Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by E. Ripley (talk | contribs) at 11:52, 26 May 2010 (→Richard Goldstone update: thoughts). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Admins: If you feel I have erred in one of my admin actions, just correct it. I won't consider it wheel warring if you leave me a note explaining what you did and why!

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Rollback rights

Hello, I'm not sure if this really needs a separate topic but I just wanted to say thanks for granting my request! Vedant (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

...and, to avoid creating another section, I'll add my gratitude for your help with the KinGin22 articles. Thank you for acting quickly on the issue. I really appreciate your help in protecting the encyclopedia from hoaxes. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You're both more than welcome. Always happy to help. I'm going to open an SPI to check the connection to Exequel- if it's confirmed I'm upping his block to indef. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:56, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Amer Sheikh

Thanks for quickly blocking those IPs. Did you see the history? That article is a mess and I've requested IP protection--what do you think? Regards, Drmies (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I came to it from RPP :)! I've just blocked 2 IPs for being a pain in the arse. Hopefully that will solve your woes, but if not, ping me again and I'll protect it if the banhammer isn't effective ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Ha, I see. Oh, I love the banhammer. Always wondered what it would feel like to be blocked...would it be like when your parents ignore you after you've been whining all morning? (Spoken like a father here, haha.) Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but doing the blocking is quite satisfying when you have idiots as annoying as them! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Oh im sorry I didn't know that it had to be removed by an Admin. I even questioned myself when I removed it. I'm glad you agree with me that it was a really stupid report due to the fact I really didn't do anything. STAT -Verse 20:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Re User:24.68.50.170

Sorry that I have to question your actions, but I'm not sure you did the right thing in blocking User:24.68.50.170. They did, in fact, stop editing the article and went to the talk page after being warned about 3RR, which is exactly what we want users to do. They were a bit uncivil, but not really in the kind of personal attacks that would be worthy of a block. I'm not going to get into a wheel war over it, but my two cents is that blocking should only be done when something has to be stopped to protect the encyclopedia, and an argument on the talk page is not harming it. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 21:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I was a little hasty. I've unblocked. In future, feel free to just reverse me if you feel I've made a mistake. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.

What more can I say? ;) Salvio ( ) 23:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries :). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Was going back to do that, when it edit conflicted on me. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No worries :). Looks like we wrote on each others' talk pages at the same time! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, well, I remembered to do it on my next protection. That banner is rather ugly on the top of articles. No need to advertise our problems to the world in quite such a visible manner. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The information is useful, but it's a shame it has to come in a big ugly banner like that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Help

Hi. I noticed you had commented on User talk:Closeminded8 to the editor about his tendency to attack featured and good articles and make some basically POV edits. Will you please take a look at some edits I reverted that this editor made tonight and speak to him about his editing? Look at the removal of content from the lead on the good articleScarlett Johannson , removal of sourced notable personal life content from Jennifer Aniston , claiming WP:BLP violating content on Tatum O'Neal and Melanie Griffith , removing sourcing and changing the status of a marriage from Raquel Welch that clearly says a divorce was not filed, and noting an error in birth dates by linking to an Intellius search that yielded 7 different persons with the same birth name and gives no birth date. I'm checking changes he made on Demi Moore right now. I am a bit alarmed at the changes I came across, which are damaging in some instances. Any comments would be appreciated. Thank. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Arabian Gulf rugby union team

I notice you put semi-protection on this page, thank you for doing this.

You may be interested to know that this page and several other related ones, are the subject of an abuse investigation, see Misplaced Pages:Abuse response/84.241.53.54.

The poster in question is using a number of names, and IPs, displaying much the same behaviour pattern.--MacRusgail (talk) 09:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, the subject of an RfA came up again...

...and, while my answer is still the same ("not now"), it has got me thinking again about the subject. I've asked a few questions in this thread, and I'd welcome any thoughts, comments, criticism you might have.

Cheers! TFOWR 10:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - interesting perspective on recall in particular. I've replied in detail "over there". TFOWR 16:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy

