Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PasswordUsername (talk | contribs) at 12:54, 23 June 2009 (→Question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Vomit as a recommendation at AfD?

Not sure why you felt that the above was necessary at the Sam Blacketer controversy AfD, but it seemed a bit over-the-top to my eyes. Whatever you may think of the mess SB made (and it appears he did make the mess), and the mainstream media's reporting on it, how is writing "vomit" at the AfD, and claiming that the article is a "BLP violation in disguise" helpful to the discussion at all? Unitanode 03:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• An article that says "John Smith is a minor politician who got into trouble on Misplaced Pages" is a BLP violation because of NPOV, Undue Weight, BLP1E, and so forth, and calling the article "John Smith controversy" does not change the essential content of the article. Misplaced Pages should include people whose long term importance is such that there are reliable source biographies written about them, and should include far fewer people whose short term importance results in a smattering of reliable source newspaper articles about one particular event. Thatcher 00:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Please explain the article about the Essjay controversy in light of your claims above. Unitanode 00:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Hate it, wish it was gone. Thatcher 00:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
      • So because you can't find consensus to get IT gone, you fight to get THIS one gone? I realy don't get the whole political game that goes on here. Unitanode 00:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hm? If I don't like A or B, and A is currently listed at Afd, am I somehow barred from commenting on A unless I also nominate B?

For the record, I dislike all articles which are essentially about how some guy got into trouble editing Misplaced Pages. Even the worst inclusionists (well, most of them) realize they can't write a biography about a person based on 3 newspaper stories about one event, so they call it Some guy controversy instead of Some guy and claim it's about the event, not the person, but that doesn't change fundamental reality. Today's newspaper is tomorrow's bird cage liner, encyclopedia articles should be about things that endure. Thatcher 01:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

So you see no substantial difference between David Boothroyd and Sam Blacketer controversy? From a relative outsider, that seems a bit absurd. One is an article about an actual human being, using the actual human being's name. The other is about an imbroglio caused by a person using a given pseudonym. In theory -- and perhaps it should be this way in actual fact -- the second article could be written without even invoking the name "Boothroyd." Unitanode 11:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Correct, there is no substantial difference as far as I am concerned. Thatcher 11:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

• Could you please explain that to me, given that the second article could be written and understood entirely independent of the real-life name "Boothroyd"? Unitanode 11:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

In part, I don't think you can write such an article without referring to him by name. Stripped of that, you have a Misplaced Pages editor who had some behavioral problems, and who came back with a new account that was so well behaved he was elected to Arbcom. How is this an encyclopedia article, or even a news story. It may have happened dozens of times, we only know the ones that get caught. If you add the "controversy" that he was allegedly editing articles related to his real life in a favorable matter, you either have to refer to him by name, or use the pseudonym but link to the news stories with his real name in them. Not using his name in the article in that case is like eating cookies all day and claiming you won't gain weight because you're calling them "carrots" instead. Or like watching an advertisement for Coca-Cola where they do a taste test with "Brand P" and you're supposed to pretend you don't know what that is.

But going further, what should an encyclopedia biography look like? For a political figure, I would like to see something about his education and schooling, early political career, who his mentors were, where he developed his political philosophy, who helped him get elected to office, what figures were influential on him, who was he an influence on, what laws did he help pass, what are his legislative positions, and so on. Preferably those things will be written about by an independent biographer and published in a reliable source, that we can cite (Misplaced Pages is a tertiary source, not a secondary or primary source.) Let's look at the citations in User:ChildofMidnight/David Boothroyd. First, eliminate primary council documents. Citing primary documents is acceptable to flesh out a person's career once their basic importance has been established, but constitute original research when trying to determine if a person is important on their own. Also eliminate self-sources (his blog) for the same reason. May help to establish non-controversial facts about his life but does not establish importance. What are we left with? A minor politician who 1) wants to fly the gay pride flag, 2) supported a grafitti artist, 3) supported a statue of Ronald Reagan, 4) gets quoted by newspapers as an election expert, and 5) wrote one book. Does that meet the usual standards of notability for a biography? Does that meet the test of time? Does it endure? Will anyone care in 5 years that he wrote a book about election history? (probably yes) Will anyone care in 10 years that he was the only Labour politician to support a statue? (probably not) Should we add "He fooled a bunch of people on Misplaced Pages" to his bio? Is that important outside of Misplaced Pages? Will anyone care in 5 years? Thatcher 03:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

