Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:05, 17 October 2014

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives and sandboxes My articles Awards received Dreadstar's Archives Dreadstar's Sandboxes Defender The Mighty Defender of the Wiki Barnstar In recognition & thanks for your efforts in helping us work our way towards consensus towards making Battle of Washita River a good WP:NPOV (instead of WP:SOAP) article. Still a lotta work to do, but now we can do it, in no small part because of your help. Yksin Award! The Vandal Eliminator Award * I, Stormtracker94, award you the Vandal Eliminator Award for amazing vandal fighting and RC Patrol. STORMTRACKER 94 RL Barnstar The Real Life Barnstar - For reporting a situation that could have resulted in a real life massacre I present you this barnstar. Initiative in dealing with situations like this is essential, and for all we know you may have saved lives the moment you posted that. Good work! Thank you. +Hexagon1 Initiative in dealing with situations like this is essential, and for all we know you may have saved lives the moment you posted that. Good work! +Hexagon1 Just be glad you're on the good side, every time I get involved in situations like that, I seem to be the one getting arrested... (kidding, please don't report me Mr. Thoughtpolice-man! :) +Hexagon1 Holy wow. Good job, Dreadstar. --Fang Aili

New comments below this section

Thanks! Dreadstar †

Kudos on ninja moderation

While I felt you were siding with my critics and not understanding my view at WP:AN recently, and was thus skeptical, I've been impressed with the even-handedness of your sudden interventions to moderate conflict at Talk:Landrace and thereabouts.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  05:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. Dreadstar ☥ 14:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, we need it again at Arapawa pig, where we are (in my opinion) having a problem again with adding SYNTH and exceeding the source material. Given it's me and SMC again, I suggest that the talk comments of User:Justlettersandnumbers at that page may be the most succinct. Montanabw 05:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's a RS/V/NOR dispute, in which Jlan and Montanabw are attempting to suppress sourcing that doesn't agree with their position, and to misuse one source out of contact to seem to support it when the same source contradicts their view elsewhere. And Montanabw has engaged in at least three additional personal attacks (using her standard wording like "vicious" and "bullying", with no evidence). I'm preparing a different noticeboard case about that, since even administrative warnings by you have no effect on this behavior. I taken about a two day break to see if matters would calm down, but as I expected, they've escalated, with both Montanabw and Jlan taken my backing off as a sign of weakness to exploit, and have gone on deletion sprees, attempting to erase the influence of my edits and sources from articles they're WP:OWNing, and using multiple forums to personally attack my character. This was after protracted efforts on my part, at my talk page, to broker compromise with Montanabw, to which she appeared to be agreeing, but then immediately went back on, just as she expressed interest in dispute resolution when I proposed it, then went to Jlan's page to make a dramatic show of rejecting it and calling for him to reject it, too. This has to stop. WP:NOT#MMORPG.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  14:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The warning was to both of you to quit talking about each other, from a quick look it looks like you both are still doing that. I'll try to have a closer look later today. Dreadstar ☥ 15:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I would love to stay focused on content, but the accusations such as the one above are so bizarre and extreme - and constant - that it is a real challenge not to respond. I know it is best to not respond to BAIT-ing, but I am not perfect. This user is basically making up things out of whole cloth, including the above comments, which are loaded with attribution of motive, synthesis of conclusions from the flimsiest of evidence, and yes, I read the above as attempts at bullying; maybe at the moment only about a 4 on a 1-10 scale of vitriol, but I do read edit summaries such as this as mean-spirited (yes, vitriolic) and bullying—and factually wrong as well. I would hope SMC remembers WP:BOOMERANG with his accusations. I said there that SMC is one of the most toxic individuals I have ever encountered on WP, and I mean that sincerely. He may read that as a personal attack, but he ran off multiple editors from WP:BIRDS with the same behavior. Montanabw 04:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Ri-i-ight, and using this additional forum to project more character assassination and name-calling dispells my concerns in what way? All Montantbw is doing is making my case for me.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  00:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Dreadstar, I have to ask why you locked the page after Montanabw deleted sourced information, the inclusion of which is more than adequately defended on the talk page, and after Montanabw (and Jlan) had utterly failed to provide any justification for the deletions and distortions they are using WP:TAGTEAM to editwar into the article without tripping 3RR?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  00:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't gauging the content dispute, just stopping the edit war. The Wrong Version may apply in this case. Dreadstar ☥ 16:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. How are we to proceed if you're going to redact legitimate concerns about edit patterns, their effects and their stated (not imagined) rationales as if these were nothing but pointless verbal fisticuffs? They're distinguishable, and I'm making an effort to distinguish them, even if an imperfect one. RfCs? THIRDOPINION doesn't qualify (Jlan's already been a third party).