Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:12, 6 July 2009

• Archive 1 (May 2007–May 2008)
• Archive 2 (May 2008–March 2009)
• Archive 3 (March 2009–present)

Adoptme!

{{adoptme}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnlemartirao (talk • contribs) 11 February, 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review

An article you deleted in an earlier version Aramark is being discussed at Deletion . You may be interested in the discussion. DGG (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

USAISAMONSTER deletion

Can we have that article back? Thanks. Morganfitzp (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

FA/GA

A lot of old FAs are far more dredful than the average modern GA (saw your comment on WR) YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on political straw polls

The article Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election and its associated pages were deleted as of 9 Nov 2008, and the deletions are now being reviewed. Because of your prior involvement, please comment at Misplaced Pages:Deletion review#Straw polls for the 2008 United States presidential election. Thank you for your consideration! 20 involved editors are being notified. JJB 19:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi SI

 :-) Good to see you around. R. Baley (talk) 07:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Ditto. --Abd (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Right now I'm mostly quiet. Getting History of the Montreal Canadiens on the front page as TFA for the team's 100th anniversary date is my big project right now, but it needs a lot of work, lol. A review will have to wait for references, writing and cleanup. And by the same token, if you need a review of any of your political articles, drop me a line. Cheers, Resolute 14:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The FAC has already been closed, but I did address as many of your concerns as I could. On the international play - I realize now that I didn't adequately describe the value Iginla's participation in the 02 Olympics had on his NHL career. It may take a bit, but I will head back to the archives to find some stories on the impact that had and give that statement proper value. Also, the medal table is just that. The prose explains that the 06 team didn't accomplish much. Appreciate the reviews you gave on this article. Definitely helped me get this bronze star! Resolute 22:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Tom Vilsack presidential campaign, 2008 review

Thanks for the very thorough review. I think I have addressed most of your concerns and I left a few replies on others. If I skipped over any of the suggestions, it was not intentional, let me know if I missed anything. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I've responded at Talk:Tom Vilsack presidential campaign, 2008/GA1. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

 Done --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. That was a great review. --William S. Saturn (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

WP Athlete

If you read the discussion, there is wide agreement for the change I made. I could quote from nearly every entry. Please make your case that it is not so.

Harold Pinter

Hello. While you've stopped by the Pinter article, would you kindly take a quick look at the referencing/footnotes and linkfarm at the bottom? I think there is a serious over-referencing problem here - There are two kinds of referencing going on simultaneously, which makes the article hard to read, and the footnotes are so detailed and academic as to make them nearly useless, IMO. There is an ongoing peer review, but Scholar disagrees with the comments there about referencing, and he/she has resisted all efforts to simplify the referencing. Not sure how to proceed. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. The copyright discussion has been raised again at the Harold Pinter talk page. Would you kindly weigh in again? I know it's repetitive, but I made a big effort on it today, and I think we may be able to put it to rest. Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. How do we do it? Here is the argument, as I see it: "There is a very serious WP:OWNership problem at Harold Pinter. For many months, and even years, one editor has blocked all attempts of other editors to revise the article. In its current form, Harold Pinter is so difficult to wade through, and the citation format is so Baroque, that numerous editors have been discouraged from even trying. A peer review was recently opened, but the main suggestions about simplifying the referencing style were not accepted by this editor. The editor is so prolific, that he buries any objections under a flurry of talk page discussion so voluminous that it is nearly impossible to read (note the talk page's voluminous archives). A quick look at the footnotes in Harold Pinter will, I think, show the seriousness of the problem." -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been editing this article since 2005 in good faith. I have contributed a great deal of time and effort to providing sources to verify its contents (often when others have provided none). This is conspiratorial, in my view. There is no basis in Misplaced Pages for blocking such work. If you want to work on the article, go ahead and do the work. What I see is a great deal of griping on talk pages and very little actual work being contributed by others. Just do the work and see what happens when other editors review what you contribute. It will either be considered an improvement by a variety of editors who want to work on the article, or it will not be. But engaging in blocking someone who has contributed as much to the article as I have is truly unfair. Just do the work and stop talking about it. Have you actually printed the article out and read it? One can do that, edit it as a print out, and then engage in making the online changes. I've provided the content and sources; one can take it from there. --NYScholar (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

For my own previous compilation of material on copyright issues pertaining to Misplaced Pages, please see User:NYScholar/WikipediaCopyright-relatedIssues, which I posted some time ago. The massive amount of copyright violations and administrators overseeing it and templates re: copyright issues all demonstrate that judgments about copyright issues and fair use are an ongoing problem in Misplaced Pages. --NYScholar (talk) 22:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL

Well, keep your stick on the ice. — CharlotteWebb 16:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

And the puck out of my own net? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Ha! No, this was a reference to The Red Green Show (starring one Steve Smith, and with which I assumed all Canadians were familiar), but if the skate fits… — CharlotteWebb 16:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Invite