• Isn't that the rub though, Thatcher? One piece of why he's notable is for his various (mis)adventures editing the project, and how that has been covered in the mainstream media. To my rudimentary understanding of it, BLP is designed to protect individual living persons from undue harm to their reputations based upon spurious and poorly-sourced material. If the controversy surrounding Boothroyd/Blacketer is dealt with succinctly, and with appropriate subtlety, I find it hard to believe it would cause his reputation any undue harm. As to your points regarding writing the "controversy" article without mentioning Boothroyd's name, they're well-made. I concede that it would seem very forced to write such an article with no mention of his name. Unitanode 03:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Couple of points. First, the BLP policy is indeed designed to protect people from harm, but harm comes in many forms. What do we do when this incident is long past, 2, 3 or 5 years, and Mr. Boothroyd has moved on in his life and continues to do whatever it is that he does. As a minor politician (City_of_Westminster is formerly a city now swallowed up by London, it has 200,000 citizens in 8 sq miles and is served by 60 councillors; name any 3) he may never get his name in the paper again as anything other than "election commentator". Honestly, are the three events for which he made the newspapers really all that important? So then, 5 or 10 years from now the article stays the way it is, it can't be expanded, and so remains "David Boothroyd is a minor politician who got caught fiddling around on Misplaced Pages in 2009" indefinitely. Who knows how long Misplaced Pages will be around, or how long the mirrors will exist. (Some serious people have devoted serious thought to "off-planet backups" of Misplaced Pages as a safeguard against the collapse of civilization. Seriously.) Will you be around in 10 years to make sure that the articles are accurate, up to date, and reflect the full spectrum of Mr. Boothroyd's life and influence, rather than focus on one minor distasteful event?

Second, I favor the concept of importance over notability. It used to be that WP:N said that encyclopedia articles should be about important topics, and that the notability guidelines were one way, but not the only way, of determining importance. And I just don't think that when a person who is otherwise unimportant gets caught fiddling around on Misplaced Pages, they suddenly become important, even if there are newspaper articles about them. Take for example the CEO of a large company, who goes online at Yahoo Groups or on Misplaced Pages to anonymously post good things about his company and bad things about his competitors. This is a violation of SEC regulations, and results in an investigation. As the CEO of a large company, he is probably already important enough for an article, so the new material can be added. On the other hand, suppose a low level manager does the same thing. Even if his name is reported in the press, is this sufficient importance to make an article? Should we write an article (ostensibly a "biography") on the person? Should we write Joe Smith controversy? Or should we note in the article on the company only, "in 2009 the company was sanctioned by the FCC over the anonymous web posting of a low level manager".

Bottom line, at least as far as I'm concerned, is that if you are not important enough for an Misplaced Pages article before you get caught fiddling around on the site, you aren't important enough for an article after you get caught fiddling around on the site, even if someone writes about it in a newspaper. Thatcher 15:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree in principle with anything you've written above. I would have no problem with a much stricter notability policy that favored importance over other concerns. However, what you or I might prefer takes -- or should take -- a back seat to what is. And what is does not require so stringent a standard, at least the way I read the current notability standards. In my view, David Boothroyd met these standards -- though barely so -- even before the minor scandal. After it, I think there's no question he does. While I share your concerns regarding the future of such articles, the article as it currently stands in userspace presents no viable BLP concerns as far as I can tell.

