Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:11, 28 January 2007

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, vfd comments

getting accused by a user

hi i just want to let you know that the block you did on me was fair beacuse i keept deleting the tags on Brock Lesnar without noticing it but theres kinda an annoying user who dosent let me provide good information better writted and more stuff and wants me to get blocked i know all about Lesnar and i want his history to be correct not by some user who is a noob when it comes to knowing about Brock Lesnar so please understand i am not doing anything wrong Thanks.

1993 "Maize & Blue" University of Michigan Solar Car Team Members

If you ever have a case like this where the information been merged and you want the page deleted, your best bet is to put a speedy deletion tag on the article instead of putting "Delete this page" on the article. The article could've sat there for weeks with that message on with no action being taken. But. You got lucky. :) I'll delete or redirect the article. --Woohookitty 11:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I ended up just making the page a redirect. That's usually what we do after merges. --Woohookitty 11:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Woohookitty and thanks for the advice. I freely admit I'm a newbee and appreciate the advice. Keep up the great work! FN 00:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)fnazeer

thanks

Hi Woohoo, Thanks for your good work on AIV. Regards, Ben Aveling 12:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Greetings

The current vandal at History just from their edits today look likes they really want something... I could be wrong, but it might be attention SatuSuro 13:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Query - brief "best practice" advice sought

I've been asked to oversee a dispute on Philosophy, a few days back, to try and help a 2 or 3 way edit war cool down. I'm not myself involved, but I am attempting to act as an outside help to all those involved. The participants overall seem to be generally okay with my approach so far in trying to figure out what's up (going by my talk page).

I'm watching revert and edit warring, I'm thinking the situation is similar to edit wars on pages I've seen, where admins in the past who tried to help, gave the page full protection for a short while to try and get some calmness into the matter.

I am minded to summarize the reverts of the day, and let the current editors know it's not helping, and request they stick to the talk page and discuss issues, and not revert in this manner. If it isn't listened to, I am minded to protect the page a while, as was done with the old NLP, and earlier with the old-old zoophilia articles, when they came under the impact of intense edit wars.

As this would be the first time I've used admin access, I would like to check your guidance on this and similar situations (if the matter's "obvious", if I myself am not a direct participant but am trying to help clarify and move forward the situation, whatever often comes up when informally mentoring disputed articles and the editors in the disputes) WP:PPOL states "Do not protect a page you are involved in an edit dispute over", and I want to make sure to what extent this isn't intended to prevent appropriate protection when one isn't a direct participant but is attempting to help those who are, in general.

WP:PPOL also states "Involvement includes making substantive edits to the page (fixing vandalism does not count), or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page before the protection" -- and this I haven't done. My focus is on editor conduct, rather than content, and I haven't a preconcept or any expressed view beyond noting that one editor has added what seems a history of mathematics to the article and this seems very tangetial - but anyone might ask that, and I'm asking its relevance and if it is appropriate more to see what was in the editors mind, than because I have a bias. I do have a feeling this particular material is inappropriately minor and unbalanced, but that's not quite the same as having an opinion on Philosophy per se.

See Talk:Philosophy#Mathematics for my comment to which this relates, and concerning which I'm hoping to gain a "how do you see it" view.

Can I have some detailed guidance on this and similar situations? So I know how experienced admins in practice are guided? Many thanks.

And - on a different note - thank you greatly for your help and support. I hope to benefit from your advice and example to do right here. FT2 23:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Quick answers: Admin access is confirmed. Neutrality in the matter - for myself - is also confirmed, if I felt I had a stake in a specific viewpoint or in the article, I'd take that as good grounds to edit, and no more. I've mediated other articles as a non-admin so I agree with the comment on that which you make. The judgement call is, "Philosophy" needs protecting, or may well need it soon, as I've seen other pages protected under similar circumstances. I'm getting emails from ex-participants saying they see it as hopeless as well, which is always a bad sign. Editing protected pages, or protecting specific versions - got that one.