Alternative proposal

Steve, I think it is pretty clear that NYScholar is a special needs user. I would much prefer to see this user under tight restrictions controlling their behavior rather than outright banned. For example, forcing them to limit their talk page posts to a 100 words a day would go a long way to helping clear up the discussion pages. Prohibiting them from refactoring their user talk page without the permission of an administrator would also help facilitate communication. Restricting them to one, non-revert edit contribution per day on Harold Pinter would force them to think very carefully about their behavior. I can think of a number of other creative restrictions that would allow them to continue editing here, but I wanted to get your opinion first. These kind of restrictions would have the added benefit of putting the ball in their court and encouraging a change in behavior. Viriditas (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Bottom line, the situation requires two missing elements: a supervising administrator who can and will block if needed, who can declare page bans or other behavioral restrictions as needed, and what we call a mentor, the equivalent in our context of an editor assigned to a writer; ideally, a good editor has rapport with the writer, and will negotiate between the goals of the writer and the policies of the publisher, including the perceived needs of the readership. The last mentor for NYScholar didn't meet the bill, clearly, and lost patience in spite of having a reputation for patience. Experts are often arrogant, they have some reason to believe that they know better than others, it's a problem experts must face, and they have varying degrees of success at it. The most urgent need is a for a supervising administrator so that the immediate disruption can cease. This would normally be the admin who closes the discussion at AN, but it could be someone else as assigned by that closing admin. This admin doesn't need, at all, to be concerned about content issues, but should be able to address behavioral ones, which can include noticing that there is disruption around an editor, regardless of fault, and acting to reduce disruption with whatever temporary measures may be needed, clearing the way for longer-term solutions that, ideally, don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Finding the mentor, then, can proceed. If NYScholar can't find a mentor willing to be patient with him or her, that would be a sign to NYS that the situation is untenable. The mentor must be willing to read and attempt to understand what NYS writes as explanations, even if long (it's highly unlikely that it takes as long to read what NYS writes as it takes for NYS to write it; further, I've corresponded with some who are highly voluminous in what they write, and if it's more than I can handle, I tell them so and ask that they summarize it. Most will, and then, if I have time, and I see sufficient possible value, I can go back and read the longer missive. Simple tl;dr is often quite offensive; someone has taken, perhaps, hours to write a thorough explanation of something, and it's dismissed in less than a minute. The real reason for tl;dr is, too often, disagreement and an unwillingness to examine the basis for it, not length.

I made a comment about this at User talk:NYScholar.--Abd (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Southern Right Whale

No problem. Content like that will always look dubious at first sight, so I thought I'd check before reverting... and found out it was right :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Adoption

No, I don't expect I will be able to help (no more than I expect to have a job or expect that nothing bad will happen to me or my family), but I am hopeful. This seems more a misunderstanding of copyright law than anything else. I think I can help there. He doesn't have to admit to any "wrong" behavior or "wrong" points, but if his behavior changes or his understanding improves and his actions change, I don't see anything bad with that and we all benefit, so where's the harm? — BQZip01 —  05:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think he's a user worth considering keeping and helping back to the point of being more useful within the community. I agree that there is a point where users are not reachable and a long-term ban/block is apropos. I supported such a ban against user:Axmann8 even though I offered to help him quite a bit. The guy simply went off on too many people and left racist comments (though he was an admitted white supremacist). This is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, not one that everyone can continue to edit even if they become a disruption. — BQZip01 —  07:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, BQZ. The problem is that Scholar's request for another mentor is, IMO, simply another delaying tactic in his arsenal of tricks that has kept Scholar from being permanently banned, despite a significant number of temporary blocks and the various incident reports, etc. If you don't have time to read the whole prolific history (and who does!) read SlimVirgin's amazing statement at the AN discussion, and Sarah's; it is vividly clear that Scholar does everything and anything in his power so that he can live another day to force everyone, through sheer persistence and gamesmanship, to use his unintelligible referencing system (See Harold Pinter) and to prevent anyone from making changes other than himself. When I tried to make a few minor changes, he then made dozens of minor changes, burying his reverts of my changes in other edits, so that it is difficult to find the diffs. He is still always right, and everyone else is still always wrong; his certainty in this is absolute, unshakeable, unyielding and undying. He has prevented many articles from being improved by the community, and, I am sorry to say, he has demonstrated that he will not change. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, scholar didn't ask me, I came to him. Like I said, I'm hopeful (not necessarily optimistic). — BQZip01 —  07:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"Well, I'd say there's hopeful, and then there's delusional" I am an Aggie and I'm hoping for a national championship in football...not in the near future of course, but some time before I die... — BQZip01 —  19:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Kindly note Shell Kinney's newest postings on the AN. All the best. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You've got mail. AdjustShift (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:I bet you'd like to know

In reviewing this user's unblock request, I think his claim that his user of an alternate account is endorsed by WP:SOCK#LEGIT is very strong. I reopened the ANI discussion. I'm not going to unblock straight away but I support it. While I agree that if this user was being disruptive with this account, a block is appropriate, I don't see how the two quite level-headed comments constitute disruption or anything close. In the meantime, I changed the block to disable autoblocking; at the least, the user's main account should not be affected, there's no reason to believe he's involved in the same discussion under another name. Mangojuice 21:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Good news and bad news

Steve, I´m glad for your second coming. I trust you received the e-mail with all the references supporting the BLP of Ray Joseph Cormier If you devote a fraction the care and attention you put into the BLP of Premier Stelmech, it will be a great work.

