Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:49, 26 October 2009

Hey there

Hey Wikidemon! I've been out of the game for awhile and missed all the Obamadrama. Would you mind pointing me in the direction of the final result/decision to the Arb case, and then the follow-up as well. Thanks! Grsz 14:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The case and decisions are at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles. I would prefer not to comment on the specifics because I (along with three other editors so far) are currently under a "no interaction" injunction arising from this. However, as a general matter the ruling was very superficial and narrowly drawn to several incidents and user behavior taken in isolation, with relatively little guidance or review of the larger issues of Obama articles. It has probably done a little good to stabilize the articles but there have already been 4-5 trips back to Arbcom and several to AN/I on enforcement. You can see those in the archives of requests for clarification, requests for enforcement, requests for amendment, and of course AN/I and the talk pages of the editors involved. Wikidemon (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Your Handling of ACORN and Nonpartisanship

An excellent piece of work, in both conception and implementation. It's particularly good that the new article will be referred to regarding other organizations. PhGustaf (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I could use some help creating links from all those articles, and also adding some representative cases where nonpartisan orgs have been accused of violating, or found to be violating, the restrictions. It's actually a pretty important subject with no Misplaced Pages article until now. Wikidemon (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Notification

Please see WP:AE - I intend to interpret the mutual interaction restriction between you and ChildofMidnight to include making reports. I have also filed for a request for clarification. Your input at both is welcomed.--Tznkai (talk) 16:11, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

For goodness sake, how unfortunate. I wish you would take a little more time to familiarize yourself with the history of the matter - you seem to be under a number of misconceptions here. Wikidemon (talk) 16:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For your words of support as an editor, and not for the comments that I made. I was pretty angry and felt that it had already been personalized. See you around.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Barack and Michelle

Nice job with your work on Barack and Michelle. Perhaps you'd like to start an article on this upcoming book. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you are fast! Thanks. That story came out only 30 minutes ago. I've gone ahead and created an article... obviously it will expand greatly as there are more sources and we learn more about the book. Wikidemon (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can use this as a source, although the picture is pretty funny. It looks like something my brother would have drawn in high school. Wikidemon (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That's an awesome picture! Grundle2600 (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Question

You would know better than I do; is this of BLP concern? Grsz 01:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally I'm never worried about things that are truthfully discussed in good faith on talk pages, so I wouldn't be concerned about Grundle's mentioning on the talk page there that a Washington Times editorial accuses Jennings of breaking the law. Some people who believe in strict interpretation of BLP say that talk pages should have the same sourcing standard as article pages, but I don't think that can be true. If that were the case one could never propose to include material, or dispute it, because even talking about it without solid sourcing would be forbidden. However, there is a big BLP hurdle to cross before putting it on the article page. First, the claim has to come from a reliable source and be credible. That's unlikely to happen. No reliable source is going to claim that he broke the law, unless and until he's convicted. Meanwhile, a reliable source might report an allegation, an indictment, a trial, or (assuming this was long ago and nobody is ever going to prosecute) could conceivably report that some accuse Jennings of having broken the law, or it having been an issue. That's unlikely to rise to the level of noteworthiness, even without BLP. It would have to be a Van Jones type thing where he gets hounded and it becomes a real scandal. Its mere existence as a conservative blog meme, even if reported, doesn't justify covering it. Suppose, for example, that someone accuses X of being a pedophile. Though the accusation is never very well reported, or corroborated, a reliable source somewhere mentions that the accusation was made. If that's all there is to it, we wouldn't repeat the accusation. That's not a very good explanation... but that's how I think these pan out. Wikidemon (talk) 01:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

That's pretty much how it broke down for me as well, but I wasn't sure about the talk page. I reverted the addition to the article by an IP. Grsz 01:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's probably fair to give a gentle reminder on the talk page that speculation that somebody's past actions might have been illegal, even if occasioned by an editorial about that, are pretty far afield and we should give some respect to article subjects until and unless we have some good sourcing. I just don't like banging the BLP drum too loudly because if overapplied it tends to chill talk page discussions and thereby make disputes worse rather than better. Wikidemon (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I will do that, though I'm not sure they are ignorant to that. A NPOV noticeboard post about Van Jones as a first edit - not so sure about that. Grsz 01:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about Grundle? Surely his first controversial edit was something about Obama, not a meta-page about Van Jones. You know I have a fondness for working with him. Wikidemon (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I meant the IP. Grsz 13:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Statement to ArbCom

Regarding I'm pretty sure that "Should The undertow be de-sysopped for nominating and supporting Law" isn't what you meant. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Oops, gosh. I hope the rest of my argument was a little more cogent :) Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment

I moved a Misplaced Pages contributor's paragraph about an anti- Glenn Beck spoof website from Beck's blp (oops! actually it was removed by somebody else, while the matter was pending discussion on the talkpage; but anyway...) to its own article space, here: "Rumor website parody of Glenn Beck." Yet, Wikidemon, my problem is, that's an awful name! I don't want to repeat the website's name as the name of the article for obvious reasons (for BLP problems, that is). But the name I came up is simply lacking. Would you happen to have an opinion as to whether a better name for it might even be "Beck v. Eiland-Hall"? As this, after all, is the name of the case receiving an overview at the realiable source of Harvard Law School's Citizen Media Law Project, per the link here. ↜Just M E here , now 11:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Btw, Wikidemon, now I've started the thread: WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Glenn_Beck's dispute with Eiland-Hall over EH's use of Beck's name in a "parody" domain name, too. ↜Just M E here , now 15:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Boston Herald too. For goodness sake! People do the strangest things. I do so love Gilbert Gottfried. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Lol ↜Just M E here , now 15:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you think info about the suit could find a place here: Anonymous (group)? ↜Just M E here , now 16:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it sourced that this is related to Anonymous? Only if so; otherwise, if it's just our analysis, it's OR. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon, here (link) is a pretty good primary source for the Anonymous linkage, but I'll surf for a mention of this in the legacy media, too (thanks for encouraging me to find sources!) However, although it started Anonymous, once both the subtext of the meme and Mr. Eiland-Hall's participation got outed, perhaps the Anonymous crew's participation outside of Eiland-Hall's efforts became minimal? (I know: speculation. But, I'll see what turns up in some reliable source.) ↜Just M E here , now 17:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

This one? ↜Just M E here , now 17:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI oops

Hi WD, I think you accidentally called out the wrong person as an SPA. I posted a quick note at ANI. Feel free to remove my note if you want to refactor your own comment there. Kind regards, --guyzero | talk 17:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Dreams..Father

Just a heads up, apparantly some obscure blogger claims to have seen Ayers at Reagan Airport and he randomly admitted to writing the book. How anybody could actually believe that is beyond me, but I've already reverted one attempt at Bill Ayers. Grsz 03:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like it was Ayers' idea of a joke, per the original (unreliable) source and all other (unreliable) sources that seriously comment on it. For a real hoot, take a look at the talk page to the Dreams from My Father article, and the AN/I report I had to start on the subject. It's yet another Obama conspiracy theory. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Non-free rationale

Hi- Are you still working on this? If not, I was wondering if it could be deleted or moved to userspace. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Reply re: ACORN/ArbCom

I haven't been involved in any of the discussions you have mentioned, although I am aware of a few of them just because of updates to sanctions and remedies that crop up on my talk page. As the only other person who received that particular topic ban, I feel uniquely qualified to offer my opinion on the matter. I do not believe my comment violates any restrictions, but I do believe that it is important to say my piece. I will, however, go back and slightly refactor my comment. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Presidency of Barack Obama

Regarding your recent removal of the POV tag from Presidency of Barack Obama, would you please answer the following question? Why do you think that having the article mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not also having the same article mention Obama's actions in favor of offshore drilling, does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."? Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to take a look at the article again, but I don't have any specific opinion. The point is just that adding a POV tag as a response to having your proposal shot down isn't a great way to go about things, as I said in the edit summary. You're more likely to alienate people, and I don't think it's going to come any closer to getting the thing resolved. Normally that's a last step, and you're sticking your neck out when you do that. If I hadn't removed it someone else might, and given how so many people seem to have it out for you there it might end up with more trouble with the administrators at some point. Also, the "advert" tag is usually reserved for things that literally look like advertisements, normally for products and companies. That usually comes from spammers for the company. It's not meant to simply indicate that there is too much praise in the article. Stay in good spirits, please, and don't let this get you down. That article needs a lot of work! - Wikidemon (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. Good point about the advertising tag. Thanks! Grundle2600 (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Obama is african american and multiracial

Please see the earlier discussion "....One Drop Rule" where I lay this all out. We are using an inclusive term of african american to be exclusive and perverting the definition in the process. The sources that say he is of mixed race, do not contend with the ones who say he is black, they simply augment them since the two terms are not mutually exclusive. Do you see what I mean? I'm taking this concept from the wiki African American article that specifically addresses this issue, even going so far as to say that Obama "is obviously biracial". Again, if the two terms were mutually exclusive, then Obama could not, by definition, be african american. It's a sort of catch -22. I hope to have your support because I'm really trying here, and I think this really solid argument, and also common sense. JohnHistory (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory

I hear what you're saying. In this case it isn't a question of what is true (or culturally accepted), but rather which among several legitimate conceptions of race to favor. The sources agree that Obama is AA, and also that he's bi/multi-racial. Only, as a matter of frequency most of the sources simply treat him as black. It's a complicated issue. Their omission becomes Misplaced Pages's omission because Misplaced Pages is a mirror of current thought. I hope we can sort it out. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Grundle and ANI

I don't know if you're up to this but since you like Grundle so much there is a way to show it by helping him. I wouldn't object to the following and would add it to my "vote" at ANI .

