Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:07, 8 July 2012

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Welcome, correspondents If you're here because I deleted an article you think should be undeleted, please read this first and remember--Most of the time, I didn't write the text that appears in the deletion summary.
N.B. I don't respond well to either fawning or abuse. Talk to me like a peer, assume good faith, and you'll find I reciprocate in my helpfulness.

Functionary Assistance My ability to help as a checkuser, oversighter, or arbitrator in individual matters is currently limited by my positional and non-Misplaced Pages obligations. For non-trivial assistance, especially that which requires extensive consideration of private correspondence, you will likely get a faster response by asking another functionary.

Position Essays may help you understand my point of view with regard to...

• Notability of Fictional Topics
• Articles for Deletion
• Blocks
• My RfA Standards

Administrator Goals Doing my best to improve the tiny little wedge in the top center:

Glozell Green

See Talk:GloZell Green. I missed the deletion discussion, but I think I've listed enough sources now to reinstate the article. Please comment there. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

User talk:Scottywong

Ping, you have replies. --George Ho (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Your closing statement at Politics in the British Isles

I'm late to your statement so I've only commented now. I don't believe WP:GS/BI can be invoked in that manner, as this sanction was specifically created to prevent systematic addition/removal of the term over multiple articles. I believe the correct procedure for a moratorium on a page move (as per the Republic of Ireland article, for example) is to propose it at the article Talk page. --HighKing (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm actually surprised that no one took issue with this before now. As a completely uninvolved admin, my actions are based on the belief that 1) the motivation for the disagreements about the article are its use of the term "british isles", and thus fall under the umbrella of the community's sanctions, and 2) that trying to remove the name from the title repeatedly is functionally equivalent to edit warring. I won't be the one enforcing the call I made, nor do I have any particular opposition to being overturned, but I do have two questions:

1) What other intervention would be appropriate to stop the pattern of conflict over the article?

2) If you're going to appeal my call, where would the right venue to overturn it be? I'm guessing WP:AN, rather than WP:DRV. At any rate, you have my explicit permission to bring my enumerating the article as included under the general sanctions up for community review in an appropriate forum. Jclemens (talk) 22:57, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with "scope creep" of WP:GS/BI than the article in question, to be honest. I've asked the question on the Talk page of WP:GS/BI - I'll see what happens. But you've asked an excellent question. First off, I would say that it's wrong to label *genuine* questions about an article title - including using DRV's, AFD's, etc, as disruptive. They're part of the normal processes here. And the process involved one deletion, one overturning of the deletion, and an appeal. That is not disruptive - that's what the processes are for. And it's a very disingenuous of you to say that the motivation for the disagreements was its use of the term "British Isles". Both of the main objectors to the current title were admins (RA and BHG), and to the best of my knowledge, haven't been involved in the BI disruptions (and who'd probably take issue with your comment). And both make the argument that it's a content fork. In point of fact, the "name" issue was brought up by the editors arguing to keep the article at the current title. Ironic or what.

The intervention that is appropriate, in my opinion, is to not assume that it is disruptive to do something in the future - until is becomes disruptive. Then do something. Consensus can change, etc. If something preventative is required, I'd open a straw poll on the Article Talk page to *ask* contributing editors for their views on a moratorium. --HighKing (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a fair enough place to ask, although I'm not sure you're really going to get as much in the way of a wider community review there as you might elsewhere, although I expect the number of uninformed comments by editors unfamiliar with the topic will be quite low. In my closing, I really looked at the number of participants, and the vehemence with which points were argued--with a quick eyeball words-to-participants ratio, it looked more like a discussion that would have been considered elsewhere, vs. one which would have ended naturally (and stayed ended) with a "no consensus to overturn" outcome. It's entirely possible that I am wrong, that such a discussion would have not had any future flare-ups, and that my time on the arbitration committee has jaded my view and lowered expectations that divisive topics can simply work themselves out. At any rate, I look forward to the discussion, and have neither strong opinions on it nor will object if the community decides I've misapplied its sanction. Jclemens (talk) 04:17, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I also have concerns at citing Misplaced Pages:GS#Sanctions placed by the Misplaced Pages community. I think putting a kabosh on page-move-requests is fair and sensible (not least because it gives space for a consensus to develop over the article) but citing WP:GS/BI, I believe, (a) unfairly characterises one-side of the discussion; (b) does nothing (or is even counter productive) to encourage a "coming together" over the article; and (c) perpeturates a sense of conflict division over it.

