Misplaced Pages

Misplaced Pages Signpost and Admin Backlog summary enclosed

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

The Black Wall Street Records

04:09, 4 June 2007 Swatjester (Talk | contribs) (3,403 bytes) (→Artists - rv artists with no body of work)

All artists had cited sources refering to there signed status on The Black Wall Street Records, I suggest you revert this edit yourself as you have deleted the information for the reason "artists with no body of work". There are related pages for one artist, and the other two are to be made. But since the cited sources are evident pages are not neccesary for the input of those characters as they fall into the category The Black Wall Street Records.

04:12, 4 June 2007 Swatjester (Talk | contribs) (3,425 bytes) (tag)

Please give me your reason on why you thought it was neccesary to Block the editing due to one account of Vandalism, when the Vandalism had already been reverted by user Efil4tselaer: Resurrected

02:50, 4 June 2007 Efil4tselaer: Resurrected (Talk | contribs) (4,623 bytes) (rv vandalism with no imagination and horrid grammar.)

Im trying hard to believe that the two edits are not connected, but if they were then that is a serious misconduct on your behalf. I'll be eagerly awaiting your corrections.

User talk:KingTee 00:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Miskin

Is this user was allowed to continue edit in any wiki area?(Block log states that he is allowed only in arbcom case).See Special:Contributions/Miskin and User talk:Miskin.Regards.Must. 14:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I don't really see anything against it. He's in an active arbcom case...he has to be on his best behavior. I think the arbcom only limitation was for the length of his block, that expired a while back. Were there not a case, he'd be unblocked by now, so it follows that his editing is likely not restricted. ⇒ SWATJester 15:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I was the last blocking admin in the Miskin case. As his 1-week block for (disputed, see ArbCom) 3RR ended ages ago, he's free to edit what he likes, far as I'm concerned. He was unblocked early to participate in the ArbCom case with the proviso that he not edit anything else; something which he abided by to the letter - Alison ☺ 00:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester, I think you should release all information that you have on the issue. I have never questioned your integrity as a sysop, but I do think that you have been misguided by off-wiki communications. The published e-mail is elucidating, as it contains patent lies about me being ready to support Miskin in "whatever he does or says". I don't support him as a person, but I do support a certain set of principles that I feel have been neglected in this case. I challenge anyone to provide evidence that I have ever interacted with that particular user either on- or off- Misplaced Pages, or, better still, that I understand what the Miskin-Mardavich dispute was about, let alone have held some sort of interest in its outcome. Actually, I had not been aware of Miskin's existence before he was blocked. As for NikoSilver, I recall to have polemicized with him (or, rather, with Yannismarou) once over a Macedonia-related issue, where I felt they had been unfair towards User:Dahn. That's about all I know about him. --Ghirla 19:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Badlydrawnjeff arbitration case

I have added mention of you at the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration case in relation to your recent deletion of two articles. As far as I am aware we have never spoken before and I am not aware of your edits or actions previous to this. I am not saying that the action mentioned on that page should occur, just that it is congruous to the proposal of the same action against me. violet/riga (t) 08:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to your comment at the arbitration . violet/riga (t) 22:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you re: User:71.112.115.55

I am writing to express deepest thanks for helping in this situation. I turned to ArbCom because I was getting desperate, in a "It's him or me" kind of way (I didn't raise that because I didn't want to seem like I was trying to force things to go my way). I have been absolutely puzzled by this trolling; not because of the trolling, per se, but because of its longevity and absolute obsession with me. I suppose it's always unnerving when a person exhibits unstable behavior directed at a person, but this has been odd behavior directed at me since March. Scribe has been a great help, and he has a lot of gratitude from me. But I was feeling the short blocks were not getting the IP to change their behavior, but focus it to WP:GAME policies and guidelines in more and more clever ways. As User:Thatcher131 pointed to a problem I was already encountering when trying to deal with each new IP manifestation of this User, that when I reported it to an admin, "Unfortunately, many admins who watch there will be unaware that this is an ongoing problem, and will react by suggesting that this is a content dispute that should be addressed by talking about it, or that it is not serious enough vandalism to block without first going through the warning levels." Exactly. What I needed I received, which was an unequivocal statement that this User is now banned, and a diff to show that regardless of what this User attempts to do, no matter the clever manner or gaming of policies and guidelines that make their trolling and vandalization not apparent, I can point to a conclusive judgment on them. This happened to day, when an admin e-mailed me about my reverting the IP's comments on my FA candidacy for Tompkins Square Park Police Riot (what the IP used as an example of my vandalizing on their talk page). This well-meaning admin wrote in an e-mail that my removal of this IP criticizing me and my "lies" as "Consider the act that the IP points to as vandalism by you. I hate to say it, but it looks like .... vandalism by you." I kept coming across this, and it was very frustrating, which is why I took so much time to reconstruct their relentless behavior in one location. So, I want to say thank you, thank you, thank you, for your help and understanding. This unbalanced behavior has been odd to witness, and to have myself be the focal point of it. It was also becoming too time-consuming and too frustrating when I have a lot of other things I want to contribute and work on with the website. I am also flattered by the admin suggestion; unfortunately, I don't think I have the best temperment for such a position (I don't know how you guys do it) and I relish focusing on using my creativity to improve the site. But I also have an artistic temperment. That said, Misplaced Pages's guidelines of behavior have not only improved my editing and relating on this website, but also in my own life. I find myself telling other people to "assume good faith" often ("Don't assume he didn't call you because he is playing games with you, assume good faith--maybe he's just really busy, or maybe someone died...you never know.") That's Misplaced Pages. Dave --David Shankbone 04:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. By all accounts you followed the right path to ArbCom. But realistically, you could have just requested a longer block at AN/I, or if that didn't work, contacting an admin on talk instead, before requesting arbitration. In arbitration, it would have taken at least a week to get the guy blocked, if not more, and that's VERY conservative. ⇒ SWATJester 05:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Sarah777

