Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:20, 27 April 2008

Contacted Mike Godwin

I have contacted Mike Godwin with a brief summary of Grawp's vandalism and a request that he allow the release of Grawp's IP address.--Urban Rose 19:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Brandt RfD

The closing admin of the DRV, Prodego explicitly agreed that this should go to RfD. I strongly urge you to reverse your premature close. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

You can certainly cherry-pick his comments that way if you want to,

While I agree with the users below who bring up that this was not a simple CSD deletion, and likely should have gone through RfD

however he closes with,

I find the most compelling arguments, and the best reasoning, to be that those wishing to learn about Brandt will learn nothing about him at the PIR article, and therefore this redirect is quite worthless...it is quite clear that this is truly a valueless redirect."

Thatcher 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong discussion. Look at User:Prodego/archive/61#Daniel_Brandt — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaZ (talk • contribs)

I disagree with the concept that the way to appeal a deletion is to use a "lower-ranked" process. Fewer people watch RfD; there is a hierarchy of deletion discussions for a reason. Attempts to restore deleted content are routinely sent to DRV, no one would argue that I can restore an article deleted through AfD and demand that it go through Prod or AfD again. If the problem is that there is no way to appeal a "wrongly decided" DRV, then welcome to the ranks of other disgruntled editors whose articles are deleted and endorsed and find themselves at the top of the process ladder with no where else to go. Final processes are meant to be final. Consensus changes, and no discussion is ever final (for better or worse) but in my judgement as an admin, DRV is the appropriate venue. If you can find someone who thinks differently, they can use their discretion and judgement to reverse me. Thatcher 16:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The comment from Prodego was: "My view is: I don't think it is necessary, and will not do it myself. But I have no problems if you do. Prodego talk 20:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)" That is hardly an endorsement of the RFD. That is, "Sure, do it if you want, since you're entitled to try anything." That's different than, "My close was bunk." Please. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It endorses another RfD as valid. And if you want I can get Prodego's permission to give you the emails also where Prodego and I discussed the matter in some detail. Lawrence you seem to persist in assuming that everyone else is twisting things. Please stop projecting. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Please stop harassing BLP subjects. Critical decisions like this are not made off-wiki. Mind yourself, since you're already on thin ice for socking. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect to Prodego, DRV is meant to be a final review, and if he did not have the strength of conviction to say, "I've made my decision, sorry you disagree, try again in 6 months" then he shouldn't have done the close at all. Or, if he was persuaded by your argument, he should have reversed the close, made a "vote" and asked someone else to close it. Thatcher 16:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I meant to reopen the DRV, as you suggest, not start an RfD, I have no idea where that misconception came from. To clarify: I agree with JoshuaZ that the DRV does not necessarily support deleting the page because of a threat to Alison, which he believes is the reason for the deletion, but I completely believe that it supports deleting the page (for the reasons I explained). However, if JoshuaZ believes that it is not so, I said I would not be opposed to him reopening the DRV for someone else to close. But, a bit too much time has passed for that IMO. Prodego 21:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What??? Please explain ... - Alison 21:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Different Alison? Carcharoth (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wait, I'm a little slow here.. (though I suspected it at the time) we can confirm that Brandt had given a new threat, which prompted the deletion of the redirect in the first place? -- Ned Scott 22:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Brandt has not threatened me, not in recent times. There are no deals going on here and, frankly, I've no idea why I've been mentioned here - Alison 22:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

User:WJBscribe also did not object to the idea of an RfD when I asked him during the DRV. -- Ned Scott 21:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok this is what I heard: JoshuaZ told me there had been some threat to Alison, which he believed caused the page to be emergency deleted. I said that the DRV didn't support a delete for that reason, but did for my reason. If this never happened, I would like an explanation from JoshuaZ, and I would be absolutely against reopening this at all if that were so. Prodego 20:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, Ned has reversed your close of the RFD. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And it will stay open. If Thatcher continues to disagree with this then he is free to take it to one of the many discussions that have popped up about it. That goes for you as well, Lawrence. -- Ned Scott 22:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said on my talk Ned, you know I'm one of the "lets all remember that admins just have more buttons" side of things, but the closing of debates is one of the things that belongs to admins--it just is what it is. Reversing an admin on a close is one thing, and happens, I guess, but myself and now Gwen Gale have also reversed your opening of Thatcher's close. I almost hate to say it but for process's sake under policy if you have a problem with Thatcher's DRV you need to DRV Thatcher's close, to see if this belongs on RFD. The DRV is the top of the deletion process food chain, the last door. Prodego (per his above comments) has basically endorsed his own close, so you need to either DRV Brandt again outright (which may be seen as tenditious), or you can DRV the RFD or you can DRV the DRV itself, I suppose... Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is how they win their game. -- Ned Scott 22:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