Indian Expressways

Hi HJ Mitchell, I wanted to bring it to your attention that User:Vedant and I are having some disagreements on the Indian Expressways article. User:Vedant want to keep information that is 4 year old just because CIA WordFact Book and NHAI not updated there article with latest information. If you see the article Indian Expressways there are almost 15 expressways already completed and has proper citations and 13 of them has own article links. Also I have added table and total length to it for easy comparison. If article it self has total length which is backed by its links/references. Still we need to have other references? to prove claim? As per my knowledge we write summery/introduction of article in lead section. If article it self says that its more than 500km then why need to show 200km in lead section? why need to show 4 year old information even if current updated information is available with proper article link and references. It just that CIA world factbook or NHAI are not updating information so we should not update Misplaced Pages articles? Should we wait for them or should we use current available references/links to update articles. Please correct me if I am wrong and also this discussion result will base for me to update/contribute to Misplaced Pages article from now onwards. KuwarOnline (talk) 19:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there's much I can do here, but you might like to request a third opinion, or try WP:ANI or WP:ANEW if you need administrator action (ie blocking an editor or protecting or deleting a page). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If I may explain myself, I believe I clearly stated to User:KuwarOnline that I understood his concerns but that there exist several credible sources (the CIA World Factbook and the NHAI website) that both state the country has only 200km of expressways. I'm aware that the NHAI website is out of date and that the CIA World Factbook simply took the information from the NHAI website. I'm also aware that given the fact that numerous projects are underway/have been completed, this number is most likely much higher. However, since a citation backing that claim up doesn't exist yet, it would be improper to remove a cited source and then insert a new number not backed up by any source. Infact, I'll even go a step further and say that I personally believe the figure to be much higher but I don't think its right to update such an important figure without providing a source as verifiability is one of the pillars Misplaced Pages is built on. Perhaps also of note is that User:Arjun024 also agrees with me on the matter. I have no objection to Kuwar's other productive edits but I think that he is incorrect in this case. Vedant (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

On the same wavelength again...

Was just about to do that. -- tariqabjotu 20:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Great minds think alike! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Goldstone update

You fully protected Richard Goldstone a week ago; that protection is due to expire shortly. I thought you would find it useful to have a summary of where things are at the moment. The material under dispute was a self-published comment by Noam Chomsky, some defamatory claims by Alan Dershowitz and Neal Sher, and a factually inaccurate claim by the Israeli tabloid newspaper Yediot Arinoth. There seems to be agreement that the self-published material should not be included. There is no consensus on the Dershowitz and Sher material, and a discussion at WP:RS/N has not come to any agreement about the reliability of YA as a source. However, there is unanimity among previously uninvolved editors that the YA material should not be included in the article and there is a substantial majority of editors opposed to its inclusion. There also seems to be no real dispute now that the YA material is factually incorrect (or at least, nobody is now arguing that it's accurate).

I've been working on revising and expanding the article in my userspace (see User:ChrisO/Goldstone) and will copy the new text over when protection is lifted. Hopefully it will move things forward a bit. However, I expect that a handful of editors will continue to push for the inclusion of problematic material, and this may cause further problems. I'd be grateful if you could continue to monitor the article and, where necessary, take action to resolve any problematic editing. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the update, I've been meaning to get back there but found myself sidetracked with other things. If you were uninvolved in the dispute, would you consider the protection necessary? Is it likely that I'll have to protect it again or are things sufficiently resolved that any remaining issues can be worked out without brute force? I'll have a look at things there in a minute. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Just happened to see this update on your talk page, I hope you'll forgive me for butting in. You didn't ask for my opinion of course but my impression is that there has not been much (or really any) substantive work done toward a resolution of issues, or new proposed text. People seem more interested in casting sly aspersions and making snide remarks. I would prefer to see the protection extend a bit longer, so that some real discussion can be generated on ChrisO's new proposal and perhaps a consensus formed around some or all of it (with changes as necessary) before protection is lifted. Thanks for letting me stick my head in the door here. — e. ripley\ 21:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your honesty. If there were a day or 2 left on the protection, I'd probably leave it, but since it's 3 hours and counting, I'll extend it for a bit. I can easily unprotect it if the matter is resolved before it expires. Oh and you or anyone else is welcome to post on this page as long as they follow the rules in the editnotice :). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any further protection is necessary and I would prefer it if you could not extend it. E. Ripley is wrong to say that nothing's been done to improve the text - I've done a lot of work in my userspace to expand the article considerably using contemporary sources, academic works, legal journals etc which to some extent addresses some of the issues that have been raised already. The revised article may well raise some new questions but it gets us a lot further along than we are currently. My preference is to lift the protection now, implement the new version and then discuss where we've got to. The current version is substantially unsatisfactory in a number of ways; the new version addresses those problems. It would be more productive and better from a BLP point of view to have an improved version in article space. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any real support or consensus for your overhaul, and I'm concerned that if you were to be bold and just do it, it would re-open exactly the kind of fighting and edit warring the protection is there to prevent. Besides, I find it difficult to see how E. Ripley or anybody else benefits from extended protection, so I don't think there's any ulterior motive. I've extended the protection to 7 days from now, but will gladly unprotect if things are resolved before then. And just for the record, less of the "e. Rilpey is wrong", more of the AGF, please :). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not assuming bad faith to point out that someone is factually wrong. ER is factually wrong to say that no substantive work has been done on a new proposed text. I have a new proposed text in my userspace on which a very large amount of work has been done. I don't think it's reasonable to leave the article protected for such an extended period, particularly when a new, solidly researched version is ready to be posted. There are only three editors promoting the problematic content with (at the last count) eight rejecting it. That is not going to change in the next week. Now, we can either spend the next week twiddling our thumbs while the three editors in question make snidey remarks and attack everyone else, which is all they've been doing for the last week, or we can move forward with an improved text. Which do you think would be more productive? -- ChrisO (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the most productive course of action would be for discussion to take place on your proposed version. If it doesn't meet with substantial opposition in 24 hours, I'll unprotect it. I think that's a reasonable compromise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey, it's okay. No offense taken (although I don't see how I can be wrong about my opinions); I think ChrisO may just have misunderstood me a little. I never meant to suggest, Chris, that you haven't done yeomans work with your rewrite; I just took a look at it and you very clearly have done a lot of work on it. When I said that nobody's done substantive work on a resolution, what I meant was that nobody has used the talk page to suggest any changes to the article as it stands. Since you just unveiled your rewrite now, naturally I wasn't referring to that when I was suggesting that no work had been done. However, I actually think now that you have posted your revision, it's more important than ever to maintain the protection, and this is why. I'm concerned that, your significant rewrite having only been unveiled to the public (so to speak) just now, nobody's had a chance to comment on it or express any concerns or support. Given the lack of willingness by people who seem to stand opposite of your viewpoint to propose any textual changes large or small, I think it would be better for the stability of the article to at least try to seek some consensus for your rewrite before protection is lifted, as HJ notes above. If people stonewall or if a strong consensus is quickly formed around your rewrite, then the protection should easily be lifted much sooner than otherwise, and in the process we've avoided possibly destabilizing the article again. — e. ripley\ 22:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

