Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Viridae (talk | contribs) at 02:18, 30 May 2007 (→[]: cm). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Talk to me...
Recent archive Add comment	My view of this talk page I will usually reply here, not on your talk page Comments will not be edited except to reformat them to a nice thread format if it looks untidy Obvious spam will be deleted

Re: American English vs Americanism

So are you editing sophomore out of every English Misplaced Pages article, or just singling out the Maroon 5 article? Regardless, thanks for bringing this to my attention. From now on, when I review articles of British topics for GA, I'll be sure to insist that any British terms that don't register as acceptable in my browser-based spell checker be changed to a mutually common word to save readers the time of utilizing the wikification feature. Regards, LaraLove 05:42, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I stand by my point, but I understand yours to. I'll leave it alone. --LaraLove 15:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons

Please do not restore articles deleted by other administrators under this policy without first consulting them.

I want you now to redelete those articles until Doc has had a chance to reply. --Tony Sidaway 00:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't see the reason - he has deleted articles that are fully referenced and should not have been removed in the first place. If he can give a reason for each one being deleted under policy then I will accept their removal, but he cannot arbitrarily go around deleting other people's work claiming "WP:NOT". BLP can apply in some cases but none of these articles are defamatory in any way and they are properly referenced. violet/riga (t) 00:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Doc has been going through and removing articles on children that are excessively focused on salacious and sensationalistic detail. These articles are a serious privacy violation, and there is excellent ethical reason to remove them. Please undo your removals. If you want to talk more about specifics, please pop onto #wikipedia-en-admins. Phil Sandifer 00:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't use IRC so I am unable to discuss it there. Doc has been removing articles that are not "salacious and sensationalistic" in all cases - I cannot see how they can be removed when they are fully referenced. violet/riga (t) 00:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

They can be removed because they obviously don't belong on Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 00:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously? I'm sorry but you cannot simply decide that an article such as the referenced Abhilasha Jeyarajah does not belong despite having been here for well over two years. violet/riga (t) 00:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Because there are serious privacy concerns. If you have specifics, please - grab an IRC client and log in. This is an important issue, and undeletion without discussion is very harmful. Phil Sandifer 00:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There are no privacy concerns on referenced articles that are in no way defamatory to their subject and that do not detail personal information not available in those references. violet/riga (t) 00:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because there are other sites on the Internet violating people's privacy doesn't mean we should. Google any of those people and Misplaced Pages is the first or second hit you get on them. We have to be VERY careful about the way we present these subjects, and in these cases the articles were not presenting them in a humane way. This is a BLP concern, and a valid one. Phil Sandifer 01:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I am familiar with BLP and feel that it does not apply in these cases. The matter should be discussed without unilateral deletion. violet/riga (t) 01:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Your decision to unilaterally revert another administrator is not acceptable. Doc was (and is) online and able to discuss the deletion with you. You should have discussed the articles with himbefore taking action. And if you still found his reasons unsatisfactory, the deletions could have been taken to deletion review - there was absolutely no need for you to revert him so casually. WjBscribe 00:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the articles should have been taken to AFD and never unilaterally deleted. violet/riga (t) 00:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Your decision to reverse a deletion without consultation is unacceptable, to do so when the administrator responsible is online is wholly unacceptable. I must insist you revert your misguided administrative actions straight away. Nick 00:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The decision to delete articles without any consultation is wrong and an insult to those that worked hard to create them. Now the articles (note: not all of them) have been restored communication and discussion can take place. violet/riga (t) 01:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It is never appropriate to reverse an administrator without discussion. That is wheel warring. And in BLP cases the default is to delete, not restore - eventualism is not an acceptable route for BLP concerns. Finally, there was consultaiton - extensive consultation in the admin channel on IRC, which exists specifically to talk about sensitve BLP issues without compounding privacy violations. Phil Sandifer 01:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

IRC is not a mandatory part of the Misplaced Pages process and these are not sensitive BLP issues. We are talking about articles that have existed in the present form for years not hours or days. violet/riga (t) 01:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion should have taken place before you acted, as you well know. There are serious concerns regarding these articles and you were clearly not aware of these. That is why it is wholly unacceptable to revert when articles have been removed due to BLP concerns. Nick 01:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Public discussions should have taken place before the articles were deleted. violet/riga (t) 01:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest that it would be more constructive all round if people calmed down a little and worried more about the proper route to take from here onward, rather than insisting on self-reversions and secret IRC discussions? The issue should be "what should we do with this article", not "so-and-so did this! outrageous!" "but you did this first!" "but you did this! I won't discuss it until you revert yourself!". That's petty and childish and not getting anyone anywhere. --YFB ¿ 01:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

BLP has to be dealt with accordingly, as in this case. For some totally unaware user to come along and blissfully wheel war is totally unworkable. Nick 01:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

From my point of view it is totally unworkable for someone to blissfully delete articles that have existed for several years without any form of discussion. violet/riga (t) 01:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As per Misplaced Pages:Wheel war I have not gone against the policy. It clearly states "Do not repeat an administrative action when you know that another administrator opposes it" - I have not repeated my action, having only done it once. violet/riga (t) 01:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It does seem quite appropriate (if unconstructive) that an out of process deletion be reveresed by an out of process restoration. If the article had been taken through the proper channels in the first place (why the hell do the people continually crying BLP insist on sidestepping these) the discussion would have occured, as it should. We would then not have once again angered the community (yes unilateral deletion piss me off as well) and once again started an uproar. Going around deleting articles in this way when you know what the response is going to be is both point-y and disruptive. Viridae 01:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Out-of-process deletions can be undone without discussion, if an admin so chooses. The recent deletions done by Phil and Doc are out of line, and seem to be based more on personal ethical beliefs than our policies. "BLP" is not a magic word that can be used to justify unilateral actions and ignoring of past consensus and AFD discussions. Prolog 01:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As this seems to have gone quiet for a while I'll finally take the chance to get to bed, having stayed up until nearly 3am to discuss the matter (yet I get accused of not discussing it). I'll be back in the morning to read any further comments, and trust that there won't be any wheel wars (i.e. re-deletions) overnight. violet/riga (t) 01:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)#

Prologue is wrong. I've already demonstrated that. Arbcom have already made that clear. I am willing to review my deletions and if I'm incorrect I will reverse myself. I have done that before. If there is still disagreement we go to DRV. Undeleted BLP deletions is unacceptable. Undeleting without discussion when the admin is on-line is discourteous. I ask once more for you to reverse yourself - and then list the articles you wish me to review on my talk page. If you will not do so, I fear will arbitration be the end result, and wheel-warriors (for that is what arbcom has repeatedly called it) will likely be sanctioned. I am not infallible, I always review on request, and am willing to admit and reverse my mistakes, If I'm not, then DRV will be open to you. Once again, I ask nicely for you to comply.--Doc 01:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering your attitude in the past to BLP (once again, this is not a clear BLP violation) I find it unlikely that you would reverse yourself. Continually calling other people wheel warriors is very unhelpfull, and continually threatening someone with arbcom is also unhelpfull. As you well know, this is unlikely to have been taken up by arbcom on its own (possibly as part of the full BLP issue) for a start because it is a reliatively minor reversal and secondly because there has been no recourse to any other dispute resolution. If you wish to make an issue of it, why not take your own advice, don't redelete the articles and instead attempt to gain some consensus in an RfC. Viridae 02:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)