Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dank (talk | contribs) at 19:40, 2 May 2011 (→Update ...: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Unwarranted closure

I disagree with your closure of WP:AN #Peter_Damian_block_violates_WP:IAR. I concede that my initial post was clumsy and incomplete. However, I belief that my elaboration has set this straight. I started the topic by placing the finger on what I saw as a “sore spot” under the assumption that a subsequent discussion would develop an adequate formulation of the problem. Accordingly, my post

1- is not an attempt to reinstate Peter Damian and

2- is not a discussion of the definition of ban versus block.

Specifically, the problem is the various allegations of the existence of an unhealthy “admin culture” at March 2011 Update. To address this problem I proposed

that a project group be formed to investigate the possibility that there are indeed instances of “admin culture” as currently being alleged at the Foundation (as mentioned above) and I further propose that it would be prudent to reinstate Peter Damian and invite him to join that project group.

The rationale for inviting Peter Damian is

1- as the saying goes “keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer” and

2- the precedent of the employment of hackers by security firms.

The problem of there being a possible “admin culture” is very serious and deserves proper discussion. I assume you closure was done in haste and I request you revert. -- Hpvpp (talk) 00:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

My closure was not "done in haste", and I am not going to revert it. If you want to discuss this further, please email me. – iridescent 00:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no interest in off-the-record dialog. If you are not prepared to keep this open I will lodge a complaint. -- Hpvpp (talk) 00:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to force you to cease posting on the matter—however, I strongly advise that you actually contact the user in question to ask him whether he wants to be unblocked at this time, given the conditions and restrictions which would be attached to any unblocking at present. I'd also suggest you examine the history of the user making the allegations of an "unhealthy admin culture". – iridescent 00:43, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I second Iridescent's comments. Your actions here are not necessarily in the interests of the person you are trying to help. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Neither you nor Iridescent has read what I wrote. My principal interest is not in helping Peter Damian, but in sorting out this alleged “admin culture”. -- Hpvpp (talk) 08:24, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

RFA

Pardon me for not being clear, I meant that I would do a simple search first, then go deeper if necessary, and that the page doesn't necessarily have to meet WP:RS or WP:VERIFY. And that the "simple search" is not my sole platform for decision. I will be going to bed shortly. Rehman 15:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: Perhaps because of the very wide generalization of the question, the answer has not been understood in the context in which it was given. If a specific question could be forwarded, perhaps the answer could come out much better? And the relevant command over CSD could also be tested. Rehman 16:03, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the point, and it's an fundamental point as regards the way en-wiki operates. The question is explicitly about A7, and speedy deletion has nothing to do with sourcing—the fact that you're even mentioning "WP:RS or WP:VERIFY" shows that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the way Misplaced Pages's deletion processes work. Since you're explicitly saying you want to be active in speedy deletion—and since misapplication of CSD is one of the fastest ways in which new users can be driven off—I don't feel at all comfortable with the idea of you having the ability to delete pages, as I can easily imagine you deleting new articles because you feel the sourcing is inadequate or missing. – iridescent 16:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not mean that. Maybe I'm going haywire because I'm staying up late to answer questions. I'll be back tomorrow. (Yes, I do start my day very early). Rehman 16:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Rehman, I think the issue is that you haven't mentioned once (or even clearly alluded to) the fact that A7 is based on a credible assertion of importance or significance. I can't read your mind, but all I can say is that, as you haven't discussed anything about the claim of notability (sourced or not), your answer is being interpreted as focusing on a Google search rather than on what is actually in the article. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:39, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Your comment above ('…that the "simple search" is not my sole platform for decision') makes it clear that you do mean that. Searching and sourcing have nothing to do with speedy deletion, and the fact that you keep mentioning it indicates that you don't understand either how Misplaced Pages's deletion processes work, nor why they're (very intentionally) set up that way. – iridescent 16:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Please reconsider at Q5, that was a genuine human weakpoint. Rehman 23:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I've just read your answer to Q5 and you're still talking about searching and verification. Misplaced Pages's speedy deletion process is very explicitly set up to judge only on the basis of content of the articles and not in terms of searching and verification; that you're still talking in these terms seems to show me that you don't understand how deletion works on en-wiki, and more importantly why it's set up in this intentionally cumbersome manner. Being an admin at Commons is irrelevant to this; although both are owned by the WMF and they work closely together on occasion, Commons has very little in common with en-wiki when it comes to policy. (Neither WP:NOR nor WP:NPOV, the two basic rules underlying all Misplaced Pages's content policies, apply on Commons.) – iridescent 07:25, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Little me?