So in other words, if one loses a consensus battle, there is never an end? If I were in agreement with yourself and Joshua, I could keep up the RFD, and then what happens if the RFD is closed not to my satisifaction? I DRV the RFD? What happens if I don't like the result of the DRV? DRV the DRV? There has to be an end. Do we just discard that overwhelming DRV5 consensus? By what right do we invalidate the 100+ people that weighed in there? Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Except a consensus battle was never lost in this situation. There was never (and lets be absolutely clear about this) consensus to delete the redirect. WJB knew he couldn't get consensus to do it, so he violated the deletion policy and deleted it anyways. People who wanted to correct this wrong were labeled as disruptive if they brought it up to DRV. This comes down to a handful admins not getting their way and shutting the community out by gaming the system. Don't bullshit me with things like "overwhelming DRV5 consensus". -- Ned Scott 22:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

And this holds true regardless if I agree with the deletion or not. I can pull up past examples from other situations if you doubt me. -- Ned Scott 22:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Then there is a problem with the DRV close. I do not accept these venue arguments. The overwhelming majority of users on DRV #5 endorsed deletion. We follow consensus, not the name of the page the consensus was formed on. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes but WP:CCC. There was never even consensus to delete the biography in the first place. Obviously the attempted merge compromise has fallen through; the material that was to have been merged over is entirely missing from the target article, and the consensus to redirect no longer exists. So why hasn't the article been restored? -- Kendrick7 23:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Because there were significantly more people on DRV 5 that said to delete Daniel Brandt than there those who said to keep it. CCC indeed, and CCC changed to get rid of it on DRV 5. It was an endorce of the deletion. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

The deletion of the redirect. I'm talking about the article. -- Kendrick7 23:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

OMG numbers! Yeah, count all the assholes who didn't even care to address any concerns, whatsoever, and simply write off their fellow wikipedians as trolls. "omg, not again, keep deleted" bullshit has no weight on Misplaced Pages. -- Ned Scott 23:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Kendrick7, you can say "there was no consensus to delete" as many times as you want but that does not make it true. There was no consensus that you agreed with; I think the expression is "tough shit."
• Ned, you have committed a number of serious errors:

You do not reverse another admin's actions without prior discussion.

You do not reverse an admin closing when you are not an admin. The fact that none of the admins who have participated in any of these discussions reversed me should give you a clue.

You do not reopen a discussion just so you can vote.

No XfD is an appropriate forum to review a closed DRV. The only appropriate forum is DRV. If it happens that people say, "hey, the last DRV was only a month ago, close a premature", well, that should give you another clue.

That said, I don't give a fuck. I was trying to reduce the drama and direct the discussion to the appropriate venue. You obviously have other goals. Thatcher 23:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thatcher, I have reverted admin closing in the past, and I will continue to do so when their rationale is crap. Joshua was not trying to get around the DRV, and it was perfectly understandable why he thought he was doing the right thing. If you want to go believing in some non-existence holy law, go ahead and delude yourself. -- Ned Scott 23:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying -- if you, Thatcher, or anyone for that matter, can point me to the current upstanding AfD of the Brandt article, it would be helpful going forward. If not, that's fine too. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page here. -- Kendrick7 00:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sanchez lexis nexis search

Concerning this you might also substitute the word "escort" for "prostitute" or even "hustler", "rent boy" and "call boy" as those are common synonyms for male escorts. Banjeboi 02:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• To the best of my ability to search a database containing every major english language news source (and many minor news sources) the chain of events is something like this:

Blogger Joe.My.God finds an ad for an escort he believes is Sanchez and blogs about it. He also claims to have had a phone interview with Sanchez.