Swatjester, I understand your concerns with Sarah777. As I understand, this advanced as a series of regrettable circumstances. Would you support an unblock on condition that you and Sarah drop your current issues? I've detailed my thoughts more at Sarah's talk page. Regards, Iamunknown 04:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

So long as she stays off my talk page, sure. ⇒ SWATJester 05:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I cannot speak for Sarah; I don't think, however, that a talk page ban would be constructive. I was in the middle of writing a small post to WP:ANI to leave this discussion open to other administrators. Are you okay with that? --Iamunknown 05:38, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it (AN/I) would be constructive. Your comments likely got the point through, as well as kuryhks. Either she gets the Clue (tm), or she won't and do something that gets her blocked indefinitely. I personally don't think that 48 hours is unreasonable given her history, but I also don't care. You unblock her, warn her to stay off my talk page. If she does, no foul. If not, she didn't learn, and has merited re-blocking. ⇒ SWATJester 05:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not an admin, so I can't.  :-P --Iamunknown 05:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I will then.

For the record though, I stand by my block decline reason, given the tone of her prior comments, and the tone of the unblock request. It would not have been good to unblock early given the demanding and aggressive tone, which was by definition trolling. The follow up harassment of me further solidified my opinion thereof, and when she reverted me on my own talkpage removing her comments after I made it quite clear that she was not welcome there, and then continued to bother me after an unambiguous demand to stay off my talk page, the block was clearly valid. I tried reason after the unblock. It didn't work. That's why I stopped responding here. ⇒ SWATJester 05:46, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thank you.  :-) If you feel a block is warranted again, consider taking it to ANI (or maybe a separate administrator will simply see it and act), seeing as how you are now involved, okay? I just don't want more distress and cries of admin abuse, and I'm sure you don't either.  ;) --Iamunknown 05:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Jacob Wetterling

I don't know why you reverted my edit. The FBI suspect the same man took Jacob, so it is very much pertinent to the article. you might wanna read this.

Reverted per WP:BLP concerns. Other kids being sexually assaulted in the same area as Jacob at a different time, is not related to Jacob's biography, it is related to Jacob's kidnapping, were we to have an article on it (which we don't). ⇒ SWATJester 07:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Then, perhaps, the article should get a new name. Such as, The kidnapping of Jacob Wetterling. Fighting for Justice 08:02, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Which would be deleted for non-notability. Do not reinsert the information. ⇒ SWATJester 08:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

How on earth can you say it is non-notability? There is an act that is named after him. If that's not notability then what is??? Fighting for Justice 08:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Jacob Wetterling is minorly notable, due to the law named after him, and the bridge in his honor. The act of his kidnapping, was not and would not merit an article. Please see this link, specifically point 10. Jacob Wetterling is not notable. Jacob's law is. That's why we have an article on Jacob's law. Jacob is given slight notability from the combination of being the subject of the law AND the creation of the bridge (on his own, he probably would not have made it). This other kid, however, is not notable in the slightest. Not to mention he is a minor, so his last name is not released, which means that publishing information on that is misleading because we're referring to a "Jared" who is not really identified.

You've been blocked before for WP:BLP concerns. Given your username, and your intent to present a POV "I always take the side of the victims"....you should really reconsider being a Misplaced Pages editor. Continuing along this path will very likely bring you in violation of WP:POINT, Misplaced Pages is not a battle ground, WP:INFO, and WP:BLP policies.⇒ SWATJester 08:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to sleep now. I'll leave you with one thought: Just because we CAN have an article on someone, doesn't mean we SHOULD. ⇒ SWATJester 08:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

But I never created the article. I was simply putting something back in because another person removed it for having no source. I found the source and I was citing it into the article. If Jacob himself isn't notable why has this article been here since May 2004?

Furthermore, what does my name have to do with the edit to Jacob Wetterling? Are you then saying you're on the side of the man who took Jacob? Because that's the only way I can see us arguing over my user name. I'm not advocating for Jacob. And my name simply means that criminals should be punished. I don't see why anyone should hold my statement against me. All sorts of users have boxes stating their religious view, sexual orientation and whole bunch of other stuff. Fighting for Justice 08:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

A Question.

I know you edit the The Black Wall Street Records article, and I know you reverted the changes with non-notable members. However, someone keeps adding the current roster of artists with a source, even though they are not notable and do not have a Misplaced Pages page. What am I supposed to do? Should I leave the artists there or should I keep reverting? Thank you. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 22:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What a coincidence!

I was "just" about to email you regarding AK's nom, dear Swat! :) I'm working on a draft that I should have finished tomorrow. I'll post it at my userspace so the three of us can review it and retouch it, and you can add your co-nom there. Sounds ok to you, sweetie? Love, Phaedriel - 04:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)