I think overall what brought me to ask is not so much these things, which I think I have got under my belt mostly. I'm used enough to dispute neutrality that I doubt taking sides or acting partially and using admin powers to back that will ever be an issue. It's just not "me", if you know what I mean.

My question is really, much more for guidance on best practice. The lines I want to learn about are things like this:

• If I'm helping with a dispute, as opposed to a "stake" in the article, does that make me "involved" for PPRO and BP purposes?
• If I'm clearly there just to help it flow better in response to a problem, am I at risk of being hauled over coals if I take (appropriate) action after warning or making the problem clear, on protection (edit war) or blocks (if one party is visibly persistent with personal attacks or other policy breaches), etc?
• If I'm already involved with an article, and a problem blows up (some heavy duty POV editor arrives on the scene and such), wheres the line where you would personally say "I'm too involved, I won't block or protect even if the behavior or edit war is outrageous, I'll post on WP:ANI instead"?
• If a banned/blocked editor that I was involved with (such as our sock-vandal from last year) appears to come back, would you say that blocking the new sock was appropriate, or should I ask someone else to because I was previously involved in that dispute before the block/ban?

It's mostly about the first and second of those - where do you personally draw the line, and your personal "stay out of trouble" criteria, for "I'm involved too much, so I wont block or protect even if outrageous"? I don't have a difficulty with calm neutrality, and I've never taken harshly at anybody even if we differed editorially, so I'm confident I can make the judgement call of "neutrally and calmly, it would be reasonable if this were blocked a while or page protected". So its more a sense of when, despite that, you draw a line and wouldn't anyway for fear of being seen as being "too involved".

One reason I'm asking is, you were mentoring NLP and working quite heavily in it and yet various editors were blocked for attacks or other negative actions. So clearly the two aren't incompatible. Obviously it has to be crystal clear there was a good reason, but beyond that I'm after the way you judge when its is or isn't for you to block/protect, if there's clearly good reason or ongoing repetition of a pattern, and the matter clearly deserves/warrants it.

I hope this makes sense :) Somewhere in there is the question I'm hoping to gain your insight on :) FT2 08:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, that's helpful. And yes... I do tend to give good length leashes, so thats a good point and one I agree with and have taken a view on before as a non-admin. The people I took to ArbCom got significant leeway and many reasoned explanatuions of the problems they were heading for, on the route to deciding that they were not and likely never would follow reasonable policy and practice. My concern is a sort of informal sense that there's a rule #1 - "If given extra accesses, first make sure you know what they're given for and when not to use them. Then forget about them until appropriate. And if they have to be used, make it a last resort, sparingly, and appropriate."

I'm not too concerned that I might act non-neutrally or unreasonably. My concern is more to get a sense of the line of "shouldn't take action even if the conduct justified it, because of being involved" which other admins might have. I don't mind POV warriors making unreasonable claims of bias. I do wish to avoid treading the line in any way that might be seen as a case of "even if neutral it was still wrong/bad use of admin judgement (for whatever reason) not asking others to do it for you".

So the impression I get is, if I am there as a dispute-cleaner, or the behavior is only now blowing up in an article I'm involved with, likely best to ask others. But if I'm there specifically as a neutral party to help the article on course, or its someone I clearly haven't had a content disagreement with but only an "editorial handling" disagreement with, then it's more likely safe to act if the matter continues to persist. Is that closer? I suppose my concern is, I regularly help in disputes. I'm not worried about flames. I am concerned to have a better idea when its okay and when its not going to be perceived as okay, to use admin tools in the event of clear unreasonable behavior.

Talking of last years sock-vandal, may I throw him at you for the purposes of this question?: This user was rated as "block on behavior" by several people. Over the period June - August 2006, I spotted many of his new socks, and reported them for action. The first few I reported on RFCU but was told clear match, nonetheless after submitting much other evidence privately the decision on RFCU was reversed and the user was blocked. So I have a good history of accurately spotting his footprints. If I see him again, and the conduct evidence is clear enough that I feel confident I could show it to any admin as clear support for the case its the identical guy if I had to, should I feel safe setting the block myself?

