such notable topics are not covered by wikipedia because they are too "new" to be considered encyclopedic. Of course, there's an ] article, and a ] article; But both of those have very few mentions in major news sources. | |||
| ] has been reverting such additions of content to the article as "vandalism". He had ] that this page be protected, presumably to avoid a 3RR violation (is that daily or weekly? I forget). Regardless, his actions were not necessarily unbecoming of an admin; However, I do believe that wikipedia policy with regards to internet phenomena need a reform. | |||
| Users who endorse this summary: | |||
| # ] 22:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==Discussion== | ==Discussion== | ||
Revision as of 22:28, 28 February 2007
In order to remain listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: 05:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 21:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC).
Mangojuice (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Statement of the dispute
Allegations: This overzealous administrator has inappropriately used his privileges in editorial conflicts to win "edit wars" against an entire population of Wikipedians who, on the talk page, widely agree with said edits, most notably on the Shock Site entry. The user has blocked articles from being edited indiscriminately and inappropriately. There are many comments from other users relating to such situations on their talk page. Aftli 05:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC) Mangojuice has a personal bias against this page as noted in his vote to have it deleted in October 2006. Specifically see talk entries relating to Meatspin.com in the Talk page of Shock site where evidence was supplied and ignored.
Talk:Shock_site#Meatspin and Talk:Shock_site#Meatspin.com
Desired outcome
Keep the the semi protected status to prevent damage unregistered or new users. Consider evidence posted in the talk forum regarding inclusion of specific sites. Appoint a new Misplaced Pages administrator to oversee this page who has neutral point of view on the subject.
Users certifying the basis for this dispute
- (sign with ~~~~)
Other users who endorse this statement
- (sign with ~~~~)
Response
This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.
I have not used my administrative powers inappropriately: I did not block anyone, and I got the page protected because of a lot of vandalism and IP editors trying to edit war sites onto the page without discussing, but I took that to WP:RFP and didn't make the move myself. The above users are upset because I have a "bias" towards Misplaced Pages including only verifiable information based on reliable sources, as is the well-recognized policy around here. Aftli just showed up as a user today but apparently made some edits previously as an IP editor to Shock site.
The dispute basically surrounds the fact that Shock site contains this poorly-conceived but apparently badly wanted list of examples. Over time, the list became merged with Shock site (it used to be at List of shock sites), and was cut down to include only items that are notable and that have some kind of at least vaguely reliable source backing up their inclusion. Most sites out there have no sources. Even the first, probably most prominent example of a shock site, Goatse.cx, has as its best source an article on a possibly related phenomenon from Snopes.com: see . At least that is some measure of Goatse.cx being noticed.
About a year ago, when the list was being cut down, a lot of research was done to find references of any, even vaguely reliable sort for the sites in the list, after we had cut out ones that barely even get google hits or Alexa rank. For most sites, including Hai2u and Meatspin, I did a lot of research myself trying to find any reliable sources. Nothing has been found that can qualify as a reliable source for Meatspin, and the best thing I found for Hai2u was from the forum rules of an underpopulated Anime forum, mentioning that shock sites such as (short list including Hai2u) should not be linked, and people could be banned for this. These sites do get lots of hits from forums, blogs, and so on, and they have entries on Urban Dictionary and Encyclopedia Dramatica, but these have been rejected many many times by the community as reliable sources. Probably the best source is a list of shock sites the owner of a shock site put up after discussion at Talk:Shock site: he appeared to actually understand how Misplaced Pages works, and he put up his own list of shock sites on his own shock site webpage. Still, not independent, and as the individual opinion of one person, not reliable.
Normally, I wouldn't be aggressive about removing unsourced information on any article, but in this case, after so much research was done that came up empty on such a wide variety of material, I have been. I just don't think it's acceptable for that work to go to waste by giving up and allowing unverifiable material back in. See Talk:List of shock sites for the early history of the efforts to reduce the list; see Talk:Shock site/Archive1 for the later history. Unlike the current talk page, there is a lot of attention from established users who actually care about Misplaced Pages policy.
If anything, I may be guilty here of trying to fight the fight all by myself. A quick look through the history of Shock site will point out the extreme level of IP contributions it gets. Other users do step in from time to time and revert vandalism (lots of vandalism on the page), but very very few established users get involved in discussions on the talk page. So, it looks to people like the users certifying this dispute like I'm autocratically controlling the article. To answer that: I don't really even want to, I just know there's a lot of constant cleaning up needed on the page, and I would appreciate the help, and have even asked for it. I'm happy for more community input. In fact, I really wish more people would come around and help out.
Users who endorse this summary:
This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.
Outside view
Outside view from Ryanpostlethwaite
The Shocksite page has been inundated with vandalism from new users and IP's. The page has also had many unsourced statements added, again, from new users and IP's. Mangojuice requested semi protection at WP:RFPP for the page to stop these edits and did not use his administrator tools inapproriately.
Users who endorse this summary:
Outside Statement of fact from User:Hipocrite
Mangojuice didn't protect the page, Royalguard11 did. Mangojuice did the right thing by asking for an outside adminstrator to review. This RFC should be mooted and Mangojuice commended for his actions but reminded to WP:IAR when appropriate.
Outside view from Jmax-
Before I begin discussing the issue, please note that I am a friend of the requester, and helped him with this RfC. My total involvement in filing this request can be found in the history. I will disclose the facts as I see them, however biased that may be. We are all biased in one form or another.
As far as I can tell, User:Aftli and many other contributors, some without usernames, have been adding information on a few shock sites, including such shock sites as "hai2u", "meatspin", "buster.tk", "fuck.org", and "deadbabies.com" (I'm sure google can provide links). I agree that many of these are un-notable, and probably shouldn't be included in this article. However, "hai2u" and "meatspin" are quite popular websites.
Of course such statistics are not the only factor of notability. However, there is no real news source that covers such anomalies; And most turn to wikipedia for such information (as noted by Talk:Shock site). It is unfortunate that such notable topics are not covered by wikipedia because they are too "new" to be considered encyclopedic. Of course, there's an UNIX article, and a GNU article; But both of those have very few mentions in major news sources.
User:Mangojuice has been reverting such additions of content to the article as "vandalism". He had requested that this page be protected, presumably to avoid a 3RR violation (is that daily or weekly? I forget). Regardless, his actions were not necessarily unbecoming of an admin; However, I do believe that wikipedia policy with regards to internet phenomena need a reform.
Users who endorse this summary:
Discussion
All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.