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  02:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, the comments are indeed about others - and that behavioral concept is not limited to "pointless verbal fisticuffs", but that's exactly what your so-called "legitimate concerns about edit patterns, their effects and their stated (not imagined) rationales" comments appear to be. The article talk page is not the place to discuss the behavior of others. I've tried to help and have apparently failed miserably. I'd suggest you two not interact with each other; but I doubt that will happen voluntarily. Dreadstar ☥ 15:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I think your efforts have helped; I'm at least rethinking my approach, and I would surmise Montanabw would be, too. I don't think we can simply cease interacting, because we're both working on some of the same articles. I'm not sure how to address the effects of edits on an article and what the merits of the rationales for those edits are, when they come from a particular user in a particular pattern, without also at least incidentally, in some way, having that discussion touch on editor behavior; they're inextricably linked. I'm trying to draw a distinction between objecting to something some editor is doing because it's that editor doing it, or because it's some personal problem of or with that editor, whatever, vs. "the result for this article and for our readers is not optimal", which is what article talk pages are for. Short of involving administrative noticeboards and other drama that definitely would be a pile of inter-editor conflict of a personal nature, how is one to go about that? In over nine years of editing I've never had this much difficulty in even trying to reach, much less actually reaching, consensus on basic sourcing and facts in an article. Part of the issue is I think Montanabw (and Jlan, when involved) are generally editing in good faith, so I have no desire to use noticeboard hammers on editors who are not really nails. I had no such compunction with the clowns who were using the Van cat and Turkish Van cat articles as venues for anti-Turk, anti-Armenian and anti-Kurd race-baiting. Totally different kind of editorial problem, and just a short WP:AE clarification request under WP:ARBAA2 put a stop to that in short order. That kind of avenue won't work here, because the nature of the dispute is more complex and less obviously a bunch of WP:BOLLOCKS. Reasonable people can disagree, but it's difficult for the discussions to be reasonable when I'm constantly being labeled a "vicious bully" making "attacks" every time I disagree with the other editor's changes to the article and the faulty or (more often) entirely absent rationales for them. I cannot seem to get this editor to address many substantive points raised (not just at this article, but all of them in which we're conflicting, over the same sorts of things). I keep proving my side, and the proof is just ignored. Any ideas? I can see having the NOR noticeboard have a look at it, or opening a series of RFCs on each disputed issue, all the way up to an RFARB case. I generally avoid processes the more psychodramatic they are.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  16:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Protection of Locus iste (Bruckner)

Dear Dreadstar,

See my reply in Protected. You can so see that it is an exhausting, recurrent dispute for which a definitive solution has to be found.

Best regards, --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 10:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is basically one very young editor who has little respect for expertise, goes around removing infoboxes on classical music articles, and generally reverts anything else that falls under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Short of dealing with that individual, the only other thing out there is admin protection and with it, the neutral third party eye on things. Montanabw 19:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no opposition to my proposal, I have update today the section "Selected discography" accordingly. --Réginald alias Meneerke bloem (To reply) 15:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Gamergate protection

Did you mean to protect the page for a year? I think you should shorten the time period a bit.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 16:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're talking about full protection of the article, that protection expires today in about seven hours, not a year. Dreadstar ☥ 16:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Seems it was move-protection that was extended to a year. That needs to be cleared up, though, as the logs seem to suggest the talk page has indefinite full move-protection. Shouldn't the move-protection be the same on both pages?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The protection was fine, I expected to be able to remove semi on the talk page at some point in the near future when things calmed down. I see semi has already been removed from the talk page, so we'll see how it goes. Dreadstar ☥ 15:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the re-instation of admin-only editing, I made a section about Masem's reverts here. Far as I can tell, 2 conflicting sources of equal weight are not being presented alongside each other, and instead only the 2011 article supporting the culture-ingrained-misogyny POV is being retained, while Masem keeps removing the 2012 article from the very same site which says it is not ingrained.