Timid little me block an arb? No, no. That was Bishzilla. And what a good illustration it is of the deplorable state of RfA that Bishzilla made admin, while it seems impossible for Malleus. I'm sure he'd make an excellent admin. Instead, we get twelve-year-olds opposing on the strength of "maturity issues." Fuck that. I mean, what a waste. Bishonen | talk 12:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC).

Maturity n.: A positive character trait shared by everyone who agrees with you.

Immaturity n. A negative character trait shared by every poopy-pants pee-pee head who disagrees with you.

—Source: wp:wikispeak

Malleus Fatuorum 16:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocking

I've been taken a lot from you lot today and have been labelled "talking useless bollocks" and"Troll" by Pedro who quite frankly has done nothing constructive to wikipedia in years. If you can't see that my comments are light hearted and intended in good jest rather than homophobic or racist then I am very sorry. You of all people should know by know that bringing on the civility BS at me is the least constructive thing you can do and in fact if nobody had made a mountain out of my response then the conservation on Malleus's talk page would not have taken place. It is pointless attacks from non contributors like Pedro who have nothing better to do other than observe my "behaviour" that make such situations unfold. You of all people should know by now that I'm not the sort to tolerate such nonsense and that blocking me would be the dumbest thing you could possibly do. I will not comment any further on this on Malleus's talk page and will continue editing to prevent any unrelated admin going to an extreme but you disappoint me with your outlook on this at the end of what was imply just a frickin infobox and map I had made added in good faith. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know who "you lot" are supposed to be, but the issue is not infoboxes; the info is that you're making blatantly homophobic and racist edits. Regardless of how funny you think you're being, not everyone shares your sense of humor, and you don't seem to understand this. Per the many previous comments to you, you're past the point at which many admins would be considering a lengthy or even an indef block; please cool down and don't dig yourself any deeper into this hole. – iridescent 20:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I simply questioned why you and Malleus stuck so strongly together with Giano at my post to him and the truth is I simply get a comical impression of Pedro being a little Spanish waiter and always have whenever i've seen his name at RFC . Sorry if it is offensive but what he said inflamed a situation which had already died down and I sorted out my issues with Risker by email. It was not me who turned it into a conservation about anal sex or racism. It was gross exaggeration of what was originally said that sparked it off. I guess I shouldn't have said anything but I don't like being told I'm wrong and then have you and Malleus who I thought was on better terms with now turn up to seemingly gang up on me. If it was just one editor that would be fine but the fact you also turned up looked like you relished the chance to put Blofeld in this place. The bizarre thing in this is that my edit which I thought was constructive and I made a map especially and it turned into accusations of homophobia and raciasm which to be honest with you is very extreme. During all this I've been trying to move forward constructively and indeed address the issue about infoboxes civilly with Giano. But one editor upon another stacking attacks on what I've said always adds fuel to the fire and I'm not content for people to talk about me like that. As soon as Giano indicated he knew what I said wasn't intended maliciously, jsut a conflict of views, he cleared the air. And did you notice how I suddenly started speaking civilly and maturely to him? I dish back what I'm fed. Start accusing me of things and making situations worse than they really are always brings out the worst in me and one post after another about "bum sex" turns in a juvenile conservation which turns into something rather embarassing for intelligent adults on here. Sure i like a bit of crude humor, but would certainly rather do it in an environment where people are not attacking each other but laughing together.