On a tangent, I am actually considering reworking the notability standards in a way that addresses your concerns above as my first Misplaced Pages-space project. There are so many "nobodies" that have articles currently that I think this is a rather necessary change. As this would be a major shift, I don't plan on working on it on the actual page, but using a sandbox of some sort. Could you advise me as to both the feasibility of taking on such a project, as well as how to creat a draft like CoM's current Boothroyd article? Thanks, Unitanode 16:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Standards are just the aggregate result of hundreds of individual decisions. If more people felt the way I did about importance, the standard would change, so I see no reason to change my opinion to fit the current standard. We make the standards, the standards don't control us. As for creating use subpages, just make a link on a page somewhere else and click on it. For example, on your user page create a list of projects, then add links like this User:Unitanode/Notability, then click it to start the page. You can advertise your draft and ask for help at the Village Pump WP:VPP and the talk page of the current notability policy, among other places. Thatcher 16:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I've followed these instructions, and created the page. Haven't done any work yet, but I appreciate your advice. Unitanode 20:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Please put all discussion here.Peter Damian (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you, however I feel that "substantial and enduring contributions" ought to mean editorial, not administrative, and I recognize my own shortcomings in that area. Thatcher 00:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

user:Fahrenheit92

Hi there; this user, whom you have blocked as a sockpuppet after checkuser inspection, has requested unblock. I have already pointed out to him that there is no chance of your investigation being wrong, but he continues to post unblock requests. Could I ask you to look at his page, and make whatever comment you feel appropriate? --Anthony.bradbury 13:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• Done. What a waste of time. Thatcher 00:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The Sam Blacketer controversy

"The Sam Blacketer controversy is narcissism and self-absorbed navel gazing at its worst" . That about sums it up. Well said. Peter Damian (talk) 16:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Funny, I came here to trout-slap you, Thatcher, because of another comment on the same issue, your !vote at the AfD. Since the closing admin might be an imbecile and the existence of the article would do real-world harm, keep your head and contribute language that the next !voter or the closer could use to justify deletion. The calmer the atmosphere, the more likely for the better arguments to win out in the end. This beats running around like a chicken with its head cut off (speaking as one with experience in that kind of running). We Suffer Fools Here. -- Noroton (talk) 20:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

• An article that says "John Smith is a minor politician who got into trouble on Misplaced Pages" is a BLP violation because of NPOV, Undue Weight, BLP1E, and so forth, and calling the article "John Smith controversy" does not change the essential content of the article. Misplaced Pages should include people whose long term importance is such that there are reliable source biographies written about them, and should include far fewer people whose short term importance results in a smattering of reliable source newspaper articles about one particular event. There are too many of these articles, and the large number of people who apparently think that such articles have a real and lasting place in an encyclopedia are one of the reasons that I am much less active than I used to be. Today's newspaper article is tomorrow's bird cage liner, but today's Some poor guy got caught in the Misplaced Pages meat grinder could be around 5 or 50 years from now. Thatcher 00:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I shouldn't have bothered you about this. I didn't realize how overwhelming the delete votes were. I've gotta stop counting on my fingers and toes. -- Noroton (talk) 03:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Audit_Subcommittee

I left a message on the talk page - any idea when we might see elections, and in what form? --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• Answered there. Sorry I don't have more info. Thatcher 20:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

• No problem, thanks for the reply - the agenda is a good innovation and the calendar rather whizzy. --Joopercoopers (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

ScienceGolfFanatic still editing?

On my watchlist I still have Phil Mickelson and I believe that ScienceGolfFanatic is back with more obvious sockpuppets matching the P_____number pattern: Pctzgan37 and Pabriella36. I think that from their edit history it is quite obvious that they are the same person that was recently blocked, but I am afraid to start an SPI because I worry that to a user who hasnt seen this case it may look like a random vandal and the case would be denied. Please help if you can, or if not, tell me what I should do. Soap /_{Contributions} 21:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Digwuren notice

Hi, Thatcher. Could you give the same warning to User:Vecrumba? I'm not sure if he's already been warned, but I outlined my concerns as far as civility just hours ago at his talk page and let him know about WP:DIGWUREN. (However, I am no administrator.) Thanks. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, he is already on notice. Thanks. PasswordUsername (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Europe

