Misplaced Pages

:Miscellany for deletion/Misplaced Pages:Editors willing to make difficult edits: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 06:03, 11 April 2008 editHersfold (talk | contribs)33,142 edits →Misplaced Pages:Editors willing to make difficult edits: keep← Previous edit Revision as of 06:21, 11 April 2008 edit undoThe Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk | contribs)7,442 edits Um, what are you doing? Please don't overwrite the previous AfD......Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata mfd" style="background-color: #E3D2FB; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
⚫ ====]====
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
This is supposed to be the editors' version of ]. I can't imagine any case where this list would be useful. In my experience, the fact that an "editorial action" might be seen as "risky" only seems to attract people who want to take such action. I've yet to see a situation that intimidated editors out of wanting to make edits. This page seems to me like a list of people who take their label as "editor" with a slight ] on the side. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">] ]/] ''05:55, 11 Apr 2008 (UTC)''</small>
<!--
*'''Keep''' mainly for the reasons I expressed in the admin's version of this discussion (). Again, I have as an editor (not an admin) received death threats, but I feel as though this page is less necessary due to the less binding nature of simply editing. However, I could still think of a few cases in which this could be used: For example, someone whose username is their real name, wants to improve the article on ], but would very much not like their name to come up in the page history. Among other reasons. Either way, there is a purpose to this page, and we don't need to go deleting it. ] <sup>(]/]/])</sup> 06:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to miscellany page for deletion, you must manually edit the MfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result of the debate was {{{1|}}} '''Keep'''. While one could imagine ways in which this page might become problematic, no one has presented evidence that this has happened, and consensus clearly favors retention. ] 14:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

⚫ ====]====
I'm not sure this is that we need. ] 12:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
:Request to nominator to clarify his position on the page. I'm not sure it's something we need either, but MfD being a discussion and not a vote, it would be good to see exactly why you think this. Respectfully, ~ ] 12:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
::I'm so sorry, it would appear that I have given a really vague reason and left. I probably should have waited until I had more time to place a rationale.

::I don't see how this page improves or seeks to improve the encyclopedia. To me "...willing to make difficult edits" reads wrong. I mean, what exactly makes a difficult edit. I do understand an edit may get someone in trouble, however, its not that difficult (pardon pun) to find someone to make it. I don't believe we need a centralized list. I also want to dispel the aura that folks should be cautious to make edits, one can create a sock to do so and be within the limits of sock. I don't agree the page is best. ] 00:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

*'''Close''' - Invalid nomination.--] 16:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
:I don't make invalid nominations. Regards, ] 00:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Close''' - no reason for deletion given. ] 16:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
:I fixed it. Sorry about that.] 00:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''', good idea, ] 17:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
:How so? ] 00:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep'''. It's a very good idea. Some people are more anonymous than others on Misplaced Pages; while I don't give out my real name, for instance, I'm aware that I've probably given out enough info that someone really determined could track me down, and the same is probably true of the majority of admins. While I've never been the target of any off-wiki harassment (partly because I don't work in very controversial areas, and partly I'm just not that active on Misplaced Pages any more), I'm aware that it has happened to some people in the past. We need some Wikipedians who are sufficiently secure to be able to deal with contentious or difficult situations and/or unstable people; otherwise the trolls will end up winning by scaring everyone into submission. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
:This is not a battle ground. Lets not build defensive structures such as this page. ] 01:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
* '''Comment (tending to delete if concerns not reassured or fixable, they look moderately serious from here)''' As the editor who raised this page at ], I just asked for communal feedback at that point. Repaste of these follows: ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> 00:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

::{| style="border:1px black solid" width="85%"
| I notice earlier this month this page was created, mirroring ]. However I have serious misgivings. I've fixed most of the text but even so would like to check, does this page further the project?

:

I've removed the worst of it, and in general we do strongly encourage productive editors to edit collaboratively and help one other. But two concerns remain: 1/ this page might be seen as an invitation to meatpuppetry, COI proxying, and warring via well meaning uninvolved proxy parties ("I can't do X because people revert me, can you do it for me?"), and 2/ if there really is a genuine editorial problem at this level, surely we want to encourage editors to seek experienced help or dispute resolution, rather than just proxy editors? I've also left a for the page's creator. ] <sup><span style="font-style:italic">(] | ])</span></sup> ANI - 05:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
|}
*'''Make a new page''' that combines ] and this page. <font face="Verdana,Arial,Helvetica">]</font> 14:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Shut down and tag historical'''. ] states that people ''are'' allowed to use sockpuppets for preserving anonymity, and exactly this sort of situations. However, if ''other people'' are doing edits on someone else's behalf, we run into GFDL issues: Last I checked, author attribution was required (and enforced by MediaWiki software as well), but does GFDL permit editing-by-proxy and to what extent? Would GFDL require at least that the editors in question state that they are not the actual authors of the new version(s) of articles in question? Does the project address such problems with GFDL and attribution? I don't see what this project accomplishes that legitimately used socks don't... --'']'' (]/]) 15:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' Already made at a discussion that was started prior to the deletion review http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Misplaced Pages:Editors_willing_to_make_difficult_edits. It would be better to have entire discussion in one place, but as some of the discussion on ANI has already been copied here, I'll copy my contribution. ] 18:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

::{| style="border:1px black solid" width="85%"
| Hello - I believe that the original text for the page explains my intent for the page. It has since been edited with material added and subtracted, with the resulting page not clearly conveying my original vision. I don't want to restate everything which is already present on the page as it was originally created, and I certainly cannot reasonably argue that there is no chance that bad things might occur if an editor can request that another editor edit something for them. The heart of the 'Editors willing to make difficult edits' page is: <blockquote>Evidence has been provided that Misplaced Pages editors are subject to: <B>cyberstalking, offline stalking, being outed without their consent, sexual humiliation, threats of physical violence, being contacted at home, threats to family, being contacted at work, dismissal from work, and other negative consequences.</B></blockquote>

<blockquote>Any editor faced with editing with a disruptive or abusive editor, or who is being threatened because of having previously edited with such a person, can contact one of the editors on this list and request that they take over the case.</blockquote>

There are dispute resolution policies and procedures, the purpose of which is to facilitate the creation of an encyclopedia. The "Editors willing to make difficult edits" page doesn't disagree with these policies or encourage disruption of any sort. It states that if you feel unsafe and have a fear of real-life harassment due to editing Misplaced Pages, that you have an option to disengage and have another editor take over that situation. The other editor can of course take advantage of the Misplaced Pages dispute resolution procedures if they are needed.