If we aren't going to present both sides (that some say misogyny is ingrained in gamer culture, and that other authors say it is not) then I propose the claim of it being ingrained be dropped altogether, because it has not been adequately sourced as a uniform viewpoint. Claims of a mysterious 4 more references do not help, if they aren't linked to and made open to Wikipedian evaluation then they may as well not exist, references ought to be accessible and readible, not buried on crowded talk page archives, assuming they are there at all, and assuming they are even on topic. Ranze (talk) 23:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Ranze, I wasn't gauging the content dispute, just stopping the edit war. The Wrong Version may apply in this case. Dreadstar ☥ 16:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Freezers inherently pick the side of whatever version is left up, even if it's merely functional siding and not necessarily any issue-based one taken on reading the material. It's not biasedness that's the problem so much as being TOO impartial. The dispute needs mediation, otherwise if parties do not co-operate reasonably on talk pages then they continue inserting their POV when the editing lock expires. We need judges. Why not look at what we were disputing and make a choice as to whether their adding a word or their removing a source was justified? TWV is interesting, but please look past the parody, I'm not saying you have personal malice against me or that you're a problem user for restricting editing, just that if editing does get restricted that I think retrictors should then be responsible for resolving the dispute that caused them to restrict. Ranze (talk) 10:21, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Trying to confine WP:PROTECT to just those who would also then Resolve the dispute would severely hamper an administrators ability to protect the encyclopedia, which is a primary function of an WP:ADMIN. Dreadstar ☥ 18:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:AE#Gamergate controversy article

Hello Dreadstar. As one of the admins who has fully protected the page, you might have an opinion on the proposal for a 1RR restriction that was advanced by User:Callanecc. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, I'll take a look later today. Something needs to be done, that's for sure... Dreadstar ☥ 15:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

1RR doesn't exactly solve the root of the problem. Restricting edit frequency merely reduces this to a game of 'who lurks best' rather than 'who is right'. What we need help with is mediation regarding people's actual arguments on the talk page which we're having about the appropriateness of certain portions of the article. Ranze (talk) 10:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Watchful administrators would severely reduce any 1RR games there. I do agree that mediation would be helpful, but that's not something I personally have the time or inclination for. Dreadstar ☥ 18:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

How did the users' contributions violate BLP?

I'm asking how they violate BLP. The fact of what was being discussed needs to be gotten right in the article and there was a good amount of sources to warrant such discussion, so they were not unsourced. How was an indefinite block for BLP violations warranted? Tutelary (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The admin responding to the unblock message will determine all of that. Dreadstar ☥ 22:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You're the blocking administrator, and per WP:ADMINACCT, you should be liable for your administrators actions, and I'm free to criticize or ask for more information regarding them, and you are obligated to answer. The admin who responds to the unblock message doesn't know the context until you review it. You saw apparently fit enough action to block the user indefinitely. I'm asking what the heck that they did that was so wrong. There were reliable sources discussing the content that they were talking about, so it was not unsourced. I'm confused on why it warranted an indefinite block. Tutelary (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I've already explained it on the user's talk page. Dreadstar ☥ 22:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you have not. Maybe I'm daft, copy and paste the relevant bits. All I'm seeing is you saying that he violates BLP but I want to know how he violates BLP. You also mentioned on his talk that 'BLP applies to all pages, including talk'. Is that an implication that he was blocked for not substantiating the claims when there were already sources on the talk? Tutelary (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, you'll have just to accept that the edit was bad enough. I saw it; it was bad. "How" he violated BLP? By making a disgusting edit that violated the BLP, and that is all there is to it. Obviously I can't repeat it here. Now, stop fishing: all the rest is speculation demonstrating nothing but a lack of good faith. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Just letting you know that I've replaced the block with an indefinite topic ban (actually, two topic bans), per a narrow consensus in the relevant ANI thread. For info, my comments on that consensus are here. Please note that the unblock and topic bans were based on a reading of consensus at ANI and in the post-block talkpage discussion, and don't reflect in any way on your entirely valid decision to impose the block in the first place. Happy to discuss if required. Euryalus (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Euryalus, that's a very fair decision, one I fully support. Thanks for the note. Dreadstar ☥ 16:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