One final note -- I see you've been working on this in your userspace for a few days, however your mention on this talk page above was the first I'd seen a pointer to it. Maybe I missed a link on the article talk page itself, but I suspect others may have also missed it, which achieves the same effect. Best — e. ripley\ 22:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I take your point about the new version only recently being unveiled, but I also think you may be missing the point that the three problem editors involved - Wikifan12345, No More Mr Nice Guy and Breein1007 - are not going to provide reasonable feedback. They have a fixed opinion of Goldstone as a vicious, evil bigot and reject any content that portrays him as anything other than that. Let me quote some of their comments on the current article: "Did you seriously think they're going to let anything from that blasphemous interview into an article about Saint Goldstone? You must be losing your grip on reality, like anyone who says something critical about our beloved hero." "Here's a new source for anyone interested in adding to this article in a constructive manner that encourages freedom of information... and not censoring all negative information that paints someone in a bad light because of personal bias." "Anything that doesn't belong in a fluff piece won't make it into this article."

Does any of that sound like reasonable, constructive commentary? The three editors in question are spending all their time attacking anything that doesn't match their preconceptions. The fact is, as I've found doing a week of research, that the main sources - academic works, legal journals and contemporary articles - are uniformly very positive about Goldstone's career. It's actually very hard to find any criticism of him prior to the 2009 Gaza report which has got these three editors so angry about him. Let me predict what will happen: I post a request for discussion on the new text, and these three editors will rant about it being "a fluff piece" and denounce me, just as they've been doing for the last week. You need to allow for the fact that these three editors have an ideological agenda that results in them rejecting objective, carefully researched historical facts. They simply don't accept what the academic and legal historians say. If the article will only be unprotected the article if these editors don't stonewall, you're giving them a heckler's veto. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If they stonewall, then I'll unprotect it, but I think it would be wise that you at least announce your intent on the talk page in the hope that uninvolved (and possibly involved) editors will give constructive feedback. The point of the protection is not just to stop the edit warring, but to try to calm things down and I worry that if you simply went and implemented your version without discussion, that the whole thing will heat up again. It can't hurt to bring it up on the talk page and wait 24 hours so that everybody at least knows what's going on. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll give it a go. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll keep a very close eye on things and I'm not afraid to block people who disrupt the discussions, but hopefully it won't come to that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

How about you read the article and tell me if you don't think it reads like a fluff piece? ChrisO wrote most of this version too. It's full of editorializing. He wouldn't even allow the uncontroversial statement "he was a judge during Apartheid" in the article.