Misplaced Pages doesn't exist to make people sad - there is no reason an editor should be required to interact on Misplaced Pages in any way that makes them feel unsafe. If an editor volunteers to help someone feel safer and to help them improve the encyclopedia, that action is certainly within the spirit of fostering the online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Uncle uncle uncle 20:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

|}

* '''Keep''' per Uncle uncle uncle's rationale. ] 06:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' we need people do add stuff in sometimes for the good of wikipedia even when fanboys of something won't let it. ] 07:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' Nothing wrong with it. Note that we also have a list of administrators willing to make difficult blocks. ] (] • ]) 14:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

* '''Keep''' United we stand... --] ] 01:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' It's fine. Leave it. -- <strong>]</strong>] 09:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.</div>

Revision as of 06:21, 11 April 2008

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep. While one could imagine ways in which this page might become problematic, no one has presented evidence that this has happened, and consensus clearly favors retention. Xoloz 14:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Editors willing_to_make_difficult_edits

I'm not sure this is that we need. Mercury 12:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Request to nominator to clarify his position on the page. I'm not sure it's something we need either, but MfD being a discussion and not a vote, it would be good to see exactly why you think this. Respectfully, ~ Riana ⁂ 12:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm so sorry, it would appear that I have given a really vague reason and left. I probably should have waited until I had more time to place a rationale.
I don't see how this page improves or seeks to improve the encyclopedia. To me "...willing to make difficult edits" reads wrong. I mean, what exactly makes a difficult edit. I do understand an edit may get someone in trouble, however, its not that difficult (pardon pun) to find someone to make it. I don't believe we need a centralized list. I also want to dispel the aura that folks should be cautious to make edits, one can create a sock to do so and be within the limits of sock. I don't agree the page is best. Mercury 00:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't make invalid nominations. Regards, Mercury 00:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I fixed it. Sorry about that.Mercury 00:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
How so? Mercury 00:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. It's a very good idea. Some people are more anonymous than others on Misplaced Pages; while I don't give out my real name, for instance, I'm aware that I've probably given out enough info that someone really determined could track me down, and the same is probably true of the majority of admins. While I've never been the target of any off-wiki harassment (partly because I don't work in very controversial areas, and partly I'm just not that active on Misplaced Pages any more), I'm aware that it has happened to some people in the past. We need some Wikipedians who are sufficiently secure to be able to deal with contentious or difficult situations and/or unstable people; otherwise the trolls will end up winning by scaring everyone into submission. Walton 20:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
This is not a battle ground. Lets not build defensive structures such as this page. Mercury 01:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment (tending to delete if concerns not reassured or fixable, they look moderately serious from here) As the editor who raised this page at WP:AN, I just asked for communal feedback at that point. Repaste of these follows: FT2 00:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I notice earlier this month this page was created, mirroring Misplaced Pages:Admins willing to make difficult blocks. However I have serious misgivings. I've fixed most of the text but even so would like to check, does this page further the project?

I've removed the worst of it, and in general we do strongly encourage productive editors to edit collaboratively and help one other. But two concerns remain: 1/ this page might be seen as an invitation to meatpuppetry, COI proxying, and warring via well meaning uninvolved proxy parties ("I can't do X because people revert me, can you do it for me?"), and 2/ if there really is a genuine editorial problem at this level, surely we want to encourage editors to seek experienced help or dispute resolution, rather than just proxy editors? I've also left a note for the page's creator. FT2 ANI - 05:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello - I believe that the original text for the page explains my intent for the page. It has since been edited with material added and subtracted, with the resulting page not clearly conveying my original vision. I don't want to restate everything which is already present on the page as it was originally created, and I certainly cannot reasonably argue that there is no chance that bad things might occur if an editor can request that another editor edit something for them. The heart of the 'Editors willing to make difficult edits' page is:

Evidence has been provided that Misplaced Pages editors are subject to: cyberstalking, offline stalking, being outed without their consent, sexual humiliation, threats of physical violence, being contacted at home, threats to family, being contacted at work, dismissal from work, and other negative consequences.

Any editor faced with editing with a disruptive or abusive editor, or who is being threatened because of having previously edited with such a person, can contact one of the editors on this list and request that they take over the case.

There are dispute resolution policies and procedures, the purpose of which is to facilitate the creation of an encyclopedia. The "Editors willing to make difficult edits" page doesn't disagree with these policies or encourage disruption of any sort. It states that if you feel unsafe and have a fear of real-life harassment due to editing Misplaced Pages, that you have an option to disengage and have another editor take over that situation. The other editor can of course take advantage of the Misplaced Pages dispute resolution procedures if they are needed.

Misplaced Pages doesn't exist to make people sad - there is no reason an editor should be required to interact on Misplaced Pages in any way that makes them feel unsafe. If an editor volunteers to help someone feel safer and to help them improve the encyclopedia, that action is certainly within the spirit of fostering the online community of people interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect. Uncle uncle uncle 20:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.