The story is repeated on other blogs, including GayPatriot and Michelle Malkin.

On March 7, 2007 Salon.com;s gossip column "The Fix" reports the allegations but does not independently confirm them. It says, "Is Columbia University student, ex-Marine and Fox News right-wing darling Matt Sanchez also Peter the Tree, a former gay porn star and escort? Speculation grew all day Tuesday on gay blogs....

On March 8 Sanchez wrote a piece for Salon, in which he says, "Some of the sites were comparing me to Rich Merritt, a Marine Corps captain who appeared in gay films. Others were comparing me to Jeff Gannon and claiming that I too had advertised my services as a male escort. I won't deny it, or that I acted in several adult movies 15 years ago under names like Pierre LaBranche and Rod Majors." (He also says "Being in the adult entertainment industry was sort of like being in a cult, and like all followers of a cult, I have a difficult time figuring out when I stopped believing in the party line. I can tell you, though, that by the time I finished my brief tour of the major studios, I was pretty disgusted with myself.")

• I suppose the sticking point is whether a biography here should say "he was a male prostitute" or "he advertised his services as a male escort." Calling him a prostitute, hustler, call or or rent boy (in addition to being offensive and telling me something about your agenda) goes one step farther than he himself went in the March 8 article. He does not say in the March 8 article that he had sex for money. I think a fair biography can at most say, "he confirmed in Salon that he had acted in gay adult movies and advertised his services as an escort", while at the same time reporting his current denials that he ever actually had sex for money. Thatcher 03:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Perhaps I should have explained a bit better. Your search on LexisNexis would be more thorough if it searched for some of the other words that may have been used in place of "escort". You can put your assumptions about me and "my agenda" on hold; these are the same things I have brought up in AfD discussions about searching for information using variations on spellings, for instance, to allow for a name that was commonly mispelled. My track record on how I feel about the whole matter can be easily summed up, we go by verifiability not truth. Although I can see how you might piece together the above timeline it's not one I've ever seen. Instead most of the accounts I've read have been more along the lines that his former clients or at least those who claimed to be his former clients blew the whistle to the bloggers. Regardless of what the actual events were, unless someone writes in a reliable source about them we should simply dispassionately report what is verifiable. I was only suggesting that if you're willing you may want to redo the search using likely synonyms so that the research is more complete. Do what you will. Banjeboi 04:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the results above are the result of a thorough search using the terms you suggest. You should not be surprised to discover that reliable news sources (as opposed to blogs) rarely use terms like "rent boy." The point here is that no reliable news source has reported that Sanchez was an escort, prostitute, rent boy, or anything else. Sanchez himself made the limited admission reprinted above. A number of blogs have claimed it, and at least one guest on an MSNBC talk show (a Democratic political operative) reported that the blogs had said this, but blogs are not reliable sources and you should also beware of Fact laundering; when a reliable source reports, "several unreliable sources have claimed..." that does not suddenly confer reliability on the claim. Thatcher 11:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, it might be helpful for future editors to simply add to the talkpage thread that several synonyms were also used in the search to clear up that the reserach was more thorough. Banjeboi 23:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Not fair enough. Benjiboi has been banned for being biased because he wants the biased unsourced information in the article regardless of reliability. Rushdittobot (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting comment but simply not true. My contributions can be easily seen by anyone and I hardly advocated for inserting unsourced content period. If you feel something in that article is unsourced, biased or otherwise problematic then address it on that talk page where your concerns can be fully addressed by interested editors. Banjeboi 11:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Clerk Request

Hi there, was wondering if you could take me on as an appentice clark as i would love to help out with things and help keep wikipeida clean and tidy. Chris19910 (talk) 08:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

you recently had inconclusive results on Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/SexyNupe2000. He's only been a user for 2 days and it's possible he was out of town on business or vacation. Can you run the checkuser again in a few days when perhaps he's back in his normal location? I agree with the user who posted the checkuser that this is unusual behavior for newbie to know how to navigate wikipedia of skillfully.--Ccson (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lukeklein

Based on photographic evidence presented to the unblock-en-l mailing list, it is confirmed that these two accounts are not operated by the same person. I'm not modifying the checkuser page since I don't know the process for doing so, but I thought I'd let you know so you can update it accordingly.