Now I apologise if your perception was that I was out of line or whatever. But once again it is the judgements of editors and playing the moral judge which are too blame for this current scenario. Refrain from making judgements about me and attacking me and I'll refrain from heated debates and talking pointlessly and unconstructively. In this instance I am glad you and Malleus were not active in the attacks on me and I think it is likely because you know this, the others who commented against me didn't . No I dislike having any edits I make reverted and especially multiple editors turning out one by one to make bad light of them which is what started this. The fact of the matter is still that the decision to have an infobox or not in the Winter Palace is a personal choice of the editors who wrote it, there;s no policy which says I was wrong to add an infobox or indeed that nobody wants them. I think the infobox or without and larger image has its strengths. Personally I would rather wikipedia was consistent as possible. Maps are my thing, I can make a close view birds eye view of the palace locations to add to the article if it is desired. Believe it or not I would rather not get into conflicts but one thing leads to another and before you know it a simple infobox adding procedure turns into a ludricrous situation where you are being accused of some rather serious allegations. I'm far better than to stoop as low as juvenile conservations, so people taking swipes at me clearly want to bring out the worst rather than the best in me. "Your thirdly" post was exactly what started this whole ordeal. Didn't it occur to you that your vote stacking might provoke a strong reaction, or is that what you wanted, you appear to dislike me, so you rejoice in pointing out my errors and making a fool of myself? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

OK this edit is not acceptable. You can support Giano all you like but NOBODY has a right to remove good faith GA nominations. That's disruption. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Giano's explanation seems quite fair. According to your user page you're on a wikibreak and as Giano isn't interested in GA a reviewer would probably be wasting their time. Nev1 (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Zuggernaut's ban

Please take another look at Zuggernaut's ban, request made as per Use remindersYogesh Khandke (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Please look at this fresh statement Yogesh Khandke (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm recused from this case due to prior involvement with one of the parties, and that won't change come what may. – iridescent 21:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Noun "due to", verb "owing to". There's really no excuse for this kind of slackness Iridescent. Malleus Fatuorum 22:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Even I knew that and I'm foreign, we will have to strictly enforce grammar soon, or we shall have split infinitives next. Giacomo Returned 22:19, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I do stick to that when it gets to FAC level, but I've never been convinced by it. "Due to" always sounds more accurate—compare the Google hits on "closed due to" (5.3 million) vs "closed owing to" (150,000, and probably most of those are pedants making the same point). There comes a point when "overwhelming common use" trumps "what Fowler's says". – iridescent 22:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Necro-bump: Soft-block of School IPs

Some people do come up with some wonderful time wasting proposals at the VP - even in good faith. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I can see the arguments—regardless of whether I agree or not—for abolishing IP editing altogether, but sorting between "good" and "bad" IPs would be a, um, courageous idea. – iridescent 07:51, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

(add) Looks like a brand-new user who thinks they've spotted what we've been doing wrong for the last ten years. Be gentle. – iridescent 07:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes. The other thing we did wrong was to allow just anybody to be a new page patroller. If the other RfC gets its way, it might be a problem solved. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

BLP

If you restore defamatory attacks on a living person, I will block you. Fences&Windows 21:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

You could. I'd suggest you be extremely confident that you're in the right, though, since the content you're edit-warring to remove is very clearly the personal opinion of one editor, as expressed on a {{noindex}}ed page. To save you looking, the relevant line of WP:BLP is "and not related to making content choices"; since the comment in question is an editor discussing whether a particular person is a serious academic or a WP:FRINGE theorist (a matter on which I have no opinion) their credibility is obviously material related to making a content choice; if you're primly removing swearing from a thread about swearing, you're stifling debate and trying to force the decision your way, even if in this case I'd tend to agree. (If you really think "nutjob" qualifies as a gross personal attack, though, I envy you.) – iridescent 21:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Iridescent is a nutjob. Please tell me this warrants a block. --Moni3 (talk) 21:27, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Careful, Moni. Aren't you the one who committed this grave BLP violation? – iridescent 21:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That clearly is my post, but that statement is as honest, true, and verifiable as what was written on stones given to Moses. I challenge anyone to claim it a violation of the BLP policy. --Moni3 (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

