Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:28, 22 January 2010

Are you here because I deleted your article? Please read through this first to find out why.

If I left a post on your talk page please answer there, I'll see it, no worries. If you leave a post here, I'll answer here. Now and then I don't think an answer from me is needed. If you wanted one anyway, I'll be happy to get a wee nudge.

Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Tombaker321

He's getting tiresome at my talk page. Jehochman 14:54, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Tombaker321. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:53, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears to have uncovered a separate sock farm. Tombaker321 will continue his campaign of disruption, I predict. Jehochman 13:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that. Seems Pr77 did spot some socks, but they weren't who he thought they were (I'm not startled). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That reminds me of a The Ren and Stimpy Show episode where they fall through a black hole and discover where all the Universe's missing left socks go. Jehochman 14:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Heh! I may never grok why, ever since I was in school, if I carefully count and match socks before throwing them in the washing machine, they'll all be there, none will be missing and it'll seem like a big, batty waste of time but, if I slip up even once and don't count and match 'em first, at least one's bound to go missing, maybe forever :) Gwen Gale (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Not wanting to reopen the archived topic, its now well over a week since both of you asserted I had BLP violations. Gwen Gale's psycho-babble assessment of my motivations could not be more wrong. A third admin is still failing to offer any support of these violations also. While I appreciate the impossibility in your minds that you would be using your roles as admins improperly, its no solace to your continuing assumption of bad faith upon me. Jehochman claims I am on a campaign of disruption, and that I will continue to be. Both aspersion are wrong. Calling in question a editor's contributions is a challenge, it is reprehensible to ridicule the editor who is attempting to respond. I have stated to both of you clearly my concerns for your approach to administration, to which neither of you have decided to address. Here now again, you seem to be posturing. I would appreciate it if you both now stop your tomfoolery and continuing to necessitate a response. I would hope you can both do that. --Tombaker321 (talk) 10:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I guess it's true, I do psycho-babble about my laundry now and then. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You weren't blocked for BLP violations, but by now you know what they've been and moreover, I think you're asking editors to cite those BLP violations so you can at least get them forever posted onto a talk or project page on this website. The outcome of this is not going to be what you want. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What part of tell me what your are saying I did wrong, is incomprehensible? You think that I should not get the outcome of knowing what what the mud slinging is. It is particularly disappointing that as an admin, you resort to this approach. When you say I am going to have this "forever posted", you are assuming bad faith. As in your capacity of administrator, you continue to repeatedly assume bad faith upon me and others, it might be helpful for you to reflect on your approach. Might you try? Unless you want to engage this more, there is no need to reply --Tombaker321 (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight

I remember having a high opinion of you from forever, but I cannot at the moment recall where we have interacted. It might have been under my old username, Eldereft, or it might have been only at the several noticeboards. You have commented a couple times lately on the danger of introducing a systematic bias through selective enforcement. This is, honestly, something I worry about a fair bit. From my editing of alternative medicine articles, it is fairly obvious that I consider most of them mostly bunk, but nonetheless several editors with other perspectives have commented that I still promote fairness of coverage. Sorry to toot my own horn here, but I want you to understand where I am coming from and that I have experience thinking about writing controversial articles, particularly those with a clear "minority" side.

Upon being entrusted with the mop'n'bucket, I realized that removing equal numbers of disruptive participants from both "sides" would disproportionately skew our coverage - 9:5 is a very different editing environment than 6:2 or, worse, 4:0. Groupthink is dangerous to any enterprise, particularly one that aims for the comprehensive and neutral coverage we do. Considering knowledge of the inner workings of Misplaced Pages as a force multiplier, the situation is even worse - a few committed experienced editors can easily engineer sanctions for their less experienced fellow volunteers through selectively pointing out the bright lines only when it is almost too late and generally themselves remaining just within the norms while still being agents of frustration more than collaboration. I try to respond with warn and counsel particularly in cases where a new editor might not have an experienced advocate but indicates that they are here to promote comprehensive coverage rather than simply trying to hijack Misplaced Pages's voice to the world or indulge in general trolling.

Once a minoritarian editor passes the hurdle to themselves become an experienced contributor, though, neutrality of enforcement demands that they be held to the standards of the community. Consistently arguing that coverage should move in a particular direction is not a problem unless they start wholesale rewriting articles against consensus. Continually tweaking and insulting their fellow volunteers and showing a marked preference for engaging on a disputatious rather than collaborative level, as is my conclusion from GoRight (talk · contribs)'s edits over the last several weeks, however, is more disruptive to the project than is the loss of their voice to discussions.