Cheers. --Chris (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The technical result is that they are using the same IP and the same computer. And even if they are two people, we often take a dim view of editors who recruit non-editing friends to help them out in disputes. You are free to add a note to the case that you accept their explanation that they are two people and have unblocked. Thatcher 14:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually they have two different laptops (minor detail, yeah) as verified by two pictures, one of each user holding their Misplaced Pages account name on an index card and the monitor displaying the MAC addresses of their respective computers' wireless network card. But of course, they are behind the same router. (Based on their real names I suspect they are brother and sister.) While I am aware that meatpuppetry is discouraged, an indef block is clearly unwarranted in this case. --Chris (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Since you have unblocked you should note that on the case page since a block is currently noted there. Thatcher 21:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

So what should I do if a user here falsely claims that I am the same person as another user? Thanks, Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

See: . I believe that this is a sock of Harvey Carter, WP:DUCK. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC).

• Who? Have you tried a user conduct Request for comment or mediation? If you think this is related to an alread banned or blocked user I need more info. Thatcher 22:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

DennisOliver

Thank you for restoring the article about Dennis Oliver for which I've work very hard to achieve Misplaced Pages standards. It is very pleasant to attain recognition, instead of having the article deleted without any consideration,you have been very fair. Thank you again!Ralicia (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Ralicia

• You're welcome. It still could be nominated for deletion, but this time there would be a discussion which would give you a chance to argue your point. And there is often a pro-US/UK bias where it is harder to show notability of figures in other countries. So good luck. (If you speak spanish you should try adding the article to the spanish language wikipedia as well.) Thatcher 22:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Link to compromised account list

I've e-mailed you with a link to the user talk page of an ED user Headstrust who claims to be the real Grawp. On the page the accounts are listed as compromised.--Urban Rose 19:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, there's no need to follow the link. The accounts have already been blocked as compromised accounts. For information on this go back to the AN thread and compare the conrtibutions (and deleted contributions) of RepriseRubric (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a Grawp sock and possibly compromised account, to those of said socks for evidence.--Urban Rose 20:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Dennis Oliver again

Oops, you are so right. My bad for Speedying it for the completely wrong reason. I indeed knew/know the proper circumstances for a G4 so I obviously just wasn't paying attention. Thank you for reversing it and apologies for the avoidable-if-I-was-alert trouble. Cheers, Pigman☿ 22:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

No biggie. Stuff happens. Thatcher 22:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:71.107.163.121

71.107.163.121 (talk · contribs) was recently blocked, again (you gave it a {{checkuserblock}} earlier this month), and is currently requesting unblocking. Your block does not appear to be in dispute, but I'm primarily letting you know since I imagine you'll have a much better idea of what's going on, here, than I currently do. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Do not unblock no matter what he says. Thatcher 02:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Good thing I poked you about it, then. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 02:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Problems with User:Giano II

Giano II was recently given a warnbing about being disruptive and uncivil in an Arbcomm ruling you were involved in (see here.) Recently he added a HTML request to a lot of articles requesting that an infobox be not added to them. This was questioned, and is subject to ongoing debate WT:CHES#Little Moreton Hall. A message thread started on his talk page here includes a response by Giano II that directly disparages users who are questioning the request to not include an infobox (The sentence "Those with the attention span of a gnat, and inability to read what is in the first four lines of the lead, and those who enjoy seeing high quality images reduced to the size of postage stamps may see the need for a box. Those of a higher intelligence may prefer to read, learn and enjoy reading a page.") I find it offensive and I think others would do so too. Their position about infoboxes may be te better one, but using such language seems to go against the principles of wikipedia. In fact, the discussion has led to a number of people who do not agree with adding infoboxes to use uncivil language to describe those who question it. Can you advise us on what to do? I think the arbcomm ruling applies in this case, but I'm unsure how to proceed. Many thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Inquory

61.23.15.246 (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) seems to be Azukimonaka/ KoreanShoriSenyou/ Orchis28 per his same writing style and interest and edit summary although ISP is different (well, there is a possibility for the user to switch his ISP) Can you look at him with Checkuser tool? Or should I report RFCU? Thanks. --Appletrees (talk) 12:05, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

• Seems likely. Thatcher 13:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)