"Grundle should be allowed to use Wikidemon as a good faith proxy which would work as following: Grundle can and should discuss proposed edits with Wikidemon who himself then can bring it up on the appropriate talk page for discussion and make an edit on Grundle's behalf if there is consensus on Wikidemon's edited version."

Sure, that would put yourself in a more than only a "mentor position". Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please feel free to make changes to my proposal here if you'd like.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, gosh, thanks. I have some concerns about being a mentor for Grundle, even if I enjoy his company as an editor. I tend to agree with people's arguments that he has been obstinate and played games. If he starts playing games with me it will be hard - I haven't had to be in the position of telling him no, not really. I can ignore his more outrageous suggestions, confident that others will reject them so I don't have to. I've only stepped in every once in a while where he's put forth a good idea that others hadn't seen. Plus as a content matter I really disagree with most of what he has proposed. There is a reward in all this. Sometimes it's good to try to see things from the point of view of someone you disagree with on politics, it helps bring perspective and every once in a while you actually change your mind on something. Still, it would be hard to be simultaneously fair to him regarding his edits, and to the community as a whole regarding POV and relevance. Finally, I can't promise to be reliable. Though I do spend far too much time on Misplaced Pages for my own good I'm not always responsive. I may be gone for days at a time, or procrastinate when something starts feeling like an obligation. Maybe I just need to go to mentorship school. Is there such a thing? Also, I haven't seen that Grundle would be amenable to this. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

With other words, it's too much weight to handle and carry. I don't blame you. Even so I might like Grundle in person I just don't do here on WP (and I made that recently clear on my talk page). Well, it's now up to the community to decide Grundle's further being here. BTW, you did more than most others including me did . Anyways, before I start senseless "emotional blabla" I'll leave it where it is. Thanks for responding in such a honest manner.

Best, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And now to something totally different

Since we're discussing editors who are "being obstinate and playing games," how do you feel about LotLE? His behavior, particularly in accusing others of being partisan and pushing a POV, has been nothing less than abrasive. He deleted the ACORN lede edit (final paragraph of the lede) a few weeks ago, then claimed that he "wrote something like it" himself and now supports it. I notice that you deleted my edit on the article's Talk page since it was accusatory; then I deleted LotLE's edit because it was also accusatory; then you reverted me. Is LotLE getting some sort of indulgence here? Or is he subject to the same code of conduct as the rest of us?

What I've noticed about Misplaced Pages in the years I've been here is that it shouldn't matter who does the editing: a quality contribution from a 15-year-old high school sophomore is valued just as highly as an equally well-written contribution from a 54-year-old Nobel laureate. Jimbo himself said as much: it isn't the name of the editor, but the quality of the edit that should guide us. LotLE takes the opposite approach: it isn't the quality of the edit, but the name of the editor that drives him. When an anon IP editor like me made the edit to the ACORN lede, he reverted it and wrote a less-than-civil edit summary. When Xenophrenic restored the very same edit a couple of weeks later, LotLE claimed authorship and supported it. What gives? 64.208.230.145 (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey sock. Why don't you at least make your "own" section? To lazy?--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

"Hey sock." Now that's constructive. Who's the sockmaster, since you obviously know so much about me? 64.208.230.145 (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Blablabla. Since you "know" that much you tell me? And maybe on my own talk page? Not that you can expect an answer for sure but you could give it a try. You know how to copy and paste, do you?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:06, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That guy doesn't have anything constructive to add. What about you, Wikidemon? I see that Grundle2600 is on the verge of being banned at WP:ANI. But LotLE and this The Magnificent Clean-keeper seem more provocative to me, and less collegial and collaborative. Why no administrative action against them? 64.208.230.145 (talk) 20:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