This exchange demonstrates one of the differences between an arbitrator and a lowly lout like myself. My reply to Fences' nonsense would have been a little more direct and a lot shorter, consisting of only seven letters arranged into a well-known phrase or saying. Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"Marry me"? There's a danger in being ambiguous, Malleus :-P. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Not enough "f"s in "marry me". The danger in not being ambiguous is that some officious clot of an administrator ... well, you know the rest. Malleus Fatuorum 02:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I do indeed. Of course, if you had said "marry me" to F&W in response to the initial comment, someone likely would've felt justified in blocking you for being off your rocker. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps. I think though that in my small way I've given administrators pause for thought before they impose daft blocks on established editors, which is a good thing. Did I ever tell you about the time I was blocked for using the word "sycophantic"? Or GWH's five-second block? Malleus Fatuorum 03:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You've mentioned it once or twice. One can always hope. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in but... "sycophantic"... seriously? I'd love to hear about that one :) --Errant 22:28, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You'll find it in my block log, but you may have to scroll down a bit. Malleus Fatuorum 03:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(re Malleus's original post) One thing which is noticeable to me—and I shouldn't have been surprised—is that there's a reason so many Misplaced Pages higher functionaries communicate publicly in that strange stilted lecture-to-the-royal-society-of-tax-lawyers style. (This seems to apply across the spectrum, from Jimmy Wales himself through to Alison.) When one always has the knowledge at the back of one's mind that anything you say can be taken as a public pronouncement and waved at one of the drama boards in support of some wiki-crusade or other, it forces one to be very measured and pedantic with the wording of anything said for public consumption; Bradspeak is a virtually inevitable consequence. This isn't peculiar to Misplaced Pages, as anyone who's had any dealings with politicians, CEOs or high-ranking military and police will know, but it is interesting (to me) how strong this particular pressure is, even in an environment like Misplaced Pages which prides itself on its (generally artificial) unstuffiness. – iridescent 18:45, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I had exactly the same thought when I read your reply to F & W above. Surely the old Iridescent would have been content with something on the lines of "Knock yourself out"? Bishonen | talk 21:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC).

• I am minded not to entirely agree with your comments concerning Bradspeak; I think one has to deliberate and evaluate fully and then come to a considered opinion before giving one's opinions in a forum where one's opinions could be subject of debate and conjecture which could reflect upon oneself and lead to others to form an opinion as to one's opinion. Giacomo Returned 21:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Probably, although I did preach my share of sermons back then too. (As an aside, F&W must surely be the first user in Misplaced Pages's history to be such a hardline crusader for civility that both Sandstein and GWH tell them to stop.) – iridescent 21:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Anybody who gets Sandstein to say "fuck" (not when he quotes it, but when he actually says "flying fuck" in his own voice, and the negative is missing) deserves a barnstar. P.S. I know, I'll ask him to marry me. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 21 April 2011 (UTC).

(serious point) The long-winded replies do serve a point. "Go away" or variations thereof would just send F&W away annoyed and confused, since he probably thought he was being helpful in Defending The Purity Of The Wiki. (As I and others have said many times, many people have genuinely never stopped to think that "civility" is a relative concept and the civility policy is aimed at "intent to offend", not "offence caused".) Explaining to him why he's mistaken serves the short-term purpose just as well, but also stops him making the same mistakes again, and doesn't annoy him so much he goes away in a huff and we lose another editor. Most people here are trying to help; if someone has the potential to be useful it's never a good idea to drive them away. – iridescent 21:40, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Some people here though seem to believe that it's their job to drive others away. Many of them are member of the civility police. Malleus Fatuorum 22:18, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