I will be writing another CNN iReport on my activities in Kansas City during the Spirit of ´76. My visit to the city was chronicled by the Kansas City Times on September 13, 1976 and November 2, 1976 not currently referenced in the BLP. Some of those activities are online here in a personal iReport on CNN. I expect this material to be considered self-published online information. http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-65703

With the media tsunami of information on Michael Jackson, I just learned now on Larry King he started his Victory Tour in Kansas City in 1984, the year I ran for Parliament for the 1st time as an Independent with the Themes: God, Country, Peace, Love, Freedom and the legalization of Marijuana. The current version of the BLP says in the Bids for office Section, it was a hash conviction that motivated me to run. Obviously by the themes it was a consideration, but the light came on with the thought of George Orwell´s book 1984. It was Time.

There have been so many co-incidences or signs in my life, I Googled MJ´s Victory Tour and found this Victory_Tour. Another co-incidence is his previous Triumph tour in 1981 which I just learned about reading the wiki link. Unaware of his tour, that same year I hitchhiked to Whitehorse, Yukon to symbolize the Triumph of the rider of the White Horse in Revelation 19:11 which was chronicled by all Western Canada major dailies, sent on the wire across Canada by The Vancouver Sun and McLean´s Magazine. DoDaCanaDa (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted a new iReport on CNN Today, Canada Day. I can only hope it will stimulate intelligent comments by all those who can see in the privacy of their own thoughts, the dire straights the world finds itself in.

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-289218 DoDaCanaDa (talk) 19:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

In regards to NYScholar

I was reminded today that the incidents which are being discussed on AN had once made it to Arbitration already Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/NYScholar. I'm afraid the you'll see the same behaviors described in evidence that we're still concerned with now. I didn't want to edit your well laid-out proposals, so I thought I'd drop you a note :) Shell 22:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Steve for all your hard work and bravery. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Baird

I have brought your de-archiving against consensus to the attention of the administrators' noticeboard here. Please do not repeat your actions. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 15:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• You are misrepresenting the situation. There does not appear to be a consenus. More importantly, you committed a far worse crime, by removing some of the posts. Nfitz (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I deliberately linked to the discussion, so any administrators wishing to review the situation can draw their own conclusions about what consensus was. But I just reread the discussion, and I'm baffled as to how you don't see a consensus to archive. Bearcat, Ground Zero, Disembrangler, and I were all unambiguously favour of archiving. You opposed it. And you're correct, I did inadvertantly exclude a small comment of yours ("Sorry to restore this ... but someone objected to me adding the comment in the archive, so I've had to restore the discussion. Though archiving a discussion that's still active isn't right. Particularly when discussions that have been here for years are untouched."). I apologize for that and I'm not sure how I managed it. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Fair enough ... but I'm still absolutely baffled why we are archiving a discussion that's active. Each time it has been archived, has been shortly after posts were made in the discussion. How can one contribute to a discussion when it is constantly being archived. Besides, I was simply following the instruction on the Archive page that says "If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.". 4 people have decided a consensus has been reached, and then make attempt after attempt to stifle discussion. That's not right. Nfitz (talk) 03:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It was archived because a consensus of editors felt that there was no longer any need for it to be on the article's talk page, where it was only one step removed from being in the article. And the conversation essentially *was* over; you kept thinking that you had points to make, but no new blood was coming in (despite it having been fairly widely posted) and nobody's opinions were changing. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I have never seen such a rush to archive a discussion in Misplaced Pages. If it was slanderous I could see it - but all we are doing is discussing what has been published in major media outlets. As such, the rush to selectively archive this portion of the discussion, while it's still taking place, can only be seen as censorship and bigotry. Misplaced Pages is not censored. Yet we are trying to censor the talk page. Nfitz (talk) 03:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