Like HK, I'd also argue that citing of the "naming dispute" was something that characterised the keep camp. Definitely, it was not something I ever brought up (and I have a very high high "words-to-participants" ratio in the discussion!). In my view, the delete camp more substantially questioned the general suitability of the article.

Citing WP:GS/BI, thus, feeds into the perception of many in the keep camp that objections to the article were merely over its title. Consequently, I think your comments will make it more difficult for someone on the delete camp (such as myself) to strive to substantially improve the article without arousing suspicion that attempts to do so are motivated an attempt to spoil the article driven by an irrational dislike of its title. Accusations along those lines already existed on the talk page before you made your comments.

As a side comment, while you were only involved in looking at the DRV, the following comment is unbalanced IMO: "...this has been through DRV twice now, with a majority favoring retaining the article at its current title in each case." It is factually incorrect because in the first DRV a majority endorsed the original deletion (by my count anyway). It is imbalanced too because the article had also been through two rounds of AfD. On both of those occasions a majority favoured deleting the article (by my count) and on one occasion it had been deleted. --RA (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Firefly articles

So are you going to add the sources you found, or are you going to hope they add themselves? Both articles were nommed 5 years ago and kept due to the supposed presence of sources, but I still found the articles in their current state — poorly sourced mounds of nothing but fancruft. Ten Pound Hammer • 15:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Oh, you mean the name-drops you found? Which of those sources is substantial? Most of them seem to be passing mentions to me. Ten Pound Hammer • 15:43, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

• Okay, I've been overly testy on this matter. I get incredibly frustrated when someone makes an AFD, everyone in the AFD says "sources exist" and five years later, not a single thing has changed on the article. Furthermore, as I said, the first dozen or so sources I found all appeared to be tangential. I feel I shouldn't have to dig really, really deep if something truly is notable, but apparently sometimes I do. I'll just let these play out. Ten Pound Hammer • 15:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not convinced you actually understand your responsibilities per WP:BEFORE. Sucky coverage of encyclopedic topics beats no coverage of those topics. Elitists who've insisted that "respectability" demands that work-in-progress be eliminated are anathema to the collegial, volunteer nature of the encyclopedia. If you think it appropriate that you should be able to threaten the encyclopedic coverage of a topic by proclaiming "This sucks! Improve it or delete it!" then you are acting like a bully, demanding that other volunteers do work that you will not lift a finger to do yourself. Again, since you really don't seem to get why your behavior is so damaging, I really do think it's time for you to leave AfD's until you do. Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• The reason I say "improve it" is because if you find sources, it's your burden to prove that they're reliable and/or add them to the article. Literally every time I see anyone say "Keep, I found sources", no one ever, EVER adds the damn things to the article, and 3 years later, it's still an unsourced pile of trivia. At least my so-called "bullying" gets stuff done around here in the form of the articles being improved — hardly detrimental in my opinion. It's not my refusal to lift a finger — it's constant frustration with the others who want it kept, but apparently don't want it kept that badly since they never come within a million miles of the article again.
• "Sucky coverage beats no coverage" huh? So fansites and wikis, plus one book that mentions the subject for just one sentence, are enough to carry a whole article? I did do a WP:BEFORE on the Firefly articles, but that was all I found in the first several pages. I will grant that the Reaver article has been sufficiently sourced up, but I'm still on the fence about Browncoat — most of what's been dug up so far has only been passing mentions, and a few other editors are !voting for a merge instead.
• That said, I think a topic ban of any length is too extreme. The so-called "drama" at ANI has always just amounted to circular discussions that fizzle out, without any proof that I've done anything detrimental. Again, at least shit is getting done. Ten Pound Hammer • 02:49, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