Anyway, don't worry about me editing the article. I won't waste my time putting work into something that people who care more about Goldstone's reputation than writing an accurate encyclopedic article would just revert on sight. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That's what the talk page is there for. Air your grievances there, civilly, and discuss it calmly with editors who disagree with you. I can't help you if you come here with "I won't waste my time" but won't discuss what you believe is wrong with the article on the talk page. That said, if you wish to discuss the matter there calmly and civilly I will do everything I can to facilitate that. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There you have it, a perfect example of the kind of unproductive behaviour I was talking about. Anyway, here's the link to the request for comments on the new version: Talk:Richard Goldstone#New version. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What's unproductive about asking an uninvolved admin to read the article and give his opinion? I have stated what I think is wrong multiple times on the talk page as well as in the discussion on the RS and BLP boards. By the way, I didn't see the consensus ChrisO was alluding to on those boards, but really, I've been around here long enough to know that if there are a couple of editors determined to keep an article in a certain state, it's usually a waste of time to try and fight them. Particularly on an article like this. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well you're in luck, because "articles like that" are one of my pet peeves, so if you were to offer specific, constructive criticism on ChrisO's proposed new version, I would pay attention to that and it's my attention you want because I'll probably be the one to determine when it's unprotected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, here we are again after about 24 hours. I'm sorry to say that the discussion has gone very much as I predicted. There has been a positive response to the new draft and some useful feedback, which I've implemented, from most of the previously involved and uninvolved editors. Seven editors have commended the new version. However, three previously involved editors have rejected out of hand all of the changes (e.g. "I totaly reject your version", "This is a fluff piece") and have continued to assume bad faith ("Clearly many editors here have an agenda to silence the important stuff because it violates "BLP"," "You "summarize" with an agenda" etc). To be honest, it's been a frustrating experience trying to deal with their complaints because they won't make any concrete suggestions despite repeatedly being invited to do so by the uninvolved editors. Their position appears to be that they want the article rolled back to the version that was there before I started editing, including all the content that was removed on BLP and sourcing grounds. That obviously isn't a reasonable stance.

Given where we've got to, I don't think continued protection is productive - progress is being stonewalled by the three editors in question. Everyone else appears to be in favour of moving forward. Could you please unprotect the article so that we can get on with improving it? -- ChrisO (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, at this point I have to agree. Despite our best efforts, the prior detractors have not seen fit to engage in productive discussions, and now the talk page has again devolved into re-arguing old disputes over Yediot's reliability. Unfortunately I don't see any real way forward here, even with ChrisO's version. It's clear that once it's unprotected and the expanded article in place, edit warring will continue. I see no real way to a stable article, except perhaps through ArbCom. I'd be glad to be wrong, but that's how it seems to me at the moment. — e. ripley\ 11:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 22:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Fred Figglehorn

Hello HJ. It was not my intention to overrule you at WP:RFPP#Fred Figglehorn, but I reviewed the history and renewed protection before I saw your note. It looked like the blocked user was only the latest in what appeared to be a steady stream of vandalism that resumed after the last protect expired. I'll undo my action if you think we should monitor the article for now. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 23:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave it up to you. I saw that the IP causing the most recent disruption had been blocked, so I didn't see an immediate need for protection, but there aren't exactly a great many constructive IP edits, so I don;t disagree with the protection. Like I say, entirely up to you, my friend. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

I replied to your email, sir. PCHS-NJROTC 01:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Some time has passed…

Any chance I get rollback again? • GunMetal Angel 06:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Email...

...I sent you one ;-) TFOWR 12:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

While I agree the template is useless, your TfD is going nowhere. I wonder if you might consent to me closing it, as the nomination has left 50,000+ articles looking like Kamla Persad-Bissessar- note the deletion notice at the top of the page. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, go for it, though I'd put money on 49,900 being incorrect uses! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard#WP:RPP

I left a question there earlier today. Just letting you know in case you missed it. Peter 22:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your concern

Hi HJ, I noticed today that you left a message on my talk page with some useful links to Misplaced Pages guidelines. Over the years I've wanted to contribute to Misplaced Pages but fear of saying or doing the wrong thing has held me back. I find Misplaced Pages to be a wonderful source of information and it's enhanced all our lives. You mentioned that some of my recent contributions seem to be advertising or promoting something. While it is true that I would like to promote Srila Prabhupada and Vedic knowledge it is not my intention to advertise anything but the truth. If I see, what I feel is relevant information about a subject I've studied for 30 years I would like to feel comfortable and supported in sharing that information. I don't handle conflict and argument very well so I shy away from saying too much. I wish I could do more to help, perhaps I need to be adopted by a kind sympathetic person Sahadeva 06:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC) ps I wanted to edit your user page where you missed an s at the end of 'written 6 article' but I'm not that bold lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sahadeva (talk • contribs) 06:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)