And thanks to Drmies, you nailed it. I don't repeat text from BLP violations and expect the process to run as intended. Dreadstar ☥ 20:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you noticed that someone in that ANI discussion did not have the same discretion that you and I think are customary, and quoted from it. Thanks Dreadstar, thanks Euryalus--and Euryalus, please don't pick up the stupid helmet next time, alright? Drmies (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

"No day will ever find me separated from such bold action: inasmuch as fortune proves kind and not cruel." Euryalus (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Plus you sound like my mother. Anyway, the Rutulians get their comeuppance, and I demonstrate appropriate arête. On balance I call it a win. Euryalus (talk) 01:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tutelary (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

IP you blocked yesterday

This editor is now editing as . He is evading at least two blocks that I know of. Thanks, Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Tropes protection

Can you reinstate semi protection? The full protection has expired. Thanks,--Cúchullain /c 02:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Dreadstar ☥ 16:20, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

The Federalist(website) edit

I see that you removed some material from The Federalist(website), citing BLP.

On one hand, I think you have been uninvolved in the prior issues, so it is good to have an uninvolved admin taking some action. However, I am not seeing the BLP issue. I think the wording of the policy is clear - material to be removed must meet three criteria:

1. Be about a living or recently deceased person Y
2. Be contentious Y
3. Be unsourced or poorly sourced N

You aren't the first to remove this information (or some variation) based on BLP grounds, so I wondered if I misunderstood BLP policy, at least as it has been practiced.

I asked one of our BLP experts at Question_about_BLP_Policy

That answer seems to confirm my understanding—the third point is part of the requirement. It is not enough for the material to be contentious, there must be some sourcing issues.

Did you identify a sourcing problem, did you think that being highly contentious is enough, or is there some other reason I'm missing to justify the removal?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

My main purpose there was to protect the page due to the edit warring. Since there seemed to be a good-faith dispute about that specific content having BLP issues, and it's better to err on the side of caution where BLP is invoked, I removed the disputed content until the editors there could find consensus. This makes no judgment about the content or sources. Dreadstar ☥ 18:39, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP violation Adam Gray Page Locked

Dreadstar, I have not received a reply from the original admin who I was speaking (Bbb23) so I am hoping you can help shed some light and diffuse the situation which has arisen about this page.

After a news story mentioned the talking points being used in negative campaign advertising, I noticed the wikipedia page about a candidate where I am from had been used by someone to promote those same negative talking points. The non-incumbent candidate is receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote the news stories in attack adds and seems to have used the incumbent's wikipedia page as a repository for those same stories.

I admit my solution this problem was to promote a number of positive news stories carried by local and state news sites to balance out the page. The version I posted (before you reverted and locked the page) contained both my additions as well as the others.

I understand that wikipedia does not want to be used as a repository for positive or negative headlines, so I do not understand protecting the negative stories while eliminating the positive ones. I would have no problem if only factual, non-selective information was permitted, but that simply is not the current page.