NLT block comment

I have to say I found this comment from you disconcerting: "if personally presented with the situation as it had devolved by the time of the block would have blocked the IP for trolling (normal, expiring, trolling block, NOT a CHILDPROTECT block) and counseled Itsmejudith to remove the accusations and contact authorities off-wiki if she believed it mandated by her local laws." While I get this is just your position, the fact that an Arb would suggest that a defamatory legal threat based solely on someone's opinion on a scientific question should be ignored and the individual being threatened should be blocked is worrisome as such a position would seem to be contrary to every element of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Being able to have a calm and rational discussion about child abuse is damned hard in pretty much any situation but it is never more important than when we are dealing with how to educate people about these issues.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Trolling is the art of asking a not-completely-obviously-over-the-line question, and then gleefully watching as someone misinterprets it, blows up, and other people react to the overreaction. The good conduct of encyclopedia-building at Misplaced Pages depends on collegial discourse, and that means that admins have a pretty free hand, especially in child sexual abuse discussions, to block editors (additionally, subject only to Arbcom review in those specific types of discussions) who may, in fact, simply be clueless people acting like trolls by virtue of asking poorly phrased questions on incredibly sensitive topics. If someone wants to feel free to have a discussion about whether there is any residual emotional damage to the infant victims of child rape or molestation... I don't want them here. Calm and rational discussions of sensitive topics are all well and good... but unless tied directly into improving encyclopedic coverage, it's useless to Misplaced Pages's mission, and banning such editors has no downside for the encyclopedia. You've heard it said that ArbCom doesn't make content decisions? Well, in CHILDPROTECT areas, that's not true, because anyone who comes too close to advocating what is currently defined in the USA as child rape, child molestation, or similar topics, will be blocked and de facto banned, since ArbCom has never, to the best of my knowledge, overturned any such block. Thoughtcrime? I really don't care. But if that troll is removed from the equation, the overreaction is clearly not the root cause action for the uncivil exchange: as regrettable and against policy as it may be, and acknowledging that two wrongs don't make a right... the troll started it. Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Am I to take it that means, if we look at reliable sources and they provide for that kind of discussion it is then legitimate?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

In what context? In the specific discussion of article improvement, I would expect so. In the general fora of the reference desk? I don't see a good reason to try and deal with loaded and sensitive questions that skirt CHILDPROTECT there. Jclemens (talk) 19:53, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

How dare you?!

With respect to the Verifiability RfC, the view in question was about making our policies "immediately and unambiguously clear" – not "understandable with further thought and / or research". It's not talking about an essay to be read after looking at the policy. It's talking about the policies.

