Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:06, 24 March 2015

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 †

Clarification please

Re: A relatively new user, who is also new to editing, arrived at the Griffin TP which has been an area of great debate (and shouldn't be if we all had the same interpretation of policy, contentious labels and left our political views at login). The new editor provided a well-thought out observation, however, some of our prior debates already disputed major points in his observation, but those discussions have been archived and are difficult to find. I felt it would be helpful to simply quote the applicable policies and point him in the right direction. My post was actually not "repetitive" except to the opposition, who for the past 3+ months have been SQS and causing PP because of their disruptions. My goal is to make the article a GA, their goal is to keep it an attack page. I am at a loss for what steps to take next to get the issue resolved once and for all because the current MO has made it immutable, and as a result, NPOV is at issue, but of course, the latter is based on my interpretation of policy, and so far my interpretation has been correct. Regardless, my questions to you are as follows:

1. If an editor claims repetition or that his opposition doesn't get it, how does an admin confirm or validate such a claim, especially when there are 7 very long pages of archives?
2. If that editor is working with other editors in a tag team effort, and those editors support that same false claim, how likely is it for an admin to simply agree with them based on the numbers?
3. When a new editor arrives at a controversial article, and unknowingly starts a discussion that favors the opposition including issues that were resolved by a prior RfC consensus and RS-N discussions, isn't the best approach to point them to the RfC and recite policy as it relates to their specific questions? It is not repetitive for the new arrival, but some aspects of it may be for the few who have been there for 3+ months. What then? How is a new arrival supposed to know what took place?
4. I brought back from the archives to the TP the RfC results with comments made by the respective closer and reviewer, both of whom were admins, and the opposition objected, but allowed it to remain on the TP. Why wouldn't I be able to do the same with prior discussions regarding questionable sources for new arrivals? Do I have to respond to them on their TP even though it is about article content?

Your help and advice in this matter is greatly appreciated. Atsme☯ 16:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I've attempted to address your questions below:

1. If an editor claims repetition or that his opposition doesn't get it, how does an admin confirm or validate such a claim, especially when there are 7 very long pages of archives?

   The editor making the clam would need to provide diffs to the admin; if there is a lot of evidence, then create a user subpage with the evidence and provide a link to the admin. Dreadstar ☥ 18:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

2. If that editor is working with other editors in a tag team effort, and those editors support that same false claim, how likely is it for an admin to simply agree with them based on the numbers?

   Consensus is not a matter of numbers, or it shouldn't be. Again, the onus would be on the complaining editor to show the administrator evidence that the claim is false, It wouldn't be prudent to try to prove tag-teaming, unsubstantiated claims of that nature usually backfire on the accuser. Much better to show the claim is false with evidence. Dreadstar ☥ 18:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

3. When a new editor arrives at a controversial article, and unknowingly starts a discussion that favors the opposition including issues that were resolved by a prior RfC consensus and RS-N discussions, isn't the best approach to point them to the RfC and recite policy as it relates to their specific questions? It is not repetitive for the new arrival, but some aspects of it may be for the few who have been there or 3+ months. What then? How is a new arrival supposed to know what took place?

   On the article talk page, just respond with a link to the RFC and to the relevant policies, then take details to that user's talk page. Repeating lines of policy and content from the RFC on the article talk page is an unnecessary step and clutters up the page. Keep comments on the article talk page concise. Dreadstar ☥ 18:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

4. I brought back from the archives to the TP the RfC results with comments made by the respective closer and reviewer, both of whom were admins, and the opposition objected, but allowed it to remain on the TP. Why wouldn't I be able to do the same with prior discussions regarding questionable sources for new arrivals? Do I have to respond to them on their TP even though it is about article content?

   It depends, if the results and comments are short and concise, then there should be no problem - but things like that tend to get out of hand and cause the talk page to be come cluttered and long; sometimes it's best to create a user subpage with the content you want to highlight and then provide a link to that subpage from the article talk page. Dreadstar ☥ 18:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

GamerGate

While I've backed away from GamerGate, I will keep Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian articles on my watchlist because I think it's important to make sure WP:BLP is adhered to on these articles. I may return to full participation in GamerGate administrative duties in the future, but for right now I'm limiting my participation there. Dreadstar ☥ 22:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Do whatcha gotta do. It's more important that you continue your work than that you patrol particular articles. But since BLP is the most consequential rule-breaking that occurs, I'm glad you'll be watching the Quinn and Sarkeesian (and Brianna Wu?) articles. Liz 22:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, I appreciate that! I've added Brianna Wu to my watchlist as well. Dreadstar ☥ 22:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