First, your groundless accusations of anti-gay bigotry have grown tiresome. Bearcat is a gay New Democrat. I'm not gay, but I provide enough information about myself on my user page that some judicious googling would likely lead you to a pretty complete description of my political views, and you'd have a hard time concluding on the basis of those that I'm either biased against gays or for Conservatives. Please stop ascribing to bigotry what can be explained by a desire to protect a subject's privacy. Second, on the notion of censorship, WP:NOTCENSORED says "Content that is judged to violate Misplaced Pages's biographies of living persons policy...will also be removed". Now, you don't think that this violated BLP, I get that. But the rest of us do. So if by "censorship" you mean "moving information that could be construed as violating a subject's policy to a less visible location", then you're damned right we engage in censorship, and I don't think we owe anybody any apologies for it. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• ?? Your comment makes no sense. I've never made any claims of anti-gay bigotry here on Misplaced Pages before my one post on your talk page. I'm not sure why you seem to be trying to invent a history that doesn't exist. In addition, I didn't say it was bigotry; I said it could only be seen as bigotry. i.e. it has the appearance of bigotry. I suggest you read carefully what you respond to before you respond. Given your lack of credibility on your claims that I have made previous comments about anti-gay bigotry in the project ... how am I supposed to take your word on anything else. As far as your or Bearcat's sexuality or political leanings ... I see absolutely no relevance in that ... I have no idea why you are raising it. Nfitz (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• I guess I should take your lack of response as an apology for your rudeness then? Nfitz (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You may take it as an indication that your most recent posts have convinced me that there is little to gain from continuing to interact with you about this. If you stand by your pledge not to de-archive against consensus anymore, I think we're done here, and I'm glad of it. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

After seeing your calls to have me blocked - without having violated any guidelines; and further considering the rudeness you have displayed in your comments on my talk page that violate WP:NPA, then I think at least an apology is in order. Nfitz (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The "120-years rule"

Hi SarcasticidealistSteve (not sure why you changed though; was someone stalking your old profile through Google?). Aside from my answer at Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Bedřich Smetana/archive1, the 120-years allowance is the standard for unpublished works at http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/public_domain/ (so I guess it must have some clout within the legal circles). Cheers! Jappalang (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Admin's Barnstar
		For stepping up to the plate at WP:AN to protect Misplaced Pages articles from disruptive editing, bullying and WP:OWNership. Misplaced Pages needs more admins like you. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

NYScholar

Dear Steve Smith, see . I was not comfortable banning NYScholar, but 75.86% editors supported the community ban proposal. I did what the community wanted. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 18:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Ouch! That represents a close that misunderstands banning policy and AN/I. However, it might be fine if AdjustShift understands that a closing admin can modify the terms of a ban, since AN/I bans almost never coherently agree on exact terms. I supported a ban, too, but with a supervising admin who could then determine exact conditions. I suggested, for example, that the ban should be voluntary, at least initially, with NYS limited to edits seeking a mentor. Then, if a mentor is found satisfactory to the closing admin, the admin can open up the ban as appropriate. The communication between the mentor might be almost entirely with the mentor, to avoid the problem that NYS can write voluminously. If NYS violates the terms set by the closing admin, then the editor could be blocked.

The problem with the idea that the ban was determined by the community, instead of by the closing admin based on evidence, which can then be reversed with new evidence, is that it's very difficult to reverse without another disruptive discussion in a place not really designed to deal with complex decision-making, but only with solicitation of quick administrative response to emergencies. RfC is better; as matters stand, if AdjustShift takes a hands-off, "this was the community's decision, not mine" approach, the only practical recourse left for NYS is ArbComm, which wastes some very high-level time.

The "Community" at AN/I, or practically anywhere below ArbComm, sometimes, can be heavily biased toward people who have been offended by something an editor has done, even if that thing was necessary. I filed an RfAr over the failure of an admin to recuse. Preceding that was an RfC, at which two-thirds of those commenting or endorsing comments called for me to be banned. However, when the matter went to ArbComm, those calls were distinctly muted, only a few showed up, and they were ignored by ArbComm, which only gave me proper advice, and which confirmed my two most important points: the necessity for admins to recuse when involved, and the impropriety of using the spam blacklist to control content, aside from actual massive addition of links without consensus, i.e., "linkspam."

Then, when I was banned by an admin recently, who was involved, I knew that there was a large community out there holding on to the idea that I'm disruptive. The admin banning me was one who had previously called for me to be banned, and we were directly in dispute over a current edit. Others involved in the situation had also made that call for me to be banned. I knew what would happen if I went to AN/I. So I didn't go there. It was taken there anyway, when I notified the admin that I had decided to reject his right to ban me without allegations of actual violating conduct. (It went to AN/I, not by the admin, even though I was claiming involvement, but by someone else, improperly, in my view, since the dispute had not matured.) And editors piled in to "endorse" the ban. When there were fifteen of them, and only one supporter of my position had appeared (this all happened within a few hours), I asked for it to stop and for there to be a neutral close, which happened, and, of course, as I expected, the close confirmed the ban. Now, Steve, there was no evidence presented with the ban, nor at the AN/I discussion. Almost all votes seemed to be based on "familiarity." I don't have the numbers in front of me, but something like twelve out of fifteen editors who endorsed the ban explicitly or argued for it had previously called for me to be banned in the RfC mentioned, when, quite clearly, I was acting in support of policy and guidelines, as confirmed by ArbComm and with general community support. This case will be going to ArbComm shortly, it's just a matter of getting the evidence together so that the whole thing is clear, it takes time to do that. I did not oppose the ban result at AN/I because there was no way that a consensus *not* to ban could appear there, given what I knew, it would merely become somewhat more balanced, and my editing of one article and its talk page for a month simply wasn't worth all the disruption from a truly contested ban, which would end up at ArbComm anyway.