To proceed from the false premise that it was referring to understanding (eventually) instead of referring to being immediately and unambiguously clear, and then to describe a genuinely good-faith desire for our policies to be immediately and unambiguously clear as disingenuous and disability-baiting was an indefensible, uncivil, name-calling personal attack. That was behaviour unworthy of an admin, let alone an arb. And ironic in the light of the arbs' case on civility enforcement. Pesky (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I find it ironic that I am being chastised as if it were a personal attack to believe and advocate that ASD editors are capable of reading and appropriately understanding our policies when supported by well-written essays. I'll apologize for anything else where you took offense when none was intended, but not for assuming competence from our ASD editors, many of whom have served long, tirelessly, and without any issues with respect to the WP:V wording. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll accept your apology for the offense, but I honestly can't see how calling a good-faith editor disingenuous and disability-baiting could possibly not be offensive. I don't assume incompetence from our ASD editors – I'm a high-functioning autistic myself. But, really, don't you think that, as policy writers, we have a duty to word those policies in the most readily understandable way from the start? Without having to rely on further explanations from elsewhere? If we can accept that articles have standards such as GA and FA which should be aspired to for ease of understanding and readability, isn't it purely common sense to try and have our policies written to (at a minimum) GA standard? A little extra thought in the way our policies are worded would save so much editor time and effort; why make things more unclear than they have to be? It seems daft, to me. I'm not only ASD myself, but I've spent decades teaching people of all kinds, including ASD, and experience (personal, as an autie, and from teaching) has taught me that some ways are just much better than others. And the ones which are much better for A-spectrum people are also better (or, at the very least, equally good) for neurotypicals. It's a bit like fine tuning an engine. If you can make that engine better, why on Earth would you choose not to? Pesky (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't understand how I can call the presumption that ASD editors are unable to understand our policies, and need the wording changed to match their presumably feeble intellect, disability-baiting? Let me be clear: I consider the insinuation that our ASD editors are somehow less capable of reasoning through a written policy itself an insult to their intelligence. I think the insinuation that every non-ASD editor immediately gets VnT is also wrong, because it's not designed to be immediately grasped by all: it's designed to simply and succinctly express a complex truth, which immediately prompts two more questions: "what is verifiability?" and "what is truth?", which every single editor not previously familiar with our policies, ASD or not, should ponder appropriately, resorting to explanatory essays as needed. Bottom line? I don't believe in treating ASD editors as inferior; I believe everyone not understanding the policy nutshell summary will have their comprehension improved by grappling with its meaning. Jclemens (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh, now I see the problem! I think you misunderstood me. I've never said that ASD editors are "unable to understand" our policies (though I can see how you might have thought that). I also never made or worked from any kind of presumption that ASD editors (or ESL, for that matter) had feeble intellect, so that's been misread, and I can see why you might get up in arms about it, having misread my intentions and thought processes. I apologise if any way I worded anything caused confusion. I never intended to insinuate it, either. One difference in thought-processing which is pretty widely recognised is that A-spectrum people can be (and often are) very literal, so if words are used which can ambiguously or literally mean something other than intended, they're more likely to be mis-processed than if such idioms, words, phrases are either left out (replaced by something really clear), or immediately clarified. What I'm really trying to aim for is (ultimately) reducing the amount of time that experienced editors have to spend explaining policies (often repeatedly), when all that time could be saved by having the original policy itself worded in a way which made all those subsequent explanations unnecessary. What I see as a goal is just having the best possible explanation and clarification within the policies themselves. Of course I appreciate that we're never going to get perfection, but I think that failing to aim for improvement because perfection is unattainable is counterproductive. I don't believe in treating ASD editors as inferior, either (in fact, my talk page is a kinda unofficial Autie Central). In many ways, we ASD editors are vastly superior. There are just occasional glitch areas which can generally be ironed out or tweaked about. Pesky (talk) 07:11, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Hey, ya know, this is kind of a parallel situation? You misunderstood / misread / misinternalised something I said, and saw it as meaning something which was never meant at all. That doesn't mean you have a feeble intellect, all it means is that you processed the stuff in a different way from what my intentions were. It's nothing more complicated than a communications glitch. Ultimately, it means that I failed to make it sufficiently clear and incapable-of-being-misunderstood in the first place. The fault lies with me, not with you. I should have ensured that there was no way in which what I said, my thoughts, my intentions, and my feelings, could be misconstrued. It's a very, very close parallel. What you understood was something which I never meant at all. We fell foul of a difference in thought-processing and language-processing. It doesn't mean that either of us is feeble witted. Pesky (talk) 07:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe here's a better kind of explanation (though I don't know if this will make it clear to you!) What we're talking about is the equivalent of one set of people running an internal Mac OS, and one set of people running Windoze. They're both doing it through an Intel chip. The processing is superficially different, without saying that either is superior or inferior. Now, the thing is that the "computers", regardless of what's on the surface, are actually both running machine code. We need to write our policies in machine code. Pesky (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

inre Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Good Witch's Family

I've been doing some work on The Good Witch's Family (a rip-off of Bewitched, right down to the evil female cousin). Excessive plot has been reduced... down from 1345 words to 515. Sources have been found and added and article is looking far better than when first nominated. While I feel a nomination so hurridly after being tagged for addressabe issues might have been a bit bitey in not giving a rank newb the reasonable chance to even begin addressing issues, so be it. As a Hallmark Channel family film series this will never have extensive coverage as does something like the Harry Potter (film series). But even my little work so far shows that issues are adressable. Per WP:WIP and WP:IMPERFECT, additional work can be done over time and through regular editing. Care to help out? Schmidt, 02:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the AfD has been withdrawn. I don't have any strong feelings about a series of telemovies like that having 1 article vs. 4. Thanks for your good work. Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Admin Involvement and Handling of Edits by Sockpuppets and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,--TrevelyanL85A2 (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)