r.e. to iridescent; If RL (and my job specifically) has taught me anything it is that such language has its place... it sometimes helps to come across as the "cool capable beurocratbureaucrat" (that's a word I can never spell :S). i.e. "I have the right answer, listen to me", people do listen. It is rather scary how unimaginative they can be. I've seen "Bradspeak" work a decent number of times. The issue isn't that it's used.. it's that certain people simply cannot step out of it and bring themselves to say "sod off" (even if they mean to) and take the criticism that ensues. Anything you say, even if it is couched in bullshit, can be "used in evidence against you". So it strikes me as a false economy. But, then, I am reliably informed that I am a member of the "civility police", so that could be a load of crap ;) --Errant 22:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

(Responding to the original post; I'll try to avoid spreading Bradspeak as best I can, although I fear the condition may be terminal) I think everyone posting on this page understands the importance of the BLP policy, but this strikes me as a situation where "why are you restoring this material, which I think is inappropriate?" would have been a better approach than starting off with a block threat. Just a thought. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:46, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You're almost certainly right, but why is it that so many administrators lace their admonitions with threats? Because they can? Malleus Fatuorum 03:49, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The root cause of anger and threats is almost always fear—but the trouble with the written word is that it carries so little information in comparison to a physical meeting. If I offer what you perceive as a threat of some kind, unless I choose my written words very carefully it may be very hard for you to tell if I am: drunk; venomously angry; 'avin' a larf; offering a polite and well-meaning warning; etc., whereas in person it would almost certainly be much more obvious. Ben MacDui 07:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(re Brad) You're missing the point here. The reason F&W didn't say "why are you restoring this material, which I think is inappropriate?" is that at no point did I restore the material or, indeed, make any comment, reversion redaction etc to this or any other thread at ANI; my last edit to ANI in any context was on 9 April. This thread is F&W issuing a pre-emptive block threat against me just in case I was thinking of daring to take an action with which he disagreed. The people who complain about a culture of admins acting as if their status makes them "power users" with the right to boss people around may be overegging the pudding in that 95% of admins are completely non-problematic, but it doesn't mean the issue doesn't exist. Consider what would likely happen if one of our more vocal non-admins were to start issuing threats against other users on the grounds that they thought they might violate their particular interpretation of a disputed policy, in which consensus is broadly against them. ("If you replace that double-hyphen with a spaced en-dash I will report you to ANI.") – iridescent 11:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

(1) Actually, your post reminds me that in checking the history, I couldn't quickly find whatever it was that led Fences & Windows to warn you, either—but I assumed that he or she wouldn't have warned you without some sort of triggering event, so I figured I must have overlooked something. (2) Re "Bradspeak," a point of causation: it didn't happen that I became whoever it is I am on Misplaced Pages and then started to talk the way I do; rather, I always talked more-or-less the way I do from more-or-less the day I started editing. Make of that what you will. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You know what they say about "assume". AGF has much to answer for. Malleus Fatuorum 23:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• "Bradspeak"??? ... are we gonna have to add a new term to this article now? And yep, that Sandstein post made me wonder if someone had hijacked his account. Cheers and Happy Easter to all (rather all that it applies to). — Ched :  ?  21:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
• Belated apologies for misinterpreting your comment on my talk page. I thought your reference to censorship referred to my redaction of defamatory comments that Orangemarlin had made at ANI about an article subject, which someone else had already reverted once. I was not aiming to threaten someone simply for disagreeing with me (I hope I've never been that petty when acting as an admin). I now realise that your comment referred to the revdel of his edit summary, which is another matter entirely. While I disagree with the restoration of that edit summary, that's not something I'd consider blocking over. So, sorry. Fences&Windows 12:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Update ...

... on our FAC editorial in the Bugle, including your comments, here. The idea for this editorial was to give a lot of brief statements by a lot of different people to convey the idea that there's broad support for the idea that anyone can (and more should) review at FAC. After we see if the editorial has any effect, we can try to do something less scattershot in another editorial. Please let me know if you are (or aren't) happy with any effect this might have at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 19:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)