I got a closing admin who does seem to be neutral, and who seems to understand administrative authority. The original ban was indef, actually, with some sort of vague carrot at lifting it in a month if I behaved. The AN/I discussion wasn't clear. The closing admin was asked about the duration, and set it at one month. The original banning admin still asserts that it's his call, but this will be before ArbComm before it is anything but moot. --Abd (talk) 19:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Abd, this was a community ban. The WP community decided to impose a ban on NYScholar. 75.86% editors who participated in that discussion supported the ban. As an admin, all I can do is listen to the WP community. Sarah has explained what NYScholar should do. He should appeal against the community ban to the ArbCom. AdjustShift (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've opposed this view of "community bans" in the past, but, to my knowledge, it's never been reviewed by ArbComm. It's certainly not documented at WP:BAN. No, the first step would not be an appeal to ArbComm, the first step would be, if we want to be extremely picky, that NYScholar would ask you, AdjustShift, to reconsider. The next step would be to either appeal to ArbComm, one option, which might include an unblock request through template in order to handle the appeal. Or an independent unblock request based on the poor process, which I don't particularly recommend. AdjustShift, you'll have to decide whether or not to remain responsible, in that case. It may all be moot if NYScholar decides to take her marbles elsewhere; I'd not blame her in the least if she does that. In any case, I don't see any opinion here from Steve. My comments here were for him. 75.86% of editors, eh? What's the criterion? Does prior involvement count? Steve, for sure, put a lot of work into investigating the history. How many did that? I can say this: I didn't. I supported the topic ban, and, while I technically opposed the site ban, I supported a variation that started out the same way, as, effectively, a site ban, and it seemed to me that Steve also indicated possible support for this. So if 75.86% supported option A, and, if presented specifically with option B, 85.32% would have supported it, what was the community decision? What, exactly, did the 75.86% support? Editors who have caused major disruption, from ArbComm, have seen six month topic bans, and with even more disruption, a three-month block, I have a recent example in mind. So is the ban an indef ban, or is it pending the appearance of some option that a supervising admin -- or another admin -- might accept? --Abd (talk) 22:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's an indefinite ban, which is not the same thing as an infinite one (though in this case, I think that's what it's likely to amount to). If NYScholar could a. indicate a clear understanding of what was wrong with his/her behaviour, b. present an editing plan that i. stayed out of previous problem areas, ii. gave reason to believe that previous problematic behaviour would not be repeated, and iii. included some clear metrics upon which the ban would be reimposed, and c. find an experienced mentor willing to supervise her/him, I could be persuaded to eventually support an unban. NYScholar has been so stubborn in refusing to admit fault, though, I think that that scenario is likely to remain a hypothetical. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Abd, please read Misplaced Pages:Banning policy#Community ban. I banned NYScholar because there was a consensus to ban NYScholar. 73.33% editors supported the ban proposal, and they provided solid reasons why NYScholar should be banned. If NYScholar wants to appeal against the community ban, he/she should do what is mentioned here. You can also read my comment here. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 08:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite familiar with the policy, AdjustShift. I read all of what you point to previously. Now, Steve, if we had an administrator who had closed based purely on the evidence, without reference to "consensus," and who understood the problem with treating specific positive decisions (such as "ban") as being community decisions based on a narrow discussion, a lack of organized evidence and careful review -- which take time, and who was willing to simply take personal responsibility for it, having been advised by the community, we could then work out possibilities for NewYorkScholar. But from what I've seen, AdjustShift considers that the decision was made by the community, and, if I'm correct, therefore this admin could not reverse it or modify it. It would be necessary to go to ArbComm, or back to AN/I. Which is probably too cumbersome. The wiki works best when all decisions are made by individuals who are responsible for them; that's what it means that we don't "vote." I'm not an administrator, but if I were, I would not close any discussion where there was a supermajority appearing like that unless I were willing to take personal responsibility for it. Which would include reversing it if new evidence came to light. I might close a snow discussion without investigation, but, then, I'd investigate if there was reason shown, I wouldn't just pass off all responsibility on the "community." AdjustShift seems to think that bans are something different from, say, AfD, where it's standard practice that if you disagree with a close, you can and should go first to the closing admin. Some, on seeing better evidence, will simply reverse, avoiding much disruptive process. The wiki works by mostly avoiding massive discussions, preferring individual interactions, and it's only when this breaks down that broader discussions are needed.