I am wondering, if you have the time and inclination, if I might hear your thoughts on more productive solutions to this instance in particular or to the problem in general. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 20:31, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

This does happen more or less as you say. It wontedly doesn't take much to bait an eager, helpful-minded but inexperienced and narrowly targeted user into getting upset, straying outside policy and getting blocked before they have a clue the website doesn't work the way they, in good faith, thought it did or should. Moreover, some of those "minority" users aren't at all what they seem to be and they sometimes cleverly, sometimes clumsily, stain the pitch, muddling utter codswallop and dodgy sources with meaningful, reliably supportable and verifiable outlooks. Then the smeary loops begin anew as more editors happen to tumble into high traffic articles with their clueless good faith. As I've said for a long time, en.Misplaced Pages is awash in skilled sockpuppets, some of which are helpful, most not. Many editors would be startled to learn who runs many of them, or maybe not so startled. Editors might think now and then about why no automatic CU scripts have ever been implemented and CU "fishing" isn't allowed and heed this when they edit high traffic, controversial articles. Experienced editors can and do deal with things neutrally only at the edges of core, high traffic topic areas, but the systemic bias is stirred up by a lot more than demographics and it is daunting. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This post on GRs talk page quite handily gets to another side of the pith. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my block

I am sure you remember my most recent block. I was unblocked on the promise that if a situation had the potential of turning sour, I would ask for outside assistance. Well, I have. Just thought you would like to know.— Dædαlus 12:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, regarding my possibly uncivil post, as I'm about to note on the page at hand, I'm just going to go and refactor it now rather than await approval.— Dædαlus 12:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As such, I have done so here. I hope it is better than it was.— Dædαlus 12:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Daedalus, thanks for letting me know about this, I've put it on my watchlist, you should stop posting to that talk page, there are overwhelming BLP and other worries with that user/topic and you're only giving him a soapbox. The only thing for him to do now is put up an unblock request or email arbcom. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Normandy Landings

Hi Gwen, Thanks for keeping an eye out for this article. I think the high school kids must have this as an assignment. Lots of silly stuff going on there.Malke2010 03:18, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it could be the echo of a yearly cycle, where a bunch of (I'd say, middle) schools hit the same spot in the same standard history text book, that does happen on other topics. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries on 9/11 talk pages.

I've seen your recent discussion with Tarage (talk · contribs). Is there something like an edit summary template, something that simply says "Reverting the edit. This talk page is not a forum. Its purpose is to discuss on how to improve the article."? The edit summaries that effectively continue the forum-style discussion by inserting both a (strong) personal viewpoint, sometimes combined with a personal attack, do not contribute to improve the editing process in the area. I think that we should have a guideline on those edit summary, with the aim of having them as neutral as possible. It would be helpful both to avoid feeding trolls and to avoid discouraging potential constructive contributors to the encyclopedia.  Cs32en Talk to me  09:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I think some of the automated tools have drop-downs for edit summaries (but I've only ever used one of them once). Misplaced Pages:Edit_summary#Use_of_edit_summaries_in_disputes is straightforward, I think it's easy to leave a neutral edit summary, like rm cmt, WP:FORUM or something.

I also think the whole 911 topic area on en.Misplaced Pages is skewed and non-neutral, which stirs up strong feelings from all outlooks even more, hence more snarky comments show up. I'd say there is no easy fix for the worries there, for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Technical niggle

An indefinite block has consensus until it is overturned for cause. The discussion on GoRight hasn't turned up cause to overturn the block, and there seems to be agreement by all admins, and indeed by GoRight, that he has to take the concerns expressed seriously. Sadly this verdict has been obscured by the tendency to turn such discussions into an up/down vote, which encourages the very polarization that makes GoRight's manner of engagement so a problematic. I have no doubt that 2over0, Jehochman, and GoRight together will keep working towards a sanction or other framework under which GoRight can contribute successfully to Misplaced Pages, but getting him to the point of accepting this does seem to have required administrator intervention. --TS 15:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, as you hint, what I meant was clear but I've tweaked the wording to make it more straightforward. The lack of any action at all on his last unblock request spoke for itself (further admin input is still needed one way or another), which he'll likely be getting on his talk page. I think the ivoting was an echo of the selective policy enforcement widely seen on some of these high traffic, core topic areas, following PoV. I must say, however, the indef block itself was wholly supported by policy. As you've also hinted, there are hopes GoRight will sooner or later be willing to hew to it and be brought back into the fold. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)