I ask since in practical terms, his socks are tricky to spot unless you know him -- so in effect I was the only one spotting most of them in the first place, judgements that were pretty much 100% agreed by others when I asked for action. FT2 09:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

!!

Hi Woohookitty,

WOW! I think you are my new hero. :)

Wow here too – you must be omniscient (or a word like that; not sure)...!

This table has been sitting in my userspace for months now (see history) and I've finally got round to launching it. I know it already needs some updating, but first I'm going to add a few links to it elsewhere and also give it one or two categories. I think I'll also start the talk page with a post recognizing that it's long and so might benefit from splitting (A-K, L-Z, etc). Any recommendations/ideas gratefully received.

Thanks for the instant acknowledgement!
Best wishes, David Kernow (talk) 05:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

New page patroller here. :) Yeah that's a very very much needed table.

Ahh, of course... I guess I'm not thinking sufficiently Misplaced Pages-ly. Maybe time for a glass of... Yours chuckling, David Kernow (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not great with tables and such but if you need any assistance with the links or anything like that, let me know.

Thanks; will do. I reckon (hope) it'll mostly be a case of what I've overlooked... Yours, David (talk) 06:14, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

St. Ignatius-Sacred Heart rivalry

I saw that you put this article that I help create under deletion. I am strongly opposed to this because their is an article that talks about the same exact thing on it and they talk about the rivalry there too. Many high school articles talk about their rivalries and I don't think they should be deleted because they use a local high school rivalry. I am strongly opposed to this and I urge you to remove this article from deletion or your going to have to delete all the high school articles on Misplaced Pages. P.S. I just got of of a very heated editing war I don't think you want to start me ok so please just remove it from deletion. --Gndawydiak 05:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

high school rivalry

Yes but I also see their is a Yankees and Red Sox rivalry article. Why doesn't that get deleted when it's devoted entirely to their rivalry and why can't a high school rivalry get the same respect as professional or college rivalries?

Yes but San Francisco is a metro-area and local is in nine huge counties spaning over 150 miles and is a notable rivalry in the area and has a newspapaer that talks about the schools that is distributed all over Northern California. This rivalry is bigger and more notable than an unknown rivalry in the middle of the country that's only in one tiny town and not known anywhere else. I even think that even the small rivalries should get noticed. Many people in Northern California see that this is as a huge and notable rivalry. Why can't it be treated like the other notable one's? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gndawydiak (talk • contribs) 06:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi

Could you review this again? – . — Nearly Headless Nick 13:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait, I see that he reverted another user. He already has a history of revert-warring on the talk page, if you check the recent day edits. Instead of discussing it on the talk page of the article, he was intent on revert-warring over the issue. And hence came the block. Thanks. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:29, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Um, OK. Since you have been an admin since the past one and a half years, your honest and unbiased opinions are solicited here. I hope you don't mind. — Nearly Headless Nick 13:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

SuperDeng

I am going to unblock SuperDeng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) so that he can pursue an appeal from his indefinite block. He has permission to edit only Requests for arbitration pages and his own user talk page. If he edits any other page, feel free to reblock him, if I have not done so already. Fred Bauder 18:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD/speedy

I'm still trying to figure out procedures, and I am a little puzzled at closing an AfD as a speedy delete after less than half an hour. I'm thinking of Debugging Stored Procedures, but I have no particular interest in that particular article. It's just a general question.DGG 00:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your response. Now, I have no doubts that you used reasonable criteria; i wrote to you in the 1st place because I consider your AfD & edits responsible (and any prejudices similar to my own (smile).) But not quite everyone who closes debates does it judiciously, and with a closed procedure, who can tell? Unless the page is actually harmful--which happens--I'd think you'd want to demonstrate the reason for the decision, because doing it in public is the point of AfD. DGG 05:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Smoothbeats

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Smoothbeats. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hafree 02:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Edit: deletion review was posted .