"LotLE and this The Magnificent Clean-keeper". Where is the connection in your strange thinking mind? I'm not even bother to respond to the rest of your "allegations" but would like to remind you not to grind your axe here on Wikidemon's page but, if at all, do it on my page; Unless you're worried I might kick you out more sooner than later. I rarely feed the trolls although I really love animals. And since in your twisted mind I'm more "provocative" you should start backing this up and report it to the appropriated boards here on WP unless of course, you're just venting meaningless steam.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikidemon: Again, feel free to kick the whole "crap" out of here at any point. I hate "misusing" other editors talk pages.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 22:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I find it amusing, really. I may put a text box around it. LOTLE and, to a lesser extent, TMCK, are somewhat strong willed, and can be a little more aggressive than I'm comfortable with in reverting what they consider bad edits, and labeling editors they see as problematic. I just happen to agree with them 80% of the time. You can call that a double standard if you wish, but it's a lot easier to deal with a strong-willed editor who (in your thinking) is trying to make a good edit, than a strong-willed editor who repeatedly tries to insert poorly sourced, trivial, irrelevant, and/or opinionated content into the encyclopedia. Grundle just wins me over by being so good natured, so that even if I disagree with him I enjoy editing when he's around. If everyone were that friendly this place would be a lot nicer. And if you (the IP editor) are one of the banned editors back here to lurk, well, whatever. You're obviously pretty familiar with the people and old disputes. If heaven ever goes 2.0 Saint Peter will ask you about your Misplaced Pages sins :) But back to a more serious question you raise, it's true that it shouldn't matter who we are here. In theory it's completely egalitarian and you're only as good as your edits. It's good to remember that. But those of us with registered accounts, and even unregistered users with stable IP addresses or writing styles that are recognizable, come to be known by the body of our edits. I think that's part of the program too, you develop a reputation and respect. You just get to earn it fresh, and nobody asks where you went to school or what your GPA was. But for pretty obvious reasons that leads to a prejudice against unregistered accounts, new editors, people with a difficult history here, people one's had a dispute with, etc. It's best to resist that, and I try to remind myself. Another thing to remember is that most people who you can't stand on Misplaced Pages, or anywhere online, are probably great people in real life who are worth respect and treating well. Anyway, I haven't followed your dispute with LotLE and I'm not really interested. Even if you're 100% right about the contradictory statements about the old edit, that looks a lot more like a simple mistake in memory than any sneaky plot. I mean, if one wanted to do something sneaky on Misplaced Pages, deleting an edit and then later claiming credit for it would be pretty weak in the sneaky department. I'd just let it go and move on to better things. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Certain editors continue to be unnecessarily provocative and disrespectful with their edit summaries and Talk page remarks, and now a new edit warrior and POV pusher, Redthoreau has arrived to ignore Talk page consensus and protect ACORN's image. I'm growing more and more discouraged about this. Choosing to be an IP editor is a valid choice and should not constantly attract sock accusations. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

WD: you said, "You're obviously pretty familiar with the people and old disputes." All it takes is one look at LotLE's block log and SoV's admin review to realize that this is not their first rodeo. I don't care for their conduct. It is not collegial or collaborative. There are other people who don't care for their conduct either: some of them are veteran editors with named accounts (not IP editors), so let's not even allow anyone to hide behind the facade of pretending that IP editors are second class citizens here. The User Talk page histories are also revealing. Then we get TMCK jumping in, calling me a sock and mocking me. I haven't reviewed his history yet, but expect to find much of the same: edit warring, POV pushing, and disrespect for other editors. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And here we find the same history for RT. I'm not going to speculate about sockpuppetry. No speculation is necessary here. They get into edit wars and get blocked because they're dedicated to removing controversial material from articles about left-wing icons. I don't need to be a named editor with 100,000 edits and 20 barnstars to diagnose their problem and offer a solution. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Like it or not, veteran IP editors are always going to be viewed with suspicion. There's a good reason for this, because many of them are socking. If the IP address is stable it might as well be an account, but it's hard to remember a string of numbers. If not stable it's hard to develop editing relationships, respect, a track record, etc. That's a fact of life, and even if the reason for preferring not to register is completely reasonable that's one of the side-effect. Redthoreau does not seem to be an obvious sock, and if they're a long time POV editor I haven't seen that, not in the range of articles I've edited. The edit warring over ACORN seems to come out of left field. Anyway, I don't see what all that drama has to do with the article. I don't agree with Redthoreau's changes to the lead on a variety of levels. They're incorrect and weaker English, even if you get past the POV issue, which seems to downplay the reasons for ACORN's being controversial. But I don't think it's worth so much fuss. The only one that really matters to my mind is adding "alleged" before embezzlement, which suggests that it's just a claim. Regarding the employee misconduct thing, I don't think either version is perfect whoever originally wrote it (was that me?). But I'd rather discuss that on the talk page. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

LinkedIn

Wikidemon: Thanks for cleaning up the LinkedIn article -- especially for deleting the "Sites with comparable features" section. I always thought that was pretty useless, especially as it evolved into a spam magnet, but I wasn't WP:BOLD enough to just wipe it out. I'm glad you did. Thanks! -Sme3 (talk) 01:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

One of those recurring IPs

Perhaps you might take a look at the recent edits by User:64.208.230.145. You've had some contact with this editor and his/her disruptive edits. In particular, I noticed the IPs insertion of an unnecessary and duplicative direct quote in Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation today. I've taken it out, but obviously need to avoid 3RR myself. LotLE×talk 18:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)