RFC question

Yes I do want an RfC. No I do not believe in the idea that Misplaced Pages is a bureacracy. We are faced on that talk page with querulous demands for inclusion of unreliable sources and WP:SYN, it is months past time to put it to bed. And now I have to start the whole sodding thing again, so thanks a bunch. Guy (Help!) 22:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm attempting to bring a little order to that article talk page, apologies for messing up your RFC, but it really needs to be formatted properly. I'm working on focusing other editors, hoping to move them to being more concise. Sometimes you need a little WP:BURO to offset WP:WILD. I'll be happy to help format an RfC if you like; I just won't be involving myself in the content dispute. Put your stuff on a user subpage and I'll help format and bring it to the article talk page. Dreadstar ☥ 22:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

By restoring all that wordy text and arguments between the disputing editors, you've merely made it more difficult for uninvolved RFC responders to comment. I've attempted to alleviate some of that, but we'll see. Starting from scratch with a neutrally worded RFC was the way to go. Dreadstar ☥ 23:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Dreadstar, the RfC was initiated despite my request to review the neutrality of the wording, so according to RfC guidelines, I included alternative questions per those guidelines. Guy is blowing everything out of proportion. I am not trying to promote anything as the cure all despite his allegations to the contrary, but for some reason, he simply will not accept any attempts to reason with him. I am well aware of what constitutes a RS, but any sources that Guy doesn't approve of are dismissed. May I also ask why you hatted the diffs I provided on Callan's TP? Did I do something wrong? Why is it ok for other editors to provide diffs that get me an ARB warning, but I cannot request remedial action per DS against those who are in violation? I do not want to cross any lines inadvertently, but at the same time, I believe my interpretation of WP:PAG is correct until proven otherwise. Your advice will be much appreciated. Atsme☯ 03:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

We'll let the RFC's run their courses over the next 30 days. As far as your evidence on Callan's, I reviewed all those diffs, there is nothing actionable there at this point. Additionally, I'd like to start off with a clean slate and see how everyone behaves going forward. If a pattern of disruption becomes evident, then any evidence you posted on Callan's talk page that fits the pattern will become relevant at that point. Just take a deep breath and focus on content. At some point, after the RFC's are over, and you still have objections to the content, then WP:MEDIATION may be a good next step. Dreadstar ☥ 13:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

In all fairness, Dreadstar, I apologise and thank you for helping. The problem is that "wordy text" is all we get from Atsme. With luck, an unambiguous RfC consensus will mean this is the last time we have to go through all the arguments again (it sure as hell isn't the first, second, third, or any other single digit number). Guy (Help!) 22:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Guy, I really appreciate that. Dreadstar ☥ 22:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Olivier

Do you not consider your position to be conflicting by also acting as the protector? Cassianto 13:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Since this is not a content dispute it falls under admin responsibilities to make certain established guidance is followed; since the hidden text did not follow Help:Hidden text, it needed to be removed. Dreadstar ☥ 13:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You have abused your privilages by edit warring. One rule for one, another for others. Cassianto 13:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I have removed what is clearly inappropriate hidden text; your tag team edit warring to keep it in place is the actual problem here. When it was removed by another editor the first time, you and the other editor reverting it back should have followed WP:BRD, found Consensus and then acted according to that consensus; yet you both just continued to edit war with multiple editors over the issue. You are in the wrong here. Dreadstar ☥ 13:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to nobody other than you. Cassianto 13:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Rubbish: you have edit warred to your own preferences. You are in the wrong here and your actions are shameful. - SchroCat (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry the irony of your words seems to be lost on both of you edit warriors. Ah well, perhaps clarity will come with reflection. In the meantime, the wording of the hidden text was inappropriate and editors on that article need to determine by WP:CON if a hidden note is even necessary, and if so what that wording should be so it meets Help:Hidden text and does not put a chilling factor on WP:CON, which the original wording clearly does. We don't get to word a message that chills consensus or participation by others. Dreadstar ☥ 14:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

It obviously won't come to you, so keen are you to avoid any semblance of the thought that you may have fucked up, or at least followed the path of least thought and most disruption. - SchroCat (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing of you actually. Dreadstar ☥ 14:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Is this primary school time? Is your answer to making a cock up to annoy people and run away from constructive solutions? God save us from the less able admins on here - they're worse than the vandals. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)