Are you aware that another admin was conducting a thorough investigation of the issue? Offliner (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• Sure, see my comments on the case and on Shell's talk page. No one ever needs to revert in order to edit cooperatively; I consider it the mildest sanction that could be imposed. Thatcher 21:56, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Thatcher–1RR is probably a good thing for a lot of users, though I do have a procedural question. Why wasn't Martintg placed on a 1RR editing restriction? He wasn't involved as a filing party at WP:AE (though he participated in the discussions, giving evidence of others' conduct, as I did), but neither was I a filer of any enforcement requests there. Many of the edit warring conflicts there have involved him, and he appears to have a pretty strong record of taking sides with Digwuren. Thanks, PasswordUsername (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how Russavia (talk · contribs) managed to avoid being placed on 1RR and official notice. Please explain. Colchicum (talk) 22:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Martintg also has a block log for edit warring on an Eastern European article (Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee)): . He was only unblocked because he promised to stop edit warring. Offliner (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• As I said, it was preliminary, and it was based on the diffs and arguments presented in that report. There is a second report still open. I may also review the Digwuren report again. As I said on AE, the perfect has become the enemy of the good. AE has always been about rough justice, not perfection. If someone who "deserves" a sanction gets missed, I'm sure there will be another report about them sooner or later. Thatcher 22:21, 22 June 2009 (UTC)}}
  • Agreed with respect to Martintg. Thatcher 10:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I was a bit surprised to see my "Notice of Editing Restriction" followed by a 1RR parole, particularly given your initial assessment. Had I have know that the dialogue above was going on here I would have said some words in my defence. The circumstances surround my previous block was as follows: Normally I am careful, but in the case of Finnish Anti-Fascist Committee I had exceeded 4 reverts. I was informed on my talk page that this had occured and immediately undid my last revert. It was subsequently reported to AN3 by Offliner. The report remained open until for almost 24 hours (during which time I made no further edits) before William Connelly initially rejected the report, but after further representations by Offliner (much like he is doing here), William blocked me. I had contacted William and he wasn't aware that I had undid my last edit, which was my fault as I didn't indicate this in the edit comment. For this reason and my undertaking William unblocked me, (I can supply diffs to support all this). William does have a bit of a record for messing up blocks. So I have been careful to restrict my reverts to 2 per day since, but evidently this wasn't acceptable either, which I accept. Certainty PassowordUsername a longer block log than I, so I don't think it is eqitable that I should have the same sanction as he. Certainly your original formal "Notice of editing restrictions" was sufficient. --Martintg (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
      • You've been edit warring for longer than I've been here. If block log length were the issue, Digwuren would be banned indefinitely at this point. (See his history.) Incidentally, I have one more block than you, so I wouldn't use myself as a comparison. I was about to file an AE request, but I figured that the admins were going to get around to looking at you as soon as a full review of the case came up with regard to everyone involved in the recent reverting. PasswordUsername (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm looking at User:Shell Kinney/EEreportsreview which indicates recent edit warring on Russian diaspora and Timeline of antisemitism. Unfortunately, arbitration enforcement is not a scalpel, it is rarely possible to craft remedies with surgical precision that take into account finely discriminated differences in behavior. 1RR is, to my way of thinking, the mildest sanction I can impose, since no editor should need to revert in order to edit cooperatively (as opposed to article or topic bans). Editors who can't live within 1RR, or who game the system by making edits which have the effect of reverting while not being technical reversions, or who return to their battleground articles to make the same revert every 7 days, will find themselves subject to further sanction. Editors who can edit cooperatively will not be troubled at all and will find the limit lifted without too much trouble. I'm willing to consider lifting the limit earlier than 6 months if that is warranted based on behavior going forward. Thatcher 11:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
        • Okay, fair enough. Could you place a similar 1RR parole on Russavia, in the interests of equity. He regularly edit wars like Offliner according to Shell and has quite a long history of 3RR blocks too. In the articles examined by Shell, Russavia edit warred in 11 out of 18, while I edit warred in just 7 out of 18. --Martintg (talk) 11:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There are two more editors mentioned in User:Shell_Kinney/EEreportsreview#Individual editor's contribs, one of them is found to edit war regularly, like Offliner and Biophys, and more than others, what about them? Colchicum (talk) 11:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Their last contentious revert is very recent: . Colchicum (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for clarification

Thatcher, would you mind commenting here on a CU issue, if you have time? Casliber mentioned your views would be helpful, and I agree. SlimVirgin 01:06, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thatcher 02:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)