As to NYScholar, what I saw in the last few days is different from what you saw. I saw some level of admission of fault, though it was more visible as a clear willingness to seek a mentor, to recognize the necessity of that, and to acknowledge that she should have taken the problem of the loss of her prior mentor more seriously. In any case, what I was proposing would either succeed or it would fail, if it succeeded, much benefit would accrue; and if it failed, it would have failed gracefully, without any more big flap. NYScholar would simply have been blocked when the closing admin concluded it was necessary, because whatever restrictions placed on NYScholar's editing had not been observed; and, as I suggested, no editing besides that necessary to find a mentor would have been permitted initially. I strongly suspect that NYScholar would have honored "voluntary" restrictions, i.e., that it wasn't necessary to actually block. And if I was wrong ... practically no harm, we'd have ended up where we are quite quickly and without fuss.

I've received advice by email that NYScholar was a Truly Bad Editor. Perhaps. I haven't checked. As you know, I'm interested in efficient process that doesn't toss out the baby with the bathwater, and this doesn't depend on the specific facts of a specific problem editor. --Abd (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, since AdjustShift was so firm about "75.86%" of !votes, I did the research. See ban analysis. WP:BAN asserts Topic or site bans may be implemented by a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute. AdjustShift neglected to consider prior involvement. It's tricky to determine it exactly, but for some of the editors, prior conflict was blatant. For others, it was not so clear. However, my ad-hoc analysis is that 55% of uninvolved editors opposed the ban. If we discount the pile-on at the beginning, which can be "payback time" for any editor who has had a conflict with an "indicted" editor, or who came to a conclusion previously and is now simply repeating it, I come up with 64% opposed (7/11). In addition, when there is such an initial pile-on of editors with an axe to grind (by the way, I don't believe that this describes you at all, though I did treat you as involved), the accumulated weight of arguments can drag along others who don't take the time to investigate, and with an editor like NYScholar, figuring out what is really going on can be quite tedious. I've now spent maybe five hours researching NYS edits, and I can't say I really know. Would you mind looking at that page?

My own opinion is that we should finesse decisions like this. The problem with an indef block is that it's a blunt instrument. Definitely there was a problem with NYScholar, that's not the question. Rather, the issue is how to best deal with it, to not throw out the baby with the bathwater. If we can agree on the best way forward, and if NYScholar hasn't been totally blown away from Misplaced Pages, we may be able to fix this. (If I had put as much effort in as this editor clearly has, for better or worse, and I were indef blocked in this manner, I'd be reluctant to even touch a log-in under any conditions. I might do it, personally, but only under narrow circumstances where I believe that a broader consensus would vindicate me, and I'm unusual that way.)

My interest, besides some sympathy for how NYScholar must feel right now about this, is blazing a trail, for how we deal with experts and SPAs (who are often quite knowledgeable even if not formally qualified) and COI editors -- the problems can be similar -- is something I consider crucial. And it must be efficient; too often we swing between extremes: it can seem that a block is quite efficient, that deals with the problem! Sometimes! But with a cost. And the other extreme: no block, no ban, and no supervision, so it takes a huge discussion to deal with the problem, and more than once. The original mentoring attempts with NYScholar were naive and inadequate. --Abd (talk) 19:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Abd, if Editor A types "fuck, fuck, fuck" on Editor B's talk page and later if Editor B supports the community ban of Editor A, should I discount Editor B's argument? When I'm determining consensus, I don't simply count votes; I analyze the arguments presented by both sides. Please analyze Steve Smith's rationale, Sarah's rationale, and SlimVirgin’s rationale. I counted their rationales regardless of whether they were involved or not. Their rationales were very strong. If 22 people would have simply said "Just ban the punk", and 8 people would have given solid reasons why NYScholar shouldn't be banned, NYScholar wouldn't have been banned. But, that was not the case. The reasons provided by people who supported the ban proposal were very strong. Abd, what were you doing when the ban discussion was taking place? You opposed the community ban proposal, but you didn't provide strong reasons why NYScholar shouldn't be banned. We ban or block people to prevent disruption; we don't ban or block people to punish them. If NYScholar can convinced the WP community that he can edit peacefully, without causing any disruption; his ban could be lifted. Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the arguments by those opposed to the ban seemed exceedingly weak. Most argued merely that bans are an extreme remedy, or, in your case, that bans against experts hurt Misplaced Pages in general. Neither of these arguments had anything to do with the case at hand, and, by the way, it is certainly not established that NYScholar was, in fact, a "scholar" or expert of any kind (her former mentor Shell Kinney is convinced that she is not). In fact, now that I am looking over Harold Pinter closely, I see that she relied very heavily on one source for her most crucial points and often does not give page numbers to other books that she cited. Did she read them? The third, and slightly better argument given in opposition (on its face), was that NYScholar was an editor of long standing, who had contributed much to the community. However, unfortunately, this is a false statement. In fact, as Steve noted, in almost every case, NYScholar's contributions were disruptive and destructive; she asserted WP:OWNership over every article that I have seen to which she devoted substantial time; and she created a referencing system for most of these articles that is incomprehensible and exhibits a kind of obsession with what she claimed was MLA style, but which, in fact, makes it impossible to actually verify information, principally because of missing page numbers. Sometimes, one cannot even track which source is being referred to, and you have to click back and forth to her bibliography articles to cross-reference the cites. Tim Riley and I have done much now to return Harold Pinter to comprehensibility, but we are only about half way through, and then the missing page numbers will all need to be found. This is all in addition to the techniques that NYScholar used to prevent other editors from editing "her" articles, as described by Sarah, SlimVirgin and others. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The question to me isn't the ban, but how the ban is managed. It seems that your concept of a community ban is that the community makes the decision. My position is that, just as with an AfD, the closer makes the decision, based on advice from the community. Above, you emphasize arguments. Fine. That's exactly what I'd expect from a good close. Instead, AdjustShift, you cited highly questionable percentages, and disregarded the policy's guidance. If WP:BAN were followed, there was no consensus for a ban, and, yes, we'd disregard the !vote of an editor who had been insulted like that. But the uncivil editor would already have been blocked, and if it had been repeated enough, indef blocked. I see arguments like this all the time from admins either charged with or defending other admins charged with action while involved. (There is no such charge here, lest you misunderstand.) It's very weak. However, now you claim that it was the weight of the arguments, and you did originally mention that, and I will assume that you verified that the arguments in question were true. I see no need to worry about that now. There is no dispute yet, AdjustShift, if I or anyone else wants to challenge the ban, you won't have to guess or infer it. You will be asked to reconsider, based on evidence or new developments presented. What I was worried about, here, is what I've seen before: an admin closes based on "consensus," and then, when asked to consider new evidence, declines, claiming that it was the community that made the decision, not him or her. Because editors do hold grudges, and can and will pile in, decisions on banning and unbanning should be made by uninvolved administrators, and, where necessary, based on advice from the community. Going back to AN or AN/I, it can be predicted what would happen, and we see it above, where Ssilvers argues that NYScholar should remain banned because of alleged past misbehavior. I would not propose an unban under conditions that would allow that misbehavior to recur, and to continue a ban based on past misbehavior, under conditions which would prevent that misbehavior, would be punitive. And Misplaced Pages does not punish. Not legitimately, anyway. --Abd (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Abd, I didn't disregard WP:BAN. Please analyze the arguments of people who supported the ban. Read what Misplaced Pages:BAN#Community bans says:

Topic or site bans may be implemented by a consensus of editors who are not involved in the underlying dispute.

WP:BAN doesn't say an admin should always discount the rationales of editors who are involved in the underlying dispute. Sometimes, the editors who are involved may provide solid rationales why the editor should be banned. If Steve Smith, Sarah, and SlimVirgin were to say "I had dispute with NYScholar, he/she is useless ...", I would have discounted such arguments. I didn't discount their rationales because their rationales were solid. They gave solid reasons why NYScholar should be banned. Read what I wrote when I closed the discussion at AN:

But, 22 people supported the proposal, and their arguments were strong. The rationale given by Steve Smith was very strong. 73.33% editors supported the community ban proposal.

I emphasized the strong arguments of those 22 editors as the reason behind community banning NYScholar. There was a clear consensus to ban NYScholar. If you disagree with me, please contact the ArbCom. Abd, please stop making these disruptive comments, and accusing me of disregarding WP:BAN. I didn't disregard any WP policy; I simply did what the community wanted. AdjustShift (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

It's up to Steve if this discussion continues, and he can stop this in a flash. Once again, AS, you cite the percentage of total votes as if that meant anything. And you did disregard policy, and, apparently, you are insisting on it, which is troubling, but at this point it's moot, I don't take anyone to ArbComm merely because they disagree with me. That situation might or might not continue. Now stop trying to repress civil discussion; you already deleted my comment from Misplaced Pages talk:Banning policy, which was pushing it, given your involvement.

On the substance, no proposal has been made that the arguments of those who are involved be disregarded. Only the numbers. Considering the arguments of the involved is crucial, in fact, for they are likely to be more informed than anyone else, except possibly someone who puts many hours into researching the situation. "Consensus" refers to numbers, in fact, though our guidelines are a tad unclear on it.

AS, you have radically misunderstood my point, and, indeed, the policy. Nobody, not me, and not the policy, says that you should discount the "rationales" of editors who are involved. Considering the arguments of the involved is crucial, in fact, for they are likely to be more informed than anyone else, except possibly someone who puts many hours into researching the situation. You can make a decision in a close, if it's clear enough, that is based on a telling argument by one editor; it would be dicey if it were your own argument, but not impossible. But you wouldn't claim that this was a "consensus." You'd claim it as your decision as the closing admin. What is discounted is the !votes, i.e., the count of involved editors on one side or the other.