Would you please provide me with a course of action to address the problem? It is not my intention to abuse wikipedia or the page, but I believe it is not consistent with wikipedia's policies to allow a page to be used as a repository for negative headlines when no one is watching, but if positive headlines are posted, the negative poster can elevate the situation to a edit war and have the negative headlines protected as "original content". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dev Team 6 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I suggest starting by discussing the content with the editors on the article's talk page at Talk:Adam Gray; then follow the WIkipedia:Dispute resolution process. Dreadstar ☥ 20:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Dreadstar I have done just that. Thank you for the direction. Dev Team 6 (talk) 23:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hatting at Talk:2014 IVK

Hi, imo you hatted too much here. BoboMeowCat's reply was constructive, and it went a long way toward countering my objection to the RfC. Tutelary's response to Bobo was a different matter, and it follows a consistent pattern for that user in this issue. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Then fix it, but I'll not tolerate the RFC swerving off into the ditch. Dreadstar ☥ 22:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Pretty good job, actually, but I'm still concerned about the confrontational aspects of that entire thread, and I'm not sure it helps move the discussion forward. Dreadstar ☥ 22:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, and it's been my position for awhile that very controversial topics like this warrant a tweak of the model, where an uninvolved admin monitors closely and imposes "RfC bans" where necessary. The discussion would be as civil and constructive as that moderator required them to be. Tutelary has reverted my hat change. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

You're right in that. I do not consent to having -any- comments of mine or others be hatted because Dreadstar wants to 'moderate' the RfC. Though if they must, mine will not be singled out among a sea to be hatted. Tutelary (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, you'll need to stick with RFC guidelines, your comment is irrelevant to the RFC, calls to previous 'consensus' do not enter into the equation. I'd highly recommend you not disrupt the RFC. Dreadstar ☥ 23:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

It was a response to Bobo. Was Bobo's comment irrelevant, then? Tutelary (talk) 23:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, thought it was to me. I'm willing to entertain reasoning that Bobo's comment is irrelevant as well. I do have to say that elements of it go beyond the scope of the RFC and talk about users. It would be best if BoboMeowCat removed those elements of the comment. I may have to re-hat that entire portion of the thread. I'm trying to keep the RFC clean and focused. And if you don't like my 'moderation', you can take it right to ANI. Dreadstar ☥ 23:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Let me know if that's adequate. I did not intend to be confrontational, but I understand when other users are referred to it could possibly be seen that way.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I would recommend taking out any references to users or previous discussions and just give your view on what the RFC is about; I don't think a definition of the category purpose to be beyond the scope of commentary there, but it needs to be concise and very limited in scope. I think it needs further editing. Dreadstar ☥ 23:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat, I've attempted to demonstrate my suggestion with this edit. Dreadstar ☥ 00:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That works. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, if hatting -has- to happen, I'd rather mine not be the only one, considering mine was just a reply to Bobo's comment. It is a controversial topic area, but please do be careful; overmoderation and you get things like me opposing the hatting of one thing but not the other. It should only be done in straight forward cases, like a user running off a tangent on why this is why Misplaced Pages is failing and all. Tutelary (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I'm very careful, believe it. Dreadstar ☥ 23:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A blind man could see the difference between Bobo's comment and yours. Yours violated AGF beginning in its first sentence, as do many of your comments. Bobo's comment did not do anything like that, and his comments rarely do in my experience. As I said above, his comment went a long way toward countering my previously stated objection to the RfC, so it's irrelevant only if my objection was out of order. I don't believe it was. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Issues on the Talk:Gamergate controversy

Some of the users on the Talk:Gamergate controversy page seem interested in attacking the subject of the article and comparing exploits at the expense of productive conversation. I think comments like:

"So again you are stating that this whole gamergate thing is because allegations of Quinn's sex life being more interesting than all of the basement dwelling gamergaters could possible hope to ever experience?", "When the gamergaters start showing actual adult interest in actual conflict of interest and not on childish prurient "drahmaz" over wild and meaningless allegations of other peoples sex lives as rationale for harassment and stop flooding this talk page with fixation of the same, then there may be reason to treat the comments here as anything other than childish lashing out by sexually repressed basement dwellers.", and "oh poor poor poor gamergaters first people ignore their claims of conflict of interest because they are harassing. now people ignore their claims of harassment. its sooooooo horrible to be such an oppressed minority! what WP:SYSTEMICBIAS !!!" warrant your intervention.--ArmyLine (talk) 03:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)