You expressed uncertainty as to whether or not you, as the admin whose actions are under review, can !vote at deletion review. You can, but it is important to 1) make it clear what your role is and 2) explain why you did what you did. As the deleter/closer, you know best why you did what you did, so we ask you be notified to participate, via the template that was used above. Good forms to use begin with "Endorse as deleter" or "Deleter's comment" or "Closer's comment", for a few examples. GRBerry 06:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Woohookitty. Thanks again for the encouragement the other day on the ANI NLP section. I’ve been delving through the talk archives and I came across some of your suggestions. I think at least some of them still apply to the article and I am going to work on presenting them to the others. I notice you're a Cleanuptaskforce member. I've been looking at their general suggestions on other articles. Its a useful exercise. As Guy said – pro NLP editors are pretty much dominating with some promotional moves. It seems to me to be very odd that they should want to add so much argumentative writing to the article (loads of howevers) – considering their stated veteran status. Its reasonable to give them some leeway and the benefit of the doubt I guess. Well you seem to have many other articles to edit on. Your advice from the archives seems to be helpful as is your scrutiny and encouragement on ANI. The Cleanup taskforce on NLP seems to me to have given plenty of good advice. I’ll do my best to calmly work on the solutions with the other editors for as long as it takes. AlanBarnet 09:51, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the fast revert on my userpage Template:Smi Bugtrio | Talk 11:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

=)

Re your message: Glad to bring a smile to your face. Awhile ago, I decided to try to bring a little fun to an otherwise negative area (nobody like vandals). Hence the smile with my "list CLEAR" notes. =) -- Gogo Dodo 06:38, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Although, with the MediaWiki software putting the edit summary within parenthesis, it kind of looks like I have a double chin or perhaps a bad case of the jitters. =) -- Gogo Dodo 06:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

#wikipedia-en-admins

Can you confirm on my talk page that you are "woohookitty" on IRC, so I can allow you access to the English Misplaced Pages admins channel? Thanks. - Mark 13:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. You now have access to the channel. To get in, make sure you have identified to NickServ, then go:

/msg chanserv invite #wikipedia-en-admins

ChanServ will invite you to the channel and you can join it. It is useful to add the above invite command to your IRC client's perform-on-connect section. If you need help with that, just ask. :) - Mark 15:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thaks for you help with User:Ipodsweepstakes's user page, I hadn't realised that I'd put things in the wrong place. 212.85.28.67 16:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding my Listing

Gotcha. What I was really doing was trying to find out where to list it, which you accomplished perfectly. Hopefully it gets dealt with. I've been trying to help this user along; out of curiosity I glanced at his user page and it raised a strong objection in my mind of our supporting such rhetoric. Thanks, --Tractorkingsfan 11:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Energy: world resources and consumption

Could you please look at Energy: world resources and consumption and comment if it is ready to be a featured article? Thank you for your help.
Frank van Mierlo 13:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Brock Lesnar

Just to let u known User:Martin181 is a known sockpuppet of user:Coolvanillaboy... which is evident with his recent Lesnar edit --- Paulley

He is making the exact same edit, and uploading the same un sourced images.. and the messeges left on user talk pages (as seen here) are very simmilar to Coolvanillaboy. -- Paulley

lol well this morning he has done the Brock Lesnar and Paul Wight thing 3 times even after being warned just to let you know... ok give him one more chance... it wont take long --- Paulley

hmmm... "i suggest you stop waisting your time on that page beacuse i wont." that sound like a pesistant vandal to me --- Paulley 11:30, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanxs.. oh hey can you put a "sprotect" on Paul Wight's page just he comes page with another anon user --- Paulley

Thanxs, yea i know but what else is there to do.. he wont listen or give reason for his edit... its as if he is completally oblivious to what he is doing wrong... quite frankly its wierd --- Paulley

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Mughutz.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mughutz.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Misplaced Pages under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Misplaced Pages. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Misplaced Pages page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 12:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Unblocking_of_User:SuperDeng

A user you blocked has opened a request for arbitration against you, and they asked someone else to inform you, since they can't edit any page but RfArb and their user talk. So here you go. -Amark moo! 19:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please respond to SuperDeng's appeal at Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration#Unblocking_of_User:SuperDeng. Fred Bauder 20:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)