By narrowly defining the problem and the possible solutions, and by disregarding some of the comments, you turned the affair into a black or white, ban and block or nothing, affair. And then every editor's comment is considered only as a Support or Oppose, and then you can report nonsense like 73.33%. When involvement is considered, as the policy requires and as I did at , there was, in fact, a majority of uninvolved editors who opposed the ban. You may certainly claim weight of arguments, but a review of the situations shows, in fact, that the arguments establish, without doubt, that there is a serious problem that must be addressed, or disruption will continue. Those arguments do not establish that a strict, total, indef ban and block are the best solution. There are other possible solutions; one was proposed and had some important support. It would involve starting out with the practical equivalent of a ban, would allow editors willing to shoulder the burden of supervision to take that on, and would have protected all the editors who had experienced problems with NYScholar. Approaching that ideal is what consensus is about.

Once again, AS, this hasn't been formally proposed to you. These are just the underlying principles; many Misplaced Pages editors don't have the patience to discuss this. I'm here to work this out with Steve, who proposed the community ban. If we can agree, then we'd come to you. If not, you won't hear about this again, most likely, unless NYScholar independently requests assistance. --Abd (talk) 23:16, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Abd, you don't seem to understand what I'm saying. It is not my fault that you don't understand what I am saying. I erased your comment at Misplaced Pages talk:Banning policy because Misplaced Pages talk:Banning policy is not a place to discuss about the community ban of NYScholar; it is place to discuss about how to ameliorate the Misplaced Pages:Banning policy page. I'm not just pointing at 73.33%; I'm pointing at the solid rationales of people who supported the ban. You are needlessly disrupting this talk page and other talk pages. If you disagree with the way community ban was conducted, please contact the ArbCom; making needless comments here and there will not help your cause. AdjustShift (talk) 07:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah! I see the problem. You think I don't understand what you are saying. I do. I've incorporated that into what I've written, here and elsewhere, but you may have missed it. Now, is it worth the words it would take to show that? Here? --Abd (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

A few points on all of this:

• I think Abd is drastically overestimating what constitutes "involved". I, for example, was involved in this only insofar as I proposed the ban. Most of the people commenting in the ban discussion, on both sides, were uninvolved, even if they had crossed paths in the past with NYScholar. Past knowledge of/experience with the editor does not constitute involvement in "the underlying dispute".
• AdjustShift has it right on the relative quality of the arguments, in my view. But then, I was involved.
• I thought User:SheffieldSteel put it well at WT:BAN: "A community ban is an appropriate sanction for editors who have exhausted the community's patience. It seems that gaining a consensus in support of such a ban is going to be problematic at best, if we are to ignore those editors whose patience has actually been exhausted."
• If NYScholar wants to appeal the ban, in form or in substance, he/she can do so through Arb Comm.
• I'm not likely to participate further in this discussion unless specifically asked to comment on something, but if you guys want to continue it here on my talk page, that's fine with me. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 16:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I am only here on your Talk page, Steve, for the purpose of open discussion with you, not to debate with AdjustShift on the ban. There are extensive discussion now at Misplaced Pages talk:BAN over the issues raised by this close. I can appreciate that you may disagree with the analysis I presented of the votes, but what I think you could agree with is that if involved editors, ones with prior conflict with NYScholar, are set aside as to votes (but not as to arguments, necessarily), the results were not as AdjustShift presented them and the consensus is less decisive than claimed. You were involved, Steve, you had a specific dispute with NYScholar that you were engaged in, if I have it right; there was a reason why you did not simply use your tools, as you could have done. (In fact, I believe, we'd have ended up with a better result if you had simply declared, at the outset, a topic ban for NYScholar, and then had used the display of the Big Stick to encourage the development of solutions that would at the same time protect against further disruption while leaving a door open for the recognition of NYScholar's actual contributions or, in any case, an insurance that future contributions were not disruptive. Generally, I've seen, premature recusal for involvement can be almost as harmful as failure to recuse when challenged; the real key to cases where failure to recuse has been admonished by ArbComm are ones where the admin stubbornly held on, they were not ones where an admin acted in good faith and went to a noticeboard for confirmation when seriously challenged as involved. In a thoroughly refined wikilegal system, any block would be proposed by an admin, but could only be temporary, pending, and a truly neutral implementation would be required for anything longer, but that's further than I'd see we would go in the near future. An involved police officer may arrest upon belief that public safety requires it, but the matter is quickly taken out of that officer's hands.)

I will continue whatever you permit of this by email. The case of NYScholar is a sad one, but there are many such sad stories, I'm here only to try to build a discriminating wedge, to help establish policies and procedures, sometimes by pioneering them, that will prevent such dramas from continuing. I think you know me well enough to trust that. --Abd (talk) 20:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

No problem whatsoever - my articles have been sitting there unreviewed for so long a day won't make a difference! As someone working for a firm of solicitors for around 50 hours a week I know the intrusion of real life into WP, so no pressure. And I'll reiterate again - brilliant to have you back mate. I always had a healthy respect for you as both a mainspace contributor and a wiki-theorist. Ironholds (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)